Potato Juice and I

Someone used the inside of my head for a carpet delivery service.

For some unknown, but obviously stupid, reason - I decided to drink some vodka, last night. So I did. A lot of vodka. The Mrs, about 24 or 25 years ago, bought a large bottle of vodka in some Caribbean island she vacationing; about the same time (give or take a year), three and half thousand miles away, I swore I'd never touch vodka again. I broke that promise - and, looking at what used to be about 3/4 a bottle, and is now about half a bottle - did I ever!

Stupidity, potato juice and me. We had a grand old time, last night. I hope we did - I don't remember. The Mrs tells me I was somewhat garrulous. And incoherent. I'm trying to work out how that's different from normal. (Don't expect much. An hour ago, a bit of paper could outwit me. Hmm. That really isn't any different to normal.)

Right now, I feel I can match wits with an envelope. It would have been a nasty sight, earlier this morning. Not a big envelope, mind you. They're mean. After I've had something to eat (I've taken some excedrin), I should be able to hold my own against a pad of paper. Hopefully, by this afternoon - I'll be able to outwit a squirrel. Although that might be too ambitious; perhaps I should practice keeping up with a mouse? I'm not holding out much hope for that, however.

But first - I have to go find that envelope and ... I'm not sure. Lick it? :-)

Ooo. That one was more painful than my head. I'm going back to bed.

Carolyn Ann

A plan...

Mrs: What are your plans for the day?

Me: I'm going to think about having some breakfast, and then

I'm going to think about a quick shower, and then

I'm going to think about going out and getting the stuff I need, and then

I'll think about coming home, and then

I'll think that I've thought too much

And I'll take a nap! :-)

That sounds like a plan...

(I followed it, too. :-)

The best laid plans of mice and men... Good job I'm a tranny... :-D Sorry - I really should resist.)

Carolyn Ann

My mistake was hitting "Publish"

So I was thinking about my anger, and that very angry post, toward The Chartreuse Flamethrower.

It was quite strong! And strongly expressed.

The anger built up, fairly rapidly, over a couple of incidents, and over his facile attempt at deception. I don't know how else to describe using 2 names in the same conversational thread (the T-Central discussion started by Renee), with no attempt to link the identities together. He used Ry and (my favorite) "The "The" Themself". Furthermore, checking into the blogger profiles reveals that this person is Chartreuse Flamethrower! (There's another name, now: Z.)

I don't give a hoot how many names he uses - but it seems to be a deliberate deception to use two names to make the same point. I thought I was dealing with two people; it's only something about the second post struck me that I checked.

Another curiosity was when he insisted upon being correct - and I challenged him to look up transgendered in the dictionary. If he was right, then a decent dictionary would prove him so. As far as I know, he hasn't checked a decent dictionary. It's as if he's the little boy who threatens to hold his breath until he turns blue, and when told to go ahead - gets mad at you because you called his bluff. He wants it both ways: he wants to be right, but isn't willing to put the small effort into proving his own case!

And then, after disputing "transgendered", he decides that "transgenderism" is perfectly fine. I was a little taken aback by his using "it" to describe someone, after he'd noted - not more than 2 sentences earlier had said "...'it' is offensive..." It's either offensive, or it isn't - you don't get to say it's offensive and then use it as a preferred pronoun. Unless you're intent on either having it both ways, or intend to insult the person. I think he intends the first reason.

The other thing that ticked me off was when he decided to accuse me of deliberately mis-gendering him. I didn't; I apologized - and he lacked the grace to even acknowledge the apology! That came out of an email discussion over a post he wrote; I misconstrued what he said. We exchanged a couple of emails, and I felt it was up to his judgment what he should do with a comment I'd made on his blog. He, apparently, did something I've realized is very common in the transgender community: when the debate gets a little challenging, off they go. In a huff.

