Wow. What a surprise...

Who'd have thought? A chap, accused of being a Russian spy, facing deportation from Cyprus, and lots and lots of jail time in the US, suddenly goes missing?

Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. :-|

He was released, presumably on his own recognizance, and his passport was confiscated. The Cypriot police expressed surprise, dumbfounded befuddlement I expect, at his being released by the magistrate. The United States expressed it's astonishment - alarm and consternation, most likely - at the same moment. And the chap expressed his relief by going on holiday. He didn't say where he was going.

Carolyn Ann

The language debate continues

Roz Kaveney has, in The Guardian, outlined a little bit of that transgender language debate.

She sort of gets the debate right; I can't say I had too many quibbles with her retelling of it. I did disagree with some of her points, though. She claims:

A trans woman, the argument goes, is a woman who happens to be trans as she might be, say, blonde, but a transman is some special and distinct order of being.

Alright! Let's get that good old fashioned male privilege into the transgender world! How else are transwomen going to ... Well, I'm not sure what. Whatever next? Arguing that someone with a girlie name and no intention of "having the op" is merely a man? Goodness gracious me.

Ms Kaveney alleges that there is a debate about "trans": is it a prefix, or an adjective? It's a prefix. That some people have neither the wit nor wisdom to realize that doesn't make it an adjective. When it acquires a reasonably precise definition as an adjective, the matter will be resolved. Until then it remains a prefix, merely proving its user is an exceptionally lazy thinker.

Her other point was about that dreadful prefix "cis". Often used as an adjective, it also proves a laziness of thought. Why go to any lengths to figure out how to say something when you can use a shorthand, instead? Does the writer mean "cissexual" or "cisgendered"? Does the user even know? They are two different concepts, often confused as being the same thing.

Anyway, I left a comment:

Just a couple of thoughts... Trans, even though it's often used as an adjective, remains a prefix. Your point re "trans woman" and transman is more a strawman argument than anything.

I disagree that "cis" is inoffensive. Some time ago, when the "debate" was at its height, I asked some friends and even a few people I didn't know: almost all of them considered it offensive. One woman gave me a lecture I'll never forget. The debate, as I remember it, highlighted a double-standard: people didn't like "tranny" because it was offensive, but "cis" was fine because those being offended weren't transgendered. I know at least one blog that specifically uses "cis" in a derogatory manner, to be insulting. Although I found it amusing, one or two people have used it to insult me. I do agree it is free of any value.

Overall, I thought Ms Kaveney's essay to be lacking. She might as well as gone into the whole "-ed" thing, quoting that ridiculous, and ridiculously wrong, GLAAD "standard". The one that says you can't have "reded"; neglecting, of course, that you can have "yellowed" and "blued". It tries to put forward some rule that doesn't exist; I can't remember what it is, but more than a few have written about it. Even some who should have known better!

Hopefully the language debate isn't settled, but is on a hiatus.

Carolyn Ann

"Are You A Bird Or A Bloke" (Juliet Jacques in The Guardian)

Juliet Jacques has another small essay in The Guardian.

The only bit I didn't like, I thought was a bit arrogant: going from "cross-dresser to trans woman".

Carolyn Ann

Stupid error

For the first time in my life I made a stupid error: I typed "there" instead of "their".

I can't believe I did that. I must be drunk. Not being able to navigate this keyboard might be a clue... :-)

Goodnight. I'm sure the morning will bring a world that isn't quite what it should be.

Carolyn Ann

Its not a bug, it's a feature.

Whatever you do in your life... Don't try to write anything Google might interpret as HTML. Especially HTML 5.

Which basically means: don't write. HTML 5 has so many keywords you might get confused, expecting the people who put it together as having been intelligent. They were, the result of their efforts? Not so much. It's the perfect example of what happens when you put a lot of very intelligent people together: the result is often astonishing in its stupidity.

Try writing about (singular) objects. :-)

Carolyn Ann

(Frequent changes/updates: I'm either tired or drunk. Probably both. G'night.)

Oy vey

I've had one of "those" days. Not the usual sort - it's a bit more stupid than that. I thought I understood how to create a control in OS X. Only to find: I actually didn't.

A control is a scroll bar, a list of stuff, a menu bar and so on. It lets you "direct stuff". The OS X developer kit comes with a lot of controls, and there are some others out there on the old 'nternet. (Brandon Walkin, in particular, has done much to advance the state of controlickery. ... Is that a word?) Why do I need to know this? Well... That's a secret. :-)

Actually, it's because I want to know it. :-D

The really stupid part of the day came when I decided that reading code on the screen wasn't cutting it. So... I need to print out the relevant code. Except the printer ran out of black ink. X-Code, with astonishing stupidity, prints everything in large type, in black ink. On screen, it's nice and tidy, lots of pretty colors and some useful syntax marking. On paper? It might as well be blank paper. Which it was, when the black ink ran out.

And I couldn't find the black ink. I know we have some, but where it is? I have no idea. I forgot to ask the Mrs; she's asleep, right now. I should be, too. But I've spent the last wee while reading code.

You'd think Apple would have some documentation? They do. It's translated from the Gibberish. Actually, a lot of it is still written in its native language. "init<object>"? Oh - that provides an initialized object. ... What the hell is an initialized object?

Look, I know object-oriented programming. I know C++, C, Java (I forgot: Python and PHP; Perl, not so much). Heck, I have more than a passing familiarity with Erlang. (Never knew the chap (I think he died before I was born), but I know both the units of measure, and the computer language.) I also know that when you create an object, you can "initialize" it. (Basically, that means get a bunch of code ready to be used. Abstract? It provides new meaning to term "abstract". It makes abstract look tangible.) What does Apple count as an "init<object>"? I have no idea.

I can picture the meeting. The guru-level developer is doing his intonation (guru-level developers are always men. Women have too much sense), and is intoning that the object needs to be init'd before it's used, and this is how such a task can be accomplished. All the guys around the table are practicing their guru-worship, afraid of admitting they don't have a clue what the freaky guy is saying. The women leave, having more important things to do. (Sexist? Okay: the trannies and the women leave. Satisfied? :-) ) At the end of the day (never mind meeting), the guru heads to the nearest Eastern Religion festival, and the people who have to implement the damn thing look at each other and say "so..?" And the result is Apple gets to put stuff like "init<object>, initializes the object" in its documentation.

(Think that's bad? Read some Linux documentation. If you can find it, that is.)

Carolyn Ann

Russian Revolt?

So the Russians are spying on America. Ineptly, it seems.

Vladimir Putin, Russia's Prime Minister, told Bill Clinton: “You have come to Moscow at the exact right time, your police have gotten carried away, putting people in jail.” Well, I guess that's better than being the victim of mysterious, uninvestigated murder.

It seems that Russia is a bit confused. the charges are "baseless". They're also "in the spirit of the spy passions of the cold war period.” Well? Which is it?

Apparently these people were supposed to get close to policymakers, and a financier or two. It might be cheaper, and less embarrassing, if the Russia spy service subscribed to a few current affairs journals, and perhaps read a few current affairs websites. Mr Putin should open his rolodex if he wants financial information. Or subscribe to the WSJ. I know it's not what it used to be, but it's still a daily bible for Wall St. They might want to spring for a copy of the Financial Times, too. Oh - they also wanted information about US nuclear weapons. Considering the skill and savvy they used with the Rosenberg's, I'd have to guess that Russia's secret intelligence service just had its "amateur hour" moment.

Come on guys: American nuclear secrets? You hope to gain that from people who have no verifiable history? What are you - really stupid, or just amazingly so?

Tell you what: perhaps the Russians really wanted to know what life in suburbs was like? They could show movies of endless lawns, manicured and deathly quiet. Perhaps they could show David Byrne asking if the 'burbs weren't beautiful? Or bought a copy of Rush's "Signals" album. There's an ode, well, more of an indictment, of surburbia on it: Subdivisions. It's the first song on the album/CD, if memory serves. I think they really wanted to show how everyone leaves at the same time, and gets home around the same time, too. And then they'll contrast with it now - endless repossessions, laid off workers not caring for their lawns and so on. They'll then say the American Dream has been ruined, shown to be false and so on. You know: just like they did in the Cold War. :-)

Either that or the spies they sent hadn't finished spy school. They skipped the classes on "how to not get caught". Perhaps Russian Spy School didn't offer them?

In the end, we have a good old fashioned spy story.

Carolyn Ann

Update: Oh, the title was supposed to refer to the fact that a couple of the Russian spies tried to buy a house in New Jersey. I forgot to include that detail. :-)

Scott Brown is against government bailouts, and he's also against the financial industry being made to pay for its bailouts.

Ultimately he's willing to let the government bail out those 'too big to fail' banks. When they get it wrong. Again.

I wonder how much money the banking industry promised him? Not to imply he's corrupt or anything. He's simply in the bargain aisle. As merchandise.

Carolyn Ann

Some people just can't help being idiots

Cath Elliott, writing in today's "Comment Is Free", asserts that (for her) "middle class" is an insult. An epithet, even. She willing provides an example: because neither she, nor her husband were born in a life privilege - they aren't "middle class". Indeed, she doesn't quite know what she is.

