A new policy for Afghanistan?

Obama is having the first publicly acknowledged meeting about Afghanistan, today. Considering that American policy in the region isn't as focussed as it could be, this is probably a good thing. (Of course, there will be the now usual "concerns" that the man is doing too many things. Anyone raising that "concern" must be thinking of Bush and his singular focus on, well, nothing much.)

Afghanistan is a problem. It's got a corrupt leader, is a leading exporter of drugs, a neighbor that is only just realizing Islamic terrorism is a problem for them, too, a NATO commitment that is best described as "half assed", Russian ambivalence about the region, and public opinion in Britain and America that is split on whether to continue in the region, or not. Of course, 5 or 6 years of being ignored haven't helped.

Leaving Afghanistan is not really an option - it has no viable government, never mind a police force that is even "reasonably for the area" effective. Or honest. Leaving the place will simply flip the entire nation back to the Taliban, and then the west will be subjected to a very confident terror group or two. They will be more than capable of paying for, and obtaining, nuclear weapons. (In terrorism, it's one thing to be able to pay for a weapon. That's a different problem to actually obtaining one.)

For those in Britain, the best analogy I can think of is "Northern Ireland, without the troops keeping everyone apart." For Americans, Afghanistan is not Obama's Vietnam - although I'm sure there are some Republicans who would love to turn it into that. No one can say the British troops did a marvelous job in Northern Ireland, but they did prevent an overall massacre. And that's basically where we should have been a couple of years ago. But we're not.

I don't know if the answer is to let Afghanistan break up into its traditionally tribal areas (they aren't nation-states), and simply provide help to those regions, or if it is to try and impose some sort of nation-statehood upon the country. A model like the US one might work - states that have a high degree of autonomy, with a Federal government that has some authority. Whatever happens, it seems that the current setup is a short path to corrupt government. When the tribe, or the family, is more important than the common good - corruption and nepotism automatically follow. Where nepotism goes, corruption becomes rampant. It's that simple. You need a real appreciation for the incorruptibility of law, and for the principles of fair government, to have an effective and reasonable government. I don't see that in the upper echelons of the Afghani government.

One thing that will help Obama figure out a new Afghanistan policy is to ditch the concept of "winning" in that place. No one has ever conquered it; people say Alexander the Great did, but even he had trouble there. "Winning" in such a territory is simply not an option - keeping the bad guys out, or holed up where they can't do any harm, is the equivalent of winning. (Heck, even the Taliban had trouble figuring out how to govern the place! They gave up trying.)

Whatever the new policy is, it will be - I guarantee - unpopular, expensive, difficult to implement and an election issue.

Carolyn Ann

A bored cat?

There's nothing quite like a bored cat.

Bongo is wandering around, wanting a pet, a hug, to play, but not right now, thanks. Instead she wants it now. (Thanks.) She's bored. And when she's bored, she's impossible. I put her outside, but she started picking fights with any and all. They all ran away, leaving her with no one to pick on. So now she's wandering around the house, trying to find someone to hit. (Fortunately, it hasn't occurred to her to go upstairs, where everyone else is sleeping.)

She'll go to sleep, herself, in a half hour or so. Until then, she's impossible.

(Just to help, Cousin is having a frantic 5 minutes. She dashes here, there and everywhere! Jumps up on counters, tables, anything in the way. Then she tires herself out, and goes to sleep.)

Ah - judging by the racket coming from the bedroom, they've just found each other. Bored cat, meet feeling demented cat... This should be noisy. Hopefully it's short-lived.

Carolyn Ann

John Ringo resumes where von Daniken left off?

I'm trying to read John Ringo's latest novel "Eye of the Storm". Trying is the operative adjective. Besides being the same story - he's not really written a new story in a few years now* - he's always written, it's taken a really strange twist: John Ringo meets Erich von Daniken.

Remember him? :-)

(Okay, you have to be of a certain, erm, vintage to remember that idiot.)

Carolyn Ann

* Clive Cussler, on the other hand, hasn't written a new story in over a decade.

The pressure's on!

From The Times (of London): "Pressure is on McLaren to deliver him competitive car"

The article is talking about how McLaren needs to give Lewis Hamilton a car that can go fast. Or at least faster than any other car in the race.

Wow. I didn't think it was obvious. They need to give him a car that's competitive? By gum. Whatever next? A car he can drive, perhaps?

Sometimes you wonder if a writer is filling column inches, or if they actually have something to say. This post? Filling column inches*. :-)

Carolyn Ann

*Centimeters outside of the US.

Ron Paul vs Jon Stewart

I just watched Ron Paul doing his level best to not be too off the wall, on Jon Stewart. He was doing okay until he got to the point where he said the Feds were running a Ponzi Scheme. And when he pointed out that the dollar is now worth about 4c, compared to its value in 1913.

Apparently, he's got a new book out - "Kill the Fed". Now, most people would assume this would mean he wants to do away with the Federal Reserve. They'd be half right. He would like to do away with as much of the Federal government (and State governments, and local governments) as he could. At least he's consistent.

This sort of anti-government sentiment is not something the British really comprehend. Oh, the Tories talk a good game about reducing government, but what they mean and what people like Ron Paul mean are so radically different. Ron Paul wants some sort of Ayn Rand0ian paradise. You know, the sort where the rich bugger off because they don't like paying taxes, and everyone else is left to fend for themselves. (I think this is normally called "Reagan's Economic Policy".) Looking at the figures for Gordon Brown's efforts, "small government" is not a concept he understands. Other facets of Mr Paul's dream include no government regulations - people just behave themselves. In his ideal, peer pressure works to affect law and order. Oh, sure it does. It works real well in the school yard, so why not outside of it?

Oh, wait - in Ron Paul's dreamscape, we have no need of schools. After all, mandatory education is a government stipulation. And hence, government interference. Anything that smacks of society trying to level the playing field is classed as "government interference".

One thing astounds me about Ron Paul, and his ilk - they know how to ignore the problems their philosophies raise. Things like "human nature" are not just ignored - it's plastered over! Real humans are replaced by John Wayne wannabes and good guys and bad guys are easy to spot. John Galt, where for art thou?

Thou hast a lot to answer for.

Carolyn Ann

Marketing...

Here's something for alcoholic beverage marketing departments to consider... :-) If I can't afford the beer I like, I don't trade down. I just don't buy the beer.

Carolyn Ann

Macworld

I was thinking that Macworld magazine was a bit expensive, especially as it seems I can read it on a leisurely stroll from the mailbox. The Mrs just told me how much the subscription is: $47!

That's in the "goodness gracious me" category. So I won't be renewing that one.

Carolyn Ann

30 minute job turns into 2½ hour saga!

My "oh it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes to install that outlet" job turned into a 2½ hour "adventure". I needed an outlet over on the driveway side of the house; the nearest one is the broken swimming pool pump outlet, but it's inconvenient, and a long way away (and broken). It's useful for little things like a battery charger, or a light for when I'm working on a car, or a bike. I have a couple of other exterior outlets, all wired back to a box in the basement, where I've joined all the wires together, and to the breaker panel. All I needed was about 3 foot of cable, it didn't even need that many clips to hold it onto the beam, the outlet box components and a half hour of time.

Except I could find this bit of the outlet box, but not that bit. I know I have 9 or 10 GFI outlets (ground fault interrupter outlets; they automatically switch off if they detect a grounding problem; something that's useful in wet conditions), but could I find them? No. Eventually I came across a box of 3 GFI's that I didn't even know I had... Then I needed an earthing strap - couldn't find those, either. So now it's got a "live" (black) strap, where it should have a green one; I'll have to change that at some point. Then I couldn't find my large wood drills; I need those to drill through the bottom plate of the house. I know they were in the basement, on that box by the bottom of the stairs. Which doesn't explain how I found them in what will be my office. While looking for them, I found 2 pin hammers and a regular (21oz) claw hammer. I wonder when I lost them?

(I now have 3 pin hammers. That I know of.)

So after about 2 hours of searching for bits, and half an hour of actual work - I had an outlet installed! It even has a cover that allows me to leave something plugged in.

Hurray. :-)

I really, really do need to spend a day in that basement, sorting it out and finding stuff.

Carolyn Ann

3:42AM

Peekaboo with Spot
Originally uploaded by Carolyn Ann

I'm not making any specific accusations against anyone... But if anyone Spots this cat, can you ask her if she attacked my feet at 3:42AM, through the sheet, this morning?

Ouch.
Carolyn Ann

I'm glad the economy is recovering

I'll be deliriously happy when our little bit of it does the same! It seems that every time we start to get sorted out, something detrimental happens, something comes along to trip us up. Well, this time was no different. We were starting the see the light at the end of the tunnel, we were getting out of the woods, and... Bang! Someone built a stone wall at the tunnel exit and someone else planted a hell of a lot more trees.

Busy little sods.

Our finances took a step backwards, yesterday. The news throughout the forthcoming week looks no better; indeed, it probably holds more bad news. Cut hours, cut pay rates, demands for the same productivity. (The Economist would be delighted. Until they had to do it themselves.) So it might be more than step backwards - it might be a hop, skip and a jump. Hopefully it's restricted to a small jump and isn't a leap.

