The girl who was left out

I figured it was a good title. :-)

No matter what I wish, I will never be a girl. No matter what surgery I undergo, I will never be the girl I wanted to be. C'est la vie.

But it's so damn infuriating to read about a fracas and not know where it is!

(An example of when not to contract. Can you imagine reading "and not know where it's!"

The mêlée continues. Lucy Melford is the latest to note that it is occurring. Infuriatingly, she doesn't say where. (Edit: corrected my spelling of Lucy's name)

Perhaps it's all an evil plot? To put me in my place? To ensure I run ragged around the Internet(s) (that's to keep the frivolous happy), not finding any fight, or war I can join. Perhaps I wrote that because I like to explore all options. Or just wanted to annoy one or two people out there in InternetLand. :-)

I feel like the belle of the ball, and I just realized no one told me where the ball was. (Did I drop the ball? Non! Sûremont pas!)

Darn.

Carolyn Ann

That's the end of traditional media

I do feel sorry for Microsoft. Their most recent tablet computer is light years ahead of Apple's iPad in all the technical areas. It's just not as good.

The biggest problem with the Microsoft tablets is their market - there isn't one. Apple, on the other hand, identified the market they want to enter (media) and then figured out what they needed to do. They had the advantage of the iPhone, but that's not an insurmountable competitive item. What Microsoft forgot was that you have to sell solutions, not technical wonders. People don't buy that many technical wonders. They do buy solutions, though.

I don't feel bad for Amazon, however. Their Kindle has been basically mismanaged, and has such basic technology it struggles to be half a solution. Black and white, in this day and age? No web access? What? I need another device to read my email? By limiting the Kindle to books and (some) magazines, Amazon misunderstood their customers. They're making sales, but I doubt they've taken an especially close look at their buyers. They haven't caught the trend-setters. Apple, by contrast, makes the trendy look so-last-week.

Apple has a staggeringly large market at its fingertips. Magazines, newspapers, even books will find their way onto iPad-compatible platforms. Look for a plethora of titles in the next few months - no one is going to miss this bandwagon. The price point is ideal, a little higher than a Kindle, nowhere near the cost of a tablet-PC. The super-expensive version is ideally priced for quite a few professionals - it's a complex enough purchase that they can justify it on their tax returns as a business expense. The cheaper one runs the risk of being seen as a reader by the taxman.

Once Apple sorts out those few glaring issues it has (no camera, no multi-tasking, no USB port), it will have a platform that can dominate the media market. And once they've got iWork ported and working, it becomes a professional dream - work and entertainment in one easy to carry package? Of course, iWork will have to get better, much better, before it can compete with MS Office. At this point, that's not a significant barrier to success.

One thing is sure: if Apple gets it right (and there's no reason to assume they won't) a lot of money will be spent on iPad books, perhaps they'll even come in iPad (eBook) format, and the market will swiftly evolve. All Apple has to do is implement a few minor changes - things they should have gotten right, originally.

I know Amazon is not getting a critical piece of the Kindle right - they're applying traditional publishing concerns to their content purchases. Amazon is not looking at what they're good at - the long tail. They're rejecting books and authors. You can bet someone is looking at that, and saying "on the iPad, I can reissue lots of no longer published books and make a ton of money!" (I don't think I'm giving anything away, except an obvious business strategy. And there's plenty of room in the market for many, many boutique firms.) This will change how we purchase our written entertainment and information. No longer are we beholden to bookstores, their managers and purchasers. The lifespan of a book will not be restricted to a few months - it will either be a few weeks, or a long, long time. Also, the iPad is the one thing that could disrupt the paper industry.

Overall, the Apple iPad (I sincerely hope they change the name), is poised to not only be a market changer, it's likely to be something that changes lifestyles!

Carolyn Ann

Britain's Section 44

Personally, I blame "Section 44" of the Terrorism Act of 2000 (PDF). It has

44 Authorisations
(1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
(4) An authorisation may be given—
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;
(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.
(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Basically "if you're in a specific, police-designated area, and the cop is feeling ornery or having a bad day, you're going to jail. Oh, by the way: we're not going to tell where those areas are! Have a nice day."

These powers, which are so obviously threatening to liberty, have been challenged. The European Court of Human Rights agrees - although it does so on the basis that there's no way of reporting abuse.

All cops, regardless of location, seem to have a thing about cameras. If you try to take certain pictures in New York City - there's a strong chance you'll be having an unpleasant, one-sided, chat with a cop. (No, I haven't tried it.)

Now, cops need their authority. They can't work without it. The trouble is that they don't always recognize when they are abusing that authority. With something like Section 44, a cop is encouraged to act conservatively, it being easier to fine someone because they "Caused harassment, alarm and distress in a public place." (Video.) Those sort of charges are a neat catch-all; the one I hear and read about most often over here is "disturbing the peace". Same thing, just more succinct. It's become the preferred method for the cops to assert "well, we can't get you on anything, so we'll just stick it to you, anyway." It also helps avert any blame, or responsibility, for their actions. They can then say "See! This person was disturbing the peace - who are you going to believe? Us or a criminal?"

John Yates, Scotland Yard's Assistant Police Commissioner, sent a memo out telling the cops to be a little more judicious in their use of Section 44. If you think that'll solve, or even mitigate, the problem, I have a very nice bridge to sell you. What is needed is a very clear instruction, one that the cops and the public can understand, and some way the public can report abuse. Probably some signs would be useful - if you're going to be a police state, why not just admit it?

Britons and visitors to British shores are the most watched people on the planet. Even the Chinese don't watch their citizens the way British cops do. The balance between government power and individual liberty is not really a discussion in the UK - the government basically dictates what your liberties are, and you accept them. They watch you on the motorway (freeway), have an automated system capture you if you exceed the speed limit, have those big blue cameras that can track you wherever you go, and finally have Section 44 to do with as they please.

Some might argue that the sheer density of people makes it impossible to track everyone. I disagree. That's a fairly simple technical problem. The British government is not that far from being able to understand the movements of an entire population! What happens after that? Coupled with the infamous opacity of British government (yeah, I know there's some effort to make it appear that government is becoming more transparent), and it all becomes very scary.

Part of a group that agitates for change? The cops can track you, and continually stop you. (It's happened.) Hold an unpopular view? The cops can keep an eye on whom you meet, and then watch them, too. Advocate for a substantial change in government? Publicly protest the cops? They know who you are, and where you live.

Some people might be under the impression that as long as the cops, and other legal authorities, don't stop you protesting, from voicing your opinion - then the cameras and all are essentially meaningless. They're not. Once you give the police the power to monitor your every move, your every trip, you essentially hand them the keys to your life. In the US, there's a strange law that allows the FBI to investigate you in a disturbingly thorough way - and they can force you to be an unwilling participant in that investigation. (5th Amendment? Wozzat?) The law has been challenged, especially after it was discovered that the FBI egregiously abused their power, but as far as I know, it's still on the books. We, the public, don't even know how many of these special warrants are issued (unless Congress gets curious, and when was the last time that happened?) - the whole thing is shrouded in a very disturbing secrecy.

Britain is one step ahead of that - they can watch you without any oversight whatsoever. Indeed, there is no oversight. (There was a minor scandal some time ago, where some cops were admonished because they used their cameras to peer into the bedrooms of young women. I haven't heard of anything like that for some time. Which makes me wonder if the cops suddenly became purer than angels (yeah, that'll happen), or that they have figured out how to avoid having such incidents discovered. (Want to make a bet on which one it is?)

I have no issue with the cops using legal tools to figure out who's a terrorist, or criminal. What I do object to is the assumption that because the problem is big, the authorities need to monitor everyone! I have no desire for the cops to intrude in my law-abiding life. If the New Jersey State Troopers suddenly put a camera at the end of my road, it would be a draconian state intrusion into my privacy. Even if they gave me all their assurances that they don't do anything with the footage, unless they need to - they are still intruding. There's not much distance from monitoring the movements of a person, or a group, to controlling it. We see that every time a large economic protest happens, in Britain and the US. (And elsewhere.) Section 44 bridges that gap quite nicely.

What's especially alarming is that I don't see much, any, protest against this government intrusion. The speed cameras have become a draconian tax source. The police monitors have become an ugly part of the landscape. Taking pictures can lead to your arrest. The police can figure out if you're a person of interest simply because they can monitor your movements. Press photographers get harassed and arrested simply because the police can do that. People who protest nuclear weapons or the Iraq war, or whatever, suddenly become known to the cops. They get stopped randomly, simply because their car pops up in a secret police database.

It has happened.

In the name of guarding liberty, Britain is on a solid march to a nightmare of government monitoring and harassment of those deemed "troublemakers". Indeed, between the cameras and Section 44, it's possible to argue that Britain has become a police state. Most people won't notice, the cops aren't interested in them. Indeed, a few well-publicized criminals have been brought to justice because of the cameras. Everyone feels safer, and the monitoring assumes a favorable context. But a few, who simply might be challenging the right of a government to intrude into the lives of its citizens, become police targets. Their rights are not exactly infringed, but they are inconvenienced by the power of the state.

Where does it stop? When an Italian art student can be arrested for taking pictures of buildings it's not a question of wondering if it has gone too far. When a press photographer can be stopped and searched for taking pictures of a famous London landmark, along with other equally ridiculous examples, (tourists being forced to delete pictures, someone being arrested for taking pictures of a fish and chip shop, a TV crew being harassed, and so many others it's impossible to list them!) it's really not a question if the state has too much power. That's been asserted.

