Frustrations

Warning: This rambles.

I'm sorry.

I'm tired - I've slept about 12 hours over the last 3 days. 9 of them last night.

I've been involved in arguments about this, that and the other for years. I've provided my opinion on all and sundry. And what I have is - a couple of communities that hate my guts, a corporation or two that wishes I would just go away, the loss of some so-called friends, a sense of futility and a desperate desire to be American.

I'll try and address all of those things.

But I'll start with the American bit. Not for any particular reason; it just happens to be the easiest. I want to be an American citizen. I want to be able to participate in America's political process. It's a messy process. It's an uneven one, and it's never fair - never mind high-minded! It is a process unlike any other in the world. I want to be a part of it. And due to some errors, blame attributable on a rotating basis, I am not. Yet.

I do love this nation, though. Make no mistake about that.

Okay, the other bits. They're a bit harder.

I hate the easy thinking that goes into "I am a woman", and the resounding applause that affirms "yes you are, if you say so". Need I point out this is lazy? It is the same thinking that lets some claim "cis" is not offensive - because those who use it say it isn't.

Excuse me?

The claim "I am a woman" has many thoughts behind it. Well, it should - but it rarely does.

I'd love to be a woman. I really would. I spent more time than is decent thinking of billowing sheets, and clothes, me in a frock, tending to the household and bearing child. I desperately hoped for divine intervention (there's an irony for you...) so I wouldn't be the 5 foot 11 inches I am. And quite hairy to boot. In 1976 I was hoping I would stop growing. In 1978 I was getting desperate. In 1977 I was trying to prove I was one of the guys. A budding Alan Shore, before he was invented. In 1980 I realized the truth - my dream of being the lass I saw was not to be.

I've been dealing with the aftermath ever since.

It was not to be - I was born a chap. A male. A guy. An object with a penis.

At some point in the early 80's I realized that I'd never be the daughter I wanted to be. I would always the son. My Mom asked "Are you gay?" "No", I said. Honestly, as it turned out. The question and the answer made me profoundly sad.

And then I met a girl. Oh, I'd been out with girls. Quite a few, as it happens. I'd never thought of going out with guys. Not because of some cultural thing - men just didn't do it for me. Friendship, sure. Going out with them? Yuech! Kissing them? I just beat the 4 minute mile. With 3 minutes to spare.

One of the most difficult decisions I ever made was not putting on a skirt for a lass I was seeing. She was hot, really hot, for some guy to put on a skirt and make out with her. Heck, she was Hot. I decided that satisfying her sexual proclivities was not in my best interest. Why? I don't know. I just know that it wasn't a good idea. If she had been someone else, I might have done it. But with her? I don't know.

[Deleted] You don't need to know that story.

Fast forward a few years.

I really don't know what gender I am. Perhaps I'm male. Perhaps I'm female? I look in the mirror and a man stares back.

If I went for SRS, or whatever the currently politically correct term is - would I be me? Or would I be someone else? A fantasy, perhaps? Or would I be Germaine Greer's "ghastly parody"? I have little doubt I would look like Greer's parody. I also know that I would not be a woman. I would be as close to a woman as I could get. But I would not be a woman.

It is, frankly, insulting to women to consider that a male could become a woman by either declaration and/or surgery. Becoming "not a man" via surgery does *not* make you a woman. Trying to say you are a woman because you opt to live the "life" of a woman - does not make you a woman. How the hell did we get into a prick-measuring content with people who either don't have them, or want them removed?

Yeah, yeah. I know current gender thinking negates what I say. I also know it makes me a bigot, and a pariah and even transphobic in some eyes. You know what? I don't give a damn.

Which is a heck of lot stronger than the inane "I don't give a fuck".

For the last 39 years I have battled with religion and gender. I am an atheist, and I am a man.

And before any Christian lunatic runs eagerly, shouting about my being cured - sod ya. I am "not cured". I met a woman whom I value beyond myself. That's all. She knows I'd rather be her wife. She wants a husband, and that's what I will be. I value her more than I value my life. (Don't ask. I do not make that claim lightly.)

I wish I could say "I am a woman, and an atheist". But the order is what it is. It is also regretful. I wish, sincerely, deeply, wish I were a woman. I don't play those "what if" games - but I am clearly not entirely happy as a man.

I beat severe depression without drugs. Hell, I beat a hospital staff. When you're locked up, somewhat voluntarily, and you know the world is simply out to get you - one of the few instances in my life where the world really was out to get me - you learn a new set of skills. Fortunately for me, those skills were developed long before I ever met the staff of Bellevue.

Wall St taught me many things. Confidence was one. Not the confidence of a Navy SEAL, or a British SAS soldier. I've met both, and I worked with an SAS guy. Heck, I was once taught some valuable survival skills by an ex-SAS chap. Wall St develops a different confidence - this is something the thriller writers neglect, or simply don't bother with. I *know* I am no good in a physical fight. (That doesn't stop me, however. Much to the chagrin of my wife.) No, the confidence Wall St gives you is different. It's a little more abstract. You want an international network? Capable of email, database queries, and other corporate stuff? I can do that. You want to move a zillion people to an undeveloped space, and provide for the technical future of your firm? I've done it, I know what is needed. (Which is why I demanded $180,000, not too long ago, for a similar project. It was rejected.)

Could I take on a half decent soldier? Heck, I couldn't take on someone rejected from basic. I was honest with chap I met last year - I told him I'd never won a physical fight. But that didn't stop me. (He was a Special Forces soldier, and he laughed. He appreciated my candor.) Likewise, I doubt a Navy SEAL would navigate the shoals and sheer inanity of a Wall St technical fight without frustration. He would, undoubtedly, wonder about the priorities of those involved. He would be right to. He would also be annoyed to find that "team" doesn't contain "I", whereas the mantra should be " 'I' doesn't contain team".

You know the worst of this? Most of my story would elicit cries of sympathy from the transgender community. If only I agreed with them on the important things. But I don't, and my experiences are subjected to ridicule. When I fight back, I am called a "bigot", a "transphobe" and other such words. I don't mind. No one has ever called me insincere.

Of late, I've alluded to a recent "debate". This individual decided it was reasonable to insult me, in a private email. She did not - and does not - have the courage, nor the strength and decency of character to apologize. She is so akin to so many within the transgender community.

Those so-called friends, the ones that asked to hang out with me. While I was popular for a moment. The couple I helped move; lugging heavy furniture because I wanted to help. Simply help. The few I said "let's go get drunk" to, and we did. I often paid. Fair weather? Try bright sunshine and hot temperature friends.

I don't need those friends. No one does.

Beware the friend you see in the mirror.

Once upon a time, I was beaten up for being friends with a black kid. It wasn't a severe beating; preteens simply can't deliver a thorough beating. I do remember a teacher telling us about growing up. He stood in front of a large group of teenage boys and told us that our days of futile fights were ending. We were developing into young men, and could do real damage to each other. I witnessed the damage men can do when I walked into a group kicking the crap out of some pure sod. Literally kicking him to death. They obviously thought I might recognize them, because they all ran, leaving this poor sod crying on the floor. I got a local landlord to fetch the ambulance. And I drank a pint.

It was a tough town.

It still is.

The cops barely interviewed me - the man lived, and that was that. Call it what you will. It was life. It was nigh on 30 years ago.

That's a milestone, perhaps.

I grew up hoping to be a housewife. Oh, I didn't have any interest in men. Never have. Probably never will. I just wanted to be a woman. A girl, initially. Between 6 and 15, I think "girl" counts. After that, we'll stick to "woman" or "young woman", as required.

Desperate glances at the girls, wanting to be one, and wanting to be with one. Oh, my. Little wonder I'm so confused.

Losing my virginity happened in one of those blazing moments the young love, and the older than try to cast in the best possible light. She was beautiful; the last I saw her - she still was. I laid there, hoping (for some strange reason) that she wouldn't look under my bed. Where I kept a velvet skirt and a satin top. Both pinched from a local store. Why would she look under my bed? Who knows? I was not exactly being logical. I'd just had the greatest orgasm of my life! I was, well, you don't need to know. [Although you can probably guess.]

One time, my parents came home - unexpectedly. I was wandering the back garden (it was a walled garden), and I heard them walking up the path. It was far longer from where I was to the front door, than they were. I not only made it to the door before they did, I was, erm, totally naked, too. I begged that I was getting a bath. I'm not sure the evidence was in my favor. A skirt, a pair of heels, stockings, panties, a bra and a blouse. Shoved into the first place I could find. Which happened to be the first place Mom looked. And she wasn't even looking. Oh well.

Here I am, 20 plus years later. Okay - 30 plus years later. Remembering some of the more awkward moments in my life. I do not forget the years I spent trying to be a man. I was quite good at it. I fooled myself for a long time, but not forever.

