Unaccompanied children will be...

I recently saw a neat sign in a store:

Unaccompanied children will be given a free puppy and a shot of expresso.

:-)

I wish I could have taken a picture, but I didn't have the means with me.

(And now I can't remember which store I saw it in!)

Carolyn Ann

The world continues on its merry way

Isn't that astonishing? :-)

The "teachable moment" became a beer for the guys. I'm proud to live in a nation where the President and Vice President can sit down and have a beer with a cop and a professor. (I'd be prouder still if I could vote in the same nation. Ah well - one cannot question the meaning of life, or how the INS actually works.)

It also turns out that Karl "I know nothing, or at least very little" Rove actually knew quite a bit more about the firing of those US Attorneys. This might be a confusing issue to those abroad - firing the government lawyer is not something you do. They resign, en masse, at the start of every new administration. But while they hold office, the political bits of any administration is supposed to be very hands-off. Like "I might go to jail if I try to influence the prosecutor" hands-off sort of a way. One might wonder if Mr Rove felt immune to the normal influences of ethics and morality.

Turning to matters international, I see that Iran is basically a failed state. The Ayatollah's are in disarray and the people are quite annoyed. It surely takes some effort to have conservative religious figures arguing that almost secular elections are important. Are we looking at a nation on the brink of civil war? That would not be a good thing. They share a border with, oh, one of the most volatile bits of planet ever. I'd also take a close look at the defensive capabilities of Turkmenistan.

The Turkish army must be feeling a little stressed, right now.

Speaking of which, I recently started reading a thriller about that region: Turkey, Iraq/Kurdistan. ... You know, I can't remember who wrote it. Or the title. It was so forgettable, I don't think I made it past half way.

There's a rumor the recession is over. Newsweek apparently said so. I've not seen the copy, but if they say so, then I guess - they're guessing. It sure as heck doesn't look the damn thing has ended, here. Perhaps the numbers are saying the recession is over, but it was so deep it's going to take awhile for the rest of us to notice.

I wonder what Gordon Brown is doing to end the recession in Britain?

(I'll wager that quite a lot of British voters are wondering the same thing.)

Right, it's almost 3AM. Time for bed, and the damn machine keeps telling me it's lost the connection to the keyboard. I think that's what happens when the batteries run out. (I'm using the laptop keyboard. Just in case you're thinking "erm...?" :-)

One final observation: I like simple things. I hate complex arguments (they're always wrong), and I love minimalist aesthetics. What continues to astonish me, however, is how much work is required to make things minimal, or simple. C'est la vie?

Carolyn Ann

Neocons are anti-American

[Oops. I should have added this sooner. This is a much changed/adapted response to Suzi. We're having a natter about politics over on WispyBlond's blog]

Ain't politics grand?

Regular readers of these mumblings will know I can argue politics all day, all night and most of the rest of tomorrow too. Politics are personal. Political debates do get heated - why do you think the British Parliament has its arcane rules? It's to keep the swords in their scabbards. Congress implemented similar rules the moment it was convened.

I laugh when a politician, any politician, says "let's keep politics out of this", and they're discussing a budget. The budget is politics. Politics is the budget. There's nothing else in politics. Keeping politics out of such a beast? You might as well request the opposing party go on vacation while you figure out what's important to spend money on. (This, by the way, applies to corporations and governments, alike.)

Let's stick to government budgets. The allocation of funds is political. There is, literally, nothing else in politics. People might confuse the penalties for crime as part of the political process - such arguments hinge on the ability to pay, or not, for those penalties. Can society afford life without parole, or is the electric chair a cheaper option? How do you keep a society healthy? Well, how? Morality hinges on such discussions, politics merely plays with them.

Neocons, of late, have taken to raving about the Founding Fathers - as if they desired a static society, and a static interpretation of the Constitution. They misunderstand both the experiment of America, and the intentions of the Founding Fathers. In fact, they egregiously distort what America means.

Read Glenn Beck's latest literary (I hesitate...) diatribe "Commonsense". It has nothing to do with Tom Paine. I read Tom Paine. Did you? Where Beck rants, Paine offers reason. Where Beck froths, Paine supplies remedies. Where Paine had the benefit of experience, Beck offers nothing.

In politics, it's what you think that counts. In neocon politics, thinking is discouraged. It is punished in "Republican" circles. Homogenous? These guys demand blocks of stone. No one thinks as others do. No one agrees on everything with someone else. It's human nature. Neocons, and extreme left wingers, seem to think that anyone not agreeing must be a lunatic, or worse. We're not - I just have an opinion of the Screeching Fancies that is based on watching some of their "shows". They are not measured, they are not reasonable and they are most certainly not considerate in their discourse! And you ask for consideration? How much do you provide to others? How much consideration does "you can't the change mind of a liberal" allow? I was disdainful, the response was condescending. I've got a thick skin, I can handle it. I ignore it.

I read a lot of neocon opinion; I don't read very many "liberal" authors. I understand what neocon philosophy is - and I write about it. It is different to conservatism, it is not traditional religiosity, and it most certainly is not erudite, reasoned or even vaguely connected to anything but knee-jerk emotional reactions. You know what I see in neocon politics? "Tow the party line, or else!" I see nothing about the individual, I see a refutation of what it means to be American, I see imposed speech, and I see a desecration of what being American really means. But I shouldn't hold that opinion - after all, you can't change the mind of a liberal.

I really don't read much liberal writing. I thought Al Franken's "Liars" (etc) amusing. I consider Michael Moore to be a better informed reply to Ann Coulter. I think that the true libertarian, the true liberal, thinks alone. I read George Lakoff, and find it hard to disagree. I read Christopher Buckley and find it hard to not disagree - but his writing is so superb, I feel wiser for reading it. I read Sean Hannity, and I wonder where the washbasin is.

Politics is a dirty business. The only business that is dirtier is the law. (Okay, religion might be a tie.) Write about politics, you will be despised. You will be a pariah. It's why so many forums ban discussions of politics. The only other subject that can incite such animosity is religion. Regular readers will know how I despise religion. But plenty opine on what their gods want - the Screeching Fancies seem to take an especial pleasure invoking their deity to explain their restrictions on what The Constitution of the United States means. I can't help wonder if this god has a big rolodex, or is it that some simply fit their sacred text to fit their fears?

Hey, folks - there's a problem when a Congressman acknowledges the cross before the flag of the United States. There's a problem when a Christian sect tries to impose a particular view on everyone. There's a profound hypocrisy when it's the same sect that sought a separation of Church and State. There's a problem when some try to argue that America is a Christian nation, when it is expressly a secular one. Religion flourishes when people can believe, or not, as they see fit. This is a profoundly American idea - to dispute it is not just going against what America is, it's going against everything that America stands for.

The idea of America is not some whimsical, inexplicable, idea of "traditional values". It is that we are all equal - we are judged not by some religious authority for our misdeeds, but by an impartial court of law. (Hideous thought, I know.) It is the idea that religion can inform our opinions, but that it cannot overwhelm others - who, as it happens, might disagree.

Dissent is not unAmerican - it is the foundation of America. The neocons otherwise explain free speech. Glenn Beck doesn't even bother explaining it; he simply refutes it. (Read his book.) I can't think of anywhere else on Earth that is like America. It is powerful, and the neocons want to use that power to gain more power. They want to be the playground bully. The "drill baby drill" crowd disdains the power, the majesty and the fragility of nature, and mistake us for Linus, and want to supply a bigger security blanket. The anti-illegal immigrant crowd have no use for "give us your poor, your tired, your huddled..." They invoke James Madison to demand that only those who don't need what America can offer, have access to that. The newly born anti-Obama crowd of 'birthers' are merely racists in feeble disguise.

Which brings me, messily, to a point we should all know: if you're going to write, and opine, about politics: develop a thick skin. Because you're gonna need it.

Carolyn Ann

The Intriguing Tale Where Ms Bodman Goes All John Ringo

Long time readers of this blog will know I am a fan of Karna Small Bodman's thrillers. Indeed, Ms Bodman has commented a couple of times on this blog. Well, I am sad to say: her latest thriller, "Final Finesse" owes more to John Ringo than John le Carré.

John Ringo has a habit of lacing his science-fiction thrillers with certain religious and political viewpoints. He doesn't so much examine issues as make pronouncements on them - and then he sets the plot to proving himself right. It gets tedious - you know exactly what the hero is going to do, and who are fairly certain who the dead guys will be upon their introduction. Final Finesse is in that category.

At least they don't rely on Fox News all the time! There is one striking moment, when the heroine disdains heavy metal; it took me a moment or two to figure out what moment [ahem...] that was doing in the story. It was amusing because I read that just after watching Motorhead discussing Ace of Spades on VH1's Classic Albums. It was jarring, and somewhat disjointed - why was it necessary, except to pander to an audience, to disdain one style of music over another?