When that power can be nominally, and uselessly, curtailed by a memo from a top cop - we're not discussing a system that protects people. We're discussing a system that would make the old Soviet KGB envious, and probably provides a model for the Chinese authorities to use.

Activists argue about a Tory government, versus a Labour one. I don't see anyone discussing the protection of British liberty. I don't see these activists railing against government intrusion. The sentiment seems to be that the government should be able to trust the people. People should always, but always, be suspicious of government. But many British activists, especially on the left, seem to be unaware that (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson) an energetic government is always oppressive. They keep arguing for a more active government!

The British police have demonstrated a willingness, an eagerness, to use powers that far exceed any reasonableness. And no one is making it a campaign issue. That's the truly sad thing about it all.

Carolyn Ann

PS Don't believe the cops have dictatorial powers? Check out this. Read the bit about what the cop can do. Compare it to what rights you have.

TransStorm

There is, apparently, a bit of a storm within the transgender community. I can't claim to be aware of it - I only read about it in two blogs. From what I can gather, it's the usual flair-up: the transsexuals look down on everyone, and are astonished when others object.

I'd like to know where this fracas is happening. I love a good mêlée. :-) With my luck, it's probably be MHB or crossdressers.com (or whatever it's called). C'est la vie, I guess. It won't be on any Tri-Ess forum; they don't allow dissent. (Heck, those fools could teach the Tea Partiers and Communists a thing or two about imposing corporate views.) So I wonder where it is?

Failing that, I will note that transsexuals do not, as much as they wish, have a monopoly in deciding the legitimacy of others. Some would like to have that power, but that's by the by.

Isn't it strange how those who object to having their own lives judged by others, seem to have an overwhelming need to pass that odiousness on?

Carolyn Ann

Wow. That's some spam!

Vickie Davis has a blog that has been spammed.

I doubt she wrote the posts - they contain comments about viagra, and some other drugs.

I wonder if she knows? She probably doesn't. I did report it to Google.

Carolyn Ann

Consistency is wonderful

Hamas is claiming Israel assassinated one of its top commanders. He's the man who, apparently, kidnapped and killed a couple of Israeli soldiers on leave. Hamas, as you might expect, is really annoyed.

They're mad because Israel did unto them what they do unto Israel.

But Israel is, ultimately, better at it.

Isn't moral consistency wonderful?

Carolyn Ann

Inadvertent insult?

There's an edible tree fungus called "Jew's Ears". It's somewhat popular in areas of Britain. Basically, it's a mushroom like fungus that grows on elm elder trees. It acquired its name because (supposedly) Judas was supposedly hung from an elm elder tree. (For years I thought it was a yew, and could never figure out how a yew tree grew in Lebanon. Go figure. Now I just wonder what, exactly, is the historic range of elm elder trees.) The name is supposed to reflect the sentiment that the fungus looked like a Jew's ears.

Sometimes the name of something becomes improper. We no longer use "nigger" to describe some; racists relish using the label. We don't use "kike", for similar reasons: the person using that word would be an obvious anti-Semite. Once you know the etymology of the name "Jews Ears", it becomes impossible to not know its anti-Semitic meaning.

So I remain surprised when someone uses that name, today, to describe that fungus.

To be perfectly honest, it makes my skin crawl. It definitely leaves a trace of evil behind it.

Carolyn Ann

Correction: One of those "I got really confused moments". I could have sworn it I read it was an elm tree. Apparently it was an elder. Heck, the Wikipedia article says, quite clearly, "elder". Not sure how it happened, but it did. Thanks, Dru, for pointing out the mistake!

An absolute moral standard

What is an absolute moral standard?

Man gets captured by aliens. Baby gets taken by same aliens. Aliens put a gun to the baby's head and tell the man "Press that button, and your Earth is blown up. Do not press that button, and the baby gets a bullet in the brain."

No time limit? Don't be so naive.

What is evil? What is good?

Is it evil to impose a burden upon someone who does not want that burden? If that person is paid to assume the burden (that is, they were hired to assume the burden) the question is moot. But if they are a free person, living their life and not bothering anyone - and society decides to impose a burden? Is society evil in that case?

(Parsing the argument and nitpicking are not allowed.)

What, exactly, is evil?

Is the cat killing the mouse evil? To the mouse, most assuredly. To the cat? It's a snack.

In Abrahamic terms, is the suicide bomber evil? In the Qu'ran it's a definite... Yes. And No. it depends on how you define "enemy", and the Qu'ran is a little vague on that. The Bible is equally vague, by the way.

Did "God" show compassion in having Abraham almost kill his son? Is causing angst, fear, not an evil?

It's too easy to define the nature of a god in terms of evil. It's why I don't indulge in that sort of nonsense. It's also too easy to define the nature of a god in terms of the supernatural, of incomprehensibility. God knows [sic :-) ] that the Christian community has had its usual outpouring of useless, incomprehensible, anguish about Haiti. They had a similar ridiculous discussion when Katrina hit.

How do you define the nature of something that doesn't exist? Not by asking if God allows sinners to exist. Not by trying to define if sin exists. And most assuredly not by trying to figure out a precise definition of evil.

Morality is a fashion. A nebulous set of standards that we use. Sometimes we use them to impose political considerations. (This cave is mine. This woman is mine.) Other times we use those standards to impose meaningless things, like dress codes. (All transgendered lesbians must wear denim, on pain of being thought frivolous. Hey, don't yell at me: Anonymous #1 stated that, in so many words.)

Morality has limits, but those limits should not be used to toss out general ideas of how we should behave. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is an abiding idea in my life. Leave me to get on with my life, and I'll not bother you in yours.

But when we seek to define life in absolute moral terms, we end up in a quicksand of our own making. A well deserved quicksand. The simple fact is, it is impossible to define absolute morality. Attempting to do so will either lead to ridiculousness (Pat Robertson, Rev. Phelps), carelessness (arguably Noam Chomsky, the Tea Partiers) or insanity. Out of that lot, is insanity such a poor option?

J. K., you did not answer my refutation.

Carolyn Ann

It's an old ... argument?

J. K. recently asked me about sin.

If sin exists, god must. Well... I don't know what sin is. I have no concept, no measure of justice that includes the idea of sin.

It's an old argument, indeed it's as old as religion. What is sin, what causes it?

According to Biblical precept, sin is a crime against God. But surely, inevitably, if God deemed that a crime should not exist, then surely he could make it so? But crime does happen. And the Bible does contain tales of woe, enslavement and cold-blooded murder. I've never heard anyone accuse the Bible of being a renaissance text.

But now we have two questions: does a god exist? And an entirely unrelated one about the nature of a god. Let's assume, for a moment, that a singular deity exists, and is (as is claimed) all powerful. If the god was not all-powerful, would it, in fact, be a god? If this deity passed to mankind some instructions on what sin was, I doubt there would be much room for interpretation! And yet we not only have differing interpretations, we have differing ideas of what god told us!

The god of the many is quite a petty god. A small god. Befitting an unquestioning suburbia, I guess. Pleas to "not knowing God's plan" don't make that Abrahamic deity any grander - they merely make him smaller. Don't forget: we're supposed to be the image of God.

I guess the Xerox machine was faulty that day. (Tuesday? Wednesday? I forget.)

If logic comes from God, and we're in the image of God, then ... Oh dear. I guess God is not a god. He's a somewhat forgetful critter. He might have started with a plan, but he's forgotten what it was.

Life has no plan. Life is happenstance. Life is a miracle, but not of the supernatural sort. It's all we have.

I don't know how life got started, but what I do know is that it is valuable. If we judge others by their "sin", we judge ourselves with equal harshness.

If we condemn others for being gay, transgendered or not fitting our expectations - are we imposing a deity's wishes, or our fears and prejudice? Only a small, frightened God would impose sin - a bold, energetic and fearless god would know that it is within his (her) power to prevent sin. Or does a god abdicate responsibility for sin? Passing it on, to the obviously sinful?

If homosexuals were a sin against God - is it not within God's power to prevent such a sexuality from happening? Or is God powerless?

What is there to fear from a god that is petty?

It's all about the nature of a deity. And if you can discuss the nature of one deity - who's to say you're not discussing the personality of many deities? Imposing a collective view, as it were, upon a singular god?

If logic is the product of God - then God did a poor job, because logic proves no deity exists. Look around - no god exists.

Like I said - I can't prove a negative.

But what I do know, now, is that if "God" is a supreme being, he's doing a piss-poor job at managing sin. And it is within his power to eradicate it. (He's omnipotent, remember?)

And if that isn't one the weakest arguments I've ever come across, I'm not sure reason and logic and the inability to prove a negative mean anything. You end up arguing simply to argue.

Faith proves a deity exists. It doesn't actually prove the existence of that deity. Faith is faith. It is nothing more, and it most certainly is nothing less. But it is not definitive, and it is not certain. It is faith, nothing more, nothing less.

I have no religious faith. Because none is needed. "God" cannot exist, and doesn't.

No faith. No religion. No fear. Simple. Life is it. And it's quite welcome.