She keeps applying for jobs. I keep applying for jobs. No one keeps asking us to join "their team". (Such piffle, anyway.) A NY Times article pointed out the record numbers of applicants. There's good time around the corner, we're told. Meanwhile, no one can find the damn corner.

The Mrs places the blame firmly on The Shrub; I'm not so sure - I don't think he was that competent. What I do know is that The Republicans have a lot to answer for; not least their bastardization of Ayn Rand. In such a cliché-ridden post, I guess I should find the silver lining: The Mrs gets to spend more time at home.

Carolyn Ann

The conservatives get it together... Sort of

The conservatives are getting themselves really sorted out. They've got Glenn Beck as a de facto Prime Minister, Rush Limbaugh as Head Honcho, Fox News for a permanent conservative spin on world domestic events, Conservapedia for biased (and misleading) information, and a definite lack of religious leader. They need a religious leader.

Oh - and a conservative version of The Huffington Post. One of the tea-party organizers is heading up that effort.

With such myopia - who needs "fair and balanced"?

More and more I read about the ridiculousness of the right wing. They do not want reality, but they seem to adore reality TV (which is anything but!). What these people want is the promise Ronald Reagan made: the shining city on the hill. They want a fairy tale.

The only problem? Their fairy tale is actually a nightmare.

Carolyn Ann

Redoing the plumbing

One of the most troublesome aspects of re-plumbing a house is figuring out where things should go. Usually, the answer is "right where they are!", but we want to reclaim the space taken by the reserve water tank, the water softener and the heater. They're in two different parts of the basement; the heater is sort of between the downstairs bathroom and the kitchen, the softener and reserve tank are at the other end of the house.

Considering that the electrical, telephone/Internet and gas lines are on the opposite side of the house, I've decided that the water system can go there, too. I'll box it all in, and create a long, narrow utility closet. But first I need to re-do all of the water pipes in the basement. Over the the last decade and a half, various repairs have left a confusing array of pipes and valves. It's not always obvious which valve controls which line. In fact, there are two valves I have no idea what they control, and the hot water line for the upstairs bathroom has two valves within 6 feet of each other. It also travels in what can only be described as a "wandering" route to the hole that takes it the 10 feet it needs travel upwards.

What I need is a manifold. I have one half-completed for the gas lines; this week, I will have to see about finishing that, and installing the instant hot water heater, and at least rough in the new plumbing. ("Roughing in" means just put the pipes in.) I will need two manifolds, one for the hot, and one for the cold. Like all plumbing, I could just run a pipe, and feed from that. It would take less pipe, but it wouldn't be as manageable in years to come. So I think it best to build the manifolds, even though they are a little more expensive, and a little bit more complicated to build and install.

After that, I can get the upstairs bathroom ready; a few leaks have left us with just cold water up there. I'll get the shower working, and then we'll have that while I demolish and rebuild the downstairs bathroom. Add a slight complication is that we're actually moving the upstairs bathroom; it's going to the middle of the house, whereas right now, it's at one end. Then I'll turn the old bathroom, which is fairly sizable, into my closet. Because I need a lot of space! (I can't think why...) :-)

Busy, busy, busy. And I've still got to figure out how to run the air inlet and the exhaust for the hot water heater! How come those DIY programs never show this sort of thing?

Carolyn Ann

My response

Dori: My analogous comparison was not intended to offend in that manner. I was drawing a direct comparison between Emily's headline and similar ones from Nazi Germany as away of highlighting Emily's bigotry. I am sorry for causing you inadvertent offense.

Crabtree: Analogy and metaphor are not within your comprehension, I guess. I'll bear that in mind whenever I write specifically for you. Which will be never. So you don't have to worry about literary comparisons, only literal ones.

Emily: You and Lisa Harney were the ones who chose to defend a violent rapist, dismissing his crimes because the Canadian taxpayer decided he didn't deserve their funds to have a sex change. A procedure, by the way, that would give access to many potential victims. Your knee-jerk reaction was so lacking in thought it was a disservice to you both.

You were the one, in your headline, dismissing an entire individual history while highlighting another's. You were the one that chose to remove Ms Ibarra's history from your version, you chose to rewrite history. She was probably murdered because of her history - and you decided that it was best to cover that history up. I chose not to respect a rapists claims - because he had not demonstrated himself worthy of such trust. The medical authorities in Canada seem to be in agreement. You decided that his untrustworthy claims were not up for examination. You decided to trust the word of a violent felon - one who raped while on furlough! (Let me see... He promises to behave himself, gets furlough and... Oh - rapes again! And you decide that his claim of gender dysphoria is trustworthy? Which bit of "I wonder..." do you not get?)

On the other hand, you were the one who decided to mock me. I simply returned the courtesy.

You and Ms Harney were the ones who decided to let stand a slanderous comment against me. You showed no interest in being fair, in allowing a refutation or even in any appearance at impartiality. You cannot, in all honesty, demand a fairness from me that you're not willing to grant to others, can you?

You are, I must admit, not the only ones who see no purpose in allowing someone to voice their own offense. I do not indulge in such practices; they are, I feel, beneath me. They cheapen the censor, not the censored. You seem to be more than happy to mock, and insult - and yet you are upset when someone returns the favor? You attack me personally, and then try to call me on it when I do unto you what you did to me? You are as hypocritical as you are conceited.

You and Ms Harney seem to need the choir that you preach to. If it were up to you, I feel you would ban anything but speech you approved! Your posts about the shoddy treatment you received in a hospital were excellent. I commented as such. But in general, your work is as biased, and bigoted as those you accuse. You wave the flag of privilege as often as possible, and you perceive slight where its existence is dubious at worst, and none-existant at best. You do not think about your political positions, and you carelessly, even gleefully, mix the personal and political. You and Ms Harney are not interested in furthering the rights of the transgendered as much as your keen on showing how victimized you are.

I'll say it, again: if you publish your words, those words can be criticized. If you are so thin-skinned that you can't take criticism, don't write about the controversial. If you are unable to accept that a personal attack will lead to a like attack, don't attack someone personally. Don't mock them. Don't insult them. Don't allow slander to stand against them when you have the power to address it.

Attack me, I don't roll over. If you can't handle that - don't attack me. You are welcome to comment here as often as you like. Your words will not be deleted, or censored simply because I don't like them. You will not be called a troll, simply because of vociferous and vigorous disagreement. (If you indulge in troll-like behavior, I will not hesitate to call you on it.) And I welcome, truly welcome, any refutation you care to give. If you prefer to do it on your blog, or on Questioning Transphobia, please do me the courtesy of letting me know - so I may link to it.

If I am wrong - I will apologize. I will gladly do so. If I treated you unfairly, not in keeping with your treatment of me, I will apologize. It will be a sincere apology- you can be assured of that. But first show me, and our readers, how, and why. I cannot, after all, sincerely apologize if I don't know what I'm apologizing for!

You are always welcome here. I hope you understand that, and what it means in contrast to your behavior toward me.

Carolyn Ann

I can't tell you how outraged I am about Queen Emily's ridiculous, shameless exploitation of a murdered woman.

Her words are beyond facetious - they insult the victim. They insult what it means to be human, never mind anything else. Her words are have no difference to the taunts of fascists and racists. Her words could be the headline in a Nazi-era German newspaper: "Jewish man sought in death of German woman!" Read all about it, here.

Tell me the sodding difference between Queen Emily's bigotry and the Nazi's? Between the fascist apologists and Cedar's defense?

Tell me the - I'm prone to profanity at moments like this - tell me the god-forsaken, fucking difference! Tell me. Go on - tell me. I'll bet you can't. I'd wager a lifetime you can't.

Bigots disgust me. No matter their motives - bigotry is bigotry. Fancy playing on the outrage of a murder, for your own political goals! And Queen Emily doesn't even live in the United States of America! Yet she's perfectly happy exploiting the death of an American to further her vague goals.

I recently wrote of human decency, it was a post prompted by Queen Emily's description of her experiences at an Australian hospital. She was the recipient of indecent treatment, prejudiced treatment. And yet she sees no further than her own nose? And doesn't see fit to grant the murder victim anything, but is willing to exploit the murder for her own ends?

Cedar, I can see her being oblivious to the tragedy. Willing, eager perhaps, to see the murder in the light of the gender of the victim. She has demonstrated a cavalier attitude to gender, to the plight of those who are not like her. Her willingness to defend Queen Emily's words is as understandable as it is reprehensible. But after Queen Emily's experiences with prejudice? She obviously decided to not learn a single lesson from her own experience.

She decided to exploit the death of a person simply to make her own political point. In nothing more than a blog post - posted, no less, from a place a vast ocean away.

What kind of ghoul does that? What kind ghoul defends such words? What kind of heartlessness goes into such thinking?

Tell me the difference between Queen Emily's words and the hatred of the German Fascists in the 1930's. Go on: tell me.

An apology might mitigate the disgust that such behavior, such words, engenders. It might. It will take a long time before Queen Emily can say she is a reasonable fighter for transgender rights. After those words? It should take a lifetime.

I am finding it difficult to express myself. I am finding it almost beyond myself to put into words my anger, my disgust. I'll end this post here, lest I say something I regret.

Carolyn Ann

PS I notice the 'cis' in the original headline has been moderated. I will leave my words as they are; they accurately reflect what I read. Indeed, they are simply a cut and paste of the original headline.