I'd agree. But I can help: she's playing the part of an idiot with a disturbing alacrity and skill.

Apparently the upper classes all work to help one another maintain their "privilege". She assumes that government bureaucrats can actually deny the will of elected officials. Her appreciation of modern government economics is, well, lacking a certain basic comprehension. (She's not alone in that, of course. But, like her right-wing, across-the-pond, Tea Party opponents - celebrating that ignorance is a sign of political purity. And economic idiocy.) She thinks that Marxism is the classless answer to it all. You remember Marxism, right? Failed economic argument, class war at its best and worst, and the collective is wonderful? The individual is subsumed into the collective will? The philosophy that left the details to those in power? Yeah. That discredited political nonsense.

That she's a home-owner, with a car (presumably she owns it) shows her adherence to Marxism as what it is: pie in the sky dreaming. Sure, dream a little. Ayn Rand is pure whimsy, but that doesn't mean that Karl Marx is anything but facetious, vicious idiocy. (Both are cruel, in their own ways.) Marxism persists as a philosophy for those who dare not think.

Earth to Ms Elliott: people act in their own best interests. Cabals and secret conspiracies? Really?

Carolyn Ann

Oh, what an oblivious leadership (it helps to sing that line)

England played like a promising High/Comprehensive* School Team. And were duly punished. Wayne Rooney was, well, how do you describe someone who was more intent on securing his name for prosperity than in actually playing football? Arrogant? Conceited? Stupid? Yeah, any of those will do.

Mark Webber decided to take some flying lessons. Quite an impressive bit of drama, that crash. And Ferrari whined - only to discover that Lewis Hamilton and his team actually did understand strategy. And Ferrari didn't. Tactics get you up the grid - understanding, having (preferably) a strategy can really help, too. It's useful if that strategy isn't "win the race". That's a goal, by the way.

Apparently Angela Merkel and David Cameron were going to watch the second half of the match. They might have looked out of the window and noticed a peace-filled, serene urban street. As if it were straight out of Devil's Advocate.

A few blocks away, cop cars were being torched, cops were attacking protestors and basically democracy as we know it was being upheld. You know: do as we say, or the cops will harass you with some vaguely worded warrant that would make Oliver Cromwell envious. And that Robespierre would recognize in any swift moment. Who ever said the right was dying?

A troubled world, indeed. And, as ever, our leaders are oblivious.

Carolyn Ann

*High Schools in England are called "Comprehensive Schools". Or at least they were when I attended them. Which wasn't as often as my parents thought I did. For example. Urban schools give so many more opportunities (for such waywardness ... shenanigans whatever than suburban, or as I like to think of them "wanna-be cathedrals of mowed grass", schools. :-) )

Punished by a typewriter? (Deservedly so)

Sometimes, with a start, you realize that someone is not just clever - they're a genius. They possess the sort of genius that comes as a birthright, and not as a result of "mere" thinking and some education. Andy Warhol, Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Richard Feynman, the list goes on and on. These individuals redefine what genius actually is; they make

I've read Allen Ginsberg's line "The typewriter is holy the poem is holy he voice is holy the hearers are holy the ecstasy is holy" a few times. It's in "Footnote to Howl" (p27 of the Pocket Poets edition). I love the poem itself, but had never given that particular phrase any thought. Last night it was like a revelation hit me like a freight train, and to use Bill Morgan's analogy: Allen Ginsberg was the locomotive. (Bill Morgan was (is?) the Beat Generation's librarian; he was a friend to many of the Beats, and he recently wrote "The Typewriter is Holy, The Complete Uncensored History of the Beat Generation".)

It's really quite amazing. My drunken effort to update was as inane as it was stupid; how do you update something that is timeless? It's like trying to cast Shakespeare into hip-hop; the story sort of remains, the wonder of his language disappears. (I'd also argue that those "experiments" with Shakespearean casting are inane, too.) I once endured a full length production of Voltaire's amazing masterpiece "Candide"; I've watched quite a few variations over the years, but never one that was so poorly constructed. The update did its level best to lose the genius behind the tale; when it was unavoidably came-upon, it was beaten with as big a stick as could be found. The poor thing dragged itself off-stage, and was never seen again. That was in the first 10 minutes. I did something similar with Mr Ginsberg's words.

I love the line:

The typewriter is holy the poem is holy he voice is holy the hearers are holy the ecstasy is holy

There's so much in there, it's difficult to know where to even begin thinking about it. As my inebriated "effort" ably demonstrates: I didn't really start thinking about it. I merely tried to punish it! The original punished me, instead. It was well deserved.

Carolyn Ann

Anthem to an idiot

The keyboard is holy the post is holy the (diminutive voice) is holy the readers are holy (unless they disagree) the ecstasy (of self-publication) is holy

An Anthem to an idiot.

With all due apologies to Mr Ginsberg. And there are many.

Carolyn Ann

Standing ovation

I love this:

(718): bro i finally banged her last night on our basement couch
(917): I'm at this frat party right now and yelled "my little 16 year old brother finally lost his virginity." They gave you a standing ovation

http://tfl.nu/gosl

:-)

(From Caprice's glob.)

Carolyn Ann

Lilies and mums?

The Chartreuse Flamethrower and I had a discussion over email, recently. It was about this post.

I'm not sure, but if someone tells you your arguments are opaque, I don't think it helps forge an understanding and intelligent dialogue. Oops. :-) <-- slightly embarrassed smiley.

Well, it might. I've told many a political argument partner that their argument had all the sense of running head first into (Barnsley built) brick wall. I think it's a requirement for any neocon or Tea Party idiot addict adherent. The difference is that I've always made it the end of the night without being arrested, or being assaulted by stupidity. (I've also been told my arguments have the common sense of a brick wall. Which is nice - brick walls generally have the sense to not fall over... I'm sorry - was I reaching for straws? :-D )

I digress. As usual. :-)

It helps if you intone "Barnsley built" with a Barnsley accent. Good walls up there. :-)

Anyway, Ms Flamethrower and I had a somewhat disjointed and entirely unsatisfactory email conversation. She didn't reply to a rambling email I sent; she asked me a lot of questions, and I responded. I didn't take the time to shorten the email, or edit it. The result was something I'm not sure can be counted as "intelligible". If it was, it was purely accidental.

Anyway, Ms Flamethrower left her blog post in a state of limbo, and bearing in mind Jamie, of Jamie's Got A Gun fame, who pronounced me as no longer being around (I'd gone for a ride on a motorciccle, and this appeared to count as recently deceased), I felt a need to keep the conversation going. Lest someone else planned to send lilies and chrysanthemums.

C'est la vie. ... I hope? :-)

Carolyn Ann

Gender isn't important. Is it?

I've spent some time thinking about this post from an Anonymous T-Girl. In it, she's berating some anonymous critic.

For sure there's some wry irony in that. :-)

I recall one thing from my original reading of the post: "I am woman, respect my cock". It doesn't appear to be there, anymore. (If it was there to begin with!) It's not a phrase one forgets very easily. Quite the opposite: I thought it encapsulated an entire genre of (absent-minded) thought.

Anonymous T-Girl is making a point about the definition of "woman"; I'm not sure it's a convincing argument, but it's certainly one that needs to be heard. Unfortunately it will be labeled by the transsexual community as "duh..." and the transgender community as "who are you to... (etc)" Which is a pity.

Although Anonymous T-Girl might not like the comparison (to be honest, I have no idea if she will or won't), but her arguments are actually very similar to Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer's: a woman is a woman is a woman. End of story. That Ms Bindel and Ms Greer seek to punish anyone who was not born a woman is neither here nor there. Or perhaps it is?

When we categorize people by the sex the doctor notices - the doctor (midwife, etc) makes no judgment of gender, merely the sex of the baby - we, ... ... ... basically don't do a thing. It's an historical fact. You have a penis, you're a boy. Otherwise you're a girl. In those few cases where it's uncertain, you have - uncertainty and a lot of angst, and undoubtedly a heck of a lot of regret. But the historical record knows nothing of what goes on in the child's mind as the child gets a few years under their belt. It can't. A new born baby is neither male nor female - it is a baby. Gender comes along a wee while later.

If anyone seeks to dispute that, I suggest they interview a new born baby. Or a two year old. :-)

It's often argued that gender is a social construct; that surely explains why most boys are attracted to toys of violence, and girls generally aren't. I'm sure it explains something, but gender is not a social construct - the expectations of your role, as it explained by gender, is a social construct. I thought this was something the Original Feminists [... :-) ] had dispensed with; apparently the argument about gender and its social constriction construction is still alive and well by those who either wish the debunk history, or rewrite it.

Or perhaps it' an argument of convenience? If gender is a social construct, it can be reconstructed, and considering that we are all free agents (...), no further justification for being who we are is needed. The obvious flaw in this argument is the demand for justification; if none is needed, why provide it?