Carolyn Ann

On the rails (again)

I think, to your obvious relief (there were, reportedly, doubts), that I might know what has been ailing my Toy Train Layout. I believe I wired a switch incorrectly. I put the wires and "little metal spear-like thingies" (they hold the track sections together) and "little plastic pins" (they do the same, but without the electricity) as per the instructions. Which are, of course, wrong.

Any application of electricity to the track resulted in one turnout having a veritable fit. It would buzz and squeak like an electrocuted mouse. Not a pleasant sound. After discovering which section of track had the short circuit (4th bit on the right hand curve, going to the left, the middle connector-thingy), I had a train running around the track, accompanied by the unfortunate mouse.

Now all I have to do is figure out how the damned thing should be wired up. My mantra is "this has to be easy, because kids have been doing this for decades". Which basically translates to "I probably should find a 10 year old and ask him." Although I'm not that certain kids know such simple things, these days. Over Christmas I had to go looking for toys for my grand-niece and nephews, and I developed a rule: if I could understand it, it was a potential prospect. They got anoraks.

Of course, the Internet, that source majeure of all things knowable, doesn't have a single webpage outlining the, presumably simple, solution to my problem. With 3 connectors, and 2 connector types there are only 2³-1 possible combinations. (No connectors is the equivalent of all plastic pins.) I went to my library of Lionel railway books. All 5 or 6 of them. Nary a word. I went to a toy train store, and looked at the most recent "Wiring your Lionel Railway" book. Lots of information about soldering (some of it was even correct). But nothing about my problem. There doesn't appear to be a solution.

I do know there has to be solution. Because kids have been doing what I want to do for decades.

(The problem? I want to put two O-27 turnouts back-to-back. Should be simple, right?)

Carolyn Ann

Why I love fashion

Tanya Gold wrote, in the Guardian, "Why I hate fashion". (I found the link in Laurie Penny's blog, Penny Red.)

Ms Gold writes about how she came to dislike fashion; although it sounds like she had a timorous relationship with it prior to deciding that she doesn't like fashion. Her main objection appears to be the uselessness of it, how it can make you feel inferior, and how it can kill you. (She provides a very useful example.)

The business and industry of fashion does seem to be getting some criticism, these days. Some of it is deserved (why should Anna Wintour get to dictate what people find interesting?), and some of it either undeserved or nonsense. Ms Gold's criticisms are in the latter category.

Fashion is not about exploitation, although that surely happens. It isn't about models, although they become icons for anorexic girls. It's not about air-brushed perfection, although that is one of its main sales tools. Fashion is, basically, about feeling good.

I have to admit a love of fashion that goes back about three and a half decades. Watching Fred and Ginger, I loved the gowns, the glamor. (I already knew I wanted to be a girl, and I was starting to suspect I could never be one.) I desperately wanted to be a fashionable young lass; heck, it was seeing a very fashionable young lass that brought it all together for me: I wanted to be her. (I still do, but I'm not going there, today.) I was six or seven, looking out of my bedroom window at the busy street.

Growing up, I developed a keen interest in fashion. That faded a bit as I got older, but even as my male self became scruffier, my feminine wardrobe stayed fashionable. Back then, there wasn't a "transgender community" (transgender, as a term, hadn't been invented); there was no information out there about crossdressing. Well, there was some - in Penthouse and other magazines of its ilk. Not what you'd call "educational", or "supportive"!

I'll admit to going through the "happy hooker" phase; from what I've heard, it's rare for a transgendered individual not to! Skirts that are shorter than the tush they cover, heels that pose a danger to passing airplanes, colors that demand black-out curtains, make-up that would make a drag queen pause. You probably know the drill. I grew out of it.

At the same time, I had some wonderful gowns. I was fortunate enough to be really slim, and have an almost feminine body shape. (Neither is true, these days.) I could get into vintage dresses from the 1950's, and I owned one or two from the 1960's. (Sigh. They all got thrown out in the familiar purge/replenish cycle.) For one reason only, I didn't have many shoes: I didn't know what my shoe size was. I knew it men's, but the shoe stores didn't have those helpful charts up, back then.

One thing has remained true throughout the years, though: if I look good in an outfit, I feel good.

When I wore a suit to work, I liked expensive suits. I was working my up the price range; sometimes my ties cost more than the suit! I would buy quality suits. It was painful when we recently donated a whole bunch of them to charity. My body has changed, styles have, too. And I can't recall the last time I actually wore a suit. The last time I wore a tie was about 2 or 3 years ago. Perhaps more. (I still keep my really good ties, though! I just like looking at them. :-) ) I recently discovered a box of my old shirts; wow, there are some quality garments in there! Now that I usually wear t-shirts, I've forgotten what a good shirt feels like.

Likewise, when I put on a skirt, or a pair of pants and top, or whatever - I like to look as good as I can. When I look pretty, I feel fabulous. When I look decent, or passable, I feel happy. None of that happens much, these days. :-( (Although I did feel very pretty the other day. I wore a lovely grey skirt, with my black boots and a pink sweater. Aside of the middle bit being somewhat more directionally advanced than the rest of me...) The garments I wore were fashionable; my wig has a reasonably fashionable style to it. My makeup was subdued. I felt great!

The other day, I wore hot pink pants with black heels (with a soft black sweater). My makeup was stronger, and my earrings were a bit "loud". I felt fabulous! (Even if I was really happy to take the heels off, that evening!)

That's what fashion is about. It's not about the girl who wears the wrong shoes and ends up falling under a train. Blaming fashion for her death, as Ms Gold does, is a bit like blaming a car company because you didn't brake in time. (What would Ms Gold have teenagers and others do? Does she insist that everyone wear clothing that is appropriate for the conditions, or she is willing to allow that sometimes people make stupid, even fatal, decisions?)

It is popular in some circles to blame the fashion industry for various problems: anorexia, teenage death, and the irrational pursuit of perfection. As Ms Gold does, they vilify the fashion magazines, and diminish those who like them. Feminists have been arguing about fashion since the 1960's; heck, the 1950's in some cases. A popular outrage is the effectiveness of fashion sales techniques: how they persuade that you could achieve this glamor, if only you looked like this. The fashion industry, as a whole, has a long history in advertising. It's also a fast changing, dynamic business that continually reinvents itself. (Well, perhaps not so much that WalMart and other discount stores have become the place where people buy their "fashion".)

This is not to say that sometimes exploitive techniques aren't used in fashion advertising - they are. Some of those Ralph Lauren ads exploit "your" desire to have that sort of a body, that sort of a lifestyle. Most of us don't, so we have to make do with the fantasy. When fashion ads get out of hand, there is a case for bringing some sanity back into it all. Teenagers do need some protection from the exploitive methods of certain fashion houses; teens, after all, do not have fully developed brains. They simply cannot make choices, and perceive visual fraud in the same way an adult can. But to castigate an entire industry for that? There's a nebulous boundary between reasonable selling efforts, and exploitive ones; some would extend that border to include fashion magazines, or anything that hinted of glamor!

Fashion is about looking good and feeling good. Some forget that, or don't care. Others simply don't want you to look your best, or resent that fashion can be used as a yardstick for wealth. For myself, I'm going to continue looking as good, and as fashionable, as I can. :-)

Carolyn Ann

The Republican Response

Republican response: let's keep health care the same. Let's drill for oil - everywhere. Let's invest in pollution. In fact, let's not do anything! It worked last time - the rich got richer, and isn't that all that matters?

Carolyn Ann

Wow.

What a speech!

I don't think Congress, and the Republicans, have ever been so scolded. It was a "grow up boys and girls" speech. He didn't shirk his responsibility, or his failings. He reminded the GOP, and the Dems, of their responsibilities and their failings. He got tough.

He should have got tough a few months ago. But better late than never!

Carolyn Ann

Live blogging the speech...

Okay, I'm back in love. :-)

(He had me at "Hello")

The Republicans seem to be fans of the big banks.

Stimulus bill. Looking good. We need more.

(Who was that yawning?)

--Update: I should have known who it was! Harry Reid. Senate Majority Leader.

New jobs bill!!! Hmmm. GOP like that one. (I wonder why?)

America's businesses. Yup. I'm starting one.

I like the idea that the government doesn't get in the way, perhaps even helps hire people.

(I don't like the idea of businesses getting saddled with onerous hiring conditions.)

$30B to help community banks extend credit to small businesses. GOP doesn't like that idea.

GOP seems conflicted on the tax credit.

Ah - something they like. No cap gains tax for small businesses. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA!

A Public Works "administration"?!? WOWOWOWOW!!!! YES YES OH YES!

(Clean energy... GOP seems to hate that one.)

Cut tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas... GOP doesn't like that.

(Dems like that. GOP hates it. I wonder why?)

Some nationalism. They all like that.

O-B-AMA O-B-AMA O-B-AMA!!! :-)

Financial reform... This is going to be good.

(Dinner time. More later.) :-)

Can America wait?

It's only two hours until the President delivers his State of the Union!

Tea Party protestors are trying to keep warm by roasting to any liberals they find; far left ideologues are gathered around LCD screens, tuned to the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. Republicans are trying to figure out if they can filibuster the speech. John McCain is wondering how come he's not giving it. Sarah Palin is wondering what it is. Glenn Beck is predicting the end of civilization as we know it. Democrats are getting excited, but they always get excited when Barack Obama speaks. (They're also hoping someone will pay attention to them.)

According to CNN, this is the most important and newsworthy event since George Washington gave a speech.

The nation breathlessly awaits... (I think American Idol is on at 8.)