A crying shame, a crying shame

I'll bite.

Questioning Transphobia has, via Queen Emily, a zinger of a headline: "CIS parolee sought in murder of woman". (Capitalization in the original.)

Oh my.

Can anyone else point out the hypocrisy in this headline?

IF gender is unimportant, so needlessly applied, why is a "CIS" so prominent, and "woman" not? The victim was a transwoman. If the victim was a "cis" prostitute, would "Queen" Emily even be interested? After all - prostitutes are murdered with a tragic frequency. I don't read about their murders on Questioning Transphobia.

Is the gender of the victim not that important, or is Queen Emily intent on making political hay on the body of a murdered soul? Has she no shame?

Interestingly, no one seems to make the connection between the cops desire to catch the murderer and their language. I can't speak for the cops, obviously, but it seems to me that the cops were phrasing their comments in a language that might help find the killer. Or, as Cedar, in her comment, makes so abundantly clear: the political points to be scored far outweigh the tragedy of a murdered soul.

Oddly, Cedar starts her comment with:

The LAPD still needs to be brutally fucked with their own nightsticks, tho for their complicity. That part remains the same. ["voz" wrote that]

Rape jokes, not funny. Rape-as-revenge, not funny, not ok. And saying that someone needs to be raped inherently promotes rape. And it’s especially not cool commenting on a post about violence against women.

Let me think, now... Where was Cedar when I was arguing about a Canadian rapist demanding a sex change on the taxpayers' dime? Oh, that's right: nowhere. Where was Queen Emily? Oh, yeah! Poking fun at me for questioning the motives of the two-time violent rapist.

Where are Queen Emily and Cedar now? Oh, that's right: Exploiting the murder of a transwoman for their own political gain.

Shame on them. Shame. On. Them. Shame on them both.

Paulina Ibarra is not a political pawn. She was murdered. Brutally, and horrifically. I pray* her killer is brought to justice.

Queen Emily, shame on you for trying to turn a murder victim into your own martyr, your own cross to bear. Shame on you. Shame.

Carolyn Ann

*I feel a need to address the atheist pedants, too: when I pray that a murderer be caught, I am not wishing, requesting, or granting divine intervention. I am merely hoping that he be captured. And my resistance to the death penalty declines each day.

Speaking of backups...

Sorry. I got lost on a trip down memory lane. (As usual.) :-)

That, of course, will make not the slightest bit of sense if you're reading this blog in the order its presented. Not to worry - very little of my writing makes sense. I like it that way - it keeps everyone guessing. "Has he really gone off his rocker, or is this some deep existential nonsense bit only he knows the meaning of? (In other words: has he really gone off his rocker?) :-D

I need to do a backup of this system. It's been a couple of days, and I've actually done some work in the meantime. (Yup, he's firmly off his rocker.)

I like Apple's "Time Machine"; it doesn't have the scary Morlocks, and I can use it to store big downloads! I also use it as an archive; when I'm done with a project, I put a file called "Done" in the folder, make sure it's backed up, and then delete it. Getting it back is as easy as a two three mouse clicks. (I keep the folder, with "Done" in it. The date of the "Done" file is the date I need to look at when I need to restore the folder. Sometimes, if I remember, I put the date into the file.)

The biggest issue with Time Machine is that it slows down the system; if I had a newer machine, it might not. But this MacBook is getting a little long in the tooth. Can't afford another machine, though. Still, it does do a reasonable job of backing up and restoring my computer. I've not used Windows in so long, I don't even know if it has an automated backup facility! Time Machine even backs up my iPhoto database, which is on a different disk. ("They" solved the whole "let's back up the entire thing" problem iPhoto initially had. That was where adding a single photo caused Time Machine to backup the entire iPhoto database. If you have a database like mine, that's a lot of disk space.)

I'd like a few more restore options, though. For instance, I'd really like to have an archive facility; instead of doing the "Done" thing, I would like to mark something as "archive this" in a particular place. Time Machine should then grab the stuff, put into the archive folder, and not worry about it, ever again. But I could simply go to archive folder, and click "restore" if I did need to get something back. Wouldn't it be wonderful if "archives" turned up as a mounted disk? If the disk is there - you can see your archives; indeed, you should be able to drag and drop anything into it, and it would back up, etc.

Another option I'd like is something to tell me how many variations there are of the file. I can do this with Subversion, but not with files that aren't in the really-awkward-to-use subversion repository. I wish subversion were built into the file system! It would be easy, then. Sure, it's included, but it's not exactly Mac-like in its usage. I have heard of a Mac subversion client, but still - all those management options? That's so Windows and Linux.

Right, I'd better get this system backed up. I've seen too many disk failures to think it will never happen. I know it will - I just can't say when*.

Carolyn Ann

*I have read of a disk monitoring program that is supposed to collect disk stats; that might be good for a server, but for a user laptop? Probably not. But I might look into it; after all, stats can tell you so much about how something is behaving. I'll let you know. If I remember. :-)

You need to back up a bit...

I was reading about AvSim, the premier Flight Simulator destination on the 'net. Apparently some hackers got into their two servers, and trashed them. The owner did not have a proper backup. He backed each server up to the other.

Years ago, more than a decade ago, most certainly, I came across a similar situation. Two critical servers, both backing each other up. As luck would have it, one of them failed. Whereupon it was discovered that the guy who was supposed to have been doing the backups, hadn't been. The job (it was all in a department, and not in the server room) had been handed to him, and he'd seen the first few backups go through, and then forgot. The machines hadn't actually been backed up in months! Quite a lot of data was lost.

Another time I had one of my staff monitor the backups for the network. Every weekend we did a full backup, and incrementals through the week, all to a couple of digital tape players. He was supposed to monitor the backups; he did volunteer for the task. I was supposed to follow up. I didn't. It was quite alarming when we had a catastrophic disk failure, and there was no backup... Turns out - my brave backup monitor hadn't loaded the tape machine in awhile. There were no tapes available, and the system sat there and simply said "I've backed up what I could". Which was nothing. I admitted liability, got the required telling off and ensured such a thing could never happen on my watch, again. (Instead, I managed to implement a whole new series of problems...)

This same chap once mirrored a disk. To itself. I had a goal that every server would have mirrored boot drives. Not software mirroring, but hardware mirroring with failover capability. This was a bit of a stretch for the servers of the time, but we managed most of it. Well, we had one server left over; it was an antique box, woefully out of date, but it didn't do much. This chap slapped a 2GB disk (the biggest commonly available disk at the time), and to protect it, split it into two 1GB partitions. He then mirrored the partitions; he had to use software. There's no way you can use hardware to mirror a disk to itself. By this time I'd learned to check his work. To avoid asking for another $1,400 disk, he'd done about the stupidest thing he could have. I was furious.

My boss promoted him.

Carolyn Ann

The personal as political, but too personal to talk about?

The difficulty in separating the political aspects of identity from the personal bits has stymied the conversation about identity within the transgender community. It is not enough to simply declare an assertion off-limits, not when it directly involves the political.

The claim "I am a woman", for instance, has two aspects: the personal, and the political. The personal is, as I've said before, not up for question. You can declare yourself whatever you like; it's not something anyone can refute. (Gossip about, sure. That's inevitable.) But the political aspect is open for discussion, and indeed needs to be fully explored. It's in desperate need of serious, open, examination. Not the myopic sort we typically see in when trying to prove something! (I am a woman, therefore, I am a woman because I say so...)

It needs to be discussed because it is a source of contention between many women and many transwomen. Neither can agree what a woman is, and as such it's become a rallying call on both sides of the debate. Neither of which seems to be able to contemplate a sort of truce, never mind a compromise.

Some women do not class transwomen as "real women", for a few simple reasons. These mostly concern not being born a biological female, and some consideration of the feminist view that men are men, no matter what. Transwomen refuse to consider those arguments, and then they usually add in a few rejoinders for good measure. What typically happens is that some of the transwomen point out what they had to go through to achieve their happiness; as if adversity were enough to qualify for membership to a group that didn't experience that adversity. Considering that the two parties are having different conversations, it's little wonder there's no progress. (Well, what progress there is limited to some special circumstances.)

The problem of using personal adversity to close off all conversation about the political aspects of the claim "I am a woman" is that it proves the feminists right: men are known to issue edicts (let's not get into pedantry and comparison/contrast arguments. They are irrelevant to this point), and of getting their own way. It's called, in a genuine understanding of privilege, "male privilege". So when the transwoman says "you must accept me as a woman because I am one!", what the woman hears is "I order you to accept me as a woman! I don't care about your personal identity, but I demand you respect mine!"

(That, by the way, is another way of explaining why "cis" is so offensive.)

And then the kicker: the woman, no one in fact, can question the assertion of gender. Not because it's irrefutable, but because those who potentially have the most to lose by discussing it ban discussion of it. Pleading personal adversity doesn't help, but is often used to help prevent the needed conversation.

Here, I get personal. I've been down the adversity path; I survived it. I don't, won't, use it as an excuse to stop discussion of things that could be personally painful. For sure gender is an important part of our personal identities; if there's a mismatch, it's a walk through the fires of hell. Does that preclude us, the transgender community, from discussing it in clear, open, honest ways? No. It should spur us to ever greater efforts. But that's not what happens - the topic becomes mired in tales of personal anguish, all of them heartfelt and horrible. And needless.