Gender is both biological and social. It's not a cut-and-dried thing; the ancient Greeks knew that. (Sexuality isn't cut and dried, either. The Greeks proved that, too. I understand it led directly to the Hebrew admonishment against same-sex relationships. A prejudice that has, in the western world, endured the centuries.) Of course, the Greeks knew a thing or two about slavery, as well. So perhaps they're not the role models we need?

I think the transgender community tries too hard. While they argue that gender isn't important; it's too fluid, and ill-defined, they insist on gender pronouns that indicates that gender really is important. Even "mere" crossdressers get into the game (as it were). "She" did this, "her" skirt was pretty and so on. Not exactly self-consistent with the idea that gender is fluid.

A perfect example is that bastion of self-centered hypocrisy: Questioning Transphobia. A recent post started with:

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about a cis man’s violent street harassment of a woman who was waiting at a Seattle bus stop, minding her own business ...

The woman is not, in their definition, a "cis" woman. English is not QT's strong point. Neither is linguistic or logical consistency. Considering the popularity of that blog, it's a perfect example of the inconsistencies of "trans" language. The woman in question has, in her personal history, something that indicates that she was not born a girl. But instead of being logically consistent, QT's Helen G prefers to go ahead with the idea that gender history is not important for the victim, but it is of vital importance for the criminal.

The idea, in a nutshell, is that gender is not important, unless it is. And guess who decides if it is, or isn't? Helen G. (She has no bio on the QT site, so I can't link to it.)

And people expect to fight for equality with that?

If the gender history of the criminal is important, then the gender history of the victim is, too. Unfortunately "man harasses woman" is not exactly news. Perhaps Helen G thought she was clever by turning the usual newspaper story on its supposed head? It highlights what's wrong with the gender debate: if gender is unimportant, then it's unimportant. And we all know that it's not. It is of vital importance.

The religious right (the true libertarian doesn't care one way or the other) define gender in absolute terms. Their opponents don't. What's really interesting is how few the true libertarians there are in this debate. :-)

Carolyn Ann

The Atlantic

The other day, Karen and Renée wondered if The Atlantic was worth picking up, again. I've spent a wee while thinking about that...

I'm not sure.

Because of our current financial state, we've not renewed many of our subscriptions. Weeklies like the New Yorker went; so did all of my motorcycle and car magazine subscriptions. Even "Scale Auto" (a model car magazine) went. Vogue, Elle, OnStyle - none of them got renewed. I still get Racecar Engineering, but I buy it at the bookstore. (Subscribing to that was more expensive than buying it at the newsstand!) The Mrs kept Sunset and Country Living. I kept The Economist and Foreign Affairs. The Economist was kept because the local library doesn't carry it, and I managed to trade credit card air miles for another year of reading. :-)

The Atlantic fell into the same category as The New Yorker: nice to have, but who has the time to read it? On the other hand, when the New Yorker arrived in the mailbox, I would take my time walking up the driveway; I'd read the cartoons along the way. A pleasant treat, indeed.

I started to subscribing to The Atlantic because it did get better. Instead of the dubious writing of years gone by, it resumed its incisive and erudite look at contemporary society and culture. It became good, again. Instead of one story that might be interesting, issues started to become interesting. It went from a magazine in which the interesting bits could be read over a hurried coffee, to one where I could lounge in the bathtub, accompanied by the most recent copy and a bottle of wine, for a few hours while read and mulled. [So to speak... :-) ]

But it was expensive. And with the belt-tightening came some decisions: The Atlantic was a luxury we couldn't afford. The local library carries it, but you have to wait one or two issues before it's put on the lending shelves. So you get to read January in March. That wasn't as big a deal as I thought it would be; the other problem (for me) is that because it's not mine, I can't risk getting it wet. So a cup of tea, and a sneaked-in hour are all I manage to allot to the journal, these days.

The Atlantic has a good website, with some great bloggers. It'll be marvelous to read them when I get an iPad. As it is, the articles are too long for the time I now have. They require too much attention; a cursory read just doesn't work for their articles. That being said...

I do read their website. When I take a break, I head over there. The experience is curiously unfulfilling, however. There's nothing like holding that magazine and reading it with a knitted brow and a decent wine or beer.

So, yes. I'd say The Atlantic is worth subscribing to. Once our finances get back to some sort of normal, I'll be resubscribing. I do look forward to that day. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Favorite Books

Valeria discussed some of her favorite business books, today. (Yesterday?) :-)

Sure made me stop and think! And, as I mentioned in a comment on her blog, "go downstairs with a pad (of paper) and a pen". There are two - I counted 'em - business books on those shelves. And I can't remember why. They're good (Crowdsourcing, by Jeff Howe and "Once you're lucky, twice you're good" by Sarah Lacy), but I don't know if I'll ever read them again.

A few years ago we decided to get rid of a lot of books. About 20 boxes (literally!) of computer books made their way to Brooklyn Library. And that was after I tossed anything ancient, irrelevant or plain stupid. (Speaking of which, the other day I noticed more than a few boxes of Windows programming books. From around the turn of the century. They'll make nice recycled paper coffee cups are something.) All-in-all, we got rid of a lot of books. Even after we got rid of those damaged beyond saving when the house flooded. And we still have a room that is more than half full of boxes of books.

Anyway, I wandered down to the living room - which has some bookshelves we installed - and listed the ones I keep reading. This is not a complete list (I didn't list anything in the pile by my side of the bed, for instance), but it's a start. A Desert Island Book List, if you will. :-) It's not in any order.

- Report to the stockholders, John Beecher

- Howl, Allen Ginsberg

- The American Idea (The best essays from The Atlantic), ed. Robert Vare

- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig. I have a few copies of this. And one day I will actually finish it. (I don't think there's any rush to do so, however.)

- The Last Cuckoo, the best letters to The Times since 1900 (pub 1987)

- Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitman

- Gehry Talks and all/any of Frank Gehry architecture books I own

- either of the two Zaha Hadid retrospectives I have

- Riverside Shakespeare

- A Thousand Days, Arthur Schlesinger

- Digital Barbarism, Mark Helprin

- Speed, Style and Beauty, the book that accompanied the exhibition of Ralph Lauren's cars at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (2005?)

- Shocking! The art and fashion of Elsa Schiaparelli; it accompanied an exhibition of her fashion at the Met

- A book about Noguchi

- Helmut Newton, A Gun For Hire

- Carl Sandberg's biography of Lincoln

Akhil Amar Reed's "America's Constitution, A biography" is one I often dip into. Superbly researched, and well written it's truly a guide to the artifact. As Mr Amar Reed shows, understanding the Constitution can take a little bit longer than the 22 minutes Glenn Beck provides each half hour.

There are a lot of books on our shelves. Some are the wife's, but I'll read a few of them in due course. Some are mine, and some are half read, waiting to be picked up and continued when I have the time, and the inclination. They are all interesting enough to be on our pared-down shelves. Which points to the fact that we have a room that is more than half filled with boxes of books, and have boxes of books all over the bedroom.

I love the recent New Yorker cartoon: two guys are standing in front of a large, empty, bookcase; there's an iPad on one of the shelves. One says to the other "I built these bookshelves for my wife. But she bought a iPad."

Carolyn Ann

I'm not sure why...

According to Rebecca, she has closed commenting on that blog post because she didn't like the direction the discussion had taken.

Brings to mind something that is common in the transgender blogosphere: when the discussion takes a turn that is not "supportive" (ie affirms the feelings of the transgendered woe-be-gone) it is antipathetical. Considering that I don't even know how to spell such a word...

I did consider apologizing if I had offended Rebecca, but then I thought "Why should I? I haven't said anything wrong!" And then I considered the last time Rebecca and I got into similar deep waters. In an email, she directly and obviously insulted me, and when I told her she had, and that she had allowed an insult (from Cedar, one of her friends) against me to stand, refusing to publish my retort - she became silent. My lesson, which I should have learned, is that it pays to beware of fickle "honesty". Its honesty is as rare as its promises.

Carolyn Ann

Bread...

The Mrs brought home a loaf of bread from a nearby Italian baker.

Mmm. It's good. :-)

I think I'll have another slice!

Carolyn Ann

A busy news day!

A very busy news day!

• An earthquake in Canada. That could be felt in NYC.
• The US won - in the 91st minute!
• England won
• Australia won!
• A top general was fired
• Barton was allowed to keep his energy committee seat
• George Osborne's budget was attacked (he released it yesterday. From what I can tell, it's best described as "wishful thinking" mixed with "if you're poor, a woman, have a family or are disabled: you're screwed".) Harriet Harmon criticizes it; well, I doubt she'd applaud it.
• The Bloody Sunday report has been "digested" (so to speak). Turns out it's helping reconciliation, which is marvelous.
• And last but not least, it looks like the judge who challenged the president's ban on drilling was not impartial
Very few days are this busy.


Carolyn Ann

Continuing with that thought...

Read this post first. :-)

Continuing on, I wondered about an all too common scenario within the transgender world: the husband deciding he's really a woman, and going through with gender reassignment. Does the wife have any obligation to the man she married, or the woman she is finding herself married to?