Carolyn Ann

For sale...

Bill reminded me I hadn't commented on the recent awfulness from the Supremes.

Here is my response:

For Sale: One Political System.

Need a special favor? Need an inconvenient law overturning? Need a few million in Federal funds to tide you over? Call your Representative today! No need to send money now! All you need to do is promise it to their opponent come Election Day!

Call Today! Your lawmaker may just throw in a two-for-one deal!

Sale is subject to Supreme Court review.

Carolyn Ann

Fox Reality to show President's State of the Union Speech

This just in: Fox Reality, the channel that brings you endless cop shows, "reality" TV, almost soft porn game shows and a show about some idiots competing for the attentions of a buxom model no one has heard of, is to televise the State of the Union speech.

They'll be broadcasting from the back of a Capitol Police cruiser, and are ready to bring you, live, the arrest of any bad guys. In fact, they'll even tell the cops who the bad guy is. Please remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Unless they're accused of ruining America, being a liberal or are charged with anything at all.

Fox Reality will bring you "As it happens" analysis, as it happens! The analysis will be provided by a buxom model no one has heard of, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck (when he calms down from realizing that America is ruined! Ruined!), Simon Cowell and Joe the Plumber. Republican Representative Joe Wilson will provide commentary from the floor. Brit Hume will lead the chorus. Erm, I mean debate. (Mr Cowell will lead the team's voting.) Sean Hannity will provide fake footage of Tea Party protestors and Bill O'Reilly will have his producer try one of his infamous "ambushes" on the President. Bail is not likely to be allowed, so Mr O'Reilly will also be advertising for a new producer. Rush Limbaugh will provide his popular everyman view. He will be broadcasting live from his private airplane. If he doesn't it will mean he entered the no-fly zone over Washington DC. The Reverend Pat Robertson will provide a counterpoint.

Tonight's show will be sponsored by the Big Insurance Co, the Religious Right, the Republican Party, the very wealthy people who fund the Tea Party movement, and a few companies that provide private security services in places like Iraq. And a big company that has no ties to the United States beyond an ex-Vice President of the United States having been their CEO.

Oops... It seems I misread the press release. Fox News is running with the State of the Union.

Sorry. My mistake. (Can someone please explain the difference between the two channels?)

Carolyn Ann

PS You will be pleased to know... I'm pleased to know that I'll never have to sit through an hour of Fox Reality ever again. I wanted to see the ads, so I could write this. An hour of my life I'll never get back.

A rumor...

I've decided to start a rumor that Steve Jobs will be giving the State of the Union, tonight. :-)

Mr Obama was so impressed with his presentation he called and asked Mr Jobs to "run with something similar" in front of Congress. It's uncertain whether Mr Jobs will be doing the speech, or will just give the President an iPad to demonstrate.

Don't tell anyone I told you. They'll want to know who I heard it from, and I simply followed the Republican lead, and made it up.

Carolyn Ann

President Obama's State of the Union

Tonight, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union speech. In keeping with the hysteria sources told us meltdown reporting of the complete and utter lack of knowledge about what he will say, I will make my own predictions...

Prediction #1: We're not broke. We're a little short, right now, but lending ourselves a few trillion dollars is tiding us over until pay day.

Prediction #2: Pay day is imminent. No one can say exactly when, but it's soon.

Prediction #3: We'll have health care reform. In the meantime, don't get sick. And if the Republicans get their way, it's probably better to plan any major medical emergencies when you're in Canada, France, Britain, The Congo. Anywhere but here.

Prediction #4: If Joe Wilson shouts anything he will collect $2,000,000 (from his supporters) and enough rotten tomatoes to start his own organic fruit farm.

Prediction #5: Joe Wilson will not be lining up to give the President a hug or a kiss. Or even shake his hand.

Prediction #6: The Republicans will not allow Bobbie Vindal Jindal [oops] to give the "reply". They might get Scott Brown to do it. He can talk about how inexperienced the President is.

Prediction #7: It won't reflect Republican plans.

Prediction #8: It will reflect on the havoc Republican policies have wreaked.

Prediction #9: Fox News will hate it.

Prediction #10: The Tea-Partiers will decry it as socialist, communist and fascist.

Prediction #11: Michelle Bachmann will hate it. But she'll try to stop and think before she advocates policies that would cause her to lose her seat. She'll be against any suggestion of a Federal bailout or subsidy. Except those that deliver $250,000 checks to her family farm.

Prediction #12: Wolf Blitzer will parse it to death.

Prediction #13: Nancy Pelosi will smile a lot.

Prediction #14: Ben Bernanke and John Roberts will both check their seats for whoopee cushions. Antonin Scalia will put them there.

Aside of all that, the Republicans will hate it because he will outline policies that are soft on terror, despite being exactly the same as King George's policies. They'll also hate it because he's likely to suggest a bipartisan effort to pass health care reform. He might even be polite and tell us the Republicans have meaningful suggestions. He won't mention what those might be, hoping no one notices that there are no examples.

The Tea Party folk will hate it simply because President Obama delivered the speech. (What? You want a rational refutation from a group that can't even get themselves into the same room? And their hero is someone who has trouble with the concept of "sentences that make sense"?)

The Democrats will love it. But don't ask them why. They don't know.

The Left will hate it. But, please, don't ask them why. They'll make the Tea Party crowd look like a reasonable debating team.

David Gergen will deliver the most cogent analysis.

Carolyn Ann

Astonishingly, it's a ...

Tablet computer. :-)

Who'da thunk it?

No one, and I mean no one, knew what Steve Jobs would introduce at that product launch. Not even Mr Jobs. He was as surprised as everyone else. He opened his late-arriving Christmas present, and 'lo and behold - it was something so unexpected, the world was caught off guard. Off-tilt, too.

So now that Apple has put an end to the rumors, we can get back to worrying what the President will say tonight, in his State of the Union. Can't he just Twitter it? :-)

Carolyn Ann

(Okay, I guess Mr Jobs did know what he was unveiling. No one else did, though. :-)

Awwright... Let's concentrate on the important stuff

Apparently there's a bit of a gossip hullaballoo going on at the NY ... Times?

Three popular actresses have, apparently, put on a smidgeon of weight. Apparently the evidence is obvious if "you concentrate on their upper arms".

Huh?

I have one question... Okay, two:

Who cares?

And why is this important?

Doesn't the NY Times have some serious reporting to do? (Or are they simply vying to be the Playground People magazine?)

There are idiots. And then there are those who note that certain actresses, dahling, (it would be criminal, dahling, to name names, but they are...) have obviously put on weight. The evidence, dahling, is in the photographs of their upper arms.

Oy vey.

Carolyn Ann

Oops.

Terry McGraw has managed a bit to make a bit of a mess of things.

Oops.

I have little doubt he's already "heard" from Steve Jobs.

So... I wonder what Mr Jobs will announce tomorrow? Erm, later today.

Carolyn Ann

A reply to J. K.

Mr J. K. Jones asked me the following questions:

Why do you think God (you know how I define the word by now, I hope) is careless and/or negligent?

Why do you think the Bible is hypocritical?

They were posed in response to this post of mine, where I assert that "God, quite simply, doesn't exist".

J. K.'s first question is about the nature of god. Any answer walks along a path that implies that a god exists. How do you talk about the nature of something that doesn't exist? It's not something I ever spend time thinking about.

To discuss it, you also have to share a common understanding of what sin is. It's not a concept I understand. Oh, I know its dictionary definition. I even know how it's used. (I consider a pink Ducati sinful, for instance.) But I don't share with J. K. any basic agreement of what is sin. Therefore, we can't really discuss the nature of god.

I know that the story of Noah and his Ark was where I started, became, an atheist. I was about 5 or 6. I couldn't understand how a kind and loving god could kill so many children! A god that careless with power is not one deserving of worship. Fear, perhaps, but worship? No. (That's the closest I'm getting to the morality and nature of worship.) Whenever I do think about it, I still don't get Noah's Ark. But these days I don't care. (As a 5 year old, I recall it was both easy and difficult to spot the problems. The problems were easy to spot, but I suspect few 5 year olds have the emotional and intellectual capacity to not worry they shouldn't be spotting those flaws. Or the implications. Like I once said, it was easier telling my parents I was a crossdresser (the word "transgender" not having been invented), than it was telling them I was an atheist!)

Unfortunately, discussing the nature of something that doesn't exist is not proof that it does.

The Bible is hypocritical because it doesn't know whether to tell us to enslave others, love them, stone them or forgive them. The Bible is not, by the way, a very good moral reference: using it, you can justify slavery, bigotry and the stoning of adulterers. And you can find ample reason to women as chattel. The population of the Bible Belt had better not embrace fundamental Christianity too well. Considering the divorce rates in those states, they'd be stoning each other with alacrity.

Like I say, I don't get religion.

Carolyn Ann

2010 NYC Motorcycle Show

I decided to go to the NYC Motorcycle Show instead of the DC one. :-)

Honda announced their new chopper at it, last year. And I missed that announcement. Still, I saw the chopper at this years' show. I can honestly say I'm... Not very excited about it. Honda made another big announcement for a bike this year. I was there. And I thought the bike so boring I didn't even switch on the camera!