In this novel, Ms Bodman puts forth the idea that we should go drilling everywhere we can. I recall that was a neocon/Republican thing for awhile. Considering that it wouldn't provide us with enough energy for a year, it seems rather pointless - and the damage to the environment would be breathtaking. Who knows what damage The Arches suffer when the blasting for oil exploration goes on, not more than 10 miles away? At one point, she rhetorically (perhaps?) asks if the migration path of some whale is more important than America's energy security. All while her heroes are incapable of putting two and two together - until the bits of the puzzle are presented almost completed. Ms Bodman - yes, the migration path of a whale species is more important than the drilling of oil. We are the more powerful species, it is incumbent upon us to protect the environment, and species that inhabit it - even if it costs us. Cheap solutions (drilling would be cheap compared to the loss of that which we can't measure) are exactly that: cheap.

There are bits and pieces that owe more of a debt to John Ringo or Clive Cussler, but if you're familiar with the work of those two gents, I need not iterate them here. If you're not familiar with their canon - suffice to say, the unexpected is not a part of it. Neither is subtlety.

Meanwhile, it is a novel I actually finished. The only ones I've done that with, lately, are classics. Such as John le Carré's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, or the odd Shakespearean play; even an Ian Fleming or two.

Overall, I was disappointed because of details; clever people missing important clues, a narrow neocon proselytizing, the way one (very important) character put her own needs before her nation's - and then wonders why government doesn't work. (If everyone in government acted as she did, there's more to wonder the nation wouldn't simply grind to a halt!) Such contradiction is not becoming, and it borders on insulting the reader. Character development was something Ms Bodman was getting good at; she's forgotten those hard-won lessons. The plot is impertinent and narrow, and the writing is not what I would expect from a writer of growing stature. Ms Bodman continues to write a decent thriller, but I sincerely hope she decides to write something more suited to her talents, next time. I look forward to her next novel with trepidation.

Carolyn Ann

Language and the transgender

I still maintain that the transgender community has a hostile relationship with the English language. If it were a war, I'd say the latest big battle was over the conventions and rules of how words get constructed. There's a skirmish going on about grammar, and that might develop into a full blown battle, but for now it's simply oscillating between a semi-organized skirmish and an insignificant melee.

There are some, generally those who decided that cisgender was acceptable, who want to control how people think about transgender and gender. I would never say it was a "conspiracy", but more of a growing sentiment that certain words and phrases have negative connotations, simply because it is possible to be derogative with that word or phrase. "Tranny" is a perfect example: it is a colloquialism; the sort of thing the British come up with all the time. You know: telly, fridge, hoover, and so on; Americans use television, refridgerator and vacuum cleaner instead.

So some people decided that tranny was offensive; and its usage is now frowned upon. This, effectively, puts an entire array of barbs and witticisms out of reach. It also makes any speech about transgender individuals somewhat stilted, formal and controlled. You can't say "A rabbi, a tranny and a duck walk into a bar"; it becomes the constricted "a rabbi, a transgender individual and a duck walk into a bar". :-) (Sorry...)

(For some reason, I'm trying to get the term "cissy" out of my mind... That would be the natural colloquialism for the cisgendered. (There! A reason to use the suffix -ed! I knew I could come up with something! :-) )

Likewise, the idea that "I am a woman, and you can't say otherwise" is not just a statement about identity - it's a way of dictating how people can think of you. Not a terribly effective way of dictating such, I must admit. (You knew that was going to creep in, didn't you?) :-)

I don't know why some of in the transgender community have a need to control perceptions. It's a fools errand, as anyone over the age of 16 should know. Wishing something were so doesn't make it so - and it's probably wiser to face up to that. Controlling how we are perceived is not just futile, it's arguably counterproductive. This isn't a case of working within "your" limitations, it's a case of recognizing that there are some limitations that aren't going to be surmounted. Persuading the mother of 17 kids that you're just as much a woman as she is, is probably one of them. Arguing that because you have gender problems, that the not-transgendered are "cisgender" is another.

Anyway, the language of gender is still evolving. It's evolving quite rapidly, and not always in accordance with the rules and conventions of the English language. I doubt, in this age of curtailed, 140-characters or less, speech that the rules of English will remain static. That doesn't mean they won't be important; it probably means they'll become increasingly important! Spelling is changing, so is syntax; the Internet is clearly ushering in a new era of what language is, and what it can do for us. Invented words for concepts that have little reason to exist will become ever more prevalent; erudition will, probably, become measured not by clever use of the language, but how efficiently you get a point across. Regardless of how exact it might be, and probably in spite of the imprecise individual definitions.

The right is particularly keen on exerting its own, highly plastic, definitions of various concepts. "Liberal" becomes a pejorative, while contradictions such as "traditional values" are put forth as not just sensible, but eminently sensible ideas. Just don't inquire too deeply what those values are, or try to reconcile them with The Constitution. The left is not innocent, but they aren't as organized, or as simplistic and so they get away with quite a bit more than they should.

(Amusing anecdote: just yesterday, someone said to me "you can't change the mind of a liberal"; the corollary presumably being that a neocon/conservative changes their mind on a whim...) :-)

We're already seeing words and concepts stretched to fit particular meaning. Political rhetoric is achieving new-found depths, and (particularly on the right) continually inventing new ways of abusing the language and our understanding of what various linguistic constructs mean. I say "particularly on the right", but I could equally argue that the transgender community is just as enthusiastic in its beating of the language. I could argue that while the right is busy assaulting the general corpus of the language, trannys are going for the gonads.

Carolyn Ann

Two wrongs don't add up to a hill o'beans

Oops.

One or two of my arguments re the word "transgendered" were wrong. The suffix "ed" is, indeed, not required. I wouldn't go so far as to assert, as GLAAD does, that is never required. Transgender is an adjective, and transgendered is, too. There might be a reason to use "transgendered", but I can't think of one, right now.

However, the rules of English do make "transgender" the preferable term.

As for GLAAD's assertion that only verbs get the suffix - poppycock! The suffix turns nouns into adjectives (eg kippered, bigoted) , and it forms participial adjectives (eg wounded). It is also used in adjective-noun pairings. It can be used to turn verbs into adjectives: vex, vexed. But it is clearly not restricted to that usage.

My main point that some in the community would like to control how people can speak about transgender individuals, however, remains.

My other gripe, about "cisgender" looks increasingly like it will fail. The phrase is coming into common usage throughout the transgender community. But the point about "transgendered" translates to "cisgendered", too. The phrase "cisgender" is preferable. Even if it is a ridiculously constructed concept.

Carolyn Ann

Odd sounds

We have a watercooler that has the capability of supplying hot water (huh?); occasionally, the machine makes a funny wheezing noise that sounds like bagpipes heard over a tinny transistor radio. Just now, it sounded like it was playing a small series of Scottish airs! :-)

Carolyn Ann

A (biased) summary of neocon thinking, at this time

Neocons are having a bit of an identity crisis. They can't decide if they're for many of things they used to be against, nor if they're against some of the things they used to be for. It's all rather confusing to them.

The basic contradictions are still there. For instance, they value privacy, but not in the doctor's office. They want the government out of everything except defense, good roads, Granny's Medicaid and Social Security, and many moral judgments. They want free speech, except when it comes to religion, in which case they generally want to impose some speech.

Economically, they're pretty monolithic: business comes before the person. Minimum wage laws are perceived as bad, even if they've been proven to be good. Unemployment insurance is seen as a socialist handout, but living on Daddy's dime isn't. Unless Daddy doesn't have a dime, because of the recession, and they just got laid off - in which case, unemployment insurance comes in handy. To pay the bills and buy food - little things like that.

Fiscally, the neocon wants lower taxes. "No regulation" used to be the de facto stance, but the recent recession demonstrated the problems with that. Of course, nonsensical "well, let the economy fail" arguments are still made; typically by those who are taken care of, financially. The fact that continually lowering taxes didn't do a darned thing to help the economy avoid a recession has nothing to do with anything, according to the neocon. They will be happy to discuss the new debt Obama has created, but they will ignore the surplus George Bush inherited, and the massive deficit he left. In fact they get quite annoyed if you mention them.

Unions are perceived to be bad, but the coordinated, collective, efforts of a few millions of Christian Evangelicals is seen as good. Economic growth is perceived as good, but if it comes from unions negotiating higher wages - it must be bad. Unless it's good. Economic handouts are bad, unless some of those subsidies helped them get through college. Poorly funded schools are not a problem of insufficient funds, but of a clear lack of will on the part of underpaid teachers. Paying teachers a livable salary is bad because it would raise taxes. (I can't help wonder if the neocons want an all volunteer teaching force?) The answer is charter schools, which receive government funds, but not government regulations. They are also seen as good because they restrict who can get in.

Guns are seen as good. If criminals have guns, just shoot them. Legal protections for those who might be innocent are bad. The 5th Amendment is meaningless (you have to give your name to a cop, when they ask), but can be invoked when it's shrouded in "Executive Privilege". The 4th Amendment is an impediment to cops and soldiers catching bad guys. The Posse Comitatus Act is being increasingly seen as an impediment to having troops in the streets. (Hang on a moment... It is an impediment to having troops in the streets! How about that?) Any effort at stemming the flow of guns to criminals is bad - after all, what would happen to the neocon argument that guns are good, because the bad guys have them?

Trade has the neocons in knots. Free trade is bad, except when it's good. Mexicans are bad, except when you go take a Mexican vacation. Or want your Florida oranges picked cheaply.