(I have to note that even if people were totally accepted for who they are, the transgendered would still find anguish. Simply because resolving, and perhaps accepting, that your biology and gender are not in harmony will cause anguish. It's bound to. Getting to the point of acceptance is not a whimsy; it's usually a troublesome and difficult realization. [Sorry for the new age stuff, it's the best I could do!])

We haven't developed the language to describe gender in anything like comprehensive terms. The various efforts out there are merely playing around the edges; what is needed is a difficult, and honest, appraisal of who we are as people. These efforts are laying the ground, exploring ideas that might warrant further exploration, and identifying the obvious red herrings; they are valuable, but we shouldn't expect them to provide answers - not yet. The field of gender studies is too complex, and too new, to have supplied anything but a series of perhaps interesting questions. We do need this better understanding of what gender is, and how it is constructed in the brain (it is not purely a social construction). Then we can start to figure out how it can vary.

Reducing others, simply because you feel like a victim, is not an answer. It's an insult and a roadblock to understanding. It's the same technique people like Glenn Beck and the Evangelists use to provoke artificial rage, to make their fans and congregations feel they are the victim. It's not an honorable tactic, and it's not even particularly effective - what happens when you inevitably tire of being angry?

Preventing discussion because you supplied the answer is not the answer, either. Preventing discussion because it causes you genuine pain is, unfortunately, not honorable, either. Facing up to that pain, and reducing its importance is not easy, but it cannot happen unless it is actually done.

The transgender community can begin a serious conversation about gender by acknowledging that a grand claim like "I am a woman" has repercussions and challenges for the personal identity of others. Then try to understand them. Please?

Carolyn Ann

Glass-Steagal, and failure?

Lawrence G. McDonald, the erstwhile Vice P of "distressed debt and convertible securities" at Lehman Brothers, has written of a promising text "A Colossal Failure of Common Sense". He wrote it with the thriller writer Patrick Robinson.

I say "promising" because I haven't read it, yet. I've only perused the first chapter. In this chapter, Mr McDonald makes a bold claim: the repeal of Glass-Steagal led directly to the economic failure of Wall St. And hence the global financial meltdown.

I'm not sure I agree, but I have yet to read his arguments.

I do remember Citigroup sending a memo around asking certain ranking officers (I was an officer) to contribute to the political action committee that was lobbying for this repeal. I disagreed with the repeal then, and I strongly disagree with it now. (My stance on my involvement with American politics was as strong as it now; as such, I could not give to the PAC's that opposed the repeal. I certainly would never have given to the PAC that supported such a ridiculous, dangerous and stupid idea.)

For those that don't know: Glass-Steagal was the law that prevented investment banks and retail banks from owning each other. A side affect was that banks couldn't own insurance companies, either. This was passed as a result of the Great Depression; which was "helped" along by a colossal failure in the supply of money, and a coupled abdication of any sort of monetary policy - the likes of which the anti-bailout protestors and Ron Paul supporters so dearly advocate - and the fact that investment banks and retail banks could, and were, one and the same. In other words: the retail banks helped fund the magnificent financial collapse that exacerbated, and hastened, the Great Depression. With the seemingly endless supply of cash from depositors, the investment banks drove up share and commodity prices. When they collapsed, ostensibly because some twit tried to corner the silver market (twit? dangerous fool, more like!), the retail banks suddenly found they had, well, considerably less than they needed to keep running. Never mind pay depositors their money!

Hence this wonderful law: the Glass-Steagal Act.

For a few decades, it helped keep investment banking and retail banking separate. But Citigroup didn't like it; it stood in the way of profits. They worked to repeal it, and did so. Who says you can't buy Congress?

I remember having a conversation with one of my many bosses in that period; he was for the repeal. But he could never say why. In the end, I decided that (times were good), I'd leave rather than work for someone who didn't understand what they were arguing about. That and a linguistic pedant - I still cringe at the meeting where he suggested we parse each word in an inter-company agreement to ensure no one was being screwed. I quietly sobbed, and resolved to beat the idiot to a pulp if he did this again. He left before I had the chance to carry out my promise.

But I digress. As usual.

Glass-Steagal was a good idea. It was fought tooth and nail, but it passed. When President Obama talks of regulating Wall St properly, responsibly, he should be talking about re-implementing Glass-Steagal. But he isn't. Such a bill wouldn't have a chance, today. No one need buy Congress* - all they have to do is point out that Congress is interfering with the free market! And, of course, keeping the government out of Wall St and the financial sector, is a good thing! Just look at the wealth it has created.

Please ignore the wealth it has lost. And the Great Recession that an irresponsible Wall St caused. Please, ignore those.

Carolyn Ann

*I'm still trying to ignore the "Sold!" signs on the Congressional Republicans and Blue Dog "Democrats".

Can't sleep, can't vote, what can I do?

With all due apologies to Adam Ant. :-)

If you're attentive, you might have noticed some subtle changes to my blog-rolls. I removed some blogs, moved some and added, er, none. Zoe Brain's blog disappeared because I don't like her recent anti-American sentiments. Also, it seems she's veered into the direction of "I'm intelligent, you're not, therefore I know what I'm talking about and you don't". Ms Brain is intelligent, but she often makes me look equivocal. I could, also, suggest that participation in the "conversations" she provokes might be helpful. Anyway, I don't like anti-American sentiment, so her blog went.

Emily's blog has died a death. It's a pity. She had a lot of interesting things to say.

I can't recall the other blogs I deleted. Oops.

If you consider that I'm all for the 1st Amendment - you might say, accurately, that I'm a "bit of a fundamentalist" on the issue - it might seem strange that I delete someone simply because I don't like the sentiment they quietly express. It has nothing to do with that. It has a lot to do with the fact that I love this nation, with a passion I can never express. Yes, it does have some faults - but I still love it. Does anyone expect me to link to a blog that is even subtly against the nation I love?

My apologies, Zoe. This was unwarranted, and uncalled for.

Carolyn Ann

If you're American: read this

Read this post from Jennifer Leh on Cafe Mom, if you're American. (If you're not, it's not relevant to you. But read it, anyway.) :-)

Read the comments, too. There's some fightin' words in there. It's also a lesson in how

I got the link from Bill's wonderful blog.

Carolyn Ann

That acorn will never be an oak tree!

That splendid example of politically correct thinking, Acorn, has met its match. In the shape of a couple of teens.

People complain about the loose and lax ways of the right wing, but the left wing, as epitomized by Acorn, is just as bad. Fancy giving advice to a purported pimp and a prostitute! It might be PC to acknowledge the rights of sex workers - but giving them tax advice?

Acorn is now suing the couple, and the blogger who apparently instigated the whole thing. They are claiming that they shouldn't have been embarrassed in this way. Yeah, right. That's going to work well. It might be legally correct - it is not morally correct. Acorn representatives gave advice on how to commit an illegal action. To a couple of kids.

Already the Senate has disavowed them, the official census has, and now the IRA has. I'd say Acorn would be better going bust, and reforming as something less partizan, and more sensible. It's already lost in the court of public opinion, and it lost in a way that it could never really recover from - think "Teddy Kennedy and Chappaquiddick". He got past it, but it took years, and some continued to throw it in his face, even after he died.

On thing is for sure: Acorn, you're no oak.

Carolyn Ann

Ms Horan removes a comment

Sonia Horan, owner of "The Trans Configuration" blog, has removed a comment I made.

I presume she found it upsetting - I told her she had veered into the personal attack. We were discussing "Cis-/Trans- Isomerization". I made comment this morning, and then decided it needed retraction; I deleted it. The record of that action is in the blog post. I then pondered the issue for a bit, and made my next comment, which has disappeared.

If I had known she was going to do that, I'd have kept a copy of the comment. As it was, it was fairly off-hand. Long-time readers of this blog will note that she's not the first one to delete words she doesn't like.

It's her blog, she's entitled to do whatever she wants. But isn't it a bit much to delete something, with no notice to the other person? It's a bit like the individual whom sent me an email that was beyond offensive and insulting! Nary an apology from her, either.

When discussing the personal, it's usually a good idea to acknowledge that quite a bit of the subject veers into the political. As such, it's up for discussion. Gender identity on a personal level is not up for discussion. Gender identity as a political concept is. A discussion about cis or trans is political, not personal - it's open to riposte. Someone's published remarks can be discussed, even ridiculed. (I ridiculed Julie Serano's vague and unconvincing argument re cis.) Comment can be made about how much of quoting of a blog post constitutes fair use - it's within the bounds of the political. Discussing how someone writes is, generally, out of bounds. Ridiculing someone's poor spelling and lack of grammar is not considered good form. Pointing out that someone is beautiful is fine; pointing out that someone else looks like a harridan from hell is impolite. Getting someone's pronouns wrong is awful; accusing someone of transphobia because you don't like their argument is, it appears, perfectly reasonable. Expected, even.

Admittedly there's often a fine line between the personal and the political; calling someone a queer is personal. Telling them they are fascist is political. Accusing someone of being racist, or homophobic or transphobic is definitely within the personal. Telling someone their arguments are transphobic is borderline; it needs to be done with care. Ms Horan did not exercise any care in her accusations. She tried to evade the offense she gave with some condescending words.