Overall, the show was, well, small. And not very well laid out. I missed the vintage bikes entirely, and I got lost in the trade booths. I didn't even want to see the trade booths! Attendance was robust, with an obvious difference between those who ride bikes, and those who have never sat on one. The other thing I noticed was how generally oblivious people were! At the DC show, people step out of the way if they see you taking a picture of the bike. In NYC, they didn't just ignore you - it was as if you simply weren't there! "Don't Touch" labels were a suggestion, I also noticed.

Honda, in particular, helped matters by not having enough bikes there. And they were badly arranged. Two GoldWings, attended by a sales chap who did his best despite an almost complete lack of English language skills, were arranged so it was impossible to really see either of them. Considering that the DC show had 3, last year, almost continually being sat on, having 2, with nowhere for people to stand or pretend not to line up for a go? Who thought of that?

Kawasaki had their latest XLR 650 on display. But you couldn't sit on it, properly. Why do manufacturers not put their bikes on stands, so the potential bike-buyer can sit on it as if riding? With the XLR, I was either on tippy-toes, or trying to not fall over. I did get to see the new ZX-14. Besides having one of the most uncomfortable seating positions I've ever come across, it was about as exciting looking as a soggy pancake. I was interested in the Concours-14, Kawasaki's touring bike. After a few moments on the only example they had on display, I can't say that my interest has been maintained. Never mind enhanced!

Three interesting manufacturers were there: Confederate, Royal Enfield and Triumph.

Triumph first. The brand seems to be having a resurrection. If my bank account were healthier, I would have been placing orders for a Bonneville, a Scrambler and a Thruxton. The Thruxton, in particular, was coool! Based on a café-racer style, this bike evoked ton-up blasts up the A1, early rock and roll and beehive hairdos. Mods and Rockers sprang forth from the styling. (Café racers are based on the bikes people would tune for their nightly gatherings at some cafe in north London, in the early '60's. There was no speed limit, so they'd try for the magic ton (100MPH), before getting back for a cup of tea.) I loved it! The bike begs you to lean forward, and rewards you with a period look that works. I'll swear the entire lineup had the ghosts of Gene Vincent and Eddie Cochran nodding approvingly. :-)

The Bonneville really struck me as a bike. I could see me on one of those, taking those curves at the Dragon. (I think I'd fit different tires to it, though.) The styling was wonderful, conjuring up the best of british motorcycling, and letting you forget the worst bits of those old bikes! Instead of fancy fiberglass, these bikes are about riding, about being on a bike.

Royal Enfield was out in force. Lots of bikes on display, and a sidecar, too! Unfortunately, the sidecar looks like it will fit a size 2 fashion model, but no one else. I'm a bit bigger than that. Just a bit. (I'm no longer a size 20, though!) I didn't try it out, fearful I might not be able to get out of the thing.

They seem to have changed the individual seat, but the two-up seat looks as uncomfortable as ever. Considering that I did 11,200 miles on the one-up seat in one trip (the longest segment being a 13 hour, 450-mile day), I'm hesitant to consider the new ones. Still, they looked better padded, and perhaps those under-seat springs was a little more compliant?

The new engine is reported to be excellent. I hope so. The big change is the addition of fuel injection, to comply with forthcoming European emissions regulations. One of the things I've heard, and read, is that it still looks like there's a carburetor in place, keeping the bike looking definitely "old school". I wasn't as convinced as others about that, but I still think it's a mighty fine looking machine. I noticed the chain hasn't been updated; that's one thing I really would change. They don't last long, and that time period is shorter if the chain gets wet. (They're not that difficult to change, unless you're in the middle of nowhere.)

I love the new colors - bright, cheerful and retro. I want a turquoise one. :-)

Confederate. What can I say? Visually stunning, sophisticated re-interpretations of what a motorcycle is. My only quibble is that with such adventurous styling, why stick with the V-Twin? I had a really enjoyable chat with Ed Jacobs, the designer. A thoroughly practical artist, that man. I'll put the photos of the bikes up, and let them do the talking.

After that, I looked around and thought "who haven't I seen? Ah! Ducati!" I didn't see Suzuki or Yamaha, or Harley-Davidson. But a quick glance at those stands didn't entice me. I think Harley rolled out the same bikes as last year. After having killed off Buell, they no longer have anything to keep me interested in what they have. All three looked to be cliche's of themselves.

On to the Ducati stand. A fashion show was going on. Good looking boys and girls parading around in Ducati badged attire for our viewing pleasure. Lately, I've been thinking that Ducati is more interested in fashion than it is in motorcycles. It seems my suspicions are correct. The new Monster is a pretty bike; it seems shorter than previous years, and they seem to have scaled back the bulky trelliswork. I think it looks better that way. There's no fairing, and that definitely improves this version. Unfortunately, most of what makes it a Monster is now easily changed plastic panels. You too can have a pink Ducati Monster.

Call me anything, but a pink Ducati Monster? It just doesn't seem right. Besides, the Monster is supposed to be an elemental bike. It's about motorcycling, riding fast and taking corners with ease. It's the Ferrari of the motorcycle world - style matters, but fashion? Not so much. Now it's styling that doesn't matter, and fashion that does. I sincerely hope they've not changed the wonderful corning ability of the bike. But who would want to take a pink Ducati for a ride? A pink Cadillac is one thing, but a pink Ducati is a bit like painting a Lamborghini Countach pink. It's possible, but surely it's against Italian law? If it isn't, it should be. And pink Ducati's should be, too.

Overall, the Ducati's seem to have acquired comfortable seating. Which is astonishing, really. I was so taken aback, I had to sit on a couple of them, simply to confirm that! Actually, with Ducati actively pursuing the women's market, it's not surprising that the seating has become more comfortable. (Still doesn't explain the pink paint option, though.) Macho men (and me) ride the Ducati's to ride; walking funny after a few hours in the saddle is part and parcel of the experience. It shouldn't be, but it is. I guess the new models will reduce chiropractor bills. (Is this Ducati's contribution to the American health care debate?)

After that, I negotiated a rather large crowd at the bar, and left. (With this being New York City, and most of the attendees presumably not driving, drinking was a popular occupation around the bikes.)

Overall - the show wasn't quite worth it. Chatting with Ed Jacobs was an unexpected treat, as was seeing Triumph's new lineup. But instead of getting daring, most manufacturers have retreated into the "tried and true" models that aren't getting people into the showrooms. I'll be thinking long and hard about going to either the NYC or the DC show, next year. But I'll probably still end up going. A bike is a bike, after all. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Dreach weather

What wonderful weather it is... Somewhere else. Here, it's miserable.

There's quite a few reports of power outages, and more than one or two trees and utility poles down. Thunderstorms have been predicted, first "before 4AM", then "before 1PM", now "before 4PM". I've already seen lightning. (No thunder, though.)

Ah well. It was nice on Friday when we went to NYC.

Carolyn Ann

Let's go to Mass...

Mass is a mess!

Massachusetts managed to vote in someone who says he'll destroy health care. Which is rich, considering that Massachusetts has the best health care system in the nation.

The right is viewing this as a watershed. The left is in a complete panic. The pundits are raking their fees, and everyone else is either angry he got elected, or joyous that he got elected. Heck, some twit told him he only needed to do 2 years in the Senate and he could run for President!

All things considered, the election of Scott Brown wasn't a devastating blow. It will be if it's mishandled. If the Obama Administration continues with its obliviousness, they'll either be a one term administration, or a neutered one. If the GOP continues its passive/aggressive obstructionism, it'll lose what it could gain, and then some. What it does force is the GOP and Administration to come to terms with their astonishing mishandling of the major political issues of the day.

Why do I think that only the Administration will actually recognize it for what it is?

People are annoyed by Washington. They're not enamored by the Republicans. They're disappointed with Mr Obama. They're angry at Wall St. They're worried about their futures, their health care. (Contrary to popular opinion - the whole "worried about passing debt onto the next generation" is a sop, if it's anything.) While that anger could result in a Republican majority, the GOP should not read very much into it. (They will, they will overreach, and they will be penalized, as a result.) On the other hand, the Democrats need to get themselves out there. They also need to put electable candidates up. (And perhaps invest in a spell-checker for their ads...) They need to stop dithering.

Overall, this whole mess has many causes. The Dems have a lot of work in front of them. Mr Obama needs to realize, sooner rather than later, that just because people like him, it doesn't mean they actually support his efforts at reform. (We all want change, just not that change.) The GOP also has a lot of work to do - they could easily put forth unelectable candidates, too. Indeed, they're likely to. Voters tend to dislike extremists, as NY23 demonstrated. But that's whom the GOP will put forward.

It wouldn't take much to put forward the idea that the GOP derailed change in America. It would be astonishingly easy to say "Remember 2008? The GOP want to ensure it happens again! And again. And again." Demonstrating how the GOP is power-mad, and not in the least concerned about "ordinary Americans" won't be as easy, but it shouldn't be too difficult.

Overall, Scott Brown hasn't won a decisive victory. All he's done is prove that when an unelectable candidate is put up against a photogenic one, it's not that difficult to figure out who's going to win. Now, of course, we'll see if Senator Brown is actually capable of working for the people of Massachusetts, or if he's more interested in power.

Carolyn Ann

The Report Is Incomplete...

I see the Arizona Game & Fisheries Department is upset. Apparently through (alleged) incompetence, or maliciousness, they managed to kill, or at least cause the death of, the last jaguar in the south west. And a Federal report didn't exonerate them. In fact, it appears the report blames them!