Sex is seen as bad, unless you're a Republican Congressman and then it's seen as inevitable. Abstinence-only teaching is good, even if it doesn't work. Responsible, realistic sex education is bad because it allow teenagers to become hormonally-charged sex-obsessed. And liable to have sex because of that. Abstinence-only teaching is aimed at stopping all that. Despite centuries of history showing that people will have sex because, well, because they want to.

The media is the wet dream of the neocon. Fox News is not counted as media - because it isn't. It's fan fiction. Any media outlet disagreeing with a neocon must be a liberal stooge. Or government controlled, or something like that. Any reporter demonstrating that a neocon argument is false is likely to get a visit from Bill O'Reilly's goon squad.

Being intellectual, and even thinking about "stuff" is bad. Unsupportable knee-jerk reactions are good.

But it's the other stuff that has them whimpering. Immigration, legal or not; the status of Obama's citizenship, the transgender equality (something that seems to be increasingly on the neocon radar), Sarah Palin, the usefulness of a Congressional sex scandal, the role of government in private life, that sort of thing.

In other words: the neocons, for all their collectivist tendencies, don't know what they want, or what they stand for. Same old, same old. I miss the days when people like William Buckley, his son Christopher Buckley, and George Will led the conservative think-tank. Now we have a man who seems to have gotten his undies all twisted, a man who isn't afraid of contradicting himself in the same paragraph, a woman who is desperately trying to stay relevant, another woman who couldn't put a decent paragraph together, and a chap who seems to foam at the mouth.

All of them have one thing in common: they seem to spend a lot of time thinking about how to not think. Which just about sums up modern conservative thinking.

Carolyn Ann

More linguistic "control"

I was quite alarmed to read, in Matt Kailey's blog, yet more restrictions on language from some in the transgendered community. GLAAD, the organization that should be given an award for bringing forward Orwell's nightmare of Doublespeak, has determined that "transgendered" is a problematic adjective. Here's their take on it:

PROBLEMATIC: "transgendered"

PREFERRED: "transgender"
The word transgender never needs the extraneous "ed" at the end of the word. In fact, such a construction is grammatically incorrect. Only verbs can be transformed into participles by adding "-ed" to the end of the word, and transgender is an adjective, not a verb.

Since when has it only been possible to "-ed" to verbs? As TinaSD, in the comments of Matt's post points out, "bigoted" is an adjective. It's got an "ed" on the end.

"Transgender" and "transgendered" are both adjectives: they modify nouns. What's wrong with that? The word "transgendered" is used as a noun in colloquial speech, for example "I am transgendered". The generally accepted usage would be "transgendered person" - but apparently that can't be said. You can't say, for instance, "Carolyn Ann is a transgendered person", because while it is true, such a statement can't be true, because it can't be said according to GLAAD's rules. Hang on, I have to go lie down after that one.

(It cannot be said I am a "transgendered woman", because I'm not. Likewise, it can't said, with any accuracy, that I am a "transgendered man". I am a man, it is impossible for me to be a transgendered man. I am not a woman, either. Ergo, I am a transgendered person. What's so damn offensive about that usage?)

Following GLAAD's rules, the only possible way of observing that someone is transgendered is, well - it turns out there isn't any way of saying this. "I am a transgendered person" becomes "I am a person of ... " what? Likewise, it is impossible to say "so and so, a transgendered woman". By insisting that "transgendered" is incorrect, or worse, you prevent someone from saying "he is a transgendered man", or "she is a transgendered woman". That strikes me as an effort to control thought!

Apparently some transgendered individuals think "transgendered" is offensive. I think they are willing to commit crimes against the language - something I consider offensive. Can I issue an official proclamation that they must use the adjective "transgendered" when it is correct for them to do so?

There is nothing wrong with the adjective "transgendered" - it is grammatically correct. Dictating otherwise is an offense to the English language! This rule is also contrived, arbitrary and ridiculous.

Carolyn Ann

PS Interestingly, I don't see any way of protesting GLAAD's language guide. They issue their edicts, and that's that. If they want to pronounce on things of linguistic import, the least they can do is make sure there are more than one or two self-interested bigots involved in the discussion. Who the hell appointed them Guardians of the English Language?

All (is) quiet on the blogging front...

This project I'm working on is taking up all my time. :-)

Well, that and the combination of sunshine and motorcycles sitting around, not being ridden. In the sunshine. Something I remedy at every available opportunity. :-D

Ah, the world is so much simpler when I'm riding. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Yuan and the Dollar(?)

I'm thinking of it, so I might as well write about it.

China is not terribly happy with the dollar, despite holding staggering amount of them in its foreign currency reserves. I'm not sure if anyone knows just how much they do hold - perhaps not even the Chinese! Considering how fractured their political structure is, I'd lay odds on them not knowing.

Anyway, they're not happy because there were so many dollars floating around, it allowed Americans to borrow cheaply. Let me see... With their enormous reserves, they helped create and sustain that imbalance. And they're unhappy with the dollar? Oy. But it gets worse... Now they want to blame the dollar, and dollar purchasing policies, for the collapse of the global economy. But... But they have a solution! They do. They'll allow payment of foreign invoices in yuan, and they'll go about creating a new global reserve currency that has strong ties to... The dollar, the euro, the pound and the yen. Yeah, right.

Holy smokes! It's genius. It's wonderfully inept. It demonstrates a complete ignorance of how financial markets work. It might just work - in some markets. (Apparently one person thinks that the yuan will be used for about $2 trillion in transactions by 2012. This will pose an interesting foreign policy problem in the next Presidential race!)

Here's the problem: the yuan is controlled from Beijing. It is not a free-floating currency.

When the dollar hits a rough spot, the world catches a cold. When the dollar catches a cold, the world gets pneumonia. Let's hope we never have to find out what happens if the dollar gets the flu! If the yuan catches a cold, Beijing props it up. Not with a pillow, but with a 2 by 4 around the head.

This sounds appealing to those who don't know much about currency, foreign exchange and how it all plays out in the real world. What they see is a stable currency, backed by a strong-armed central bank - and a set of fiscal policies that make inflation a distant nightmare. What they don't see is that the strong-arming central bank doesn't actually have a fiscal policy - if more money is needed, it's printed. No one knows how much - at least Washington tells us! It also turns the international trading system into an arm of the Chinese government.

Let's say you're a trader in, oh, Brazil. You want to sell some corn syrup to China, who will only buy it if you get paid in yuan. "No problem" you think. I'll use those yuan to buy dollars, and some oil from Belarus. But China thinks the dollar is overvalued - so they raise the exchange rate. Meaning you get fewer dollars for your yuan. Which means they've just lowered the value of your corn syrup. They get the product, you get shafted.

But, you say, I can trade my yuan for oil with Belarus - the value is known. Except, oil is valued in dollars. So the quantity of oil you could buy isn't as great, and hence your potential profit, is reduced.

However, if everything is controlled by Beijing, then the markets will appear to be fluctuation free. The value of the currency - what you can buy with it - will, theoretically, remain the same. Supply and demand? What's that?

A centrally controlled currency is not capable of pricing goods and services at their true value. The facade of stability is replaced by frantic efforts at keeping corruption hidden. Which is what is happening in China, right now. But more than that (corruption can handled), it removes any incentive to improve. If you can't maximize your profits you can't realize the potential gains. Actually, you can't realize any gains. The stability you hope for becomes stagnation, and productivity only happens at the barrel of a gun.

When there's no incentive to get the most you can from some commodity - there's no incentive to produce, or improve, that commodity.

That's why the dollar is so strong, why it is a global reserve currency. Governments know that the US economy is dynamic - and that Washington has little, if any, power to dictate how much a dollar is worth against their local currency. The free market takes care of all that - if your currency is in demand, you benefit. If it isn't, you aren't. Basically, people know that the dollar is independent of Washington in important ways. Washington can't set the value of the dollar; the market does that. Washington can, and does, print more money (devaluing the currency) when it's needed - but it doesn't happen arbitrarily, and with no warning. The risk inherent with owning dollars is known, and quantifiable. The risk of owning yuan is, well, completely unknown. Beijing is as opaque as Washington is transparent.

The biggest difference? Washington has, at its core, the undying belief that real property has value. Beijing doesn't. You buy an acre in America, and it's really difficult for someone to take it from you. You buy an hectare in China, and its ownership is held at Beijing's whim. (Arguments that point out the history of America, the foreclosure rate and so on will be given the short thrift they deserve.)

Oh, the new global reserve currency? I don't think China is serious about that. I think they're using it as a distraction. If it gets big enough, they'll go with it, but otherwise, Beijing is trying to change the global perception of the dollar. If they can, for instance, buy oil in yuan instead of euros or dollars - they can dictate the value of all oil transactions. Basically, they get to control numerous economies without lifting a finger. The Chinese government gets to dictate the living standards of countless families! With a free floating dollar, there's no such control - if an economy is badly managed, it's visible in the lack of living standards. If it's well managed, corruption free (and any corruption is small), people enjoy a greater standard of living. They can live better, enjoying more of what they want to enjoy. (It doesn't have to be material goods, but it seems to be that, no matter where you are in the world!)