I'd go into "cis privilege", but I have no idea what that means in this context.

Ah well. I keep getting back to this:

The search for self-expression has evolved into a need to have that self-expression unchallenged, which in turn necessitates living among people who think and feel just as you do. --- Sandra Tsing-Loh in "Class Dismissed", March 09 The Atlantic (p86)

The trans community seems to have adopted this as a mantra. It has also adopted the personal attack as a way of foiling any genuine disagreement. How do you defend yourself when accused of transphobia? You can't, basically. For that reason, the accusation should be used sparingly, and with certainty. Saying "I conclude that becase [sic] you take the time to read my blog that you are NOT transphobic. Indeed, you are likely the kind of person who would vote in favor of trans rihts [sic]." It makes me wonder if Ms Horan did the basic task of clicking on my name to see what happened. Did she ever stop to wonder if I was transgendered? That my opinions are not shallow conniptions? And that pointing out when an argument has veered into the personal is perfectly reasonable? The polite way of handling such a dispute would be to acknowledge the concern, provide a small apology (even if you felt no apology was needed), and get on with the debate. No - she decides to delete my words, as if they never existed, and my annoyance, even anger, at her personal attack didn't occur. They did, and now they're accompanied by the feeling of disappointment, among other things. Pretending something doesn't exist is not the same as it not existing.

So what if my views annoy? I have never laid claim to being reassuring, gentle or in agreement. So what if my views challenge the personal? I stick to the political, for the most part. (I have, to be honest, made some personal attacks. Usually in response to something.) Ms Horan says my arguments are "seeped in arrogance and misinformation". So? Refute the misinformation, and consider if the arrogance is perceived, or intended. I do not consider her arguments to be arrogant; misinformed, some, perhaps. Arrogant? No.

What is it about these discussions that upsets people so? It's not like I call them names, or bring their parentage into question. Those used to be standard political attacks, by the way. I don't accuse people of immorality, or of dubious personal ethics. I simply point out, in as clear a way as I can, some of the problems I see in their arguments. I do not say "you're an idiot". I try to keep to the political. I do not deliberately insult; if it's pointed out that my comment was offensive, I am more than happy to apologize. A look through this blog will reveal quite a few apologies.

Controversial discussions generate controversial and adversarial commentary. It's that simple. If you don't like being on the receiving end of an adversarial comment, don't write about controversial subjects! Don't expect everyone to agree with you, or only parse out the details. Or have your feelings in mind when they write a riposte. And please, don't veer off into the personal - it's demeaning, it's insulting and it reflects more on you, and your lack of fortitude, than on me.

Perhaps I over-reacted? I'm not sure. If I did, I'm more than happy to apologize - publicly. (The private apology is meaningless when the insult happened in public. As Joe Wilson found out.) I hold myself to a standard: if I delete your comment, I will provide an explanation. I do not delete comments that insult, or disagree, or both. I will delete commercial comments and obvious spam, but, as I say - with an explanation. (Well, not always with spam.) That, I feel, is a fair and worthwhile comment deletion policy. I can't tell you how annoyed I am that Ms Horan summarily, arbitrarily and capriciously decided to delete my words with nary an explanation. An explanation that arrives hours later is not much compensation, either.

Still, I can recommend Ms Horan's writing. Just be careful disagreeing with her - she's as likely to delete your words as not.

Carolyn Ann

A good cat toy...

I heard a loud-ish thump from upstairs, and then what sounded like something rolling around. Except it would start and stop, often accompanied by some other thump-like sound. Curious, I went upstairs and found Spot playing with my new bottle of nail polish!

Darned cat.

Carolyn Ann

Linguistically conservative

I am, I realize, a linguistic conservative. I am somewhat opposed to change within the language if I perceive there being no reason, or bad reasons, for that change. I especially deplore the shoddy reasoning that leads to some new words - cis, for instance.

What is especially problematic, however, is how this resistance to change is translated by others. I was told, just this morning, that I am probably not transphobic, for instance. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how opposition to a word becomes a meaningless accusation! Either the other party is overly sensitive, or I am.

There's a story that Paul Newman was once entertaining Gore Vidal and William Buckley, and Vidal told Buckley he was a fascist. (Buckley was arguing against civil rights at the time.) Buckley turned around and told Vidal he was a queer. Apparently Paul Newman was furious - he told Buckley that what Vidal had said was political, what Buckley said was personal. And so it goes on. Opposition to some new word, or pointing out a logical fallacy will bring about personal accusations.

It's not as if personal identity isn't political - some seem to think it is. They make a claim (in this context, it's usually "I am a woman"), and get upset when someone disagrees with that assertion. If you make a claim that grand, you'd better be able to back it up, because it is a political statement. Forty years of feminist thinking has made such a claim political!

Using the same lazy logic that allows "cis" to survive, some might think of themselves as "linguistic liberals". Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who think that merely point up their own laxity - agreeing to a word is not the same as understanding it.

Some words don't need much justification; most of the ones Shakespeare conjured up are in that category. Their meaning is clear from context and construction. The people who applaud the use of a prefix as an adjective without a proper comprehension of its implications are far from competing with Shakespeare; they're still in kindergarten.

That being said, there's not much I can do to change opinions. When a sense of who you are is based on a vaguely worded and poorly understood concept, you're more likely to hang on to whatever is available. It's a variation on the old "you can't persuade a man of the rightness of your cause if his wallet depends on him not understanding it!" In metaphorical terms, my opposition to changes in words is akin to a pebble on a stream bed. I can't do much to stem the flow, but I can cause a ripple. And perhaps nudge the transgender activists into thinking a little more carefully, a little less myopically? It would serve them, and their cause, well if their arguments were a little more solid, a lot less personal and a mite more considerate of the claims and assertions being made.

Carolyn Ann

The futility of cis

As I have long suspected, it is impossible to persuade many in the trans community of the hypocrisy and utter inanity of the prefix "cis". They need this prefix, purely and simply. It doesn't matter that the prefix has become a poorly defined, indeed "nigh on impossible to define", adjective; it scarce matters that the concept behind it is as loose and flexible as the prefix cum-adjective "trans".

To show how badly defined this term is, I turn to Julie Serano's definition. She puts this forward in the online FAQ that accompanies her book "Whipping Girl"; the definition is in a blog post called "Whipping Girl FAQ on cissexual, cisgender, and cis privilege". Here is her definition:

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

An analogy: I don’t strongly *identify* with the terms “white” and “able-bodied,” even though I am both of those things. After all, I have been able to navigate my way through the world without ever having to give much thought to those aspects of my person. And that’s the point: It is my white privilege and able-bodied privilege that enables me *not* to have to deal with racism and ableism on a daily basis!

In general, we only identify with those aspects of ourselves that are marked. For example, I identify as bisexual, and as a trans woman, because those are issues that I have to deal with all of the time (because of other people’s prejudices). While I may not strongly identify as white or able-bodied, it would be entitled for me to completely disavow myself from those labels, as it would deny the white privilege and able-bodied privilege I regularly experience.

Ms Serano is contradictory, and defines by vague example. This seems to be at the root of many of the misconceptions about 'cis'. She does give credit, though, where it is needed: she does agree that the term is an "activist" one; as such, it's probably wise to be somewhat circumspect in adopting it as a coherent term. I point to Lewis Carroll (Through The Looking Glass):

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Indeed, which is to be the master? The important bit is Humpty Dumpty asserting that a word means exactly what he says it means. You have to be versed in the vocabulary to comprehend what is being said; that makes the use of "cis" as an adjective circumspect. If a word is so malleable, does it actually contain any meaning?

Let's parse Ms Serano's words, to see if they contain anything more precise. "Cis is not meant to be an identity. Rather, it simply describes the way that one is perceived by others." Except cis is a modifier, and an identifier. As a prefix it modifies "gender", or "sexual"; it narrows their definitions in what is actually a fairly arbitrary way. Ms Serano might not intend cis to be about identity, but she uses other prefixes as identifiers: bi and trans. I'm not sure where the perception of others comes in, it seems to be irrelevant. Ms Serano's overall argument is based on a couple of strawmen: the facts that she's white, and she's not disabled. Those are irrelevant to her point; in fairness, she uses them as analogies. Unfortunately the analogies break so quickly they're useless.

Her point is not helped with her confused assertion that she defines herself as bisexual and as a transwoman because of the bigotry she experiences: "I identify as bisexual, and as a trans woman, because those are issues that I have to deal with all of the time ..." She needlessly points out that this is because others are prejudiced. The harassment, bullying, and discrimination that most transpeople endure is deplorable, but it does not define them as transpeople; it's a result of two things: bigotry of others and the bravery of the transperson.

The remainder of her definition is rendered illogical because it mixes too many concepts, introduces some new ones and I suspect there's a word or two missing.

All in all, Ms Serano did not define "cis" very well. She didn't define it at all! This wouldn't matter, but her definition has become a bit of a touchstone for how others define themselves and others.

Some other writers have had more success defining cis, always (it seems) coming down to: "cis" is the opposite of trans, or cis is when your gender and sex "line up". Considering that, within the context of gender, "trans" is not especially well defined, I probably shouldn't be so insistent of an accurate definition for cis. At least not without insisting upon a similar standard for trans!