So now the department is arguing that the report is incomplete. Despite evidence that they broke Federal wildlife protection laws, failed to obtain the required permit and didn't perform a full autopsy on the body of the poor critter. However, because the report didn't acquit the Arizona department, they're saying it's incomplete. I guess arguing the report was incorrect was out of the question.

Here's what happened: the Arizona people go out and snare the jaguar. He breaks a canine tooth trying to get away. They slap a radio collar on him, and release him. A few days later, they notice he's not moving. So they recaptured him, sent him to the Phoenix Zoo vets, who said he had massive kidney failure, and then the poor lad was euthanized.

Simply based on that, it seems that Arizona was negligent. I'm not saying that they are hid evidence of their incompetence, but it does look mightily suspicious that they failed to get the required permit, didn't involve the Feds and then failed to do a full autopsy. I wonder if it occurred to anyone in the whole fiasco that perhaps the jaguar, as an individual and a species, needed protecting? Not tranquilizing and being fitted with a radio collar.

Ah well. At least Sarah Palin wasn't around. She wouldn't bother capturing it; she'd just shoot it from the safety of a helicopter.

Carolyn Ann

Behold! The Resurrection!

Yeeha!

I now have my MacBook Pro back! With 2GB of RAM, not the original 1GB. :-)

(It cost just shy of $80 for the RAM.)

Never mind that: :-D

I can't tell you how happy I am!

Carolyn Ann

The ultimate expression of state control

I posed another question (or two) to Mr Douglas: whatever happened to the idea that marriage is about affirming your desire to share you life with the person you love? And isn't dictating conditions on that not the ultimate expression of state control?

Oh sure, people can "co-habitate". They can "go steady" for months, years or even decades. But when it comes to moments of trial, such arrangements can leave both individuals without recourse, and without each other. If my wife and I had decided to not get married, we'd be without each other - it would have been much more difficult for me to gain the privilege of residence. Assuming I could gain entry to the US, if we hadn't been married, her ability to provide critical emotional support when I had my breakdown wouldn't have possible. There are other repercussions, too.

Mr Douglas poses a defense of marriage that is, basically, a fairy tale. He asserts that it's for procreation. I'm not sure if he thinks it's for procreation only - his arguments (such as they are) don't address anything but that. As a married, and childless, couple of 20 years and counting, I think I can convincingly refute Mr Douglas' argument!

I'm not about to get into a discussion about why we decided not to have kids (it's no one's business), but I can tell you that any considerations that Mr Douglas puts forth weren't involved. I simply wanted to be with this amazing woman; I fell in love with her rather quickly (instantly, as it happens). I couldn't envision life without her. Being a footloose bachelor wasn't what I wanted, anymore. She, for reasons I have yet to fathom, loves me, and married me! :-) A little over 20 years ago.

We share our lives. If that's not an adequate refutation of Mr Douglas' argument, someone else will have to explain why.

As it happens, I can think of 5 ... 6 couples we know who don't have children. And won't be having them! I know one couple where he is actually incapable of having any more kids due to a bit of surgery a long time ago. Are their marriages invalid because they don't live up to Mr Douglas' high ideals?

Anyway, that's all a diversion.

Mr Douglas vigorously argues against state intrusion, intervention and control in almost all matters except those of the heart. There, he's not only willing to have the state intercede - he's eager for such interference!

So Mr Douglas gets to enjoy the right of marriage, and he and his wife get to decide whether to have kids or not. (I don't know if Mr Douglas is married, or has kids. It's none of my business and is irrelevant to my argument.) Mr Douglas quoted a Susan Shell, who seems to think that death is a good metaphor for marriage. More importantly, Ms Shell discusses, in the quote, funerals. Mr Douglas seeks to deny the right to manage a loved ones affairs, and funeral, simply because the married couple aren't of opposite sex.

But more than that, Mr Douglas earnestly seeks to to deny the right of others to publicly affirm their love for each other - simply because they're the same sex. I don't know if Mr Douglas is a fan of the "separate but (almost) equal" idea of civil unions. I don't particularly care. They've been proven, and acknowledged by both sides of the gay marriage debate, to be inadequate substitutes. The simple fact is, Mr Douglas, and others who are anti-gay marriage, seek to deny to others rights they enjoy. What's worse, they enjoy these rights by virtue of being alive. The right to marriage is not in any constitution. So immutable is this right to marriage, that laws have to be passed to deny the right to marry people of different colors, different religions, different classes, and so on. But because a couple is of the same sex, the denial of such a fundamental right is enthusiastically sought.

That this discussion is most vigorous in America, Land of the Free, is truly reprehensible. The anti-gay marriage crowd is saying, essentially, "I'm free, but I'll see to it you're not!" Some argue that all are free to marry - as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. What sort of freedom is that? What type of freedom demands such dire restraints? The state gets the right to impose a condition upon whom you can marry? On who you fall in love with?

When did Mr Douglas, and others like him, get the right to determine who can marry whom? When did society, and subsequently the state, gain the right to impose itself on matters of the heart?

Isn't that the ultimate expression of State Control?

Carolyn Ann

(Edited. I changed the ending because I didn't like the previous one.)

Yesterday, I felt sorry for Sarah Palin...

I was on the 8th Ave bus in Manhattan, somewhere between 30th and 32nd St. I had got a seat, and was enjoying watching the street, and the thought suddenly popped into my noggin': Sarah Palin can never enjoy this. And I felt bad for her, because it might have changed her, even in some small way.

But she has become the celebrity she (vigorously) criticizes others for. And now she can't simply ride a bus and watch the world pass by.

Her loss. But for a moment, I did feel that she's missed out on such simple pleasures.

Carolyn Ann

Rebooting Windows...

I'd forgotten how often Windows XP needs a kick in the pants rebooting. Even when you're updating the blasted thing, you have to do so much! And the "tight" (more accurately: erratic) integration of Internet Explorer into the system is beyond belief. It's not a unified "experience", but I'm sure it's a unified aggravation for the coders.

It all seemed so advanced, back then. How our expectations do change!

I sure hope Windows 7 is not as reboot-hungry.

Carolyn Ann

A retort to a "conservative"

As is my habit when a comment needs blog-owner approval (and I'm uncertain if that will be granted), I made a copy of my comment. In this case, I commented on this post by Donald Douglas on his blog "American Power". Normally, I don't bother responding to blogs like Mr Douglas', but on this occasion I decided to make an exception. I thought his reasoning to be, well, odd. Especially for a professor of politics science! Mr Douglas engages in the usual name calling, and the familiar decrying of the same. The name calling is consistent with political bloggers; both all sides engage in it with equal alacrity, and equal obliviousness. They can call their opponents all sorts of names, but you're wrong if you call them names. I thought it amusing enough to ask about, though.

In case you don't want to read Mr Douglas' post, he's against gay marriage because marriage is (solely) intended for procreation. And it will mean the end of civilization. And gays and lesbians shouldn't be able to marry because, well, they've never been able to marry. And let's not forget that the majority should be able to vote on the rights of the minority. That is, the majority has within its power the ability to confer or remove rights from anyone they choose.

(As an aside, he cries that the left destroyed John McCain in 2008. This despite reams of evidence that John McCain could, and did, do himself in. That he did this with alacrity shouldn't stand in the way of any admiration for Senator McCain's capacity to self-destruct.)

Anyway, here's my comment:

So let me get this straight: you don't want to grant gays the right to marry because marriage is (solely?) about procreation? And America won't be the same if gays do get married.

Additionally, you assert that gays and lesbians shouldn't be able to marry because they've never been able to marry.

In my admittedly limited reading of your blog, I don't see much about equality. Presumably you agree with the premise that people are equal? (I "equal" mean in the political sense.) Do you agree that you have the same rights as any other American? And that they have the same rights as you?

Except when it comes to marriage. There, you incoherently argue, the majority has the right to impose conditions! Society, by virtue of majority vote, gets to decide what rights someone else enjoys. Heck, why stop at marriage? Let's put other rights up for vote! Let's put the right to fall in love with whomever you fall in love with up to majority opinion. Is that what you're ultimately arguing for?

I take it you're for "limited government"? You don't want government, or societal, intrusion into your life. But you're eager to see the government intrude in the lives of others. Because they're gay. You basically want the government out of your life, but in theirs? Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

You establish the fact that you're not a libertarian. But I do challenge you on the idea that you're a conservative. You seem to think that being a conservative requires adherence to a set of principles; indeed, you are critical of Cindy Meghan McCain because they don't adhere to what you perceive is "conservative". Might I offer that you're more reactionary than conservative?

I'd also like to draw attention to your dislike of name-calling. Apparently you dislike being called certain names. But you have no problem with calling others equally derogatory names. Are you really hypocritical, or just oblivious to that?

(By the way, in '08, I think John McCain did an admirable job of destroying his own credibility. That others pointed this out is simply politics. Or are such tactics only heinous when the left indulge in them?)

As this is *my* blog, I'll pose a question I thought about posing to Mr Douglas: which bit of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does he not get? Maybe Mr Douglas wants to preserve his liberty and his pursuit of happiness, but he clearly has problems with gays having liberty, and pursing their own happiness.