Freeing the dollar from the gold standard was one of the brightest things Nixon ever did. The British followed, but too late to stop the decline of the pound as a reserve currency. The next bright thing was sending Kissinger off to negotiate, and obtain, oil trading in dollars. Now an oil sheikh can get the most he can for a barrel of oil, and then he can get the most he can from his dollar bank account. We all do something similar when we drive by the expensive gas station, or shop at the discount store.

What does China have to offer us with the yuan as a reserve currency? They'll effectively tell what you can buy, where and how much it will cost. Not happy with the lack of choice? Tough tiddlywinks.

Remember, when you debate fiscal and monetary policy: free markets good. Controlled markets: really, really bad. China controls the yuan, Washington can only try to influence the value of the dollar. (Ron Paul fans: you might want to sit down while you figure that one out.)

Carolyn Ann

Yuan not going to believe this...

So I'm sitting at my computer, with a blinding sinus headache, my leg is aching like crazy, my shoulder is aching, I'm bleary eyed, having just gotten up, and not even half way through my first cup of coffee and the only thing I can think about? "Why is China pushing the Yuan as a global reserve currency?"

Admittedly it's as much by proxy as directly, but still. Couldn't I think of something else?

Carolyn Ann

That was a tad frustrating...

So there I am, trying to figure out why some feature (a bit of code that does something very specific) I've just written doesn't work. It relies on some fairly standard Python code, and the usual magical Django admin interface*.

I spend a couple of hours trying every which way to get the code to work. I try commas, semicolons, new indentation, I test the keywords, I load up a new version of Eclipse and try to run from there. Okay, I spent most of the day on the problem.

The Mrs comes home from work, and asks me if I want to go out. She wants to go to the bookstore to buy a book that might help her in her search for a new job. We go. We get home. She barbecues some chicken, I lounge in the bathtub reading Python manuals. I turn the page on one of the more obscure manuals I have at my bath side. ... ....

I see "this is not supported" with a direct, might as well be letter for letter, example of what I've written. Ah, now it all becomes clear...

I wonder why?

Carolyn Ann

PS Sorry, I can't be any more specific. And no, there wasn't an explanation. It just said "this doesn't work".

* Django, a Python-based web application framework has a wonderful, automated administration feature. It doesn't work under certain circumstances. Like the one this project requires...

The F22, and Equal Rights?

How in the heck did an Equal Rights Bill get attached to a defense budget bill? Such are the mysteries of Congress.

I must admit I was disappointed with the decision to ax the F22. I was hedging on the side of "give us the F22, and if it means equal rights wait, so be it".

The F22, a plane designed to fight an enemy that no longer exists, was a source of some 72,000 jobs - according to the manufacturer. But more than that, it is a sign of the technical superiority of the United States. Military and otherwise. The F22 is also the right strategic fighter for the next 10 to 15 years.

Here's the problem: the F22 was designed to fight an enemy that couldn't match it in the 1970's. Or in the 1980's. It could it in the late 1990's; notwithstanding the fact that the F15 has not been defeated in combat. But the F22 is perfectly positioned to deal with the complex new threats that will exist within a decade.

The debacle with Clinton's cruise missile launch against Osama highlights just how important it is to have not just good intelligence, but the capability of recalling the bomb once it has flown. A cruise missile can't be recalled; the very goal of its existence makes such an abort impossible. Never mind the technical challenges such a request would have to surmount. The software is not likely to exist, and be deployable, within the next decade or so, that allows the intelligent recall of a cruise missile. But a pilot - a pilot can hold on station, he (or she) can go get some extra fuel, and then when the political bigwigs finally decide: they can launch the missile and kill the enemy.

Some might argue that an unmanned vehicle could do the same; I beg to differ. Someone looking at the terrain is different to someone looking at it through a satellite. Yes, the UAV's have scored some significant hits - the fact they're armed, and successful, seems to point the way. But there's nothing like having a Mark One Eyeball looking at the target. Ask any hunter - they'll tell you. Actually, ask any wildlife photographer. Those folks really do know the value of being there.

Where the military went wrong, in my humble and not terribly well informed opinion, is that they forgot to counter the simplicity of the Russian planes. The A-10 "Warthog" is a simple plane. It has interchangeable bits, fires a really big cannon and has excellent survivability. Heck, even refueling can be done while the engine is running! (Not something you want to do with most planes.) The F15 is not an overly complex plane, but it has superb flight characteristics. I want to say it was the one that an Israeli pilot brought in to land - sans a wing. Literally. A wing was shot off, but it was such a superb "flight platform", it stayed aloft. Like the F15, the F16 and the F18 are getting long in the tooth. Sure, there are some new F18's hitting the flightdecks - but they are limited in range. Airborne refueling, not that long after launching from the carrier, somehow doesn't carry the persuasion of range and punch that an F14 has. Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong problem?

Maybe I'm not. Glitz has a lot to do with the political procurement process. If some manufacturer tried to sell a plane that could take off from a short strip of road, be refueled by a tanker at the roadside, be maintained by a small maintenance crew, and could fly in subzero conditions - Congress would demand think such a plane must be European. It's not: it's Scandinavian. Congressmen want "bling". They want advanced technologies. They want exotic words attached to combat missions. They want to show off to their constituents.

(I wonder how many in Congress actually understand what role the new littorals the Navy is buying, play?)

When a Secretary of Defense is enamored by Special Forces, the military starts to think in those terms. Special Forces soldiers are expensive, specialized, highly trained and highly skilled at the art of fighting. The civilians in charge of the Pentagon seem to acknowledge this when it comes to soldiering, but not in the air. The F22 is like the Special Forces soldier: really, really good at what they do. Which is bringing the fight to the enemy. The Russians approached the same problem differently.

The Russians have their Spetsnaz force. But they have vast quantities of fighter pilots who aren't superstars. And many some of their export customers have pilots who, as a rule, would be hard pushed to get a Cessna in the air. And keep it there. Not to be arrogant, of course. The Russians opted for simple materials, simple construction processes and simplistic controls. The US opted for exotic materials and control systems that could solve a global economic crisis in their spare cycles. The Russians opted for an export system that delivered first and asked questions whenever. The Americans, understandably, wanted a system that supposedly retained the technological edge.

But does it? There was a recent wargame where the Admiral commanding the "belligerent Middle Eastern" force defeated the Allied navies by suicide bombing, hounding the warships, piracy and generally being a malcontent. Once he was ordered to "play by the rules", the West won. This is not a secret. From what I've read, the damage he inflicted before being reined in is secret.

Many accuse The Pentagon of fighting the last war. That's not exactly fair - Congress dictates so much, it's more than fair to say Congress fights the last war. (Sometimes, you could say Congress rejects fighting whatever war happened to be prior to the budget bill.) Which is why the decision to ax the F22 is so myopic. Congress, astoundingly, is fighting the two wars we're currently engaged in. But they're not fighting future wars.

Future wars will be complex interactions with friend and foe. Is China a military threat? Yes. But Walmart and Target will continue engaging Chinese factories. Is China an espionage threat? I'd think the only nation with a greater espionage risk is Israel. No one else has the capability, nor the funding. Just think: China is thought to have stolen £14 billion worth of industrial secrets from the UK. I shudder to think how much was lost from American, Canadian and Australian industries.

I'm not sure there will be jingoistic wars in the future. Sure, hyperbole will continue to play a part in any war - you always need popular support before you order the youth to their death. But wars won't be about territory - they'll be about ideology, and more than likely power and/or water. Territory is, increasingly, a meaningless term. Water isn't. Ideology becomes all the more important when territorial identification is so incoherent.

The Russians and the Chinese can be counted on to sell arms to whomever wants them. The Chinese can be counted on to use American dollars, and occasionally Euros, to help fund those purchases. I can see it now: the Russians and Chinese get into a financial wargame, bringing the world to a ludicrous halt. "Me Warlord will only buy on favorable terms!" Right...

(Think that's a nightmare? I suspect it's happening, and has been for at least the last 5 years.)

The problem comes when Chinese interests and American interests don't quite intersect. The Republican jingoism won't work - that'll lead to nuclear war, and lots of disgruntled voters. The Democrats ideal of no war won't work, either - that lead to China basically telling America what its interests are. Which is a bit like the Christian right telling everyone how they should live, and go down just as well. Meaning: it ain't gonna happen.

This isn't ideological. The Elephant is just as stupid as the Donkey. Neither party wants to fight the next war. Heck, they don't even want to acknowledge it! Water as a catalyst for a war? Never happen. Ideology as a catalyst for a war? Oh, sure. Which keeps you alive - ideology, or water?

Within the next decade or three, America will need fighters like the F22, and it will need fighters like an updated F16. It will need better Special Forces support - not the cartoon/Tom Clancy support they currently get, but real support. Proper training, proper budgets, a hierarchy that respects SF troops, and uses them properly. But while Congress keeps thinking of the F22 as a "regular" air deterrent, Special Forces won't get what they need. And the Air Force will be lumbered with fighting the war Congress wishes it was fighting.

About $2 billion, when it's all done and dusted, to protect democracy? That's cheap. 187 extra fighters? Not bad. Not too shoddy, at all.

But American still needs a viable airplane to be a weapon against terrorists. UAVs are okay as far as they go. Sometimes, that good old Mark One Eyeball simply can't be beat. And that's worth a few billion.