It was a little different, back then. The Internet had been invented a few years prior - I actually had an email address! (I could tell you how, but it's not relevant). I was trying out all these new things - smoking, getting laid, starting to drink, learning how to be a lad. It was quite a time. It was also tempered by this undying desire to be a girl. I desperately wanted to be a girl. Desperately.

I have no idea why I am telling you this. If I have any readers, most simply read to find something to be mad at me about. The rest don't really care. Some do care, but my guess - they are in the minority. It's cathartic, I guess.

I certainly don't write this story to be "liked". I've had enough of that. I still hate the lazy thinking that goes into "cis". I still despise the thoughtless arrogance that goes into "I am a woman".

I write because I do. Because it helps me figure out "stuff". I ride a motorcycle for the same reason. You ride across those endless plains, and see if your ideas hold. Most ideas won't, as it happens. There's something about the plains that encourages thought. I don't write about all the trips I take - I see no need to do so. But you get on a bike, face an uncertain but implacable enemy (that would be "car and truck drivers"), ride and ride and ride. And ride some more. Camp, on your own, with nothing but you, your tent and your bike. And a meal. :-) If your ideas remain relevant - good luck.

Get out there.

And think. Figure out what's important in your life. You're forced to, when no one else is around.

What a stupid way to end this post.

Carolyn Ann

Summarizing a thriller

Last night I read Patrick Robinson's latest thriller "Diamondhead". I could say it was a good read, but the best I can honestly manage is that I read it because I had to find out how far right and manipulative of reality Mr Robinson could get. Pretty far, as it happens.

Here's a summary:

1. Bosses are benevolent people, interested only in the welfare of those who work for them

2. CNN is a liberal network intent on bashing Republicans

2a. Fox News is the only worthwhile news channel

2b. The press, especially the NY Times, are liberal and anti-America because of, well because!

3. It's okay if the US takes the law into its own hands

3a. It's not okay if someone else does

3b. The US is incapable of developing general rules of engagement for asymmetrical war

4. The French are evil

4a. No they're not!

4b. They are incompetent

4c. No they're not!

4d. Yes they are - and they're evil, too!

4e. No they're not!

5. Morality necessarily has context

I finished the book thinking that #5 was an accident. The rest of the book deals with morality as a black and white issue: evil doers are evil, Americans are good. (Politicians are sort of evil, but not so much if they're Republican right wingers. French politicians are thoroughly evil, but not if they're pro-American. And so on.) Basically.

Dick Cheney would love this book. Newt Gingrich would probably be jealous he hadn't thought of it. John Ringo will see one of his characters redeployed. Don Rumsfeld could have used it a long time ago - it would have helped him plan the Iraq war. The far right will enjoy it.

For me, it was yet another simplistic adventure into irrational right wing demagogy. Disappointing is not a word I'd use to describe. That would imply an expectation that wasn't lived up to. I had little expectation, so I wasn't disappointed.

Carolyn Ann

Well, that was quite a day!

It started late - I didn't get to bed until about 4:30AM. Getting up a little before noon, the Mrs wanted to go fetch a NY Times. So we did that. I then decided to chop down a tree that had died - the top half of it was in the backyard, having been blown there in a recent storm. I cleared the debris, and chopped down the tree. It took ages to fall over!

I was thinking of using my chainsaw, but I couldn't find the chain lube, so I ended up doing it the old fashioned way - an ax and adze. At about 12" in diameter, and in a difficult location, it was bit of a bugger to cut down.

Half way through, I had to stop and solve a difficult MS Excel problem for the Mrs.

And then I had to dismantle the downstairs bathtub drain. It had gotten mysteriously blocked. I tried snaking it, but it proved easier to take it apart, clean it out and re-assemble it.

I think I'll jump into the tub with a bottle of beer or two, the NY Times Book Review and some bubble bath. :-)

Yeah, that was quite a day. I'm feeling a little tired, right now.

Carolyn Ann

Driving idiots

Today I came across two real doozies.

I often come across the careless, the negligent, the "I'm not tuned into the world right now, despite my 80MPH velocity up I295" and the downright vindictive. ("How dare you ride a motorcycle around me?")

But today, I came across two real doozies.

The first was a woman in a minivan. She was going to do 72MPH in the fast/overtaking lane. No matter what. Some twit in a white Honda decided he wouldn't do much more than that in the middle lane. Which left the slow lane for those doing 80 to 90. Somewhat concerned for my safety, I followed at a safe-ish distance - for about 5 or so miles, and then I decided my safety was best served by blasting past her as fast as I could. I achieved a fairly decent 3 figure velocity. About 10 minutes later - she passed me! Doing, need I say, about 72MPH in the fast lane.

The other one was driving a Ford Explorer. His left front tire was all but flat. How do I know? He was yacking on the phone as he overtook me - I was doing about 85 - on the inside. Something seemed odd - so I looked at the car. You do these things when a car veers toward you in a drunken lurch. I noticed the front tire - it was almost flat! I slowed down; heck - I almost pulled an emergency stop! I got onto the shoulder, and called it in - someone with a tire like that? They'll kill some sodding innocent. He could barely control the damn vehicle, the tire was so flat.

In the last week, I've helped the cops nab a drunk driver, almost been rammed when some idiot changed lanes, but at about 30 MPH slower than the lane I was in, seen someone drive at 72MPH in the fast lane and almost got wiped out by a fool with a flat.

The worst moment? When I pulled a real emergency stop, for the guy who pulled in front of me. And slowed down. He wanted to go from I295 to I76, but he neglected to check that the lane between the two roads was not occupied. With nowhere to go, I pulled that brake lever like I was trying to break it. (So to speak.) Heck, I even stomped on the non-existent rear brake. The guy behind me - his tires squealed as he couldn't eradicate forward motion as quickly as my Ducati. He then did his his level best to overtake me, so his passenger could give me the finger. What the heck did I do? Avoid ramming some idiot who pulled in front of me? I'll take a stupid gesture over a close examination of an unknown backseat - any day!

(I let him go - fools like that are likely to do something as equally stupid to the initial problem.)

There are plenty of times when I'm glad I can out-accelerate and out-brake pretty much anything on the road. But there are times when you wonder if sanity is a detriment. After all - when everyone else is insane...

Carolyn Ann

BT pensions

I worked at British Telecom long enough to qualify for their pension program. A decade or so shy of full benefits, I qualified for some "to be determined" stipend. It was one of the things we fought over - the union and the managers. How much to put into the pension fund, and whether those who came before us deserved the same percentage. (Of course they did!)

So it was with a thudding sound - that was the sound of my confidence in British Telecom funding its pension obligation hitting the basement floor - that I read that BT (as it is now called) is so overstretched it can barely keep up with its current pension obligations!

At considerable personal expense, I supported the privatization of the telephone business in Britain. I sincerely thought it was the right thing for the industry and the consumer. I still think it's the right thing. I tried my best to get the old hardliners to see the future, but in the end, I was shallow. I opted out. I got fed up of the arguments about what used to be, and how evil management was. (No one had to tell me that. Now I've been a manager, no one can tell me that.)

But through it all, I considered my BT pension to be a solid thing.

Now I find that we were lied to - the pension wasn't guaranteed in the original privatization agreements. BT basically promised they would fund the pensions - but now they are arguing that they are exempt from any regulation, or expectation, because the fund was allowed to invest in risky securities? Heck, it turns out they said they would outperform expectations simply because they invested in the aforementioned risky assets.

Well, on the bright side - I don't have to worry about collecting my BT pension. I simply wonder if the company itself will be around!

BT is now 28th in the world. I can recall the wondrous prophecies - BT would be the Number One telecommunications company in the world. Heck, they even made a foray into Wall St - with a product that was so out of date it basically got laughed at. (Full disclosure: they ticked me off when they expected me to recommend it to a once major Wall St firm, because I used to work for BT.) So much for their ambition.

So much for my pension.

Damn it! I paid into that fund.

Carolyn Ann

He knows death a little too well

She sits there,

stroking her cat

staring at his chair

wishing he were there

sitting in it

But he isn't

he died, yesterday

and will no longer sit

in that chair

and grumble at the world

She never doubted his love

for her

and she loved him

more than either knew

but she sits in her chair

and strokes her cat

a white cat

"mean white cat"

she's called

by those who know her

His grandkids are

left out

sleeping on their

aunty's living room floor

while Mom mourns

and Dad comforts

but he knows death a little

too well

===

Carolyn Ann

I wondered if I should call this "so many years ago" It was over 2½ decades ago. But I decided to leave it as "He knows death a little too well"

The middle aged queer speaketh

There comes a point in life, I guess, where you realize that some things simply won't change. The young will never perceive irony. Heck - I'm not sure some of them even know what it is. They're as likely to try and identify it on a map as try and figure out Steve Buscemi's line in "Con Air". (The one where he observed that irony of a bunch of death-row inmates dancing, on an airplane, to a song sung by a group that died in an airplane crash.)

Hell, the young think themselves immortal. Good job, too - how else would the scared old Republicans get them to go to war?

Carolyn Ann

Holy smokes!