If you follow Rebecca's and Maddie's logic, yes. Especially if children are involved. Again, I don't see it. All of a sudden the wife has to deal with another woman in her husband's life? And what's worse: the woman is her husband! As one wife told mine: "How do you compete with that?" How, indeed?

In that situation, the now-wronged wife has no obligation to the husband. He has an obligation to be honest, an obligation that is scornfully avoided if a few of the conversations I've had on the subject mean anything.

It might be interesting to some to wonder if the husband is committing adultery, but I think that's not only a red herring, it's a stupid one. What is important, I think, is the usual economic situation: husband is the bread winner, and with him going off to start a new life, the wife needs some way of living. (By the way, the pronouns are used to for clarity, not political correctness.) It's probably fair to assert that the wife can expect to be treated as if her husband had committed adultery. That would be an interesting topic for the trans-feminists, especially the ones who have been through this. It's also an area where feminism and trans-feminism will be at odds.

If the husband goes off and does what (more than?) a few TG'd husbands do - have a fling with some guy to see what it's like - the wife has definite grounds for divorce. There should be no dichotomy of feminisms there; unfortunately, there is.

Now for the really difficult bit: what about kids? If the kids are adults, it's a "So?" moment. But if they're not, the question becomes impossible to answer. At least rationally; anyone attempting to do so is being a fool, really. Anyone asserting that the kids need their father, and the guy should "man up" and stay a guy until the kids are old enough is being both a bigot, and a fool. Not to mention advocating a political view that's quite unsustainable, and not at all appropriate for the situation. You could think of it as: inserting your politics into my family is not going to be one of your better ideas. (Something the religious right should consider a little more often!)

In general, and in the specific, the wife has no obligation to her transgendered husband; she has no obligation to a philandering one, so why should she have any obligation to a transgendered one? The husband is becoming someone she didn't marry - no arguments about how the husband is becoming the "real" person will help. That just means the (perceived) deceit has been going from before they were married! If the husband tries to impose some sort of obligation on the wife, he's moved from disrespecting her to outright manipulation; blackmail attempts are often not too far behind.

I should mention that this is not a "cisgender" issue; it's relevant to all committed couples. The pronouns might change, but trust never does.

Things do get tricky when obligations are imposed!

Carolyn Ann

You don't get to pick your family...

It was with trepidation that I left a comment on Rebecca's blog the other day. I wasn't sure if she would "approve" the comment, or not. (Our prior encounter wasn't as "complete" as it could have been.) The topic is quite important: parental expectations, obligations and demands when the adult child changes gender, sex or however you want to put it.

The story, as conveyed by Rebecca: her father said he'd support her, but has singularly failed to do so. She's rather frustrated by this. On top of all that, a therapist, responding to her telling him of her frustrations about her father using the wrong pronouns, not supporting her and so on, said "So?" Meaning: is her father's reaction that important? Rebecca believes it is, and asserts that her father has an obligation to support her. He did, after all, promise to.

I don't buy it. Rebecca is an adult, living her own life. What possible responsibility does her father have to her? As far as I can tell, he has no obligations whatsoever. Once the child is no longer a child, and living their life - no parent has any obligation to their children. The kids have no obligation to the parent, either!

This is not, I hastily add, to negate any feelings of love, concern, desire to help and so on. My parents have absolutely no obligation toward me; I'm living 3,500 miles away, leading my own life. What possible obligation could they have? To take me in if I need it? That would be nice, but they're not obliged to do so. What obligation do I have to them? To be a good son? What does that entail? Not wearing girly dresses or riding motorcycles? (My Dad has a pretty intense dislike of motorcycles.)

Once we're adults, we're responsible for our lives. It's nice if we can get some familial support, but no one is obliged to provide it.

When I got out of hospital, my therapist said basically the same thing: "So?" His point was that my life is my life; it's no one else's. I have to conduct myself as best I can; considering that I am responsible for my life - no one else - I think it was fair for him to say "So?" It reminded me of something I'd lost along the way.

Rebecca's situation is different to mine; it has to be: we're two different people. What made the discussion all the more fraught was her revelation that there was more to her distress than she originally let on. (To be honest, I suspected there was, but it's none of my business, so I didn't ask.) The general point is still relevant: how do you deal with family members, especially parents, who aren't quite as supportive as you would like them to be? Another commenter, Maddie, disagreed with me that the family member has no obligation. So it is an important topic. (My inclination to analyze the subject apparently caused Maddie some unintentional distress. I did apologize.) I'm sure it's important for many younger transsexuals (not to be politically incorrect, of course); and for more than one or two not-so-young ones, too. A parent has a lot invested in a child: hopes, dreams, aspirations. When the child turns out to want something radically different from their life, it can be quite a blow for the parent.

Once the child has become an adult, any actual obligation to provide for and protect the child is gone. The feelings may remain, but there's only so much a parent can do; especially when you consider that our adolescent years are generally when we break from our parents. It's during those years that we become independent individuals. (How successful we are in that endeavor is a different topic.) This is not to say that the parent doesn't feel protective, or want to help their child. But no parent is obliged to help their adult children; plenty don't, many do.

Ultimately, people are people. They make promises they can't keep, they make promises they have no intention of upholding, and they do things because it's the right thing to do. It did strike me as a bit inconsistent for Rebecca and Maddie to so what they want with their lives, but then turn around and demand that others comply with their desires. Complying, especially with pronouns and personal identities, might be the right thing to do, but there is an inconsistency. And there is no obligation.

Carolyn Ann

Congress to the Unemployed: Screw You!

Congress is doing its well-practiced Nero routine. For a harp, they have meaningless debate. For a burning Rome, all you need do is look at the numbers: 900,000 people have lost unemployment benefits. Because the Senators decided to be stingy. Or get stupid. (Something they appear to be really good at.) It's not like US unemployment benefits are generous - the best that can be said of them is they're "stingy".

Bickering about small business profits, and even the tax rate hedge fund managers pay (those guys don't need unemployment payments, that's for sure!), with the Republicans generally ill-disposed to help anyone except themselves and you have what, these days, passes for Senatorial Stupidity. That should be restricted to Senators saying dumb things, not actively seeking to do really dumb things.

What's really the pity is that none of these blatherskites are in need of public assistance, themselves. Cut Congressional, especially Senatorial, pay to $309 a week. And impose a 13 week limit, to be extended by whim and the largess of some powerful group of blowhards. (And while we're at it, give them an expensive, minimally-capable HMO for their health insurance, too.)

Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress . But I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain

Need anyone say more?

Carolyn Ann

Can the man

Update: General McChrystal has been fired.

Mr Obama should fire General McChrystal.

There's insubordination, and then's stupidity. General McChrystal was insubordinate when he gave that ill-advised speech in London. Now he, and his aids, have taken the next step: publicly insulting the President of the United States - their Commander in Chief. He's undermined his own strategy, he's undermining any diplomatic strategy the US has and he's encouraging his troops to ridicule the entire chain of command. Dissent is one thing, ridiculing the Vice President of the United States is quite another. General McChrystal's judgement wasn't poor - it was atrocious.

Once he's retired, or fired, he'll be able to say whatever he wants. No one can stop him. Until then - he's a serving officer. And he does not have the right to insult his commander. He also doesn't have the wisdom to know that. And that's why, above all other reasons, he should be fired.

Carolyn Ann

Added: You know what really annoys me about this? General McChrystal didn't have the sense to know he and his aides went too far. They had to wait until Rolling Stone came out!

Abolish credit?

I clicked on The Atlantic website, and was presented with an ad for some stupid idea: abolish credit. It was one paragraph long.

And it was one paragraph too long.

Perhaps the writer could get together with Ron Paul, and really destroy the financial fabric of the world?

Carolyn Ann

The experiences of a woman...

Megan McArdle (who's in definite danger of being elevated to "recommended reading" status. :-) ) writes about the morality of selling your womb.

When it comes to our bodies, our lives, what is for sale? The price is irrelevant, really. What matters is that it is for sale. As Ms McArdle agrees, selling yourself into slavery (or servitude) is a definite no-no. Even if it seems to be a popular theme in transgender pornographic fiction. Selling someone else into sexual slavery is popular; which makes the whole TG-fantasy somewhat, very, distasteful.

Can you sell your womb? Your services as a baby-carrier? To a libertarian, sure. To others: perhaps not. Ms McArdle references the abortion debate; I'm not so contrarian. You want to sell your body for 9 months, go for it. Someone will be willing to pay you to do it. Does it create a bond as strong as bearing the child yourself? I have no idea, and I would be fearful of commenting on such matters. They are not within my experience, and as such - I have no place commenting.

No one else has that issue, either. I might add. :-)

I can be involved in the abortion debate. Some want to ensure it's not an individual decision, but that the state has an overriding interest in the outcome. Those individuals pre-ordain the state's interest. I disagree. I do not ever want to get between a woman and such a decision. Society has no role in such a moment; well, it has an obligation to ensure the safety of the woman, but that's all. No back room coat-hangers or the like. It does not have any right to impose conditions upon those seeking abortions.