Carolyn Ann

Portrait of Aggeliki

Toomanytribbles has published a wonderful portrait on Flickr:

It truly is wonderful.

Aggeliki has a delightful expression, and her eyes convey such life! This is a girl you know would be great to take dancing - her eyes tell you she loves living, and hence: she loves dancing. :-) She's probably the life and soul of any party she attends, such is her vitality! That smile! Oh, that smile! It's divine - there's no other word.

She probably has all the guys hanging on her every word. She enters a cafe, and the old guy in the corner gains 10 years, simply because she smiled at him! The boys at the bar stop, and fawn over her. They vie for her attention, or for a glance! They vie for her attention, or for a glance! It'll be a 1950's movie, and she'll be the girl the guy gets. :-)

Toomanytribbles has captured a moment; we feel we're sharing the joy of something with her subject, but it really doesn't matter what it is. It's a joy.

What a wonderful portrait. It's one I wish I could hang in my office - to remind me what life is really is about.

Carolyn Ann

PS I urge you to click on the link and see the portrait. It's wonderful. :-)

PPS Oops. I forgot to mention: photo used with permission.

But what about me? (aka "Where have all the flowers gone?")

Where, indeed. And what about you?

What, exactly, does the transgendered activist hope to achieve? Equality? Acceptance? Tolerance? A diminution of hate crime? An acknowledgement that there are some who are born in the wrong body?

What?

What, exactly?

Considering the invective and hyperbole that usually hangs around with the transgendered semi-activist crowd, I'd hazard that any real goals are not only not stated - they're totally unknown.

It's all well and good getting on your high hobby horse about this and that, but when the vituperation is aimed at your own - it's time to start thinking, and stop reacting. People do so get on their high horses; it would laudable, but they are hobby horses. The slightest criticism, the lack of acceptance of a claim, the questioning that surely must accompany grand claims - all lead to anger, trite and shrill anger. "THOU shalt NOT question ME!" comes the booming voice, striking its target - the hapless questioner - asunder. Or at least that's the vague hope.

The TG world, more than ever, seems to be divided: the "I'm happy dressing up" crossdressers, and the "I am a Woman!" crowd. Ne'er the twain shall meet. The transsexuals disdain the crossdressers, and the crossdressers wonder what happened to being oneself. To not going all the way. And the vituperative simply insert their spoons into the mix.

Introspection and serious thought are not hallmarks of the current transgender activist crowd; they prefer to mimic their right wing enemies, and produce angry diatribes that resound in false thought, hedonistic impulses and lame considerations. Among the far right, false righteousness replaced considered thought a decade ago - it took the transgender activist slightly less than two years to achieve the same level of inanity.

I am convinced that, left alone, the transgender political movement would set feminism back 50 years - if given half a chance. On the one hand we have those who claim "oh, I left those manly pursuits behind when I became a woman!", and the other we have, well, perhaps pugilism would be a good career? The frilly and the fighter.

The transgender community has an image problem.

Really.

We're hated with a passion that used to be reserved for gays and lesbians. The TG activists respond with "I'm a Woman!", to which their nemesis shouts "No you're not!" Introduction [Oops.] Introducing bathroom bills, the TG activist talks about equal rights, and the right wingers talk about safety. Let me see, which is going to win the emotional argument? Oh, yeah. Listen up, folks: when a woman won't use the bathroom marked "Mens", simply because it's marked thus - your problem isn't equal rights. It's persuading people that you're a woman. Simply laying claim to the title, in such a situation, is not, well, how do I put this? It's not going to work. They simply won't believe you. They will point to the two or three, or like one lass I know, 17, children they've birthed.

Where does semantics become irrelevant?

The biggest difference lies in the smallest definition. Transwomen are, to almost all intents and purposes, women, but they don't endear themselves to many women. The whole "cis" thing is proof of that! "Oh, we don't think it's offensive, even when you tell us it is!" Yeah, right. How to win friends and influence people. Not.

I sometimes think that the transgender activist booked themselves onto the course titled "Political Activism", and decided that was enough to be an expert in the subject. Here's where the image problem surfaces: many new transwomen are in their 50's. They've sired children, been married (the wife, more often than not, is rather unhappy with this change in their husband) and now want to claim to be women?

Where, indeed, did all the flowers go?

Carolyn Ann

Shoes or slippers, what a choice! :-)

I as just thinking that I should wear the shoes that go with this skirt. But slippers are just, well, so much more comfortable!

The shoes look good, and even fit - but they still make my feet ache!

Carolyn Ann

The trans community and the insurance business

Rebecca mentioned a problem with her insurance company, and it highlights an important point for the transgender community. One that, I think, will become more of an issue in the future than it is now. This is cross-posted from a comment I made over on Rebecca's blog; I have changed some of this version for context.

Rebecca complained that while her insurance company (eventually) changed her gender to "female", they didn't lower the rates: this reflects both a certain amount of discrimination, and a certain amount of how the insurance company perceives the risk. The argument will be (not many will like this, by the way): you were a man, and now you're a woman. But you started life as a biological man, and the same risk factors exist regardless of any operation. In other words, someone, somewhere, has determined that your body contains the same risks it always did.

Here's the issue, in a nutshell (it's not a nice thought, by the way): your chances of succumbing to something like prostrate cancer are the same, and indeed might be greater. (No one has ever done a study of cancer risks within the transsexual community.) That justifies the higher rate.

Here's the risk of simply applying as a woman: if you get hit by a bus, the autopsy will reveal the transition. And the insurance company will say it is not obliged to pay up. (Don't forget: the insurance company is not your friend.) People can argument semantics for hours, this isn't about how you view yourself - it's about how the insurance company can avoid paying a claim.

(Any claims about "you never asked" don't work with insurance companies. Like the government, they'll have a catch-all question somewhere on the application form.)

If such a case made its way to court (the likelihood of that is dependent upon the potential pay-out), there's no way of telling which way the ruling would go. But that's not the real problem, although it is a problem! The court is just as likely to say "you didn't tell the insurance company everything, as you're supposed to - so your claim is denied." It is not likely to say "your rights exceed that of the insurance company, they have to pay up".

Unfortunately, there's no real recourse, at the moment. Equal rights legislation, the ones I've read, don't mention such issues. (They shouldn't.) Bathroom Bills certainly shouldn't mention the issue.

As the transwoman [I deliberately chose the phrase] population increases, and as the whole Lu's Pharmacy debacle has started to show, and as that whole anti-transgender "we're not going to cover SRS" in Canada also demonstrates, insurance will become a significant issue. How should an insurance company react when someone claiming to be a woman gets treatment for a disease women don't get? Will they simply pay up (yeah, right) - or will they deny payment, simply because the claimant lied about their medical history? Does a "sex change" become a pre-existing condition? (Hint: don't look at this as anything but "how can I, big insurance company, avoid paying out, or taking on a risk I don't want?" In other words: your health versus their profits. The Supreme Court has, to my knowledge, nearly always sided with the insurance company.

(There was a transman, in Texas I think, who died of ovarian cancer, a few years ago. I don't know of any insurance problems, but that was then. This is now.)

I don't know what the answers are, I don't think anyone actually knows what the questions might be! What I can guess is that it hasn't been that much of an issue, so far. Here's a question I've never seen asked: what is the population of transsexuals? What is the ratio to the general population? There's so little understanding of the transgender community - something the TG community seems to do its level best to maintain, by the way [in my opinion] - that I fully expect to read more and more about problems with insurance companies. Not just medical, but life insurance as well.

The recent health care bill doesn't, as far as I can guess, cover any transgender issues. I say "guess" because if it explicitly did so, the Republicans would be all over it. They haven't mentioned it, so I'm guessing there's nothing in there. I can guess that this might be an area where equality bumps up against commercial interest in a big way. There's no guarantee which one will come up on top! Unfortunately, until the health care bill is passed, there's nothing the TG community can do. Once it's in law, I anticipate a [probably belated] State-level effort to get transgender medical issues covered.

Rebecca raises an interesting point; it's not one that has been a problem, but I can't imagine it won't be.

Carolyn Ann

Eclipse...

No, not the one in India. :-) The programmers' nightmare, er editor. The editor programmers curse. Salivate over, I mean foam at the mouth salivate over.

It's a wonderful machine, Eclipse. Free, powerful and oh so difficult.

When it comes to any user interface, there are three philosophies: "let me do it for you" (Mac), "here's how to do it" (Windows) and "here's how it was made, surely you can figure out the rest for yourself?" (Linux/Open source) Eclipse falls, firmly, into the latter category. It is probably the most obtuse software I currently use. Microsoft Office on the Mac is not easy, but Eclipse is, well, plain difficult.

Here's an example: I want to install a plug-in, to provide some additional services to my efforts. It's an automated process; you point the Update Manager to a provided URL, and the sysem does the rest. Unless it doesn't. The installation failed because some obscure plug in was needed. The system knows the plug-in is needed, it seems it knows where the damn thing is, but simply provides a terse a message. The rest is up to you. I found out that the dependency had a dependency. I couldn't get that to install, but don't know why, not being versed in Eclipsese.