This is my first post from Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

Holy smokes! It's fast. It's ... small! I've installed the new OS and iLife 09 - and I still have 14 GB more than when I started. And that's with installing Rosetta - the thing that lets me run Office 2004.

The purchase process was straightforward - smallish displays in the Apple store caught my eye. I grabbed the box I needed (I was really disappointed it didn't have that amazing picture of a snow leopard on it. Well, it does, but it's really small. No points to Apple for mediocre box design), headed to find a cable I needed (they didn't have it), and then finally found someone willing to take my credit card. They had an area set up for this express purpose; it all felt a little clinical. Call me arbitrary (I've been called worse), but I do like the touchy-feely, "take time for a chat" nature of business in an Apple Store. I really, really don't want to feel like I've just bought a can of soda at a gas station.

Of the 7 people in blue T-shirts I spotted, not a one approached us. (I was there with the Mrs.) Put me out a bit, it did.

What was also a little off-putting: we went to Borders, and they didn't have a single book about Snow Leopard. Not a one. A fairly obvious marketing opportunity, neglected. Heck, if I ran Apple's marketing department, I'd have Apple people positioned in nearby bookstores, selling the books and the software as a package deal! Plenty of book publishers will come out with books about the thing (it's really quite advanced), but not on the day the software came out. Indeed, Apple's OS release seemed to be, well, lackluster.

Perhaps it was the $30 price tag?

Buying a new Mac operating system should be an event. It shouldn't be like buying some groceries. Windows? Sure - it is a commodity. But OS X? It's a lifestyle statement - it should be treated as such!

Getting home, I decided to watch some more Boston Legal and then install the software.

It wasn't a fast install - it's taken about 2 hours, so far. But blimey, the OS is FAST! Finder is now within reach of the 21st century. I haven't tried iPhoto, but will in a minute.

Added: Overall, it was an easy install. The sort you expect. Well, maybe not if you're used to Windows, Solaris and Linux. Perhaps I should have said "the sort I hoped for when I regularly had to install Windows, Solaris and Linux" on various machines. Especially Solaris.

Speaking of which - I notice ZFS did not make into the consumer OS X. I have read it was in the server version. That's so inane. ZFS (I have no idea what it stands for) is a file system that presents disks as folders. To put it simplistically. Very simplistically. It's quite sophisticated, and extremely useful from both the users' viewpoint, and the system administrator's. Although I'm sure it gives far more headaches to sysadmins than it does to users. :-)

And now to install iWork. Hmm... [Added] Well, that was easier than I thought it would be. And I now have 13GB more disk space than when I started. I was down to about 54GB, and now it's showing 67 and bit. I don't remember that ever happening. I've been in the network/computer business for two decades and I don't recall that ever happening. I've had OS installs fail because there wasn't enough disk space, but I've never had one that left more disk space. Goodness me.

Carolyn Ann

A new world government?

That most fearful thing - a world government - is on the doorstep. It will swoop in, probably in black helicopters, and take over the entire world. And the United States, too.

Fools, conspiracy theorists and far right demagogues consider this a real possibility. Heck, quite a few of them are arrogant, and obtuse, enough to consider Obama to be a leader in the aforementioned Illuminati-driven plot. (Please: don't look for sense in this sort of nonsense.)

What they don't stop to consider is the disparity in privacy standards (driven by culture and legal conventions), online piracy, and that most hated of all things: societal changes. Those are clearly driven by this secretive cabal, and will culminate in some dastardly plot. I fully expect "GI Joe" to assume its erm, "rightful" place on the shelves of conspiracy nuts, racists and other fools. Right aside that Patrick Swayze classic "Red Dawn". (It's a favorite, apparently, of the "they're all out to get us" crowd.)

Canada has forced Facebook to change its privacy settings. Its users forced it to review its user policies. (Well, I use the term lightly - until the user community forced the adoption of a policy, its user policy didn't exist.) Just as an aside - imagine: all this, and they still haven't figured out how to make money!

Europe, if memory serves, told MySpace to make some changes.

And then there's the Internet, itself.

I think the transgender internet experience shows the way. More than even the atheist experience. There now exists a fairly tight knit international transgender community. This couldn't exist in the 1990's; heck, I doubt it could exist even as recently as 2004. 2005 and the next few years seemed to be the turning point for many online communities. But one thing I've noticed in the transgender internet community: borders and oceans are irrelevant. Indeed, they are not so much a factor to be noted as a factor that is ignored.

This hasn't happened in the atheist community because of widely (wildly?) varying customs within nations. So while the atheists have sort of banded together, and there (frankly) many more atheists than transgender individuals, their shared experiences are quite different in many ways. This is not, to be sure, a way of saying "your experience is less valid than mine". The atheist community is, necessarily, learning that what might motivate an American atheist is definitely going to be different what makes someone from a Muslim nation an atheist. Especially when the American can proclaim their atheism, and the atheist in Saudi Arabia will be stoned to death.

(It's also not to compare the two communities in such a simplistic manner, either. A transwoman in Saudi Arabia is still dead after being stoned - regardless of her beliefs.)

What I mean, he quickly explains, is that the transgender "experience" seems to be similar enough throughout the world that a shared experience is precisely that. A man wearing a dress for the first time in public is prone to the same dangers regardless of where he lives. (Yes, the wording is deliberate. If you object: get over it.)

I think it shows how the world will, slowly, become more unified. American privacy standards - essentially non-existent - will come into line with European and Canadian standards. Europe and Canada will, likely as not, start to move toward the US model of innovation, and hiring practices. Other things will start to become more uniform. Things like fiscal philosophies, ideas of about individual responsibility (I'm not terribly hopeful about that one), judicial processes and decisions will continue to be more uniform, globally. Stuff like that.

There's no conspiracy behind it all. Theorists and Hollywood blockbusters notwithstanding. It will happen because the Internet is enabling a shared experience. The world is not devolving into individual communities. (Despite Fox News and various right and left wing efforts to the contrary.) It is evolving into what it is - an amalgam of shared ideas. Paradoxically, the individual will become more important, and the extremist less. That's (simplistically) why we're seeing so much extremism in the world: the search for relevance, a search for individual and community, culture in a world that is changing, and unifying, with ever increasing rapidity.

America is not taking over the world. And the world is not taking over America. What is happening is much more profound, and much, much more interesting.

Carolyn Ann

A gender neutral pronoun, and a book review :-)

Occasionally, there is a debate within the transgender community about gender-neutral pronouns. The favored solution seems to be the highly artificial, very uncomfortable, "ze". Here's a suggestion, and it comes from established English: "they".

(To be honest, I can't remember what "hir" is supposed to mean. That strange word could, potentially, be included in this point.)

According to Patricia O'Connor and Stewart Kellerman, in their book "Origins of the Specious, Myths and misconceptions of the English language", the term "they" was the original gender-neutral singular pronoun.

Borrowed from Old Norse in the early 1200's, it started out as a plural. A century later, it was being used in the singular to refer to a generic person. A quote from Chaucer is supplied: And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame, / They wol come up and offre on goddes name." (Translated: And whoever finds himself without such blame, / They will come up and offer in God's name.)

It wasn't until 1795, apparently, that some busy body decided that it was unacceptable as a singular pronoun. By 1828, Webster had "they/their/them" as strictly plural.

Ms O'Connor (the book is written in her voice) does note that certain dialects retain the singular. Northern English speakers certainly did when I was growing up. In fact, it took a bit of effort for me to stop using those pronouns as either plural or singular. (Thinking on some of the things I've written, I'm not sure I ever cured myself of the habit!)

If you have any interest in the English language, I thoroughly recommend this tome. This might be considered a snide comment, but it's not offered as such: considering how much effort the transgender community spends on language and its manipulation and the perceptions of it, it probably should be considered required reading.

Highly recommended.

Carolyn Ann

Adobe, Apple and Ire

3 days before Apple releases Snow Leopard - Adobe tells everyone, in a blog post, that they don't know if their CS3 suite works with Snow Leopard.

Nice.

CS3 is that wonderful graphic design/web design/whatever design package that costs about a thousand or more dollars. It's been superseded by CS4, but that's less than a year old. Lots of people decided that CS4 on the Mac didn't have enough features and/or too high a price tag to upgrade.

Now the real big problem - Adobe's Photoshop Elements 6 for the Mac (PSE) is also not supported. Considering that CS3 cost thousands, and PSE cost about $70 or $90 - I forget which - how many copies of each do you think Adobe sold? You can buy them both in the Apple Store.

In late 2006 I bought a Macbook. My intention was to upgrade it in a couple of years, as I had done for every computer I'd bought in the past decade and a half. My financial circumstances changed, along with about a few million other people. I can't afford to upgrade my Macbook.