There are some things that define womanhood. There are some who wish to redefine it.

Carolyn Ann

Just thought I'd make a note...

I must remember to hook up that external disk and upload some photos to Flickr. I'm way behind on that little task.

Just thought of it. So I figured I'd mention it. :-)

"Help stop cybercrime"

Neat bit of phishing: the idiot claims to be from the FBI, and that the FBI is interested in ensuring I get my payment from the ... Well, I'm not actually sure. It appears someone owes me a lot of money. (That would be nice!)

I'm supposed to contact some individual to get the money. All I have to do is pay a couple of hundred dollars, and a zillion bucks will be mine. How about that?

I wouldn't mind, but these idiots insult the language. Not to mention my intelligence. (Presuming I have any. That is.)

Can someone, please, write a decent phishing letter?

Carolyn Ann

Obama, dear, wherefore are thou?

I see Mr Obama is still being criticized for not stripping to his underwear and diving into the Gulf, personally stopping the oil leak by Presidential Decree or something. The right complain he's King Canute, and then complain he's not King Canute. The left is in a tizzy because he's not rescinded Don't Ask, Don't Tell and has proven not to be King Canute.

I saw Michelle Bachman's little diatribe: she's one of the first to argue for expansive Presidential powers. And one of the first to criticize them.

What do people want from the President? They want him to be what they want him to be. Not who he is.

They'd criticize him for being unpresidential if he got himself all worked up. They criticize him because he's cerebral. I think the latter criticism comes more from that favored saw: the "anti-intellectual"/anti-"elite" (right wing) sentiment. It's a knee-jerk reaction, with little to add to any conversation. Basically, if you stop and think: you're an anti-American liberal.

Not that the left is much better. There, if you disagree you're either insulting someone's identity, or being insensitive or some other bit of nonsense.

For all the whining that goes on, I can't help but think there's more to it. The Great Recession was certainly frightening enough; coupled with the "morality wars" of the right, and you have a recipe for a bit of a mess. It's not helped by the foolishness and idiocy of various (alleged) leaders.

I read a bit of Aaron's Klein's little moment of sheer idiocy. He starts with a premise (Barack Obama is evil), and goes out of his way to prove it. Lo and behold, he's staggered, staggered I tell you, when he uncovers endless plots and conspiracies to turn America into the next Venezuela or something. His book is riddled with innuendo and stupidity. Don't make me review it, please! It was bad enough perusing it.

What gets me is not that the right wing is so conspiracy-loving - all political extremists have a tendency to paranoia, I think - but that such foolishness is generally accepted. Believed, even. The right seems to have adopted conspiracy and idiocy as replacements for considered thought or the truth. The left has its moments, but believe me: they're nothing compared to the right demagoguery we see these days.

Most of it isn't racist; sure, there's some - that's to be expected. No, most of it is because Barack Obama has the audacity to not be a simplistic twit. And he's also not Tea Party approved. No, most of it - the whole "birther" thing excepted - is simply because some people are frightened of the changes he's bringing to society. Change is difficult; people like to complain about their lot, but when you provide the means to change that lot for the better - they'll not thank you for the opportunity. Considering that many of the Tea Party is on the older side, change is even more difficult for them.

That old Chinese proverb, well, insult, really, has especial relevance these days: may you live in interesting times.

We do. We most certainly do.

Carolyn Ann

Full steam backwards! And damn the fans!

The Sun: Never in the field of World Cup conflict has so little been offered by so few to so many... (With apologies to Winston Churchill)

The Mirror: Cape Clowns

Guardian: Another England Carry On (a reference to the "Carry On" movies of the 1970's)

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Wayne Rooney said (I quote from The Guardian): "Nice to see your own fans booing you. If that's what loyal support is ... for fuck's sake." What did he expect? A bouquet?

What a sodding waste of talent that team is. Group favorites? Group clowns, more like.

Carolyn Ann

Pa-The-Tic

I need three words to describe England's performance in this afternoon's game: pa-the-tic. The phrase can be shortened to "sodding pathetic".

For the first half England kept passing the ball to Algeria, or where there was no England player. In the second half they were a little better - they passed the ball to anyone. Algeria played strongly, England played, well, I think they were playing dominos or something.

Stupid and pathetic. Get rid of Rooney - he's wasting space out there.

I think there's a couple of bed-ridden and chair-bound old Grannies in Warwickshire who could stand in for most of that team. At the very least, no one would notice much difference. They might even be an improvement.

Carolyn Ann

The good Tea Party candidate is...

Seen and not heard from. And preferably not seen. :-)

After his civil-rights gaffe, Rand Paul is staying out of the spotlight. Sharon Angle is not talking to the press, unless it's her campaign calling a reporter and telling him he's an idiot. Perhaps this is a developing trend?

It seems the tactic of the day is: Don't talk.

Which is odd if you're going into politics. But probably wise for Tea Party candidates.

Carolyn Ann

Aww. The Poor Diddums.

A few Tea Party groups are all upset, the poor things.

Apparently Chris Matthews, the Hardball guy, did an exposé of "The Rise of the New Right". And it wasn't very complimentary to the Tea Parties. So they issued a communiqué press release calling on Mr Matthews sponsors to drop their advertising on the show.

The Tea Party group complains, specifically, that the show:

... was journalism at its worst, and its purpose was to demonize and misrepresent. Chris Matthews used his Hardball program to slander and mislead the American people by distorting facts about the Tea Party Movement. Hardball selectively portrayed groups and individuals in the program in a bad light.

Ah. I see. I guess calling President Obama the latest Hitler and Stalin and portraying his efforts at improving the competitiveness of the nation (with decent, affordable, health care) as both fascist and communist was reasonable political dialogue?

The poor dears. They must be so upset at being portrayed in anything but a positive way. After all:

David Webb, co-founder of New York City’s TeaParty365 said, “Chris Matthews is a far left commentator, not a journalist and therefore should not be held to or credited with the same standards.”

Mr Matthews can't be telling the truth because he's a leftie. I'm not sure, but I'll take a guess: Glenn Beck holds himself to journalistic standards? Gutter journalism from the Father Coughlin School of Journalism, to be sure. But they are standards. You just need to grab a shovel to get to them.

I'm trying to feel sorry for the poor dears. After all, they work hard to demonize those they don't like, and it takes a lot of knee-jerk, thoughtless reaction to distort the statements and intentions of lefties. It's politics, and the only thing worse than a leftie being mean is ... another leftie being mean. Nasty, mean, leftie commentators and journalists. Always trying to distort stuff. I guess the Offended Ones will run to Mommy.

Carolyn Ann

Reflecting on a model

The guide says "Reflect the user's mental model".

Sure.

What if there is no model?

Carolyn Ann

NRA to democracy: go away, will you?

The NRA has managed to make a laughing stock of any effort to control corporate election spending. They got themselves an exception, and when it was discovered (who, in their right mind thought it might not be noticed?) promised to be a Good Little Special Interest Group. Yeah, I've got a bridge to sell you. Little used, too.

So now the list of exempt special interests has increased. The law that is supposed to provide some accountability might as well say "Hey guys - it's open season on American democracy!"

The result of a truly mind-bending decision from the Supreme Court - the infamous Citizens United farce - Congress is now trying to put Pandora's Little Box back together. All the Congressmen and women won't be able to put Pandora's Box back together again. The Supreme Court unleashed a tireless, and tiresome, monster.

What needs to happen is something bold. President Obama declaring the verdict invalid, for instance. The branches are equal - who's to argue that the Supreme's are above Presidential disfavor?

Of course, the Republicans like Citizen's United. They have no idea of the tail they're holding.

Carolyn Ann

PS Next time, I'll try to fit a few more allegories and metaphors in. :-)

This site is not Vickie's Secret...

Browsing a developer's link-list site (DZone), I found links that led to this site. :-)

It's not Victoria's Secret. It's sexier. And definitely risqué-er. :-)

Carolyn Ann

The Supreme Court loves Authorities (and hates individuals)

The Roberts Court seems to have one overriding principle: big business and the state win.

Their very strange rulings - everything from Kelo v City of New London, to Citizens United to the very strange 5th Amendment decision* to this latest insult in Florida, the Supreme Court seems to favor big business and the state over the private individual.

(*The right to remain silent does not, now, extend to not telling a cop your name. So you to speak, after which you can remain silent. Go figure that one out. I suggest a couple of excedrin, or a dose of something hallucinatory. Which is what they must have been smoking when they came to that conclusion.)

What's really strange is how it's described as a conservative court, and conservatives - even those would-be neo-con Tea Partiers - applaud so many of the decisions. That restrict their rights as individuals, and as property owners.

Let's take Citizen's United. How odd is it that a corporation can be granted the same rights as an individual? Corporations don't vote. They don't go to jail. They don't even pop out to fetch a pizza. They don't actually exist, except as legal entities. They're not communities - hiring a group of people is not a community, it's a group of people you hire to accomplish your goals. But now the owners and managers of corporate entities have been granted some rights that are given to individuals?