In contrast, my Mac has two on-screen buttons to update the software: one to find the update, the other to install it. If a reboot is required, I get to press another on-screen button, by pressing a real button - but understanding the irony of it all would take too long.

Does Eclipse do anything like that? No - it simply fails, displays the same overly complicated dialog box you started with, but this time with the aforementioned terse message. One fears your failure to install the plug-in will be broadcast over Twitter, for the amusement of the rest of the world. Asking on a user forum elicits tirades and ridicule (some even doubt your parentage and/or existence); you develop the paranoia that continued efforts to understand the error, and rectify it will be turned into a soap opera that will forever play in the dark, evil, dungeons programmers inhabit when they want to be dark and evil. Saint Peter puts a black mark in his book, and God gives his right hand seat to someone else. Satan marks his diary: your personal hell will be forever figuring out dependencies for Eclipse plug-ins.

Which is about where I'm at, right now.

Damn that infernal Eclipse!

Carolyn Ann

Earth-sized hole in Jupiter?

It looks like a tiny dark spot... It is a tiny dark spot. Earthly hurricanes show up bigger than that, in proportion.

Even though I understand, I think I comprehend, the difference in size between the Earth and Jupiter - seeing something like that never ceases to awe me. Earth is big, and it looks like a tiny blemish on Jupiter!

A few years ago, I started building my own orrery - it was to be Linux powered, so I could keep the planets aligned properly. I really should look for those bits and pieces, and ... Oh - the drawings are on that old computer. The one that doesn't work. At some point, I'll extract its hard drive and see if I can grab the data on it. I'm fairly sure there are some old digital photos on that drive, too. (The machine is a Dell, and it came with Windows 98 - and it's the one that prompted me to purchase Macs forever after.)

Anyway, one of the problems I had was figuring out the proportions of the planets. A trip to the Hayden Planetarium, in NYC, and I had it all sorted. In my head. When I came to make the drawings, I quickly realized if Mercury was visible, Jupiter and Saturn filled the space intended for the entire solar system! Literally. And the sun consumed the house next door. Figuratively speaking, of course. :-)

I can't remember why it was important for the system to Linux powe ... oh, yeah, I do now. It was going to be an embedded system. The base of the orrery would hold the computer and motors, with the main power transformers being shielded and isolated. I was looking, in the last year of the 20th century, for a small computer that could do complex calculations, didn't have any odd licensing restrictions and wasn't priced like a NASA part. It was tough - the Internet wasn't what it is now, and there wasn't much in the way of Google to help! Anyway, I knew about some Linux real-time extensions, so I figured the best thing to do was build a small computer that would control the (stepper) motors, two per arm, if memory serves, and it would have a small panel to allow for corrections. I never got around to developing any programming; nor did I figure out the proper answer to converging arms - some of the planets, if you draw lines between the sun and the planets, some of those lines cross each other at some point. Not so bad when you have imaginary lines, but a bit awkward when those same lines are bits of steel wire.

Hmmm. Where is that old computer? :-)

Carolyn Ann

A profound threat to democracy

Valeria posted an excellent discussion about citizen journalism on her blog. I responded in my usual fashion... :-) Here's my response:

The new citizen journalist will miss the Pentagon Papers. The Profumo Affair, and they will fail to follow the money, because to do so might be too dangerous. (Ask Bernstein and Woodward about that...) As such they will miss Watergate.

The citizen journalist will catch the next Sarah Palin or Mark Sanford; the next John Ensign? Maybe not so much.

A journalist in Britain has a certain level of protection against the Official Secrets Act, but a blogger does not. Nor does any British blogger have the power, the connections and acumen to develop a story like the BBC Papers one. Some might, naively, argue that the current "D-Notice" practice will become outmoded - I argue that it will be replaced by a more formal system that includes jail time for any blogger deemed to be revealing state secrets.

Citizen journalists will succeed when they band together to produce the quality of journalism, true, proper, investigative journalism - not just opinionated regurgitation of what others' say - we see in newspapers like the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Le Monde and a very few others. The Huffington Post need not apply to join such exalted ranks; it's more akin The Sun and New York Post.

The problem with citizen journalists is that there is no leader, no boss saying "I don't care, get me the story!" There's no editor screaming about mangled English, nor moaning about mangled contacts. No one is teaching bloggers how to do the job journalists do - bloggers simply assume, based on a few easy successes, that they know everything there is to know about journalism. Personally, I'd like to ask Bob Woodward about investigative journalism. Can you imagine a blogger being granted access the President, in the same way that Bob Woodward was allowed access to George Bush?

Bloggers serve a social purpose, but they - so far - have not proven worthy of taking over the role of investigative journalists.

It's the nature of the beast, basically. Twitter doesn't count as journalism - it's, at best, sound bites. The average news blogger is so busy keeping up with the news, they have no time to actually go figure out the stories for themselves. So while they shout about their influence, they quietly destroy the very thing that gives them their credibility.

I'll venture a controversial point: I think that the destruction of the commercial news system is undermining our concept of democracy.

We are not creating a contemporary 18th century, pre-Revolutionary America, where a man with access to a printing press could influence history. We're creating a situation where a million voices profoundly say nothing worth hearing.

When I read a blog, I always keep in my mind that it's worth exactly the cost I paid for it. And that's from someone who argued Google should charge for Blogger, and is willing to pay the NY Times and The Guardian for what I read.

Contemporary ideas about citizen journalism rely on the dubious idea that information wants to be free. As I've said before: information is not sentient. It wants nothing. People just don't want to pay for information. Not even the information their future relies on.

Citizen journalism has an immediacy that make it relevant when a disaster strikes, when the Iranian police shoot a young woman, or when a cop strikes dead a homeless man in London. citizen journalism also includes passionate reports from Michael Jackson's memorial, or his funeral. I like the idea that the BBC admonished a reporter because she appeared emotional, when giving a report about impoverished children in the Darfur. It's not being heartless, it's being realistic, and providing the news without opinion. But that's not all that journalism is. Citizen journalists simply don't have the access to the power structures that exist to make any difference. As a result, the sensational becomes the success, and the real story is not even noticed.

Like I said: citizen journalism is a threat to democracy.

Think I'm joking? I think about the efforts at controlling language from such "current opinion" sites as Questioning Transphobia, or Human Events (a conservative blog). I think about how Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Pat Robertson and so on control their own little dioramas, and attempt to control their own dramas. It's only paid journalists who get the bottom of the story, who have the financial freedom and the incentives to go after the story that do so.

I've known a few journalists in my time - one of the greatest was the Washington correspondent for a major news weekly. He could get you to talk about any secret you had. Literally. (He would have been a fine interrogator!) Does anyone know any blogger with the same skills? They're borne of decades of interviewing, building contacts, staying with a story regardless of if it pans out, or not.

Look at the diabolical effort of the citizen journalists covering the collapse of the economy. I told of it, ineptly. I didn't see how bad it would be - but I'm not covering the economy like a journalist. I knew it would be bad, but I underestimated how bad it would be. No citizen journalist would have even guessed the whole edifice of Bush Fiscal Policy was an illusion. (Yeah, yeah - they all mouthed the words. That's not quite the same.) They couldn't have. They don't have access to the powerful - and never will while they remain a disparate, hopeless chasing story bunch of wannabes. That access comes with being able to say "I'm from a reputable newspaper". Maybe if somebody like Arianna Huffington can get her act together, a blogger might be in a position able to develop a story like Woodward and Bernstein. But not until then. The reporters have to pay the bills, somehow. The street credibility of blogging for the Huffington Post doesn't have much currency with the electric company, though.

And that's the problem. Arianna Huffington provides competition to the New York Times - at the same time she delivers its news.

The only thing wrong with the entire model is the perception that intellectual property exists outside the normal rules of economic gain, motivation and property. Information is not sentient: it wants nothing. The fact that you don't want to pay for it undermines the very democracy you claim to support.

Think about it.

Carolyn Ann

Experience, and Ms Harney's response

Ms Harney has asked a question. And coined a word! :-)

I do like the word: blogular. It has a certain, well, ring to it.

But that's the only honest thing in the post. Here's the scoop: someone asked about "the experience" factor between transwomen and other women. Ms Harney responds in a manner best described as Palinesque. She answers the question she thinks should have been asked, not the one that was actually asked.

On the assumption that Ms Harney, someone I presumed honest until fairly recently, will see this post - what gives you the right, Ms Harney, to answer the question, a perfectly valid question, in a manner that deprecates the questioner?

The answer supplied is not actually an answer, it's a nothing. A series of sound bites presented as evidence, a meaningless muttering. Ms Harney, you have a better intellect than that meaningless drivel you passed on as a rationale. You, you should demand better of yourself, and your owe your readers something other than mealy-mouthed platitudes, self-serving excuses and general whining about your sad, sad lot in life.

It wasn't enough that Ms Harney produced a whine, the comments section is absolutely filled with echos and unthinking responses. Because you say you're a girl does not make you one. Sorry - that's life.

If I want to read a party-written booklet, I'll read the various conservative "newsletters" I subscribe to. If I want to read generous, intellectually stimulating and well-thought out gender arguments, I will go read ... Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't go there.