When I bought the computer, with OS X 10.4 Tiger on it, I also bought Dreamweaver 8. For $800. A little later I upgraded to OS X 10.5 Leopard. And now my Dreamweaver disk is the most expensive coaster I've ever used. On a per-disk basis, it out-prices some of the multi-thousand dollar software packages I've bought for corporations. Dreamweaver doesn't work under Leopard - and Adobe's answer, at the time and still, is "oh, go away". Accompanied by a suggestion that perhaps a few hundred more dollars, for the latest version, will help make the problem go away.

My financial situation hasn't improved in the intervening period. I still have no hope of affording nigh on $2,500 for Adobe's CS4 suite. Like many people out there. When you run a one-man (or whatever) shop, money tends not to grow on trees.

For my purposes, I could do with the CS4 design suite - it would make my life considerably easier. But there's no way I can afford that price tag. What makes it especially unjustifiable is my experience with Dreamweaver 8. That was painful, and only a fool allows themselves' to be bitten the same way, twice. (Insert applicable political jokes here...)

There are going to be a lot of people who will install Snow Leopard, with a reasonable expectation that their copy of Photoshop Elements 6 for Mac, which isn't an old bit of software, will work. Some, like me, will be doing a large upgrade; I have figured out how to afford the $170 for the Snow Leopard box set, and will be getting iPhoto 9 and iWork, too. But Photoshop Elements will have to be abandoned.

(I used PSE on a lot of my Across America photos.)

Could I use GIMP? Perhaps. It's got the same user-interface problems. More X-Windows and MS-Windows than I like, these days. I won't know until I re-install it.

What I do know is that Adobe has been negligent, careless, feckless and ignorant to its customers. They've known this upgrade was coming. They should have tested CS3 with it, and got it working - indeed, according to some interpretations, they have an obligation under European consumer laws to do that.

John Nack writes an official blog for Adobe. He got the brunt of the frustration. Mostly because Adobe didn't see fit to actually respect their customers, and tell them upfront. No emails, no announcements on their web page, no nothing. Well, not exactly nothing: an obscure reference that requires Google to find would tell you what you need to know. Or at least what Adobe thinks you need to know. Mr Nack was pummeled, sometimes it seemed it wasn't a virtual pummeling but a real one, because he was the only person actually saying anything to Adobe's customers. His management deserve a derisive hoot for their amazing support, or, more accurately - lack thereof.

Adobe is in an unique position - it doesn't have any real competition. If it did have any, it's either bought them, or they've simply gone away. Which might explain its arrogance, but certainly doesn't excuse it.

It now has a major PR job to do. It has lost a lot of credibility, and it has lost the trust of its customers. Even a monopoly can't survive that. But mostly - what Adobe has (not) done is indecent. I sincerely hope Adobe's arrogance has spurred some people into developing competing products. Adobe doesn't deserve to be in business if they continue treating their customers with such disdain.

To put it bluntly: Adobe has a lot to apologize for. It also has a lot to do to win back customer trust. Adobe doesn't deserve to be in business if they continue treating their customers with such disdain. It will take a lot for me to spend any more money with them.

Carolyn Ann

PS I recommended they get in touch with Valeria Maltoni. But I fear even someone as talented and brilliant as she could not help Adobe. They seem to be beyond reproach.

The New and Improved Great Cis Debate

Added: apparently, because I didn't bother checking if the "cis" version of the word I picked existed or not, I replicated some valid words, mangling their meaning in the process. :-) I've decided to leave the post as-is: because I like the irony of my mangling a definition when it's coupled with the mangling of definition leads to "cisgender" being considered a perfectly acceptable term.

I'm playing with the idea of putting a [mangled] onto those words. Votes and opinions will sway me; those from anonymous cowards won't. But it is thanks to an anonymous coward that this little irony was brought to my attention. And no, I've never heard of cisalpine - it apparently does exist. Who knew? (Plenty, except me...) :-)

Carolyn Ann

=====

I will now apply the prefix "cis" to replace "trans" on some words. I will use the same definition of "cis" as used by those who argue it is perfectly acceptable English. That definition is "on this side of". [Added: I should add that the transcommunity uses a slightly different definition: they prefer "the same as, matching",which isn't quite accurate - but since when has accuracy been a concern of for the transactivist? The ciscommunity - if such thing could be said to exist - has no such concerns. They're as inaccurate as anyone else... Erm, okay.... :-) ]Occasionally I will also venture into "ultra": extreme, beyond, on the other side of. Where I've thought it useful, or just amusing, I've reworded the example from the dictionary.

This is not a comprehensive list. I should mention that because there are a few pedants out there. I simply looked through a dictionary - The New Oxford American Dictionary edition that comes with the Mac OS X Leopard operating system - picking few words at random. It's on some sort of order, but occasionally you'll find something out of sequence, simply because, well - simply because.

Let the definitions begin. :-)

Cis-fat. Alt: trans-fat. Noun. Another term for cis-fatty acid. Presumably, a cis-fatty acid would be a saturated fatty acid. Or it could be some sort of alkali. It's probably got a cis arrangement of the carbon atoms lying in the same plane. I don't for sure, but if I had to guess - that doesn't make sense.

Cisonic. Alt: transonic. Adjective. Denoting or relating to speeds nowhere near the speed of sound. Something that is transonic is transitioning through the "sound barrier". Ergo, something that is cisonic isn't...

Ultrasonic is actually a word. Anyone who's had anything to do with audio systems knows this.

Cisaction. Alt: Transaction. Noun. An instance of not buying or selling something; not a business deal. You go into the bank and conduct transactions; when you enter the bank and just stand there like a potted plant, you're conducting a cisaction. You could also be arrested for loitering and/or casing the place. Not an exchange between two people: intellectual cisactions happen when the students are sleeping through the lecture. Cisactions (unpublished reports) could also be the non-publication of meetings of a learned society. Groups such as the IEEE publish their "transactions" - volumes of reports about something. Ergo, a cisaction is when they don't publish reports about something.

Cis-Canada Highway. Alt: Trans-Canada Highway. That highway that doesn't cross Canada.

Cisalpine. Alt: Transalpine. Adjective. Not of, nor related to, nor even situated in the area beyond the Alps. And especially not as viewed from Italy.

I'm having fun with this. :-)

Cisaxle. Alt: transaxle. Noun. Not even possible. A transaxle is an "integral driving axle and differential gear in a motor vehicle". The bit from the differential to the wheel is a "half shaft". You simply can't have a "cisaxle". Oh well.

Cisceiver. Alt: transceiver. Noun. A device that can only transmit or receive, not both. We generally call these "transmitters" or "receivers".

Ciscend. Alt: Transcend. Verb [transitive] [sic...]. To remain within the range or limits of (anything at all). This was an issue ciscending party politics. In other words: it was an issue relevant to one political party.

Ciscendentalism. Alt: Transcendentalism. Presumably this would be a rationalist philosophy. It would teach that divinity pervades nothing and would not be at all progressive re feminism and communal living. Or it could be a refutation of Immanual Kant: in order to understand the nature of reality, you must never examine or analyze the reasoning process that governs the nature of experience. I'm not even sure that makes sense. (Of course, one could argue that ciscendentalism (my spell checker is having a fit) reasonably describes fundamentalist religions.

Ciscode. Alt: Transcode. Verb [transitive] [oy vey]. To not convert (language or information) from one form of coded representation to another.

Cisconductance. Alt: Transconductance. Noun. The ratio of the lack of change in current at the output terminal to the lack of change in the voltage at the input terminal of an active device. The lass mathematically inclined, the ratio should be 1, implying no change whatsoever. In other words: If you come across, or up with, a cisconductive system, patent it immediately. You've just invented the perfect lossless system, perpetual motion, and probably cold fusion, too.

Ciscribe. Alt: Transcribe. Verb [transitive] [not again!]. To not put (thoughts, speech or data) into written or printed form: each interview was not taped or transcribed.

Ciscript. Alt: Transcript. Noun. Not a written or printed version of material originally presented in another medium. Alternatively, a written or printed version of material originally presented in the same medium. Biology: a length of DNA or RNA that has not been transcribed respectively from a DNA or RNA template. Or it could be not the official record of a student's work, showing courses taken and grades achieved. A longer version might be an official record of all the courses a student didn't take, and the grades they didn't achieve.

Ciscultural. Alt: Transcultural. Adjective. Relating to one, and only one, culture: the possibility of ciscultural understanding.

I think my spell checker needs therapy.

Cisdifferentiation. Alt: Transdifferentiation. Noun. The transformation of cells other than stem cells into the same cell type. Huh? Perpetual life, anyone?

Cisducer. Alt: Transducer. Noun. A device that converts nothing into nothing. No, it can't be a device that converts electricity into a physical quantity of something. Those are called transducers, too.

Cisect. Alt: Transect. Verb [transitive] [my head hurts]. Not to cut across, or make a transverse (or even cisverse) section in.
Noun. Not a straight line or narrow section through an object or natural feature and definitely not across the earth's surface.

Cisept. Alt: Transept. Noun. (in a cross shaped church) it's neither of the two parts forming the arms of the cross shape. It doesn't project at any angle from the nave.