Corporations can be regulated; their corporate interests are not above the concerns of actual communities. As legal, not corporeal, entities that have no tangible being they do not get to enjoy the same rights as individuals. Except when the Supreme Court goes on some strange acid trip and decides they do.

Kelo is an egregious one. Here, the City of New London, in Connecticut, decided that they wanted a neighborhood. They wanted it for a private drug company, and used eminent domain to get what they wanted. As you might expect, this annoyed at least one person. Suzanne Kelo was intent on starting a new life for herself in her house. And the government came along and said they wanted the property because Pfizer wanted to put a parking lot there. The Supremes decided they could. In effect, they decided that Pfizer's interest in the property was greater than Ms Kelo's.

I've just written of the Florida decision, so I won't go into that again.

Then there's the whole Bagram decision. Habeas corpus doesn't exist at a US airbase in Afghanistan? I can't even begin to fathom the logic of that one.

There seems to be an underlying pattern to all this: if the state, or a big business, needs the rules rewritten, they are. There are some exceptions, but not many. The exceptions seem to be erratic, at best. Gitmo prisoners have the right to challenge their incarceration, but those in Bargram don't? A cross can remain on private land, even though the way the land became private was both deceptive and for the sole intent of evading Supreme Court decisions? Stare decisis, indeed. (That decision, applauded by Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians all over, should have given them pause. Even grave concern; But they love their religious symbology more than they love the idea that the state shouldn't be imposing religion or religious symbols. That cross is offensive to Jewish soldiers, atheist soldiers, and anyone who doesn't want particular religious symbols foisted on them, or their graves.)

The Suprem Court is activist in an astonishing way: instead of acting as a buffer between the powerful and the individual, it's acting as a rubber-stamp. The Roberts Court might seem to be conservative, but it isn't: the only place I can think of with such similar disregard for the individual and individual rights is China.

So many conservatives, including those wanna-be conservatives of the Tea Parties, like this court and its decisions. They should be fearful of it, instead. I know I am.

Carolyn Ann

Taking of property?

Here's an interesting one... The Supremes, in a, these days, rare consensus, voted against private property owners. Just like the Connecticut case - where a woman, and her neighbors, had property seized to benefit a private developer - the Supreme Court has decided that state interests trump private interests.

And people think this is a conservative court?

In this case, owners of beach front property in Florida were annoyed that Florida redefined the boundaries of their property. Florida, and a few other places, define a beach front property line as the high water mark. Yes, it's a bit ambiguous, but it's sufficiently accurate for people to pay a lot of money for ocean front houses. So Florida is doing some erosion control projects - and then redefining the property lines to be the old high water line. Basically, the new sand is considered to be public property, and exclusive beach access is no longer a quality for some beach front homes.

I can't get my mind around this one. How does the court think about private property? As something useful for the state, or as something fundamental to the Constitution? Property rights are one of the basics of the Constitution; even if there's some hypocrisy in its derivation. That was then, this is now. Private property should be considered sacrosanct. Now it's sacrosanct unless the state expresses some interest. In which case, the state gets to redefine your property to suit itself. Where is that idea equally as popular (with the authorities)? ... Let me think... Oh, yeah: China.

The ideal solution - doing the project, and then levying a special tax on those who benefit - has been used quite successfully in many places. I know of some projects in New Jersey like that. (Interestingly, they involved water views as well!) That doesn't seem to have occurred in this case. This isn't about public gain, or the rights of the public over the rights of property owners. It's about the rights of property owners, versus the rights of the state to trample all over your rights as a person.

In NJ, the state decided it had an interest in protecting the communal water supply. That the projects would immediately benefit private property owners was a consideration in who would pay for the projects. No one took anything from anyone. The Florida case is a little different: the state redefined property lines to suit itself. Properties that are not involved in beach erosion projects retain their property lines, and those affected by such projects don't. Yeah, that's a taking. Even though the property would have increased in size: the issue is not the size of the property, it's how the state arbitrarily decides where a property line is, but only for certain properties.

Water front properties all over America now have their property lines defined as "up to whatever point the state arbitrarily decides".

Nice going, Supremes.

Carolyn Ann

Added: The NY Times disagrees with me.

I'm not sure, but ... Oops?

The Chartreuse Flamethrower wrote a post about gay marriage, and - I thought - how the transgender community couldn't support it until something was done about transgender marriage. As gay marriage, apparently, doesn't cover transgender marriage. At least that's what think the post is about.

After getting told off (by The Chartreuse Flamethrower), I reread the post again. And I see I was wrong. I can't actually figure out the point of the post.

Well... It might be an interesting question. What of the transgendered marriage? Is it a gay marriage? Or not? I don't see, in the post, any consideration given to the deceptive transgendered person. I've spent a lot of time on the telephone with individuals who are upset because their wife is upset that they increased their estrogen, or made arrangements for surgery. Or cheated on her, with a guy - to see what it felt like "to be a woman". (As one person told me. Literally.)

When I read the Chartreuse Flamethrower's post, that was all I could think of.

Perhaps the rest, with its confusing array of arguments that couldn't go anywhere, confused me and I concentrated on the point I could derive?

Yet again, it is up to the writer to be clear. If you're writing for the choir, it helps to say so. If you're not - don't rely on the reader having the time to click on any links to read anything! If your audience is the choir, you can make assumptions. If you're not - you can't.

Ah well. I wish the Chartreuse Flamethrower all the best in constructing a coherent, easy to comprehend argument. I'm quite sure I'll misunderstand it, anyway. It's what readers do.

Sorry about that. :-) <-Embarrassed smiley.

Carolyn Ann

Two very interesting computers

Apple has just released its new Mac Mini - and it looks wonderful! And Sea Micro (remember them? No, I didn't, either... :-) ) is releasing a server that, if I were still a network manager, would make me drool. Heck, it's making me drool a little as it is! :-)

The Sea Micro story has a little bit of hyperbole in the title - an atom bomb? On the server industry? Really? :-) Still, it is quite exciting. By taking small CPU's - the sort that powers netbooks, and some clever engineering, and even clever thinking, Sea Micro has redefined a substantial part of the server market. For about $140,000 (plus tax) you can get a server that can substantially shrink data centers. Just think of the possibilities! (Unless you don't know anything about data centers. In which case, allow me a moment of self-indulgence... :-) )

A smaller data center would mean less air conditioning - meaning less power. The new Sea Micro server needs less electricity, so a smaller power source and UPS are needed. I've installed uninterrupted power supplies that were huge! So large we had to add an extra (large) generator to the building. It cost a fortune. With lower demand for electricity, you don't have to do that.

The larger disks that are available these days also means that the disk farm doesn't have to be as big. Also reducing power, air conditioning and space. Speaking of space - if you can replace a few racks of equipment with just one server, you don't need to allocate as much of your budget to "rent". Small server rooms mean smaller IT infrastructure costs.

Google would do well to think about Sea Micro. Google's server farms are based on the idea of cheap, easily replaced hardware. They are not based on the idea of cheap electricity. Hence, they're often put in places where electricity is cheap. But it's still expensive running all those stand-alone systems. (Knowing Google, I'd guess they've figured out a solution to all those power supplies. Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't bothered thinking about them, either!)

Now, the Sea Micro might not be the box you need to run Windows servers; a typical Windows server consumes every resource you can give it. (That's a nice way of saying "a Windows server is very expensive"), but it is the device you need to run a decent database system, or a web server. One thing I've noticed about Windows servers: they tend to be "cheap" on an individual basis. Once you start making the thing usable, the cost goes up quite a bit. And you typically need a lot of boxes for any decent sized network. Let's say you've got a 2,500 user network; MS Exchange supplies email, (rudimentary) contact management and some IIS/webserver/Intranet functions. You also have a bunch of printers. You'll need a lot of servers to run that lot; the email system alone would require 3 or 4 servers if you're to avoid slow response times at 9AM. I'd refuse to have a single login server, too. By the time you've finished, you're looking at close to a hundred grand in server and storage costs. That does include the need for more server connections; just to be fair. The running costs won't be cheap, either; cooling all those servers is not the job for a $139 through-the-window unit from Best Buy. Electricity bills will be substantial for all that kit.

By the time you've finished, the Sea Micro box looks very appealing!

Just don't attach an EMC storage brick to it. You'll lose all your savings in the first sales quote, never mind the first bill.

Carolyn Ann

A guitar, and a lass with long nails

Karen reminded me of a "small" incident. I was taking guitar lessons at a Brooklyn college, and in the class was a beautiful woman. She was quite exotic with deep coffee-colored skin, and amazing, full, hair that was beautifully styled; her outfit was perfectly matched, and perfectly worn. She also had long nails, with a gorgeous manicure. A deep red, almost maroon.

The instructor took one look at her nails and said "You'll have to cut your nails!" She asked why, and he, rather abruptly, said it was basically either the guitar, or the nails. Tact wasn't one of his best qualities. After that class, she never came back.

Who could blame her?