Here's a linguistic problem for cis fans: Some transwomen claim to be women. Are they ciswomen, or transwomen? Logic isn't much of a help: the claim is that the set "women" contains "transwomen" and "ciswomen". Clearly it could, but I'll ignore it; it's irrelevant to the exploration of cis as a concept.

The clearest, and indeed most convincing, argument for cis was one I read the other day (sorry, I can't locate the blog I read it on!) The author of the blog basically said it was easier than writing "not transgendered". That's actually a reason I can accept!

Most of the debate is an exploration of an old familiar: how do we define ourselves? Especially when there's a problem, such as our gender and sex not being in agreement. Ms Serano makes much of being one thing, but not the other - most people do not think about sex and gender in the same way that transpeople do. Most people don't understand the issue; far too many simply refute that such a condition could exist! The fact that there are so many transmen and transwomen belies their argument.

One of the problems I have with cis is that it doesn't elevate transpeople, it reduces the rest of the population. It's used as a device to level the playing field, so to speak. One transwoman told me this was okay, because transpeople are victimized. I disagree, strongly disagree. It is not okay to demean others simply because some demean you; the goal should be to maintain the moral high ground, not meet the "enemy" in the valley of bigoted and close-minded thought!

I don't like "cis", and will not use it. But my efforts to persuade others of the hypocrisy and laxity within it, well - that I'll probably not bother with, anymore. I can see it being used as a shorthand; it's not one I like, but that's by the by. The English language evolves, sometimes in strange directions. This is one of the stranger twists! Brought about by lax and lazy thinking, it has developed a trendiness that is mystifying; or it would be, if I didn't know how lackadaisical some can be when it comes to language.

Carolyn Ann

Old fashioned spam

It's "nice" to see that some old fashioned spam exists. I just took a wander down to the mailbox, and - lo and behold! - a letter telling me I'd won a round trip for two to somewhere. The award awarders had, I am told, made several, presumably concerted efforts, to contact me, but had failed to do so. This letter was my last chance!

I was to call a Jacqueline to claim my prize. Oh, I was also supposed to call them to decline the prize. So they may offer it to someone else.

Yeah, I'll make that phone call as soon as the end of forever arrives.

Carolyn Ann

I ain't as young as I used to be

New keyboard - short posts... :-)

As I get older, I often realize that I'm not as young as I used to be. Once upon a time, I could have a great evening out, get home somewhere around 3 or 4AM, and still go to work the next day. I simply can't do that, anymore!

I'm an out of shape, balding, aching and creaking mid-40's guy with allusions to being a svelte lass with lots of perfectly styled hair. (I wonder if that's normal? :-) ) I haven't exercised for a bit (the gym wasn't working out. So to speak...) I'm in awe at those guys who are about as fit as they were 20 years ago; that just is not me.

I need to cut back on the beer (craft beers, the type I drink, expensive and we're not exactly rolling in it, these days), definitely need to keep the single malt at arms length, and absolutely do need some exercise. At least I eat reasonably healthily!

I think a little less motorcycling and a little more bicycling is required. I just wish realizing I ain't that young anymore was a little less painful, and a lot less sudden.

Carolyn Ann

Reminder to myself

Don't write when I'm sloshed. Especially when I'm not far from "falling over drunk".

I didn't plan on getting sloshed - I was just watching some TV, but by the time I got up from the couch, and the bottle of The Macallan (12, as always) - I was barely able to walk in a straight line. I think the "wee finger" became something more akin to a jug, and as I drink my scotch straight - that was a lot of scotch! Looking at the bottle, there's not a lot left in there. I should have left it in kitchen, and not taken it into the living room. Having to get up to get a refill would remind me not to slurp too much.

The Mrs wasn't terribly happy with me, this morning.

Ooh. Someone, please - I'd write it in all caps, but that might be too loud - stop the world. I'd like to get off for a minute or ten.

Oy, do I have a hangover, this morning!

Carolyn Ann

Subverting meritocracy

Andrew Sullivan, that recently married tireless blogger for The Atlantic, posted a comment about Iriving Kristol. (I only mention his marriage because I'm still trying to figure out when the man sleeps.)

Some people are not going to like this...

Irving Kristol was against affirmative action because "it subverts meritocracy". I have to say: I wholeheartedly agree.

When we give preference to one group or another, we deem that group to be less than the norm. And in desperate need of official assistance. We are, supposedly, equal - we should act like it. Allowing preferential treatment based on some "condition" is against both equality and the idea that we are a meritocracy.

You succeed, or fail, on your own terms. If you succeed, great. If you fail - I am not to blame.

I have always believed this. Because I want to succeed on my own terms.

I agree that minority businesses need a helping hand to get started. But I do not agree that everyone in a minority needs the same assistance. If we have differing standard for college admission, for instance, where is the incentive to achieve? The white guy has to work harder, because he's white?

For a time in London, I was the only white guy on the staff. My "promotion" came because a couple of black guys thought I'd earned it. After being put in charge of a few guys, I was called out by one them - he thought my promotion was racist. It wasn't. He refused to work weekends. I worked them. He refused to work those extra few minutes at the end of the day. I didn't. He cited race as a factor in his dealings with people. I didn't. I was a frickin' sod with everyone. I earned that promotion.

Did anyone else go out of their way to earn what I had achieved? The simple answer is: No.

I once worked with someone whom was given a promotion. Simply for being a woman. I was quite taken aback; she was above me in the hierarchy, but I was the one that spent a very long weekend fixing her wiring. Once she achieved her promotion, she became insufferable. She did not deserve that promotion - she had done nothing extraordinary, unless you count "doing your job" as worth notice.

I've not always been an exemplary employee; I played fast and loose with some rules - I figured out the loopholes, and I exploited them. No one told me the loopholes; indeed, if someone told me of a loophole, I reckoned the boss knew of it. No, I figured out new ones. :-) (There were plenty for me: including the ones I pulled when I called that lass I'm now deliriously married to.)

What I have always done is stand on my own. No one has ever given me anything. When I did woodwork, I did not receive favor from anyone - far from it, I had to fight international firms! "I can buy that at Ikea!" was the cue for me to say "well, do so!" Because I learned that not doing that would cost me more than bill for the work. (The other was "I can build that for half the cost!" I learned to say "So do it!") Did I give work to my competitors? Sure. Do I care? Not a bit. I asked no favor from anyone.

I never have. In High/Comprehensive School, I studied hard. When other kids were hanging out, I was in my room, studying. I didn't go to college, but entered an apprenticeship, instead. (It's a short story, but one that's not relevant.) In that apprenticeship, I had to study; I did. After awhile, other things became more important: wine, women and song. My grades suffered, and I left the studious side of my career.

That's why meritocracy is so important: it awards those who make the effort. No one is exempt. Skin color has nothing, Nothing, to do with intelligence, effort or dedication. If you want to be rewarded for effort: make the damn effort in the first place.

I will forever be against affirmative action.

Carolyn Ann

PS I told you some might not like it!

Death unto a fly

Born a day or so ago

Blat! Life ends

In a violent show of force

that describes a moment

when the swat met the fly

===

Jeez, that's damned stupid

Carolyn Ann

I feel the need...

...for speed!

But there are too many cops about, these days. I saw 3 within a hundred miles, today. That's more than usual, especially as I was back roads most of the time.

How can I blast down the road at 100 plus when there might be a cop waiting for me? It's disgraceful. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Problems with T-Central and Safari

I've recently stopped using the Internet "planet", T-Central. It destroys my browser sessions!

Here's the test: load up the NY Times, the Guardian, the Huffington Post and a few other sites, including DZone and some Wordpress and Blogger blogs. The browser keeps on working. Load up T-Central - Safari freaks out. I can't get a single page to load in any browser window!

I should try Firefox, but I really don't want to use that browser. Why should I use a specific browser for a specific site? Besides which, my Snow Leopard seems to have removed Firefox from my system! So I now have to go fetch it, and install it. That's irritating.

I think the problem lies in how T-Central is constructed (it isn't, not really). It's basically a bunch of blogger widgets; I can't help but think that the main one, the dynamic blogroll thingie, has been stretched to breaking point. It probably contains too many blog listings. It is, after all, intended to cover a few blogs in a sidebar. Somewhere in there, the Javascript that runs the widget freaks when it meets Safari's new Javascript engine. It might be there are too many resources being used, or it could be the Apple code has a bug - that's actually fairly probable. Indeed, it's the likely problem: it affects the browser application, not just the window T-Central is loaded into.

I'm not inclined to go hunting down the cause, and I can't load the thing, so I'll just neglect T-Central for a bit. I don't actually know who runs the "planet" (the sort of listing T-Central is known as a "planet"; often running specific Python code from planetplanet, T-Central changed some of the mores of planets. Quite successfully, I'd say), so I can't email them and tell them. Likewise, there's no facility I could find, or - more importantly, access, due to the aforementioned bug - for leaving a comment.

If anyone from T-Central reads this - please consider this a bug report! :-)

Tech details: OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.1, Safari 4.0.3. I'll be reporting the bug to Apple, via their "Report a bug to Apple" service. In the meantime, the T-Central folks might want to take a look at the resources their webpage requires.

Ah well, T-Central provided a neat service. But if it keeps breaking my browsing sessions, I can't use it.

Carolyn Ann

Can't sleep...