Cisfer. Alt: Transfer. Verb [transitive] [...]. Keep (someone or something) in one place: he would have to cisfer money to his own account. In other words, he'd have to, well, not do anything with the money in his account.

Cisfigure. Alt: Transfigure. Verb [transitive] [aspirin, please]. Not to transform into something more beautiful or elevated: the world is not made more luminous and is cisfigured. Alternatively, it could be to transform into something uglier, or derogatory: the world is made darker and is cisfigured. Astronomers and other lovers of the night might object to that one.

Cisfinite. Alt: Transfinite. Adjective. [Whew!]. Within the bounds of the finite. Transforming the mathematical definition doesn't look possible.

Oy. This could go on forever. I think I'll cut to:

Cisitive [Yah!] Alt: Transitive. Adjective [Double Yah!] Grammar (of a verb, or a sense or use of a verb) not able to take a direct object (expressed or implied). eg Erm. I can't think of one. Intransitive is the "look" in "look at the sky"; transitive is "saw" in "he saw the donkey". What the heck would a cisitive noun or verb be?

Cisition. Alt: Transition. Noun. The process or a period of not changing from one state or condition to another: students cisitioned from one program to the same program... Huh?
Verb. Not undergo or cause to undergo a process or period of transition: the network ought to be built by the government and then kept by them. Talk about a non-sequitur.

Cisport. Alt: Transport. Verb [transitive] [Hurrah!]. To not take or carry (people or goods) from one place to another: the bulk of the freight traffic was cisported. In other words: it was left exactly where it was.
Noun. Not a system or means of conveying people or goods from place to place by some sort of vehicle. Or it could be a means of not conveying people or goods from one place to any other. Which translates to a system for leaving people or goods exactly where you found them.

I was going to do Cisport hub, but the connotations gave me a headache. I'll leave that one to you.

Cisportable. Alt: Transportable. Adjective. Not able to be carried or moved. [Historical] (of an offender or an offense) not punishable by transportation. Erm: some offenses, offenders, were not punishable, punished, by shipping them off to Australia or Canada. Those would be cisportable offenses/offenders.

Cisporter [Star Trek]. A fictional device that didn't convert anyone to energy. Nor did it shoot that energy somewhere else, and reform the person (rematerialization). In fact, a cisporter does nothing.

Cispose. Verb [transitive] [who cares?]. 1. Cause (two or more thing) to not change places with each other: the caption describing the two state flowers were accidently cisposed. Meaning: the right caption was under the right flower. Or if they'd been accidently transposed, no one did anything to correct the mistake, or no one noticed it. Or something like that.

Cissubstantiate. Alt: Transubstantiate. Verb [Transitive] [I'm getting a headache wondering if these should be cisitive]. Christian theology. Or not. Not converting (the substance of the Eucharist elements) into the blood of Christ. In other words: that really is moldy bread and blackberry juice you're consuming. A Satanic theology might repurpose the word to mean something more suited to a cheap and tacky horror movie.

Cisverse. Alt: Transverse. Adjective. Not situated, or not extending across something: a cisverse beam supports damn little.

Sorry, can't resist this one:
Cisvestite. Alt: Transvestite. Noun. A person, typically a man, who derives no pleasure from dressing in clothes appropriate to the opposite sex. Alternatively, it could be a person, typically of either or any gender, who enjoys wearing clothes appropriate to their sex.

And that concludes my survey of transforming "trans" to "cis". :-)

Carolyn Ann

Great Senators

America's Congress has a habit of creating truly great senators. Those individuals who put the nation before ideology, or successfully mix their ideology and what is in the national interest. That would not be the current crop of Republicans, nor the Blue Dog Democrats.

You see, to be a great senator, you need to have a wider vision of your role within the political structure of the nation. You have to have a clue. Not a guidebook to the demagoguery of a rabid right wing talk show host. You need more than feeble compliance with an increasingly erratic fringe element - you need to be able to stand up to the fools and belittlers and state your case.

I think a comprehensive respect for the establishment you work in is fairly important. An understanding of the Constitution would be helpful - not a right wing understanding, but a true comprehension of what the Framers might have meant. That comes from reading books about the thing.

But the most important thing a great senator should always have? The knowledge that he or she is elected to an important role. One that owes more to its constituents than any particular ideology, or rabid right wing talk show host. A senator always acknowledges, and understands that they have the public trust in their hands. They need to be very careful with it - and not just obstruct progress because that's so easy to do.

Somehow, I don't think the Blue Dogs and the Republicans have figured all of this out. They will never be great. They might achieve mediocrity. If they're lucky.

Carolyn Ann

Muttering to myself

Ah, so much to write about. And I can't think of a single thing to write about. :-)

I'd try artificial concepts in the English language, but I think I've poked enough fun at that, and its adherents, for one night. I could try ambiguous definitions - but that tends to annoy some. I'm not inclined to irritate simply because it might be fun.

I could write about some foreign policy effort or initiative - but the trans community seems to be fixated on trans issues. Perhaps I should do the same? Nah. While some of the problems are interesting, not all of them are.

Ted Kennedy? People much more knowledgeable than I have that one covered. Ah. I've got my topic. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Cisfixed on meaning?

English, I am constantly reminded, is language forever in flux. New words and concepts come into being, and into usage with alacrity.

So I want to declare, here and now, that I am cisfixed on the whole "cis" debate. Because the concepts it purports to explain are facetious, egregious and plain old lazy. Those who claim "cisgender" is reasonable English have no one to blame but themselves when they fail in their efforts to precisely define anything. It's a false concept, a made up word that has, unfortunately, a better than even chance of surviving. I sincerely hope it never makes it into general usage.

Carolyn Ann

What's wrong with this "picture"?

A dead Anna Nicole Smith gets wall to wall coverage. A dead Michael Jackson gets wall to wall, floor to ceiling, global coverage. A reality show contestant (allegedly) kills his beautiful wife, and the TV follows the story to the ends of the Earth. Or at least Canada.

Ted Kennedy dies and simply gets a few mentions.

Ah - now the TV tributes are starting.

Carolyn Ann

Guns & Protesting the President

The thought did occur to me that in the Bush/Cheney years, anyone bringing a gun to a protest would have been immediately locked up.

In those years, the Secret Service locked up protesters who had the audacity to disagree with the President. If any of those people had carried guns, they'd still be waiting for a lawyer! Heck - one or two individuals were arrested for simply carrying signs, or yelling nasty things at Cheney.

But now it's okay to bring a gun to a Presidential happening. I wonder if these idiots know how many guns are trained on them? One wrong move, and they're history. Legitimately so - the Presidential Detail of the Secret Service is not bound the same rules as other law-enforcement bodies. They are perfectly within their rights, indeed are trained, to shoot first and ask questions later.

(As an aside, I don't get the protesters - Obama has made no move to restrict guns. He's not likely to, either. They're protesting a fiction!)

Just because it's legal for these foolhardy fools to bring guns to a Presidential happening doesn't mean they should. Of all the things that can be counted as "not a wise thing to do", this has to be near the top of the list!

Carolyn Ann

Have the Republicans gone too far?

I must confess: I think they have. I think the turning point came when people started bringing guns to the protests. While guns are a hot topic, it strikes me that many think reasonable people don't bring weapons to a peaceful protest. It seems as if the gun-bringers are trying to cause violence, and people don't want that.

Then they look at the lunatics, getting all lathered up - they might as well be frothing at the mouth - and people conclude that the various claims are as outrageous as they appear. People just don't want to be associated with lunatics.

To be sure, it seems a little less than half the people are not happy with the proposed reforms - but their concerns are grounded in the real world. Not in some abstract and false notion of "death panels". Overall, I think more people want reform than don't - but what shape that reform should have is still open to debate.

Well, it sort of is. Now that the Dems have decided to start challenging the more virulent - kudos to Barney Frank for showing the way - claims, they seem to be dissipating. We're certainly not seeing them get their 15 minutes; I don't know - perhaps Fox News is still broadcasting and encouraging them?

Getting health care reform was never going to be easy. But it has to be done - it's no longer an issue of "socialism" or (more ridiculously) "fascism" - it's a matter of American competitiveness. How can American firms compete in the global marketplace when they're saddled with huge health care bills? How can the American worker (and pensioner) stay current with inflation when all their pay rises go into health care premiums that rise faster, much faster, than inflation?

It's going to take a lot more effort to get a decent health care reform passed - but I think the Republicans shot their big cannon. And now they have nothing left in their arsenal.

America doesn't like extremists. Never has, never will.

Carolyn Ann

Senator Ted Kennedy

I can't add anything to tributes. He struck me as a good man, and he certainly seemed to be a tireless one!

America lost one of its few remaining real statesmen and Senators.

Carolyn Ann

An outed blogger

In a case that should have anonymous bloggers, and especially anonymous trolls, worried - a court ordered Google to name a potentially libelous blogger. In her blog, Rosemary Port called a model, Liskula Cohen, a "skank". The model was a little upset, and sued to get Google to name the blogger. Which they did.