Carolyn Ann

Long nails

I've been growing my nails a bit longer. And discovering what I always do when I do that - typing becomes "challenging".

Oh well.

Carolyn Ann

All quiet on the blogging front...

I'm a trifle busy with 'stuff', and not really thinking about blogging. I'm also not reading the news that much!

Normal, well what passes for normal around here, service will resume when it does. :-)

Carolyn Ann

The Politician, Andrew Young

Aka "Required Reading if you're even remotely interested in politics".

I once said that America demands that its Presidential candidates be as pure as newly fallen snow, and that voters are shocked - shocked! - when it turns out they're not. I had in mind the idea that voters like their politicians to be Machiavelli, and as innocent as a new born babe. Sarah Palin is an excellent example: people l ove her because she strives to be above the sausage-making that is politics. Which makes her seem authentic to some, and dangerously (and stupidly) naive to others.

Well, the Beauty Queen of the Democratic Party gets his comeuppance in Andrew Young's new tell-all: The Politician, An Insider's Account of John Edwards's Pursuit Of The Presidency And The Scandal That Brought Him Down.

I, for one, will argue that John Edwards wasn't brought down by his extra-marital affairs. I'd argue it was because he chose to continue an affair with a woman who is as stupid as the day is long. Without giving away the plot (how could I? The National Enquirer did that, a long time ago), we can note Ms Reille Hunter's acute sense of The Political when she demanded to speak to Mr Edwards while he was in a political debate. She was telling him she was pregnant with his child. A more astute mistress would have waited. Mr Young manages to convince the reader that "subtle" is not one of Ms Hunter's strengths. She comes across as selfish as her lover!

It's a well-known fact that Mr Edwards was cheating on his cancer-ridden wife. (She took the whole thing badly. Nothing was helped by Mr Edwards continually lying to her.) Mr Young manages the impossible: his story reads as plausible. It certainly comes across as the truth. He doesn't hold too much back; he uses his own failings to build trust with the reader. It works. I once worked for a charismatic boss, and I can well understand the spell they cast. (I have nothing but good words and memories for Phil. By the way.)

The biggest problem with the book is that the reader has to approach it with a certain circumspection: is this some sort of public vengeance on his old friend? (Yes.) But that doesn't remove the most essential quality of Mr Young's tale: it lays bare a political process. The people behind a presidential candidate, the role people with staggering amounts of money play in the whole process. No one but a naif could assume that a presidential candidate was pure; the pursuit of such power is destined to corrupt. It's why America's two term limit works so well, and Britain's reluctantly used vote of no-confidence almost works.

I think it was Tip O'Neill who said that you shouldn't see two things: sausage making and the legislative process. The whole smoky back rooms, full of fat cats and politicians, wheelin' and dealin' their way to a passable bill. Mr Young demonstrates why we should always be suspicious of our politicians; they're not in it for us. Not at that level. It certainly puts a new light on the Obama Presidency! Mr Young is cruel to some who don't deserve his harsh words; David Axelrod, for instance, could never be termed an "Edwards cast-off"; the man is a brilliant political strategist. Unfortunately, predicting political fortune is a bit like betting on red or black at Las Vegas. Without the certainty that the ball will land on red, or black. (Voters might pick "blue", instead. They have an annoying habit of doing what they want.) His criticism of Julianna Smoot is especially keen, and especially undeserved. Other than that, you get a picture of man you don't want in the White House.

As I read Mr Young's recounting of his truly awful experiences, I couldn't help but think about Sarah Palin. John Edwards is as pretty as Ms Palin (the Bush campaign called him "that Breck Girl", a fact revealed by Maureen Dowd. She gets my praise, and Mr Young's sneer); he's obviously much more intelligent. And yet he couldn't cope with the stress a presidential campaign engenders. That cauldron would make mincemeat of someone who quit when the going got tough - just as Ms Palin did. No one, and I mean no one, can gloss over the fact that Ms Palin quit when the going got tough. If she's a serious contender for 2012, we're in deeper trouble than we thought.

Anyone interested in the political process - no matter the nation - now has two things to do. Watch "House of Cards" (the BBC) and read Mr Young's book. Preferably not at the same time. Having seen sausage making, I can tell you it does have an affect. It's best experienced in digestible chunks: just make sure one of those chunks is Mr Young's tale.

Carolyn Ann

An interesting refutation

Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman do not, and could not, represent the views of Silicon Valley.

They're not entrepreneurs, for one thing. They're also too concerned about social issues like gay marriage.

Carolyn Ann

A few tips for bloggers

Update: It seems I didn't do enough checking. C'est la vie. :-)

Apparently the current incarnation of the twits guide to knowing when they've been insulted is a reconstruction from Google's endless cache. I still don't get the disclaimer - they both use the same graphics, and make the same point. Perhaps thinking for themselves is so difficult a task that we need two sets of guidelines. That are the same as each other...

If I ever get interested enough to figure it out - I'll let you know. You can then lock me in a nice room with padded walls. :-) (Oh, I'm sorry. Was I just exercising some privilege there? Oh dear.) :-D

======

It seems that deplorable website "Derailing for Dummies" is still alive and well. It is, indeed, upon it's a-little-less-than-one-third incarnation. Apparently there's a Facebook page with the same name, because the half-wits (they're ahead of their blog; they have to be, otherwise they'd be venturing into unknown territory...) who run that webpage have the enviable disclaimer:

PLEASE NOTE: The Facebook Fan Page of Derailing for Dummies is NOT associated with or endorsed by this website.

Tis a pity: two parties seem to be bent upon telling us how to detect the evildoers of the online, allegedly literal, world. :-)

Once upon a time, I read a blogger - who obviously relied on the site - bemoaning that it had gone away. I quietly rejoiced. A little too quickly, it appears. The arrogance needed to provide such an idiotic lecture can't possibly be contained - and so it proved.

So, in the spirit of "Derailing for The So Breathtakingly Stupid They Need To Be Told When Someone Is Insulting Them Dummies", I have to would like to :-) present my Guide For Bloggers. :-)

1. Is the post useful?

Are you just venting about something, adding to the profits of disk manufacturers by simply saying what everyone else is saying? I don't have anything against that (capitalism is good :-) ), but it's useful to have something to contribute to a conversation. A simple echo is not useful. It might make someone feel good, but that has rarely been very helpful.

2. Do you have a point?

Something that I often forget. Something I notice a lot of other TG bloggers do, too. But I'm better at it. :-)

If you're a Tea Party blogger, you can ignore this problem. You don't have a point because you don't actually understand what a point is.

3. Do you understand the language you're using?

Yes. I don't know if you do.

4. Do you really need to whine that much?

Really? That's not whining?

5. Do you know what your facts are?

They're not what you want them to be.

5a. Do you know what facts are?

I do: do you? :-)

6. Are you reasonably polite?

In general, whomever you're criticizing will be more amenable to a discussion if you don't go off insulting them from the get-go.

7. Do you use profanity simply because it makes you cool and hip?

You're an idiot and are generally regarded as such. No one reads your work because no one wants to wade through endless "fucks".

8. Does your opening make sense?

Might be helpful. Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em. Reel 'em in. Literally. :-)

8a. Does your closing make sense?

Tell 'em what you told 'em.

Quite often I read endings that have little to do with the blog post. It's disconcerting, and it's usually a sign the blogger hasn't thought about their argument.

9. How long are your sentences?

Yeah, just how many syllables can you pack into concept, anyway?

9a. Are your words too long?

If you need to take a breath before finishing the word, then the word is either German, or too long. You decide.

Seriously: if your sentence has a more than one or two polysyllabic words, put there because you don't want to forget anyone in your inclusiveness, you're words are too long.

10. Can anyone tell when you're being sarcastic?

Well?

10a. Can anyone tell when you're joking?

Sure they can. :-)

10b. Can you tell when you're joking?

Huh?

10c. You're serious? I mean, really serious?

You need to get a life.

11. Is the post spam?

Well? Is it?

12. There's this thing called "Too Much Information". Ever heard of it?

Yes I have. Have you? Any post dealing with medical stuff in anatomical detail is probably in the TMI category. (And probably should have be in the "adult" section of Blogger.)

Also: don't tell people your address, your social security number, your ATM pin number and so on. And try not to tell everyone you're now going on vacation. You don't actually know who's figured out where you live.

13. Does anyone need to read your post?

No. You have to persuade the reader to read your post. That you spent forever writing it - all that dictionary checking (when you remembered, duh!) - and no one reads your stuff? And you thought blogging was supposed to be easy. Poor you.

14. Perhaps you should sleep on it?

I'll forget it in the meantime. That might, or might not be, a good thing. Depends on who you ask. I hope. :-)

15. Can you Tweet it?

Quite a few (outraged TG) posts can be boiled down to: "What she said!"

15. Did you actually read what you wrote?

Every time. ... Okay, not every time. ... Alright! Every so often. Really. :-) Do you?

16. Can you write?

I've been accused of the crime.

h/t to Grammarphobia. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Useful suicide bombers...