And if you've been reading this blog for any length of time - goodness, gracious me! :-)

And if you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you'll know it's ramble time.

I see China is getting its economy in order; small wonder. It's in a perilous position, politically. It can't keep a lid on all that creativity and dynamism forever, but you can be sure a lot of blood will be spilled in the meantime. Crabby old men never want to give up power, but they will, in the end.

President Clinton was on Jon Stewart, this evening. There's a man I can listen to for hours. Good job - he's more than capable of going, extemporaneously, for hours. Indeed, as intellectual as Obama is, I don't think he's in the same league as Bill. Very, very few are. And some say his wife is brighter? She's got to be an absolute genius, Stephen Hawking level genius, to be such. But then again, I've always thought she is! How many other people could accomplish what she has? She's also proving to be an amazing Secretary of State.

I watched a program about motorcycle safety gear. Watching some of the footage covering high-siders (a motorcyclists' nightmare; one of many), I really do think that those who refuse to wear helmets are foolish. A high sider is when the rear wheel gives way, and then regains grip - it tosses you over the handlebars with quite some force! Personally, I've never tried to get close enough to the limit of my bikes to even feel it was a possibility! I've had a low sider or two - that's where the front wheel gives way, and you go down. But a high sider? No siree. Don't want that.

Anyway, some of those racing suits the top racers wear must cost tens of thousands of dollars. They can help shave fractions of a second from a lap, and that might be enough to win. And that's what racing is all about - winning. None of this "playing is enough" crap! Of course, Renault and McLaren took this to extremes. It made me appreciate the gear I do wear all the more! Especially the spine protection - that's an essential.

Then I watched a VH1 "Classic Albums" show on The Doors first album. You know: "The Doors". First thing I noted was that Val Kilmer looks more like Jim Morrison than Jim Morrison. But I think that's been observed, before. :-) The other note was that sometimes you need to have genius explained. ... I do, anyway. I love The Doors, and their music, but not being especially musical, couldn't explain why. Now I know.

The members of the band were somewhat disparaging of The Beatles, but I think they missed the point: The Beatles came from a different place. The Doors came from sunny, southern California and The Beatles came from a town that was just emerging from the devastation of World War 2. Southern California had a vibrant, fast growing economy in World War 2, and afterwards. Liverpool was on the cusp of dying as an industrial town. I felt the remaining members of The Doors could cut The Beatles a little slack. Especially as they were never quite as big as the Fab Four.

What else? Yvonne Bornstein's book, "Eleven Days of Hell" arrived at the library. I had to special order it; my book buying budget is, literally, non-existent these days, so I had to get it from the library. I've only just started it, and I can already feel the tension building. I have a Mary Kay Andrews to finish (Fixer Upper, I think) and then I'll get into Mrs Bornstein's saga. It's not one I'm looking forward to reading, to be honest. It's a harrowing story, and I'm worried it'll add to my collection of nightmares. Goodness knows the toll it took on Mrs Bornstein and her husband.

Let's see...

Flavio Briatore is sacrificing himself to save the Renault team. Yeah, right. If you believe that, I've got a nice, barely used bridge to sell you. It spans the East River in New York. Apparently the F1 pit lane is enjoying Briatore's fall from grace. Bunch of old women, gossiping over the affairs of a young lass down the road.

It certainly alters, well, not a lot. Briatore was dynamic force within F1, but these days Formula 1 is all about Bernie Ecclestone and his considerable, and ever-growing wealth. Unless your name is "Ferrari", in which case F1 is about how long you've been in the game. Sodding children, the lot. Playground antics that come with hundred-million pound price tags.

Earth to Formula 1: Grow up.

Sodding nitwits.

I'm out of beer, there's no single malt in the house (only an ancient bottle of vodka, and I don't drink that stuff; long story that involves a really bad acid trip) and I'm actually feeling pretty tired. For once.

Night, night. Sleep tight.

Carolyn Ann

Dignity, basic human dignity

I read of Queen Emily's recent travails with an increasing sense of disgust - her treatment at a local hospital was beyond disgraceful. It was shoddy, careless and lacked even a basic acknowledgement of her dignity.

I didn't find it surprising - indeed, one thing it brought to mind was an unwanted memory of a doctor shouting his questions to me in the mental health emergency room at Bellevue. He shouted his questions from one side of the space where you're given small meals; we'd all been told to be in this space, regardless of any individual desire. So the doctor decided that might be a good time to ask me about my gender issues (which were not, I might add, a factor in my being there). I was not at my best, but I still stood up to the fool. I later made an official complaint against him; this was strongly discouraged, but I persisted. The hospital even sent a senior administrator to try and dissuade me.

Queen Emily puts it all down to a gender choice: choose between "M" or "F" on a form. Well, that's not fair - there's a justified anger in her words. Unfortunately, she allows her anger to boil over into the conjectural. But it's short lived. Interestingly, though, she also highlights a problem with two transmen in Australia. The government wants to sterilize these two, for reasons of "statistical neatness". What a facetious and odious reason to do such a thing to anyone! The government has no right to interfere with their choices, and it certainly has no right to demand sterilization! Which decade are they in? Which School of Eugenics did those government bureaucrats attend? On a similar also highlights a case where two transwomen were denied the ability to change their gender designations because the gender re-assignment operations were conducted outside the United States. I remember the case: it turned out to be a poorly phrased law. The Illinois motor vehicles department couldn't grant the women their new status no matter how much sense it made. I don't know if anything has come of it; the two options available, a lawsuit or a protractive effort to change the legislation, are not desirable. It would have been better if the law had been written correctly in the first place. Other incidents include school principals denying entry to a prom because a young lad turned up in a gown. This arbitrary imposition of a norm is simply not acceptable.

All three incidents, Queen Emily's shoddy treatment and the two (well, four, each involved two individuals) transgender cases all point to one single problem: others do not grant transgendered individuals their dignity as individuals. This lack is at the root of a lot of anti-trans sentiment, from emergency crews that laughed at a dying transwoman, to the anti-bathroom invective we're so used to reading about.

To be fair, the trans community does not exactly help itself in this regard. It is divisive, it makes claims that are perceived to undermine the dignity of others and it has a distinct, and unaddressed, problem with pornography, and prostitution. These are complex issues, but they assume a simplistic ardor in the hands of those who do not like the transgendered. But none of that excuses boorish behavior on the part of Queen Emily's doctor.

This denial of basic dignity is not restricted to the trans community; people have a disturbing tendency to deny anything like dignity to those different to themselves. Heck, it's one of the primary forces in the racist anti-Obama protests. The refusal to grant recognition of Obama's American citizenship, which some would happily deny the man, is denying him a basic dignity he's entitled to by birth. Prejudice is as common as it odious, basically. If we insist on being treated as individuals, we tend to find that officialdom grants that basic privilege. We don't, and should not expect, that those outside of officialdom would be so "charitable". We shouldn't have to demand the respect we deserve, none of us. But we find we do.

Some people deny transwomen their dignity as people for religious reasons. Some because they harbor grandiose ideas about what their god wants. Others because they find the transgendered "icky". Others because of any reason whatsoever; hate makes few demands on its acolytes. These people, whether they are arguing against allowing the transgendered use of a bathroom, or the legal protections that they desperately need, deny transpeople their basic dignity. They reduce transwomen (and men) to caricatures, usually evil ones. (Like I said, some in the transgender community help with that.) Even if you don't like transwomen, transmen, the genderqueer, or any of the plethora of different gender-related identities out there, there is no reason, no justification, for treating someone as less than yourself.

I do wonder why basic human dignity has to be legislated. Why should someone be penalized for who they love, how they identify, or how they dress? In western society, we value the individual. We reject ideas of monotonous hordes, and we most assuredly reject the idea that we should all be the same. But we still need to legislate to ensure that people are treated equally, that individuals do not get fired for being gay, lesbian, transgendered. We still need to demand a basic respect from our teacher, principals, doctors and officials. As I say, there is no reason, none, why we can't treat each other with a basic dignity.

I'm sorry, Queen Emily, I can't agree with all of your reasoning about why you were treated so shoddily. What I whole-heartedly agree with is that you were. If I were you, I'd be making complaints, loudly and vociferously. It's a sad fact that transwomen, and transmen, have to fight for their basic rights. I wish it were otherwise, and I think that day will arrive. But until then, we have to insist on being treated as human beings - nothing more, and nothing less. There is no justification for the shoddy treatment you received.

Carolyn Ann

Another NY icon closes

Tavern on the Green is closing. They filed for bankruptcy protection a few days ago, and will likely close before too long. Another New York icon, gone.

I didn't eat at the Tavern very often - in 11 years, I think I went there three or four times. I preferred the Restaurant at the Top of the World - the one in the World Trade Center. Sitting there, with a scotch and that view: that was unbeatable!

New York changes. Its one constant is change. Several icons have closed in recent years. I don't know if there's anything emerging that can replace some of those icons. It seems to me that New York is fighting a lonely battle between itself and being a suburban Anytown. The big box stores, and Disney, are making an effort to turn New York City into a suburbanized, sanitized version of itself. It came close to happening, under Giuliani, and I'm not ready to give Mike Bloomberg a High Five for his efforts to preserve NYC's character.