Free speech advocates shouldn't be in a quandary over this one. It's actually a fairly simple case: bloggers use Google's services. Google is a private company, not a public utility. Its subsidiary, Blogger, has a service agreement - you have to agree to it, simply to use the service. There is no negotiation. As part of that service agreement, you agree that if a lawful authority demands to know who you are - your name and other supplied details will be released.

Now, this has a downside. When the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida, went after a blogger, it was on spurious grounds. The entire case that led to the outing of Thomas Rich is rife with improprieties, conflicts of interest and legal justification. It was basically a transgression of Mr Rich's Constitutional Rights.

The case against naming Ms Port, has no constitutional privilege, and there isn't any legal protection for Ms Port. There's a vague, and contradictory, application to moral standing - Ms Port feels that her right to remain anonymous was violated. If she was using public services - I'd agree. She wasn't. She was using a private, commercial, service. She also made defaming statements.

While public figures, necessarily, have a much harder time proving - even arguing - that they have been defamed, this doesn't really apply, here. Ms Cohen is not a public figure in the way a politician is; it could be argued that she is "incidentally public", but no one argued that because she isn't. Her lawyer didn't argue anything to do with her fame. He simply requested a judge tell Google to name the person making defaming comments against another private individual. That is not protected territory.

It could be argued that the law hasn't caught up with the Internet. It could be argued that services such as Blogger should be considered as street corners, or Hyde Park Corner, where people have been pontificating about all and sundry for decades. I disagree with this because I don't want my acre of woodland to be a free speech zone - I want to have some control over who is allowed on it, and what others can say on it. I don't want some Republican, Bible-Thumper or anti-abortionist being legally protected if they put a sign on my property. I want to be able sue them for trespass.

Google is in a similar position. Their Blogger service has, as stated policy, a very liberal approach to free speech. They don't willingly censor anyone's words. Such a policy is admirable, but being a commercial concern, and not a public utility - they also have to protect themselves. Their policy is not just benevolence, it is the same policy bookstores and libraries implement. If they actively reviewed what millions of bloggers wrote - they would be liable if something fell through the cracks, or if they allowed some speech that appeared to be opinion, but was in fact libel or slander.

In addition, they are forced to reveal information when a legal authority requests it. Court cases have decided that, and will continue to decide that. Simply because they are not a public utility. If they didn't collect such information, no one could force them to do so. But they do, and it can be demanded. The crux of the matter is that Google is not your desk drawer: the authorities need a warrant, and a valid argument why they need access to your desk drawer. What is within your desk drawer is not public. What you write on a blog is public, and is held on servers that are privately owned. Even if your blog has a restricted readership of just the writer - the fact that it is held on privately owned servers makes any privacy claims moot. If it were held on your server - it would be same as your desk drawer.

Now, the authorities can't go into your residence and open your desk drawer to find out if you're writing things critical of government, politicians or pastors. They need evidence of a crime, and not just a whim. That's where Thomas Rich is on solid ground, and the Jacksonvilel Sheriff's Dept isn't. They're standing on moral, ethical and Constitutional quicksand. Ms Port, on the other hand, is not the authorities. She's a private individual, requesting information she reasonably expected Google to have. The Constitutional standard that the Jacksonville Sheriff failed doesn't apply.

Interestingly, if the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville had not involved a government agency, it becomes really difficult to figure out if they could request Mr Rich's name. I doubt they would be able to get it, because they are not incidentally public, they have a standing that does allow others to make critical comment and Mr Rich was merely critical, not defamatory. (They might disagree, but so far I've not seen any argument that supports any such claim.)

All in all, it's quite cut and dried. Make an anonymous statement that is defamatory - and you can be named, and you can be sued. The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to defame someone in that manner. It might seem wrong, but it isn't. The Constitution gives the mall owner the right to eject you because they don't like your political T-shirt, but the 14th Amendment prevents them from ejecting you simply because they don't like your skin color. There's a substantial moral difference between the two. (I wonder what the implications for transgender individuals is. I'll have to think about that one. Opinions are welcome!) Likewise, Google can deny you the benefit of their services because of any number of reasons. In this case they didn't deny Ms Port anything except her mistaken belief that Google's servers were a public utility.

Morally, Ms Port should have been more attentive to her words. Ethically, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. Constitutionally, she has no protection whatsoever. Ms Port got, in my opinion, her just desserts.

Carolyn Ann

I can't sleep

Can you guess?

Not much to write about. I've done a lot of programming over the last few weeks. For a break, I did a lot of motorcycling over the weekend. By gum - there's a lot of motorcyclists out there. I wonder where half of them go, in the winter? :-)

I was chatting with a chap this evening, he on his bike, me having taken the wife's car. And it was a beautiful night for a ride, but a couple of 30lb cans of kitty litter don't exactly fit on a Ducati. Sure, I could have taken another bike... The Vespa has a blown tire (that was an interesting experience...), and the Royal Enfield continues to be plagued with starter motor ailments. And 60 pounds of kitty litter doesn't fit on either bike, either. (I've had a desire to write that for the longest time! :-D )

Anyway, this chap and I chatted. And chatted. And chatted. Getting two bikers together is a bit like getting two old friends together. We catch up. Even if we have never seen each other before. All you need is that sense of humor that comes of too many close calls with idiots, and a firm desire to know the other guys' riding stories.

Biker stories are like fishing stories. The minnow that got away was actually a whale. But there's a difference - biker stories are, well, fun. (Need I state I'm not a fisherman?) :-) We use hand gestures to emphasize a point, provide spacing, and basically to tell our stories. We have favored embellishments - Big Foot might have been chasing you, but you never admit to having seen him do so! And we macho up. It does no good to admit "I was a little scared by the Tail of the Dragon"; that's not exactly going to light up the conversation. Heck - first time I did those 318 curves in 11 miles, I'd just looked at a bit of bike that had "RIP" written on it! Not exactly confidence inspiring. Actually, it was the second time I did The Dragon. But I got on my bike, and rode it. I've done The Dragon a few times, now. I can prop a bar and regale you with anecdotes, learned and experienced, all night. Others can do the same.

The other week, I had a great ride. I was just meandering along the highway at about 80, when some chap passed me. Doing about 100. I liked his bike, and I figured "why not?" I caught up with him, and passed him. I hit an indicated 130, but decided that the road wasn't made for those velocities. Then I dropped back and we rode together for about 10 or 15 miles, before I peeled off. It was a nice ride; two bikers, just riding along. I waved to him, at 90MPH (5,000RPM in 6th), and he waved back as his engine took a sharp turn to the faster. He was gone in an instant.

On the other hand, I came across a guy the other day I veered off to go about 5 miles out of my way to avoid him. He was erratic. Not just "learner erratic" - but "I'm high" erratic. When cops pull motorcycles over, they don't pull the one guy over. They get anyone riding along, too.

Some don't like bikes. Many haven't ridden them. One thing is for sure - the more uptight someone is, the less likely it is they have been on a bike. I guess that's it - the ... Okay, I won't go there. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Nice scotch, this Macallan 12... :-)

August 28th

Will be forever enshrined as "Snow Leopard" day. Oops. I mean "Snow Leopard Day".

Actually - if Apple (aka Steve Jobs) actually cared about big cats, he'd publicly donate a ton of money to their survival. Like Bill Gates does, but he goes for different causes. Do the world some good, Steve. And keep your competition with Bill going just a little longer.

Not that Apple (aka Steve Jobs) listens to the proletariat. He just wants them to "cool enough" (Microsoft's words) to buy his products.

Anyway - Snow Leopard, Apple's new OS, is out on Friday. Isn't that cat beautiful?

I'll be going for the box set. It contains iLife and iWork (I do? Really? Can I get a pay check, then?:-) ) and the OS - for the wonderful sum of... $169. I think I'll go for the family pack - $229. Which is a heck of a lot cheaper than similar functionality from Microsoft.

Considering the tepid reviews Windows 7 is getting - I'm not even looking at it as an option.

The next post will be on Linux.

I sure hope Apple has gotten the networking code sorted out. I've rebooted my Macbook 5 times so far, and I'm writing this on my wife's Mac Mini.

What disturbs me is that I actually do know how networks work. But I simply cannot get my Macbook to stay connected. According to the forums and blogs, Apple does something fun with DNS requests. DNS is the system where you say "I want Google", and the computer asks a specialized task computer "what's the phone number for Google?" Upon getting it - it connects. Apple did something ridiculous, depending upon whom you ask. They either comply with the standards, or don't. Actually - they do both. Go figure. The comply with the letter of the appropriate standard (assuming I remember it correctly), but not with the implementation most places have. That, astonishingly, has something to do with the way Microsoft Windows did DNS lookups. A way it doesn't really do anymore, but really does because - well, I think you get the idea.