I let him annoy me. I should have just chalked him up as yet another person who can't stand the hot water of serious debate. Whenever the discussion doesn't go their way, they simply stop - no explanation, no impassioned wish it should be this way or that. Just up and leave. The real world equivalent would be discussing something in the pub, and when someone says "I disagree", they get all in a huff and stalk out of the pub, muttering dark tribulations and all offended that someone had the temerity, let alone audacity, to disagree! (Why is it always their round next?)

If you've been going to pubs as long I have, you've come across the sort. They hate being wrong, and get upset when they're proven wrong. They get really mad when it takes about 3 sentences to prove it, too.

So while I could rabbit on about the pressure I'm under, and how I let the man get to me - there's really no excuse. I was angry at him and his intellectual cowardice, and I wrote a piece I shouldn't have. Well, I could have written it - the mistake was actually publishing it.

So I regret writing the post; I don't regret feeling strongly about his piss-poor attempt at deception, or my realization that he can't hold his own when the going gets tough. I'm not going to strike the post out, and as you may recall - I don't delete stuff simply to make me look better. I did learn a lesson - one I shouldn't have to learn, but apparently did have to. I will count to 10 before I lambast someone in the future. Heck, I might even wait until the morning before hitting "Publish".

Any which way I slice it, I shouldn't have hit "Publish". That I regret. Not the, quite personal, criticisms. I just shouldn't have hit "Publish".

Carolyn Ann

There really is no limit to stupidity

The Iowa Republican Party wants to strip Barack Obama of his citizenship. I think they're either jealous of the birthers, or think that idiocy is a replacement for common sense.

Their claim is based on an unratified 13th Amendment:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Like I said - it was unratified. Which means it never went into effect. Which means it's an historical curiosity - not a constitutional principle. Newsweek has an interesting article on these buffoons.

Is there no limit to right wing stupidity?

I doubt there is.

Carolyn Ann

Republicans to Small Business: We Want Power, So Screw You!

Yet again the Republicans said "Screw you" to small businesses.

They're so desperate to stop Democrats actually doing their jobs - Senate Republicans are certainly not doing theirs - that they'll make life difficult for all those small Main St firms. As if it wasn't difficult enough for them!

So now the Democrats can turn to the evidence and say "See! The Republicans don't care about Main St at all! They tried to block financial reform, Wall St reform, and now they're all about stopping unemployment benefits and tax breaks for small businesses. They raised your taxes, folks."

Talk about idiocy. These days the Republicans are all about grabbing power.

Carolyn Ann

Dammit!

I forgot President Obama was on The View, this morning. (I wonder if it's repeated?)

Carolyn Ann

Hmm. That wasn't a good discovery!

I've got the job of putting in a shelf for our new microwave (the old one started smoking quite vociferously). The Mrs wanted it where the wine rack is, so that, clearly, had to come out. As it's a unit, taking it apart wasn't even required - all I had to do was take out the screws holding it to the wall. I discovered the rack was held up by 6 2½" fine-thread drywall screws - all going through a piece of ¼" plywood. 5 of those screws weren't in straight. The heads of 4 screws had cut into the plywood.

Which means, basically, that if the wine rack had ever been filled with bottles - it would have fallen off the wall!

That's not the type of thing you want to discover.

Carolyn Ann

(And then I discovered I'd forgotten to close my bottle of wood glue. From the smell, I'd swear it was fermenting! (That's just too appropriate...) :-) )

Don't know who you are? Welcome to the club.

Calie, over at T-Central, had an interesting series going. She had some people describe their gender transitions - or whatever the term du jour is - and it was quite interesting.

It got a lot less interesting, today.

The "money quote"? This:

Most people barely understand transgenderism in general, without getting into other genders. Getting the correct pronouns is next to impossible. "They" is "grammatically incorrect", "it" is offensive, s/he is unpronouncable and "he or she" is a mouthful, invented pronouns are complicated. ... I only know of one surgeon who's willing to do GRS to something other than male or female, and getting the greenlight is pretty difficult (I also asked the only person I know of who got surgery with Dr Bellringer, it paid for its surgery itself due to the UK postcode lottery even though transsexual surgery is usually covered by NHS).