The developers and new inhabitants seem to think New York City is defined by its landmarks! While they play a large part in the perception of what NYC is, they aren't its whole. Part of NYC's allure are those icons, and its neighborhoods, and its inhabitants. With the possible exception of San Francisco, people watching in NYC is a unique endeavor!

Towns and cities the world over are all starting to look, and feel, the same. What makes a place unique is being plowed under, to make way for a Walmart parking lot. As the costs of building big box stores and bland office parks comes down, more and more we see the outskirts of towns and cities become indistinguishable, while the centers remain neglected. On the other hand, we are seeing efforts, like the one in Omaha, to revitalize areas, turning them into arts districts. Or the effort in Knoxville, Tennessee, to revitalize the town center, turning it into a destination, or Hendersonville, North Carolina with its recreated downtown. Out of necessity, these places embrace change, and have a vitality that is palpable.

All this changing does have a human cost; all those anonymous places isolate us. A Starbuck's in a mall is not a replacement for a pub; a mall is not a replacement for a downtown (no matter how much they try to emulate one), a mega-church will never replace for a small parish where everyone knows each other (although one mega-church will replace many smaller churches). It all isolates us, in our homes and our cars. The concept of a neighborhood becomes moot, the idea of knowing your neighbors, an onerous exercise. Everything becomes sanitized, clean and discounted. A few cities have resisted all of this, San Francisco, Santa Fe, Asheville, and an astonish number of other places. It seems that with the march of homogeneity, we lose sight of the places that are fighting to retain their character, their downtowns and their uniqueness.

As things become homogenous, it's nice to know that some unique places still exist. Some places change reluctantly, others embrace it, as they always have. That's the great thing about New York is that constant change. While the icons go, other places will emerge and replace them. It's a decades long process, not something New York doesn't seem especially keen about, but it happens irregardless.

New York, New York. What a wonderful town! :-)

Carolyn Ann

Say what?

My wife was reiterating the sorry tale of one of her friends. The friend had gone for a mammogram. Her insurance company covers such things (I think it's the law in the NJ), and she didn't expect any problems with the payment.

So she was quite surprised to discover that the insurance company had rejected her claim - because she had another insurance that was primary. She wondered what it that might be. So she asked. After a seemingly endless quarrel, the insurance company finally told her - the company that insures her car!

Now they want a letter, a signed affidavit no less, from the car insurer saying they don't cover medical needs. And people object to health care being reformed?!?

Carolyn Ann

The best laid plans of mice, men and those who ain't too sure

I didn't get the grouting done. Various little fixes took up most of my day. As well as reading all about Renault's Formula 1 travails, and Jimmy Carter's brave but more than reasonable allegations and charges.

For instance, I ended up replacing 6 tiles. They got broken when I dropped the piano on myself. Hairline cracks that were difficult to see until I got real close. Amazingly, the cement in the middle of the tiles hadn't set! So fixing that was fairly easy, if laborious.

And then I fixed the dining room door. It didn't close properly - mostly because I made a mistake when I built the door frame. I made it 3/8" too wide. It took me a wee while to figure out how to make the fix not look as bad as the mistake. And then it became one of those items on my "perpetual to-do list" You know - those items you know need doing, but you either forget, don't have the right amount of time, the right materials (and you forget to pick them up at the Home Depot) and so on. So the to-do takes up permanent residence on the to-do list...

Well, it's off the to-do list, now. :-)

Doing it turned out to be easy, after 2 trips to the Home Depot and an endless search for nails for my nail gun. And then unclogging it (a few times) because I forgot it doesn't take 18-gauge nails.

A bit of paint, and it'll look not as good as it should, but not as shoddy as it could have. (Faint praise, indeed!)

By the time I'd gotten all this finished - it has become too late to start grouting. Ah well - I'll start in the morning, and hopefully have it finished some time around midnight, tomorrow. There's a lot of grouting to be done!

Carolyn Ann

Holy mackerel!

Renault just admitted to deliberately crashing a car in last year's Singapore Grand Prix race! Good grief.

Okay, stupid question time: which is the more idiotic? Deliberately causing a crash and hoping no one would tell. Or: deliberately causing a crash, treating the cooperating driver with disdain and thinking he would keep your secret when you (effectively) fired him?

What is it over in Formula 1? Amateur hour? It must be! Between Ferrari's team orders, McLaren's spying, Max Mosley's sexual frivolities, and now this - someone needs to put an adult in charge of that lot. There's so much money in F1 it obviously gets in the way of common sense.

Every month we hear of various NASCAR infractions. They're usually minor, and result in a fine, or a loss of points, or a temporary ban. Sometimes some idiot gets a lifetime ban, but that's rare. What this means is that either the rules are too restrictive (they are), or that some people really do think no one will notice when they break the rules. Crashes are so common in NASCAR it really doesn't matter if it's deliberate or not - you crash, you end up with not much anyway.

If Renault is lucky, they'll get a $100M fine, and a one year ban. Deliberately causing a crash? Flavio Briatore, Renault's erstwhile racing director, will be banned for life. Piquet Jr, the driver, has disgraced himself - next year, he'll be lucky to get a watch ticket to a Formula 1 race, never mind a drive. Pat Symmonds, the technical director, should be banned for life, but he somehow managed to get immunity in exchange for evidence. It's small compensation, but his name is so tainted, he'll be lucky to get a job managing kids' go-karts. (Hopefully he won't pull a Michael Vick, and get hired by someone. I still can't believe the Eagles hired that man.)

What is it with people, these days? Joe Wilson inappropriately shouting at the President, one of the Williams' sisters having an on-court tantrum, and now this. Has decency, common sense and sportsmanlike or gentlemanly behavior been replaced by such a desire to win that winning must be achieved at any cost?

It might be entertaining, but it is demeaning to the sport. If you can't win by playing fair - you shouldn't be playing. You're not mature enough. Renault: you need to get your house in order. But Formula 1 has the bigger job - it's created a culture where this sort of behavior is contemplated, and done, and allowed to go undetected for a year. That's the ultimate disgrace.

Carolyn Ann

Grouting...

I am finally doing the grouting of the tiles! Between the weather (hot and, more importantly, brutally humid) and some projects I'm working on, I've just not had the occasion to do the work. The humidity was a killer, though - it prevented the tile cement from drying properly. With excessive humidity, large tiles and the plastic underlay Ditra, there's very little opportunity for the moisture in the cement to evaporate, hence drying the stuff. For weeks I was checking the tiles, but they wouldn't dry!

Well, they're dry now. I've tried, somewhat successfully, to keep the tiles in their proper place. I've also discovered the hallway has a gentle slope toward the stairway. How do I know this? The tiles kept slowly sliding in that direction. Because the tile cement hadn't cured...

Ah well. The tiles have been set for a couple of weeks now, and I've finally got the chance to do the grouting. :-)

Carolyn Ann

The illogic of anti-illegal immigrant fervor

How do you deny health care to illegal aliens? You know - people who have not received permission to be in the country.

There's only way of doing it, really: you require all citizens, and all those who have permission to be in the country, carry identification cards. The logic of Joe Wilson and his racist support group would have it that if you have no ID card, you are left to bleed to death. After all, compassion is not something America wants to be known for. Right? So far right they are the ones who can be compared to Hitler's Germany.

But if you require those ID cards, isn't that akin to ... what? Communism? You betcha!

In this health care "debate", there's a lot of hysteria, most of it based on hypocrisy. This racism is a throwback to the mid to late 1800's, when wetbacks and chinks were the despised group. Illegal aliens are generally mistreated, poorly paid and held in conditions more akin to those of slaves. They do the jobs no one else seems to want - picking oranges in Florida, tomatoes in California and New Jersey, peaches in Georgia and driving trucks for way below minimum wage for large retail concerns, roofing, construction, and so on. Illegal immigrants contribute the economy - they don't exactly have any downside. They don't take jobs from those who need them; if they do take jobs, it's because American employers hire them at wages far below minimum wage. It's not like these people are taking well paying jobs from Americans; the outsourcing to India is doing that. If the Southern Carolina economy is in trouble because of illegal immigration, I'd say the problem is not the immigrants - it's how South Carolina is being governed. Or not.

Well, some illegal immigrants do take jobs away from Americans. Driving trucks for large retailers should be done by licensed drivers. Slaughterhouses should have decently paid employees. Roofing contractors should be paying their employees well, and ensuring they have safety equipment. Orange growers shouldn't be housing their employees in slave-like conditions, paying them in scrip and basically abdicating any responsibility for their welfare. And so on. American employers pay illegal immigrants because American employees tend to know their rights, and they demand things like a livable minimum wage.

One of the many complaints about illegal immigrants is that they promote crime, and drug use. Well, perhaps they do in some areas, but overall? They want to stay below the radar, unnoticed by any and all. Drugs in America is a totally different story - Americans consume so many drugs, it's an epidemic. Somehow, I don't think illegal immigrants are a crime wave; I know Americans taking drugs are.

I'm not saying that America should open its borders to all and sundry. What I am saying is that the "problem" needs to be put into perspective. But I suspect that the hysterical and obnoxious anti-immigrant people know that. Which is why they really, really do not want the problem being put into perspective. There's too much money in both illegal immigrants, and in being anti-illegal immigrant.

How astonishing is that?

Carolyn Ann