As many as six would-be suicide bombers were killed by a ... suicide bomber. According to Mr Sullivan's recount of a report from Daniel Byman and Christine Fair. His last moment on Earth was getting a farewell hug from a comrade. An extremely useful, if usefully stupid (stupidly useful?), comrade.

Yes, I'd say they were nitwits. And extremely useful. Because while they blow themselves up, they're not blowing anyone else up.

Although I have to admit: I'm still trying to figure out the guy and cow thing. (Perhaps those anti-gay-marriage bigots are right: some guys want to marry cows. Or donkeys. ... Although I don't think it has anything to do with gay marriage. A cow is not a bull, after all... (Sorry. Couldn't resist.) :-D )

Carolyn Ann

Muttering to myself

With apologies to Mr Idol. :-)

The Economist has a piece about "what is wrong with America's right". They have a lot of analysis that amounts to an ant hill of reason. What's wrong with America's right wing is that it is infested with gun-lovin' Christians who praise the Lord and forget what the ammo is. Or its purpose.

When someone can put a lawn sign telling everyone that "Patriots don't support liberal firms or unions" you know something went really wrong with their understanding of free speech. It is free speech - advocating some form of speech Ayn Rand would find both amenable, and deplorable. Ayn Rand was intelligent. Not often right - most of her political views amount to whimsy. One or two border on the inane, and the rest aren't political. (What? You thought I hadn't read her work? She's as opaque as Joyce, but nowhere near as enlightened. Or thoughtful.)

Perhaps she makes James Joyce look, if not transparent, then at least soluble. (?)

I recently read Waiting for Godot, Samuel Becket's little masterpiece. It was a lot easier than Ayn Rand's. If I could pick a name, I think I'd go with Ayn. ... ... I can pick a name, can't I? :-)

Hmm. Something to think about. A liberal tranny, adopting the name of a right wing iconoclast? I wonder how many of her new fans realize she despised religion? I despise it, too.

An idea that might see light of day. Or it might not.

Ah well.

Carolyn Ann (I'd have to get used to writing "Ayn".)

D'ooh!

What a stupid, ridiculous and sodding moment of sheer stupidity!

My old Granny can play better than that! And she's been buried these past twenty year!

In a more considered tone:

USA played well. They were tight, and exploited England's tendency to have 11 individuals players on the field, and yet not manage to be a team. I saw a little of that in the second half. (The American commentators noted it, too.)

The ref was tough, I thought. He wasn't going to put up with any nonsense from anyone! His yellow card probably got tired, being waved around so much.

The one good thing: no commercial breaks.

As for Mr Green: send him back to learn footie with his High School team.

Carolyn Ann

Good weekend for sports

England versus USA, this afternoon. And the Canadian F1 race tomorrow. :-)

So go ahead, call me a guy, a bloke, a chap for loving this stuff! :-D

I'm going to be a hermit for awhile...

Carolyn Ann

Lending myself some money?

Me: Lend me some money.

Me: You still owe me some.

Me: Yes, but if you lend me $10, I'll be able to pay you that $5 I owe you. And I'll pay you interest on the $10 you'll lend me, now!

Me: Oh, okay. (Hands two $5 bills from left hand to right hand)

Me: Thanks! Here's that $5 I owe you

Me: Thanks. I'm solvent, now.

Me: Yes, and I have $5 to spend!

Me: Wonderful! It's a win-win. Why didn't I think of this before?

That's an accurate summary of New York State's plan to fulfill it's pension payment obligations.

Really.

(I wish I could report it's like borrowing from your 401(k) (retirement account), but it's not. It's literally lending yourself some money.) Actually, it's exactly like borrowing from your retirement fund. Just on a bigger scale. And with less certainty of payback.

Carolyn Ann

PS It gets worse: the pension fund assumes growth of - get this - 8% - EIGHT!!! - a year. But it's willing to accept a little over half that from the people it lends money to. Those municipalities will be paying about 4½% to 5½%. Per year.

Anyone else smell fish?

I seem to remember writing about this...

The new Prime Minister of Japan, Naoto Kan, has made an important observation: Japan might become the next Greece. I wrote about this a wee while ago. (Toot! Toot! :-) )

The article claims that Japan won't be as badly affected as Greece, because so much government debt is held domestically. I disagree. I think it makes the situation, and any potential recovery, harder. Much harder. Why? Because while Greece had to make some extremely unpopular fiscal reforms, it had two forces ensuring that it followed through: the threat of rampant, local, inflation (or worse, deflation; it could have gone either way) and the bond market not buying its offerings. Japan doesn't have the same problem; it's got an entirely different one: a political and business culture that is best described as "corrupt".

Yes, Greece has long had corrupt governments; it's how they got into their mess in the first place. Politicians promising [tax-payer funded] jobs (and then, worse delivering on that promise), stifling competition with unnecessary and stupid tariffs and a tax avoidance system that worked better, and more efficiently, than the tax system. Japan makes all that look like what it is: amateur hour. Japan's business interests define the Japanese government; because the banks didn't want reform after the Japanese property bubble burst, the Japanese economy has been wobbling between "almost deflationary" and "deflationary" for a decade, now. No one has even suggested any serious reforms in the past 10 years. Now it looks like they have to.

Unfortunately the only thing that could force the needed reforms, an economic breakdown, will be put off if Japan does what I think it will do: tinker at the edges. Japan needs a thorough change to its system of government, and it's not going to get it while the business bosses are (metaphorically) holding hands with the government. (A more accurate assessment would be "while business bosses have the government on a leash." But I decided to be kind. The Japanese government regularly builds huge hurdles for small companies, entrepreneurs and investors, thereby preventing a truly competitive economy from occurring.

In general, Japanese fiscal policy over the last 20 years can be characterized as "brain dead". It has relied on a fiscally conservative population, buying its bonds and saving lots of money in the bank. That population is now getting older, and it's not saving quite as much. Tax revenues are down (by about Y6T! That's about $65B); the government had to issue a little over Y53½T of debt last year - that's about $585B!!!) And Japanese banks don't think there's problem?

Here's the problem:

"Greece had a huge public debt and huge overseas loans," said Hiromichi Shirakawa, chief economist at Credit Suisse Japan. "Japan has a trade surplus, and it's a major creditor nation ... I don't think Japan's fiscal conditions is facing a similar crisis."

Mr Shirakawa apparently went on to suggest that too much fiscal tightening wasn't needed; Mr Kan's administration should "focus on [a] growth strategy that works for Japan's matured economy as the nation's population continues to age and shrink, he added." There's a word for that... Nonsense? Bullshit? Yeah, that's it. Mr Shirakawa is, basically, suggesting an inflationary strategy: he would like to inflation to do its magic.

Japan has debts in the region of 190% to 220% of GDP. It issued $ 585 billion dollars of debt, on $437B of tax revenues. In other words, they spent a little over $1T, on revenues of less than half that. With that level of debt the first thing you need to do is tighten your belt and reduce the borrowing. Trying to inflate your way out of that is like backing a car that won't start in a motor race.

Inflating your way out of a fiscal crisis is only reasonable if there's no other choice. Japan has other choices: it can slowly, and then quickly reduce the amount of money it spends. It can open up competition (at times, it can make the Soviet Union look progressively capitalist), it can reduce the influence of the good ol' boy network, and it can take a long, hard, look at its financial priorities. (Privatizing the Post Office is a good idea, is it?) Mostly it has to bring some vitality back into the economy.

Greece was lucky - it had some helpful neighbors with deep pockets. Japan doesn't have any of those. (China? Oh, you're too funny!) It has neighbors who would hate to see Japan fail, but aren't so anxious to avoid it that they'd step in and help. They're generally pretty corrupt, as well. America won't be able to step in like it did with Mexico; it might be able to help a little, but that would be it. All in all, Japan has gotten itself into a right old mess.

Let's hope they wake up and smell the coffee. Although I doubt they will.

Carolyn Ann

A new me?

Blogger has given us some more design options! About time...

So I played with the design controls. The advanced ones don't work - they give an error. Hope you like the new look! (I was getting tired of the old one, anyway.)

Carolyn Ann

Coder's block

Writer's block is bad enough. Coder's block isn't quite as bad. But it still means I'm sitting here, staring at an X-Code editor window, wondering what the heck I need to do next.

(Perhaps work on the system architecture?)

I hardly slept last night, so I'm feeling very, very brain dead. (Not that anyone would notice... :-) )

Perhaps I should go have a nap? The joys of working from home, I guess.

Yawn. Zzzz.

Carolyn Ann

Hurrah! A transgender candidate - in Oklahoma?!?

Oklahoma, land of the big sky and very straight roads, now has Brittany Novotny, a transgendered candidate, going against the homophobic Sally Kern for her Oklahoma State House of Representatives seat.

If I were American, I'd donate to Ms Novotny's campaign. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Close to perfect...

Renée has a neat little 'quote' widget on her blog. It produces some pearlers! I liked this one:

You're pretty close to perfect when you're standing next to me.
Melodie Kelly

I might have to tell that one to the wife... Except I'll make her the subject of the sentence! :-)

Carolyn Ann