Ms Harney - you should aspire to The Economist and "Foreign Affairs". Not reduce yourself to Ann Coulter. You should not try to be the transgender equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. You're, frankly, not very good at that.

Carolyn Ann

Some rides are just looong...

Not for the distance, but for the destination. Manhattan, for instance. It's not that far - 125 to 130 miles - but it can take a really long time to get there. 4 hours, to be precise. And another hour to get across Canal St.

Oy vay!

I'm shattered. That was a hell of a ride. Going across Canal St was the worst - the clutch started begging for mercy, and the engine temperature crept up to 289°F. That's "not good" territory. Fortunately, I managed to get up some speed going across the Manhattan Bridge, and the temperature quickly dropped to about 265°F. (Whew!) Coming home, the temperature stayed below 200 the entire 150 miles I actually traversed.

You know how I say that a motorcyclist should simply assume that car drivers are all homicidal maniacs with a particular hatred of motorcycles? In Manhattan, it's an Olympic sport. I think the cops give medals based on the style (and success) of the effort. One woman went for the gold - she veered straight into my lane, aiming her large SUV for the very spot I was occupying. I tooted the horn and she merely glanced in my direction before resuming her conversation with whomever was in the back of her behemoth. I moved, denying her any chance at the medal.

Driving in Brooklyn hasn't gotten any easier - the pedestrians still think they have right of way, regardless of actual road conditions. Or the vicinity of trucks, bicycles, guys pushing food carts, cars or me.

Still, it was a pretty day and I the riding was generally good. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Transgender and language

One thing I was thinking about today was the transgender community and language. It seems to be an adversarial relationship.

If you've read any of this blog, you'll know that despite everything on display, I love the English language. It's capable expressing so much, but it turns out that other languages are better for expressing other things! According to an article, by Sharon Begley, I read in this week's Newsweek, language can shape how we think.

Which makes sense, when you, er, think about it. :-)

If you don't have the words to describe 12 different types of snow, all snow ends up pretty much the same: as snow. The way you think about snow will be constrained by the lack of language.

Which makes my alarm at recent attempts to dictate, and control, the language surrounding the transgendered all the more, er, alarming.

There's a subtle, uncoordinated movement to control how the transgendered are depicted in language. You can't say "tranny" - that's offensive. You can't say "transvestite" - that's long been considered offensive. "Crossdresser" is offensive, unless you're a crossdresser. Transsexuals (can I still use that term?) tend to use that particular word as an epithet. You don't have a "sex change", you have "gender reassignment surgery". My oh my, ain't that kinder, gentler and oh so controlling?

The other one is the whole "I am a woman" thing, but without the relevant justifications beyond "because I feel like a woman". If that's not a controlling terminology, I'd sure like to see what you'll introduce me to!

And then we have that whole "cis" thing. The transgender community, or at least some in it, decided that any offense the cis community felt at being called "cisgendered" was merely cis-privilege and could be ignored by the trans-community. Did I get enough "cis's" in there?

Anyway, all of these efforts don't actually address the problem of human rights and equal treatment, but they do neatly sidestep anything difficult. Like thinking about the words and prefixes being used. It allows a subtle control over the conversation - you can't call me that, it's offensive! It's also a less subtle - think "really big" sledgehammer - way of controlling how people think about the transgendered.

After all - you control what people can think, if you control how they can think. As Mr Orwell so ably demonstrated. A lesson that is perhaps lost on those who would rather avoid offense by banning, or at least not permitting, words and grammars, ideas and contradictions they deem to be offensive.

Carolyn Ann

"Experience" - what is it?

I often mention the "experience" of growing up a boy, or a girl. What do I mean by that?

Some assume I mean specific experiences - sleep overs, playing with G.I. Joe/Action Man, dressing up, all of that. I do, and I mean so much more.

As we (hopefully) age, our body chemistry dictates that certain things happen to our bodies. It happens when we're young, too. Young girls have an entirely different puberty to young boys. And then there's the tranny-anathema: cultural "training".

I overheard a Grandmother telling a very young lad "that's what gentlemen do for a lady!" I don't what it was that gentlemen do, but the idea about gender difference is right there: she's telling the young lad what, and how, to be a man. By referencing how he should behave when it comes to the lasses. If he's listening, and societal mores haven't gotten any worse (apparently they've been declining since the Golden Age of Greeks...) he'll be glad he listened to his Gran - he might get the girl, and his rival in love won't.

There's no answer to this - boys will, indeed, be boys. And girls will be girls. And those of stuck somewhere betwixt and between can only hope that tolerance and acceptance is taught along with the rest of growing up.

That's what I mean by "experience".

Carolyn Ann

A thought or two about Lu's Pharmacy

Lu's Pharmacy, in Vancouver, is implementing a policy of not serving transgendered women. As you might imagine, this has that constituency somewhat upset. Some are protesting, and others are protesting and making threats of legal action.

In various blog posts about this whole fracas, no one has seen fit to examine what is going on. This whole thing is based on some incompatible goals, and a misunderstanding of what a privately run pharmacy is. It's also seen some rather incoherent, but striking and revolting, bullying from the transgender community.

The pharmacy itself is run by a group, the Vancouver Women's Health Collective. This is a group of women volunteers, with an employed Executive Director who answers to a Steering Committee. They have quite a laudable mission statement: (purloined under fair-use rules)

We are women who value women’s knowledge, support one another to take charge of our own health, and raise awareness and inspire action for the feminist advancement of women’s health.

At some point in 2006 this collective opened a pharmacy that was dedicated to women's medical needs. So far so good.

The problems arrived this year.

It gets stranger - apparently there's a trans-friendly pharmacy down the road a little.

So, we have a group that is protesting what they perceive as a discriminatory pharmacy, a privately run pharmacy that is staying true to its mission statement, a linguistic issue, a problem in the perception of what a woman is, a couple of incompatible dreams, and a serious misunderstanding of what a business is. All in all, a bit of a mess.

According to the QT (always never a source of unbiased opinion...), the director of the pharmacy threatened to call the police on a transgendered woman who tried to get a prescription filled. I could see that happening - if you're told to get off the premises, and you don't - you're committing common trespass. (According to one report, the protestor tried to force her way into the clinic. That's definite reason for calling the cops!) It's one of the reasons the police like to keep protestors on public property - the moment you enter private property, the owner of that property is at liberty to ask you to for any reason, or no reason, whatsoever. The police, being duty bound to uphold the law, have to enforce that. If you're trying to buy a burger at McDonald's, and the manager wants you to leave - you have to leave. He (or she) can ask the cops to enforce that request. Likewise, a pharmacy can ask a person to leave, and if they don't they are not required to tell the person they've called the cops, they can simply call them. With the Vancouver PD's reputation, that's probably not something you want to happen.

Which brings us to what a business is. A business, such as a pharmacy, is not a public good. It is a private enterprise. It serves the public, essentially to provide services and products for a fee. The cost of the services might be wrapped up in the price of the products, but it's there, nonetheless. Being in business also means the pharmacy has insurance. In exchange for restricting their clientele, the pharmacy might enjoy a lower insurance rate. Increasing whom they will provide services and products to might mean an invalidation of their insurance, or their bank loan or anything financial that depends on the business charter being adhered to. Heck, as far as I know, there could be some legal restrictions imposed by the Vancouver and/or British Columbia government.

But let's assume that's not an issue. The basic issue is that the pharmacy was set up with a specific charter. The Executive Director can't, at will, change that charter or the policy that ensues. Well, she could - and she could get fired without recompense for doing so. The website of the collective is fairly clear who their target audience is - there's not a lot of leeway in there. Being a collective, it's run by volunteers and has a membership. They are the ones who, ultimately, decide to whom they want to offer their time, support and resources.

On the other side of the fence are the transwomen. They recognize the pharmacy as discriminatory, and want to force a change in its operating policy. The pharmacy is operating a policy that excludes transwomen, but I'm not sure if it can be called discriminatory. They clearly don't offer medical services to men, but perhaps they can fulfill the prescription for a baby boy? It depends on the collective, and I don't know. What I do know is that the policy is very clear, and I don't imagine it's very negotiable.

At the heart of the protest is a desire, a dream perhaps. That is for transwomen to be included in the panoply of "women". The policy of the pharmacy, and the collective, obviously makes some feel like second rate citizens. But is that enough to demand a substantial change in a policy that is aimed at one, very specific, group?

The core of the problem lies in a definition: what is a woman? If it were simple, the pharmacy probably would write language into its charter to make it clear to whom it is offering its services. It is not as simple a problem as Véronique, for instance, asserts it is. If it were, gender would have no meaning, and the entire issue would be, ironically, moot. But gender does have meaning for many, and some women in Vancouver have decided that they want a medical collective that caters to their needs only.

Well, there are two cores, and both have been covered.

It says something that the pharmacy is willing to talk with the protestors. At this point the protestors seem to be more like stridently striking workers than influencers of policy. The Executive Director of the collective is willing to discuss the medical needs of transwomen. She's also made it clear that there is another, nearby, pharmacy willing to take their prescriptions and so on.