Mr Douglas also has a problem with Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "all men are created equal". It's also in the Declaration of Independence. Using Mr Douglas's own words, I can categorically state that he doesn't think all men are created equally. To paraphrase George Orwell, Mr Douglas clearly believes "All [men] are equal, but some [men] are more equal than others". (How can I prove it? Mr Douglas wants to dictate whom a gay man can marry. So Mr Douglas enjoys the right to marry whom he loves, but a gay chap? Not a chance.)

As I pointed out, he's not a libertarian. He does believe that conservatives have to adhere to a certain set of principles. Oh, it's possible that some liberal might come along and tell the world they're really a conservative, but the chances of that influencing the conservative mind? C'mon. I mean, really? It's very amusing when you think about communism (Mr Douglas' blog has a lot of derogatory statements about communism, and Obama), and how ideologically rigid that is. Mr Douglas appears to be among those who favor such ideological rigidity in conservatism! It brings to mind that old Chinese saying about digging two graves (you both end up the same); or the common sentiment about being careful lest you turn into your enemy.

"Left" and "right" are not, contrary to popular opinion, linear progressions. It's possible to be conservative in some aspects, and libertarian in others. It's also possible to be socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. But all of that's for another post.

I sincerely hope Mr Douglas responds to my questions, and clarifies my interpretation of his positions. Especially when it comes to equal rights. At the moment it's quite obvious he's against them.

Carolyn Ann

Why I'll be an Apple fanboi/gurl/tranny 4ever!

Apologies for the stupid spelling and ridiculous sentiment. I felt a wave of Contemporary, or at least Twittering, come over me. It'll no doubt pass. :-)

Anyway, I remain a fan of Apple and Apple stores. Perhaps not forever, but certainly for the foreseeable future.

I didn't know this, but apparently the Genius Bars at Apple stores are free! Something else I didn't know: they'll diagnose your dead Mac. For free! It couldn't get any better than that, could it? Well, as it happens, yes. The guy who looked at my dead MacBook last night was not in the least bit put off by the computer being registered to Carolyn Ann. With me standing in front of him, in male mode.

I was reading my favorite Apple blog, Kate McKenzie's Pixebobo (I admit it: I sometimes reread her posts, simply because I like her writing and wit so much! Especially her tale of switching to a Windows PC! I do that with a few bloggers I like.) and something caught my eye: Kate was commenting on the Apple Genius Bar. I paused, grabbed the phone and called the nearest one - yes, they really will take a look at my dead MacBook. And no, there's no charge for taking a peek at it. I booked an appointment, I was early, they were prompt (and apologized for not being able to see me the moment I walked in!) and the chap figured out what was wrong with the machine: the memory was blown for some unknown reason. (I got the feeling this was a common problem; the guy went straight to it. I used to do that sort of thing when I was a PC technician.)

He told me it would be $87 for them to provide 512MB of RAM, but there wasn't a charge for looking at it. The Mrs was so surprised she asked him to repeat that bit. Considering that she'd just got a big refund on something she didn't expect to get anything but tutting on (at another store), this made her night. Knowing that $87 was expensive for what is basically barely enough memory to start the box (it came with 1GB), I declined. As Apple doesn't sell RAM, he told me a few places where I could get some. (If you want, they'll install it for you, but their prices are in the "we're charging so much to discourage you from asking" territory. They really try to steer you to someone else.) I'll be ordering some this evening. It'll be about $125 for 1GB for the iBook (I might as well upgrade that), 2GB for the MacBook and priority shipping from ifixit.com.

I'd say that Apple has done me right, again!

Carolyn Ann

Insult and stupidity

Recently, I've seen a couple of mentions that "transwomen/the transgender are more feminine than real women". If you follow TG Internet forums, you'll know it's a theme (usually called, incorrectly, an Internet "meme") that crops up with dismaying regularity. It's on the upswing, apparently.

Recently one Miss Sudha made the same statement on my blog. I quote:

Transgenders are more feminine than most genetic women

Wow. Talk about insulting!

So let me get this straight: transwomen have the ultimate say on the definition of "woman", and not only define what femininity is, but can do so because they are more feminine than genetic women?

Alrighty then.

(I'm going to ignore the "genetic" bit. There's a world of contradiction within it. And I know Miss Sudha is not the only person to fall into the trap of defining for convenience.)

Like I said, I've seen this sentiment mentioned in a few places. I went hunting, but came up short, so you'll just have to believe me! (Sorry.)

Mind you, I'm not surprised some in the transgender world would come up with such nonsense, and remain oblivious to the obvious insult. Many in the transgender world don't care that "cis" is insulting to many. It's a convenient shorthand for them, and their convenience matters more than your offense.

This casual approach to definition and insult has consistency. Some gay activists are hostile to women; some lesbian activists are hostile to men. More than a few feminists, lesbian or no, are hostile to men. (There are plenty of examples in politics.) It's the old tribal stuff: "thou art my enemy, and thy be less than I!" So it's not that surprising such sentiment would appear. That doesn't make any less ridiculous or insulting, however. Political insult is one thing, but personal insult? That's quite another.

Allow me to state the obvious: the femininely transgendered do not get to define what femininity is.

For heaven's sake: it's an allegation that doesn't even withstand a sideways glance!

(The corollary: transmen get to tell us what macho/machismo is. Oh yeah. That'll go down well.)

Individually, anyone can decide how feminine they want to be. If you're comfortable with pretty dresses, who cares? (According to Anonymous #1 (and here), apparently transgendered lesbians (and Anonymous #1) do.) Heck knows, I enjoy a pretty dress as much as anyone. [Hmm... There's something about that sentence... I can't quite put my finger on it... :-) ] In other words: you get to decide what feminine, or masculine, is for you.

What I don't get to do, however, is define what being a woman is, or what being feminine is, or means. I'm not going to redefine what a woman is in order to validate something I know to be untrue (about me). And I'm certainly not going to insult anyone with the sweeping, and ridiculous claim that the femininely transgendered are more feminine than genetic women!

Carolyn Ann

Bigotry on trial

I've been following the Prop 8 trial in California with some interest. Obviously! :-)

No one would call the defense "animated". Slumbrous, certainly. The basic arguments for the defense revolve around two points: society should be discriminatory and prejudiced, and be able dictate whom you marry, and changing that will bring the end of civilization as we know it. (Which might not be all that terrible.)

During the Prop 8 campaign, you got the definite impression that the Evangelical "Rapture" would happen if gays were treated as full and equal citizens. Perhaps that would make the trial less lethargic?

The Supremes, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that Justice Seen is not that bright an idea. Consistent with the Roberts' Court general antipathy toward the unwashed masses, they said "no YouTube" of the trial. In effect, they're admitting they have yet to join the 21st century. Reporters can report on the trial, but you can't see it for yourself. Judging by the "live blogging" reports, the defense (in particular) can make C-Span seem lively.

As expected, the "gay agenda" cropped up. I wish someone would provide definitive proof such a thing exists. All we have is alarmed shrieking and much gnashing of teeth in angst. No proof. No blog posts connecting the dots, demonstrating the coordination. On the other hand, we have ample proof (it was discussed in court) of the coordination between civil and religious groups to set the direction of, and fund, the anti-equal rights effort.So if there is a gay agenda, what's being asserted is that the opponents of equal rights can be coordinated, but gays and lesbians mustn't be. Or any such coordination must be counted as unfair coercion.

Got that?

Basically the defense rests on the same premise that got Prop 8 passed: Oh my God! The Queers want to be equal to Straight folk!

As an argument, it has a familiar ring to it.

Carolyn Ann

Transgender Drivers Licenses: A campaign issue.

I was quite alarmed by this story on Helen's en|gender blog.

I can't help but think it has started...

How would a Supreme Court rule? Would it be good for the transgendered? Or not?

Carolyn Ann

Gluing balls...

How can anyone analyze it better than this:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

(10:05 long. Probably safe for work.)

Carolyn Ann

Evil befalls America

Never mind what I said before - a great evil has befallen the land! A master of prejudice, bigotry, myopia and an infantile reactionary has taken over the Senate seat of a Great Progressive and Wise (but dead) Politician.

C'est la vie. Great Britain got Margaret Thatcher. Massachusetts, and America, get Scott Brown.

Ah well. While the Republicans do keep working toward ensuring the end of the world, it hasn't happened yet. ... Yet. They may yet succeed.

Fucking idiots. The damn lot.

Carolyn Ann

Upset in Mass?

It sure looks like the Republicans will take Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. The left put up a lackluster candidate, and the right put up, well, an equally lackluster candidate. But the GOP managed to set the tone of the race.

Will it be the end of health care? Not necessarily. Does a Republican victory prove that America is swinging to the GOP? No. Does it mean anything? I'm sure it does. But right now - it's difficult to tell beyond "the Dems ran a really poor campaign."

The problem for the Republicans is that they'll perceive any victory as vindication. When they're actually still in the minority. Coupled with their replaying of Newt Gingrich's 1996 infamous "obstruct, delay, deny" senatorial strategy, the hard line GOPpers must be feeling euphoric!

But I'm not sure it's meaningful in any real way. After all, The Gingrich Strategy worked because the Internet wasn't as prevalent. It certainly wasn't as ubiquitous and all-seeing as it is now!

What really has to happen is that the Dems have to stop being "nice guys" and get on with the job they were elected to do. Let the Republicans have their little fantasy. And then get on with associating the Republicans with the failed policies of the last 8 years. People will remember, if you remind them.