Sorry - didn't mean to distract myself.

You know, there was a rumor that August 28th was "Snow Leopard Day". But Apple kept insisting delivery would be some time in September. When I read that, I thought "I'll bet it's August 28th".

Personally, I'm looking forward to getting a copy of OS X Snow Leopard. I remember being jealous when I installed the first OS X on my wife's computer. Perhaps it's ironic that she currently runs OS X 10.4 on her Mac Mini and can connect to the Internet - and I'm running the latest to date. And my machine hasn't heard of connectivity.

Roll out the latest, Apple. For your next version, might I suggest a radical new feature? It's called "listening to your customers". You should try it.

On the other hand, I'll be giving you $229 of hard earned cash in a few days. Why should you listen? Like Microsoft - you never have, before. Go on - give a try. Just for laughs. And while you're at it - get your damned networking code right.

Carolyn Ann

To the fake jasper

I thought you might enjoy this. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Commenting on Germaine

I did a tally - 11 comments were deleted (out of 91 posted comments at this writing) by The Guardian's moderators. That's 12% of the comments. That has to be a record of sorts! Some known transgender names were among those deleted; I'll not highlight any, of course.

What it does highlight to me is the inability of some to have a discussion about gender, without getting all uppity and annoyed, and usually insulting. Yes, yes. I know that Ms Greer was insulting, too. Since when did two wrongs make a right?

Some in the transgender community haven't learned that you should rise above your antagonist - not sink below them!

It's certainly interesting. I doubt it's the last we'll have heard about this debate.

Carolyn Ann

Supporting comments?

The comments policy of "The F-Word" got me thinking. Again. It's astonishingly similar to that favorite of mine, QT's. Except it's more succinct. Here it is:

In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet [sic] is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.

This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.

All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.

No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.

Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.

No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.

Be nice.

I especially liked the second sentence: We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet [sic] is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views. A translation might read "we can't censor what you say on your own blog". Meanwhile, the owners will censor whatever they don't like on their blog.

(Just as an aside, in this context, "Internet" should be capitalized.)

They have that right. I support that right, fully. I don't like the implications, but I have to support that right.

The contemporary circumscribing of dissent really started in the Bush years. If you dissented against the administration, you were un-American. If you objected to a meaningless war, you were anti-American. And so on. The right wing successfully got censorship to be acceptable. They got the idea that you can protect yourself from views you don't like by simply making those who held them go away. Preferably as far away as possible.

The left has embraced the idea with enthusiasm.

Fast forward a year or two, and we're almost at the point Ray Bradbury warned us against. The stupidity of removing Huckleberry Finn from school libraries has morphed into a general acceptance of censorship in order to provide a safe and "friendly space". It seems we all want to read views that affirm our own prejudices - not challenge them.

To be fair, the Internet is rife with people who get their kicks out of insult. They, like the recent "fake jasper" of this blog, offer nothing. Like the idiots who "protest" at the health care town halls, they prefer to try and shout down any reasonable debate. They are scared of debate, they are scared of differences of opinion, and have no knowledge of what reasonable behavior is. Those fools can be easily, and justifiably, blocked and their comments deleted. I have no objection to deleting that nonsense.

But the point where any reasonable person should be worried is when the words "We get to decide..." appears. Because the translation for that is: if we really don't like what you're saying, you don't get to say it, here.

Which is fine - they are, as I point out, well within their rights to put limits on the conversation that happens in their "space". But isn't it hypocritical to imply or claim that you also support free, robust debate? Because you really don't. You simply want commentary you find objectionable to go elsewhere. The further away that elsewhere is, the better.

Censorship is as old as mankind. Now we're really getting into the Internet age - it will grow faster. But this time, it will be under the fine auspices of providing a safe and friendly place for debate. Whenever I read comment policies like that, I always get this ominous feeling - how long will it be before we're not allowed to protest anything? Because to do so will upset someone?

Carolyn Ann

Greer's latest comments

Some might be wondering why I haven't commented on the fuss that Germaine Greer's latest comments have provoked. It's not reticence - it's because the arguments against her are the same tired, emotional, nonsense I've been railing against for some time.

In this little debate - both sides are wrong.

Ms Greer is well known for rudely defending what she considers a woman to be. The transcommunity is, likewise, well known for redefining anything and everything to suit itself. Ms Greer enjoys a lot of support from feminists, young and old, as the travails of many transwomen demonstrates. That being said, transgendered individuals do enjoy a greater acceptance than they ever have. This has been achieved without large advertising campaigns, and often despite the efforts of some trans"women". (I point to the varyingly pornographic, definitely objectifying, images many trans"women" put up on Flickr.)

The transcommunity wants gender to be flexible, and rigid. Perhaps they want gender to be rigidly flexible? Arguments about whether you can be a woman if you don't actually get SRS are seriously considered. Anyone arguing thusly is surely not paying attention to their own definitions! Woe betide the person who points out contradictions - they will be immediately labeled "transphobic". In fact, the epithet "transphobic" is grabbed at every opportunity; usually as an effort to silence dissent.

Ms Greer, in contrast, disdains the transwoman. Actually - she hates her with a passion. Ms Greer has a lifetime of working against men and their often successful efforts at preventing equal rights for women. I have often thought that Ms Greer holds quite a hatred for what men stand for. She wants, has always wanted, women to be equal to men. (I harbor a suspicion that she wouldn't mind, at all, if women were more equal...) She reflects an idea that many feminists hold: that transwomen are men claiming to be women. That these individuals, and the group they belong to (transwomen), are simply men exerting their superiority, yet again.

The trans community, and the modern feminist community, doesn't answer those charges. They never have. They insist that gender is, well, a bunch of things. Some valid claims are made, some ridiculous claims are made, and some iffy claims are also made. A fairly typical response can be read in Laura Woodhouse's piece in "The F Word":

How Greer can think that trans women living as men make the decision to transition to living as women based on a penchant for dresses and eye shadow when that transition will most probably involve putting oneself at further risk of harassment, discrimination, violence and even murder - due to both sexism and transphobia - is beyond me.

The problem here, as usual, is that the very real threat of violence, even murder, is turned into an argument that we must agree with vague claims made by transwomen. Ms Woodhouse does vacillate a little more than similar debaters; she does acknowledge that the violence is not a definite. While no reasonable person can deny the very real threat of violence to any transperson, it is alarmist to put it in the way Ms Woodhouse did. (I did have to go back and reread Ms Woodhouse's piece; it seemed she was making a leap from Ms Greer's "ghastly parody" remark to having Ms Greer supporting transphobic violence. I did consider commenting on "The F-Word", but decided not to. They have a highly restrictive, and quite arbitrary, comment policy.)

Unfortunately, Ms Woodhouse doesn't stop to consider that Ms Greer is using rhetoric to make her point. Ms Greer, in turn, doesn't consider it possible for a man to consider himself a woman.

Other bloggers have had their say. Penny Red has a profane observation or two. The profanity plays well to her audience, but I'm not sure it's actually helpful in understanding anything but the anger Ms Greer's comments have generated. While I normally like Penny Red's writing, even if I disagree with her conclusions, this post repulsed me. Why should anyone stop and consider any argument posed with such vulgarity?

Kate Bornstein argues that Ms Greer has never considered gender fluidity. She also argues that gender activists work on the "parameters" of gender:

The good news is that Germaine Greer's transphobia is more the exception among todays scholars, artists and activists. They work as tirelessly as Greer herself on issues of gender rights, freedoms, parameters, and dignity. Postmodern gender theory has been taught in colleges and universities around the world for over fifteen years. It's over-spilling the walls of academia. The battlefield/playground has shifted. Nothing is essential any more.

I have to disagree - it seems to me that Ms Greer has considered fluidity between genders, but has rejected it. And those parameters? They're not being examined - they're being bulldozed. When the definition of gender is what I say I am, there are no parameters. Perhaps that's as it should be, but many - obviously - still consider those parameters to be real.

I am quite sure Ms Greer is not in the least concerned about the anger she's caused. I'm sure she's developed quite a thick skin, over the years. She also holds her opinions dearly - she's no wilting flower, unable to voice her opinion because someone might be offended. She finds the idea of transwomen claiming gender equality with women offensive - why should she give them any quarter, now? Unfortunately, the modern feminists and the transwomen who have commented on this fracas have not really answered Ms Greer's charges.

Paradoxically, and ironically, women like Ms Greer laid the foundation for contemporary gender theories. She, and others, withstood the bricks and bats, and forced society to reconsider the role of women, and what being a woman means. She has never stood up for gender fluidity - to her, women are women, and men, men. She has considered transgender claims, and has rejected them. To her, a transwoman is a man claiming to be a woman, and subsequently undermining what it means to be a woman.