Considering the rather stupid threat of legal action... I'm sorry, did I say "rather stupid"? I meant, dim, idiotic, infantile, bullying and ridiculous, threat of legal action - I do feel a need to state the obvious. Considering Canada's approach to personal liberty, it's not entirely clear who would win such a debate. In general, Canada is finding that personal liberty and collective liberty are sometimes at odds with each other. In the US, this is the sort of thing the Supreme Court would decide (ultimately). In Britain it wouldn't be an issue because Britain doesn't have constitutional problems. Well, it does, but they're generally ignored. In Canada, it could take a long time before such a case was resolved. Besides, threatening legal action at this stage is beyond stupid. Such a threat shows nothing but ignorance of negotiations, of group dynamics and what such a threat might cost. (Heck, if I were on the receiving end of that threat, I'd have a lawyer at any negotiations, holding an entire rain forest of pleas, requests, subpoenas and counter-lawsuits. And I would stop talking to those doing the threatening.) But that's just my opinion.

Overall, Lu's Pharmacy is not the one in the wrong. They have a very specific charter and mandate. They have the power to ask the cops to remove anyone causing a disturbance on their property - and they have the ultimate power: they can simply close the pharmacy down. If the membership - and this is probably an issue that would have to go to a membership vote - decided they really didn't want to deal with transgendered women, the pharmacy likely as not simply goes away. If it costs too much to fight off legal actions, the pharmacy goes away. If the protests get to the point where women don't go to the store, the pharmacy goes away. But, ultimately, if the membership of the collective get disgusted enough - the pharmacy goes away.

It might get resurrected, but it could go away. Simply as a business move, I find nothing wrong with such a tactic. Change the rules - and the one with the resources can change the rules by simply closing. They could accept the loss of business for a short time, and then re-open with explicit rules on who may or may not enter. Legally binding rules. They could simply close. It is not up to the protestors to tell the collective how to run their business; it is, however, up to the collective to determine how much of a loss they're willing to endure. They could negotiate with another entity to provide the same services. They could hire a security guard. They could do many things.

Is the business, the collective, discriminating? I lean toward "not". For one simple reason - they are exceptionally clear about whom they are willing to assist. It is, primarily, a volunteer organization. As such it lives and dies by the will, energy and eagerness of its volunteers. Without those efforts, that revenue stream, there would be no Vancouver Women's Health Collective". What would be the loss to the collective if they decided to grant transwomen access to their pharmacy? Would the transwomen insure that loss? Or would they stand by, and say it's not their problem? Not just the loss of members, but the loss of what the collective means to its members.

One thing I've learned over the years - it's amazingly difficult to change someone when you're kicking them. And perhaps the women of the Vancouver Women's Health Collective simply want the support of other women? Perhaps they're not interested in supporting transwomen? Is that discriminatory, or is it simply withstanding an assault from a segment of the population they just don't want in their collective? There are plenty of groups that offer support to blacks, to Chinese, to gays, to lesbians, to "only straight crossdressers, but no beards please" and to just about any other condition the human spirit endeavors to locate. All of them exclude others for no other reason than their desire to be without those others for a time.

The nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has brought empathy into the spotlight. I don't see much empathy from either side, but what I really see is a group that's trying to bully their way into a collective. Without actually understanding what they're trying to do, or what the battle they've picked really is about. They simply think they know. And that's what scares me more than the inane threat of legal action.

Either way, it's interesting reading about it. And I support the Vancouver Women's Health Collective. While their policy smacks of discrimination, there are too many other issues surrounding the demand for me to be at all comfortable with the hypocrisy. And lack of thought.

Carolyn Ann

An update: It appears that the pharmacy policy would violate the Code of Ethics for the profession. Which helps complicate things quite well. :-) One Lori Decou, director of communications for the College of Pharmacists for British Columbia, issued a summary judgment in the form of a media opinion.

My opinion is that any "victory" of the transgender community will be pyrrhic. It's just too easy to close the pharmacy, and the collective's membership might just decide to do that.

Time will tell. Personally, I'm disgusted at the bullying by the transgender activists. But I expect no less. I'll reserve my opinion as to why for a later post, when I'm in a mood enough.

Sheer idiocy

In my travels, I happened upon a south Jersey newspaper that had, as its main story, the arrest of 3 young men (19 to 23, I think) for - get this - placing booby traps on the road. So people would drive over them, damage their cars and they'd get a laugh. One guy had a hole ripped in gas tank.

Looking at the story, it seemed that the list of charges the cops were throwing at these idiots, they'd be lucky to get out of jail before they were old men! (What's that? Innocent until proven guilty? Oh, yeah. I read something about that, once... :-) )

I can get pranks - heck, one of my favorites was to place road cones across a road, and then put the diversion sign pointing to some non-existent direction. (Like the way you were going, or back the way you came. Or down a road that you couldn't get to... Stuff like that. We nearly got caught, once. (I was walking down the street carrying a big road sign, and my mate was carrying a stack of cones!) Heck, one time we picked a small car up, and carried it to the other side of the road. And pointed it the wrong way. Or was that a different time? I forget, it was a long time ago. But we never did anything destructive or malicious. A little harmless fun, and a minor inconvenience for some. I don't get destruction for the sake of destruction. It's easy, it's nothing - like the gang of punks and skinheads we once caught wrecking a pub bathroom, because they could. We got the landlord, and he got the cops. Because the pub had a "certain reputation", the cops were basically sitting outside, waiting for trouble. Which was quite fortunate as the three of us were quite outnumbered...

Pranks are one thing. Malicious and dangerous vandalism is quite another. These lads will probably be rueing the day they came up with that mischief. At least they were released on their own recognizance - no one had to bail them out. Considering the laundry list of charges, the bail would probably be Bernie Madoff territory!

[Added] For some reason, I'm not sure why, because it was forefront in my mind, what if a motorcyclist had come across one of these booby-traps? Those fools would be facing manslaughter charges - that's what.

Carolyn Ann

Whew!

A couple of hundred miles with not much of note - except for the speed trap I narrowly escaped, this morning!

Coming from I95 South, in Delaware, I took the feeder road to I295 North and the Delaware Memorial Bridge. It's a nice little road, barely a mile long, but it's made of long, sweeping curves. Wide, flat and fast. :-) But it currently ends in a big construction zone as the roads are widened and reconfigured.

So there I was, happily zooming past the traffic when I spotted the road sign "35MPH". (It's difficult to miss, really. It's huge! And animated.) Knowing the construction work was in front of me, and knowing that the cops do like to set up speed traps, I slowed down. (The Delaware River Authority cops have been setting up a lot of speed traps, lately. It's a toll bridge, and revenues are way down...) Not quite to 35 - a white SUV passed me, and we formed a small convoy of about 4 or 5 vehicles. Rolling along at about 50.

Well... It turns out that the newly configured bit of road allows the cops to see you, and record your speed, well before you see them. If that guy in the SUV hadn't been in a blazing hurry, I'd have been at the head of that little line, and I'd have been tagged. As it was, I saw the cop pointing at the white SUV, and then pointing at the side of the road. I braked - hard! - and rolled by her at a leisurely 30.

Whew! That was a lucky escape! Mind you - I've done quite a few miles on local freeways, and I've seen a lot of cops out and about. I'd heard there was a crackdown, now I know it's true!

Carolyn Ann

An especially useful summary

Gail Collins has written an especially useful summary to Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Man kills girlfriend because she was transgendered

The Daily Mail has a disturbing story about a Russian man, who killed his girlfriend because he discovered she'd had a sex-change. One chap, a Bob of Wirral, said:

i think he had a right to be upset.

Yeah. Right. Upset, perhaps. But he certainly had no right to be so upset to shoot her! The Mail has moderated comments, so I don't know if mine will be published. Here's what I said:

Bob of Wirral, he had a right to be upset? How so? Because she had a sex-change at some point in her past?What makes it okay for him to be upset to kill her? What makes you think that? You think the transgendered are not equal to you? That because you don't like them, it's okay to treat them atrociously? That it's okay to kill the transgendered? Simply because they're transgendered?You're a special kind of bigot if you think it's okay for someone to murder another, simply because they're upset./CA

We keep seeing this logic, over and over and over. It's like the old logic "well, it's little wonder she got raped, dressed like that!" Except this time, it's "well, the person was a tranny - no wonder I felt the urge to kill!" We saw it applied, with moderate success, in Gwen Araujo's murder trial, and it was re-used in Angela Zapata's murder trial. With substantially less success. It's one of those defenses that should be barred - women's attire at the time of their rape is not allowed as a defense. Neither should "well, she was transgendered".

With a bit of luck, the Russian police will prosecute this man - he deserves to be treated as any other murderer. The article was a little ambiguous about that bit.

This is why we need the hate crimes bill passed, why discrimination and hatred need to be legislated against. It's too damn easy for someone to say "well, the victim provoked me because they were transgendered!" That's not a reason, it's barely an excuse. It's saying "I can't control myself". It's saying "it's okay to be bigot - they're just trannies". It's not okay - it's never okay. People make their own choices in their own lives - no one gives anyone a license to kill them because some bigoted fool doesn't like some of those decisions!

Bigots and fools. They're the ones the transgender community should be working against.

Carolyn Ann

PS Oddly, a hat tip to Questioning Transphobia, I first saw the story there.