Carolyn Ann

Transgender Heaven

(With a nod, and a sly grin, to Vanessa! :-)

The transgendered believer will probably like heaven, as it is commonly defined. ... Erm, no they won't.

If heaven is a "be all you are" kind of a place, then the problems of (simplistically stating) "being in the wrong body" go away. You no longer have a body to worry about. I wonder if that 'cures' anyone of being transgendered? I doubt it. In fact, I'll go so far as to say: not a chance.

To argue that gender is an entirely physical construct is, basically, to be stupid. To argue that it's entirely a social construct is to admit you don't know what you're talking about. (But I'm going to ignore that, for now.)

If gender is purely physical, then there would be little problem in defining what one or the other gender is. It would be "men are this" and "women are that" and no one would be able to dispute such reasoning. Indeed, it would be universally accepted. But it isn't: gender is more than physical characteristics. Gender is within our minds, as well. This little factoid has been acknowledged since ancient times. The contemporarily pious seem to have a hard time accepting that, however.

So if gender is more than physicality, and heaven doesn't include the transgendered - does that mean in heaven all of those who wish they were born female will be reborn as female? I have no idea. And considering that heaven doesn't exist, I'm not likely to find out. But if you're born a male (or female) and feel you're in the (simplistically stating it) wrong body, does that matter once you've shed the problem? Or is gender more than the physical?

Is gender the result of testosterone and estrogen? Or is it a duality - both cause and affect, depending on circumstances? (Schrödinger, leave that cat alone!) If it is created at conception, as anyone who believes life is imbued at conception (quick aside: that makes god a serial abortionist) must argue), then why does an imbalance between the physical and the identity exist in some?

[Another quick aside: if you believe that life starts at conception, but then argue that gender doesn't, you're refuting your own argument. Life, as we know it, cannot exist without gender. Unless you're some species of plant.]

This is getting far too complicated.

Assume that heaven exists. That St Peter does, contrary to the wishes of some, actually let in the transgendered believer - is that person, that spirit, transgendered any longer? Or is being transgendered merely something to do with the body... Oh dear. We seem to have arrived at our starting point.

I guess it's hell to be in heaven.

Carolyn Ann

What is heaven?

Never mind where it is - what is it?

We're told, repeatedly, that it's a nirvana. We'll be there, if we're [insert requirement here], and we won't have any cares or concerns. All will be provided for.

Apparently.

Oh, some might argue that's a simplistic view of heaven - but is it really any different from the supposedly more complex opinions about heaven? My version lacks a few amenities, perhaps, but it's got the essentials.

Pat Robertson's heaven is likely to be a place where he can be as humble as he is now. But it won't contain gays, lesbians, anyone not American (perhaps others can visit? Oh, hang on. That brings up the specter of visitors (illegally) overstaying their welcome...). In fact, Mr Robertson's heaven sounds like a good description of hell.

Tim LaHaye, a preacher and apocalyptic author of "The Left Behind" probably has a clear idea of who gets into heaven: Evangelical Christians. They get plucked from airplanes, trains and from where they were standing. Just before the anti-Christ (the UN Secretary General) unleashes biblical nightmares. So if you're evangelical, and you get to this perfect place - what about your kid, who might not be evangelical? Or your parents - did they have to wait in purgatory until you arrived? What about your cat?

Some might tell me I should read the books and find out. I tried. His writing is harder work than Ayn Rand. But nowhere near as interesting. (I'm not alleging that Ayn Rand actually is interesting.)

Islam has 72 virgins waiting for you. Unless you're a woman, that is. In which case I have no idea what's waiting for you.

Heaven, obviously, doesn't have any atheists. So if you're a believer, and your spouse isn't - then sorry, your proclamations of undying love are for nought. But what happens if you're a Christian, and come to the conclusion that God doesn't actually exist? That the critter everyone tells you is a deity, is simply some capricious and arbitrary demagogue? Who tells you what you can think, and how you must dress, act and generally behave. (Pat Robertson? Is that you?)

If hell is other people, then what is heaven? Solitary confinement?

If the body and spirit aren't together in heaven, what of the person for whom aesthetics are important? And doesn't that render the entire concept of men and women rather moot? A fickle frivolity? Doesn't that make art irrelevant? If the physical is no longer important, then Michelangelo's David is merely a lump of rock. And that wonderful granite countertop you just had installed in your kitchen? That's a lump of rock, too. Speaking of which - if some meals are divine, and there's no need of body, what will Emeril do in heaven? Are we to be denied the simple pleasure of Rachel Rays' smile, as well?

What about great architecture? Great music?

If personal expression is irrelevant, because the physical is unnecessary, then how is that different to dictatorships?

However you define it, heaven looks a lot like hell.

Perhaps Robert Heinlein had it right in "The Book of Job"?

Carolyn Ann

God, quite simply, doesn't exist

I don't get religion. Any religion. The concepts are nonsense.

Oh, I get the desire for an afterlife. We don't want to go through life and think "this is it?" We seem to want something beyond life. But desire and want have never translated into "it's real".

I often think that religion has two touchstones: the afterlife, and a primitive way of explaining physical phenomena. As far as each aspect goes, neither has much to offer it. Whenever explanations are offered, the (required) supporting arguments and concepts suddenly get really complicated.

Take a god, for instance. The principle difference between the various religions is how much power and authority the gods have. Polytheistic religions have inconsistently assigned powers and authorities, and the monotheistic religions can't agree on the role of their god. What they all do, however, is argue, well assert, that their gods do exist. And, not surprisingly, that their god is superior to your god.

Unfortunately, no one offers a decent shred of evidence that any god exists. No one ever has, and no one ever will. When your argument about evidence is based on faith, you're not offering evidence - you're offering sentiment.

Some gods are omniscient; some aren't. Some are omnipresent. Some aren't. Some people think their god has direct interaction with their lives, others disagree. Some people ascribe their good fortune to their god, others hope their god will provide good fortune. Some people think their gods have human emotions, feelings and reactions; others disagree. What some think is sin, others consider to be quite reasonable. Some gods are avaricious, some are warlike, some are capricious, some are loving. One or two are all of these things, simultaneously.

Gods are complicated critters. Ever notice that? They have powers untold, and (obviously) the amazing wisdom. Where it gets complicated is that no one can agree on what that wisdom is. Oh, people can try and argue that we're imperfect and incapable of understanding their god, but all they're doing is arguing that because we don't understand something, we shouldn't make the effort to understand it. This abdication, this laziness, of thought is astonishingly popular.

Unfortunately, it's really difficult to understand something that doesn't exist. Well, not just "really difficult" - it's impossible. The god then becomes a very simple creature; so simple it could be fairly called a simpleton! Often, a lot of convoluted reasoning goes into explaining this simpleton.

A contemporary retort tries to turn the tables: people argue that lack of evidence for a god is not evidence of a lack of a god. That's perfectly true. In a logical sense, at least. If I have no evidence that a god doesn't exist, then there's surely a possibility that a god does exist? Well, if there's a lack of evidence that one god exists, then there's also a lack of evidence that two gods exist. Or three. Or an infinite number of gods. Arguing that there's only one god is exactly the same as arguing that there are two, or three.

Oh, some might try to dispense with polytheism by arguing that if there are lesser gods, those gods can't be gods because a god has to be all-powerful to be a god. It's a trivial argument, to be sure. What if you believe, as many do, that even the gods have naturally circumscribed powers? That this god has dominion of this bit of the Earth? Or that bit? Or that your god is simply the "spirit" within all living things? With no benign, malignant, or any intent! Stating that only one god exists is quite a complex argument - you're arguing for many things at once. When you argue that one god exists, you necessarily have to provide an interpretation that replaces the many gods. So instead many gods, you end up with many facets for your god. It becomes a matter of semantics and belief, not reasoning.

But back to the "lack of evidence" thing. If a lack of evidence doesn't exclude something, then evidence for something should be enough to prove it exists. Sadly, a double standard is often used: because something can be used to prove a god unnecessary, it must be false evidence! Religion and belief do get complicated. Unfortunately, that's not the end of it - evidence is found, where none exists, for the existence of a deity. Or two. Or more.

All of this supposes that we need evidence for a god, or the lack thereof. I'm not sure we do. What we need is reason. The lack of evidence thing is simply a rephrasing of the old "you can't prove a negative"; that is, no one can provide direct evidence that a god doesn't exist. The hope is that if someone finds such physical evidence, then it surely must prove that a god exists! Then it becomes a question of how many gods exists, etcetera. But I can't supply any evidence that any god exists, which leaves open the window of doubt for many. And provides certain proof of god's existence for quite a few more.

So I have to rely on reason. And it's really, really simple. (It has to be if I'm to stand a chance of understanding it.) Here it is: simple explanations work the best. This can be re-interpreted as: there's nothing within this universe that requires a particular god to exist. And based on the idea that everything should be reduced to its simplest, if there's no requirement for any god - then there's no god. No god, no afterlife; no heaven, no religion.

If there was a god, and it was required in order for something to exist, then it would show up in the evidence. But it never does. Unless you desire to see a god within some natural transaction or phenomena. Or you have some need to perceive deitific involvement. And then it simply becomes a question of "who?" One god, or one god of many? One facet of a god, acting in cohort with the other bits, or ... It's getting complicated, again. As I've already pointed out: wanting god existence is inadequate to proving a god, or a spirit or a bunch of gods, exists.

Carolyn Ann