Likely as not, no one will ever persuade Germaine Greer out of her bigotry. Her anti-transwoman stance has an intellectual and emotional base. It's the intellectual objections the transcommunity neglects to consider, or answer. They answer the emotional part of her objection, but not the intellectual part. Not the part that wonders how men can be women, and what that means for gender, equality and women's rights. Instead of wondering what a woman is, they simply redefine what a woman is. Gender becomes as flexible as play-doh. Except when it isn't.

What does it mean to be a woman? What does being a woman mean to a girl, developing into a woman? Ms Greer's objections can be distilled to one fundamental question: what does a woman become, if all and sundry can lay claim to being a woman? The transwoman can't become pregnant. As men, they can get women pregnant. Without speaking for anyone, that single point is the basis of Ms Greer's objections.

Think about that point. Not whether you'd like the chance to become pregnant. But about that single point. It forms the basis of most, if not all, the objections to transgender equality.

Ms Greer will never include transwomen in her consideration of what a woman is; the transcommunity will not include her objections in their thinking about gender. Never the twain shall meet. Both wish the other would simply go away. And are angry when it doesn't.

That's why I haven't bothered commenting on this bit of nonsense.

Carolyn Ann

Oh, what a screw up

I know a man that is willing to lie to a Judge. He'll spin all sorts of tales, in order to help his case. What ended up happening was I raised my hand, and said "Ma'am, I have a radically different version of events."

You see, what happens when you lie, or don't face up to what you have done is that you end up with no credibility. A fire could be raging behind you, and you shout "Fire!" - and you'd be surprised when folk go behind you and check. And you really shouldn't be surprised when they investigate you for setting the thing.

I like to think of myself as an honest man. When I come to a conclusion that I am wrong, I am perfectly willing to issue an apology. Some have said I'm a little too eager, but reiterating that would be boasting. So I'll re-iterate it, anyway.

I remember one meeting - someone had made a $2,000,000 mistake. That someone was me. What it was is irrelevant - a $2M mistake in a couple of hundred million dollar fraud not being especially notable. We had a meeting. The senior manager basically asked what had happened. A few people jumped in, I waited. I waited until the hub-hub had died down. I stood up and said "I screwed up". I was told to sit down.

I designed the system. I managed the install. I screwed up.

It's certainly not the first mistake I've ever made. I doubt it will be the last.

Another time, a manager, working for me, did something so stupid he should have been fired. I should have been fired. When the CIO took me to lunch - I expected to not only foot the bill, but be collecting unemployment by the time lunch was over. I figured I'd get roaringly drunk in the afternoon. I kept my job - because the first thing I did was say "I screwed up". The manager in question got to keep his job because he professed genuine ignorance of what he'd wrought.

We screw up. We're people. We react, we perceive the immediate more than we should. Soap operas rely upon these facts - otherwise they'd be without a story to tell! Heck, one of the things the Borg had going against them - even a machine, a highly sophisticated, sentient, machine, will make screw-ups. It's the nature of the beast. Each component must decide whether to react to local conditions, or the less-local, or the greater good. It's why the Borg failed. As a purely off-topic sentiment, it's also why "god" fails. We're human - we're capable of mistakes.

There are plenty who refuse to acknowledge their mistakes. If you work in an office of any size, you'll know who they are. Those people stagnate. They might get the promotions (I've seen it happen), but as people - they regress. They become less and less with each promotion. They generally become more fearful with each passing moment. Not capable of accepting personal responsibility - they're usually the ones shouting the loudest about it. They never make it to the top - because no one respects them.

But the ones who grow, who gain respect? They admit to their mistakes.

That man I was telling of? He was convicted.

Carolyn Ann

Apologia

Sometimes you get yourself into a situation where you expect an apology, even if it's "of sorts".

You know - where you make a stupid error, and the only decent thing to do is say "oops, I screwed up". Or even a mild "I'm sorry you were offended, here's why I said what I did." As the person goes on to explain why you're really at fault.

The honest person issues an apology. The decent one does, too.

My recent correspondent hasn't seen fit to do so.

She has decided, it appears, to disappear behind that oh too easy veil: the Internet. And the accompanying sentiment "oh, it's not really a person at the other end". Or "my friends don't like you and I don't, either". Which is the perfect excuse, I guess, for those who have no respect for either themselves or anyone else.

Let their conscience help them if they get a real telling off, or they find themselves in a situation where honesty provides a guide to the respect others grant them. The sort of situation where their credibility is on the line. I believe this is called "life".

Those who shy from the difficult deserve nothing. Those who shy from an overdue apology warrant nothing but contempt. Wanting to stay safe in your space is no license to offend with impunity. It is no warrant to run and hide when there is a demand to that which is difficult.

But that's the way of so many, and of at least one transgendered individual. Issue offense, and then run and hide. Pretend to indulge in conversation, and when you offend your conversee - pretend they don't exist. They're just a few electrons at the end of a wire, after all. Aren't they?

I don't actually expect her to read this. She's the sort that would rather ignore me, after offending me. Pretending the offense she gave was nothing, warranted, even earned - even if she was the one who contacted me with a deeply offensive email. She clearly knows how to deal with the difficult issue in her life. Running and hiding have worked, so far. Why would they not work in the future? Who cares about the offense she caused? It's not as if I'm not real. I'm just photons on a screen. Aren't I?

I am disappointed. I thought she was made of sterner stuff. I apologize, I was wrong.

Carolyn Ann

Apple is losing it

Since Apple's last update, the network connectivity on my Macbook is for the birds. My wife's machine is fine, but the Macbook? It's still trying to find its shoe laces.

I looked it up. Apparently there's a video codec out there that installs a trojan horse. It's only on porn sites, but I figured - why not? What's on porn sites yesterday is going to be on other sites, tomorrow. No trojan horse.

I checked the DNS settings. They point to a valid DNS server - I use Verizon, and they supply the DNS. I discovered that Apple is not quite playing by the rule book, and that the OpenDNS servers aren't exactly on Apple's list, either. Configured any which way, the Apple networking code really does not like DNS.

And then it will work.

And then it won't.

Complaining to Apple does no good. There's no way of complaining. They make it perfectly plain they don't pay any heed to the forums they set up. They have long made it plain they don't really care about the consumer. They just seem to not care less than Microsoft does.

It tales forever for the system to figure out it doesn't want to work. One way you can tell that your Mac is ready is simply by looking at the clock in the top right of the screen. That now takes an age - Alexander conquered continents in less time than it takes for the clock to appear. Napoleon escaped and re-founded his Empire in the time it takes Safari to decide it's on strike. And I can feel the grey hairs getting more prevalent in the time it takes Apple OS X 10.5.8 to figure out that it got lost.

I went from smoothly burnished skull to hippie in the time it took Apple's latest update to decide that it really didn't know what a network is. It's like Clarence on "Boston Legal" - except its Clarice doesn't get out of bed.

The HTML 5 committee has a better chance of reconvening and admitting they screwed up the Internet than Apple does in admitting that its latest update is a, well, a waste of my time. Apple is too busy being cool, you see. They're too hip to admit they screwed up.

Well - Apple and I are going to have to discuss our relationship. I'm not into partners that come and go, as they please. I'm really not into partners who fancy they can dictate the terms of the relationship. Apple might just have to go. Perhaps this is odd, in this day of customer responsiveness - I do not expect Apple to give a damn.

Which is a pity. Because they really, really should. I'm often disappointed by people. It's rare I'm disappointed by Apple.

Carolyn Ann

A shared troll

It seems that Jasper and I share a troll.

Just in case the troll decides to remove their comment, here it is:

Jasper said...

You and I should talk. We have a lot in common. Transphobic as hell and also, we're both tedious as fuck. Seriously. We'd get along very well.

Sat Aug 22, 09:36:00 PM

If my recent correspondent is reading (I doubt she is, but you never know) - this is the writing of a troll.

I am more for free speech, even that which I find offensive, and don't place restrictions on what can and cannot be said, commercial speech being the exception. But this one annoyed me - as it should you.

The troll pretended to be someone else.

That's a little beyond reasonable.

This sort of deception goes from annoying, but allowable, anonymous speech, and firmly enters the arena of the unethical and immoral. As I mentioned in a comment, I have a vague idea who the troll is; not owning the servers makes it a little difficult to prove my inclination one way or the other.

This coward does not impress me - she has earned my condescension, and contempt. This contemptible coward hides behind a privilege granted from free expression, and then uses outright deception? How can anyone respect such an insidious and sly person?

If you do know who this person is - I suggest you urge them to step forward and apologize. To the troll, itself: please, continue wasting your time. Because that's all you do.

Update: It would appear that this troll is without any shred of decency. It is not worth responding to.

Carolyn Ann

Big storm a'coming

There's quite a storm developing. It was nice and sunny, and I heard the deep rumble of thunder. Now it's getting ominously dark. The air was still, and now there's a breeze blowing - the sort of breeze that says "beware of what is to come!"

Although the area has had a lot of rain, the immediate vicinity hasn't. I'm hoping that it will rain - a lot. We need it!

I took some pictures - they make the storm look dramatically worse! :-)

Carolyn Ann