(My emphasis. "Transgenderism" from a person who disputes transgendered? Give me a frickin' break! I wonder how "it" feels about the offensiveness of being a mere object?)

The previous posts were about experience; they weren't always articulate, but they were honest and heartfelt. This is a rambling woe-is-me essay.

(Okay, it seems like I'm picking on the allegedly green cigarette lighter. I'm not; when someone gains as much prominence as he did, in such a short time - and ticks me off (he still hasn't answered my challenge) - I'm bound to pay attention. Alpha-male crap? Sure, if you want to call it that. Anything wrong with that? He says, sitting in his spaghetti-strapped, pink flamingo decorated nightie. TMI? Oh sorry. :-D )

Hmm. Lugging those trees around, this afternoon, didn't do much for my nail polish, either.

Here's a concept: if you can't define who you are in terms that people understand, don't expect them to understand who you are.

At this point, I'll stick out my tongue and sashay off. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Moral prudence trumps fiscal wisdom? Since when?

Internet gambling has been banned in the US for some time, now. That idiocy might be ending.

The Republicans are aghast - aghast! - at the thought that people might be engaged in immoral behavior. They got the Internet gambling ban in, and they seem to want to keep it in place. Despite the fact that it has made absolutely no impression on the internet gambling industry whatsoever. Well, it has had one interesting affect: they've all moved offshore. Where they can't be taxed.

Moral prudence trumps fiscal wisdom.

People have always engaged in gambling. People have often frequented ladies of the night. People have engaged in both since the dawn of time - is there any reason, any reason at all, to suppose that some moral twerp can sway that behavior? My goodness - people have been imbibing alcoholic beverages for a hell of a long time, too. Let's ban that. Oh, that's right - the 18th Amendment. That lasted what? 13 years. I'd say it was a dismal failure. The mob figured out how to evade, and buy, justice. People continued to get drunk. And finally the government remembered one of the most reliable revenue streams ever is to tax sin.

Look, if people want to gamble, they will. Anyone with a browser and a credit card (oh, yeah - I forgot, you're not allowed to use a credit or debit card to do online gambling. Oh yeah - that's real effective. I wonder how long the queue was to set up offshore shell companies?) As Barney Frank points out - the government is not in the business of dictating how people should spend their money. I dislike gambling with money; but who am I tell you what you can't do with your pay packet?

Tax internet gambling. It's real simple: tax gambling, get lots of money. You also have a chance at controlling it, enforcing standards and so on. Don't tax gambling, crooks and other shady characters love you. Because their punters don't stop gambling.

Carolyn Ann

I'm a libertarian

I'll bet that astonished my regular readers. :-)

Let me see: I think Ayn Rand was a little bit of a deluded imbecile. I think socialism an effort to delude everyone and I think that some acknowledgement that we sometimes need a little help getting back on our feet is not just "just", it's a societal obligation.

I think that if you want to marry someone, you should be able to. Age and competence being the only impediments: if the person is underage, society does have a right to say "nope, no can do"; and likewise, if you intend to marry someone who can't provide informed consent, it's a no-no. To be free, we have to acknowledge that those who can't fend for themselves need some assistance in either making their decisions, or subverting those who would undermine those individuals. Tricky? Oh yeah. Life isn't perfect, why should pretend it might be?

But aside of that - if you pay into an insurance scheme, it has an obligation to fulfill its promises. If you buy securities, you have a right to expect your broker not to bilk you. I'm not against market makers, or hedge funds or shorters - I simply think that if you have a hundred thousand to invest, you need someone big standing behind you to make sure the idiot with the phone and computer doesn't try to use you as petty cash.

If you want to inject lethal drugs, and are a consenting adult - who am I to question your choices in life? You want to spend your life in a miserable cell of your own making? Go right ahead. Want to wear a seat belt? Sure. Don't? Sure. A motorcycle helmet? I wear them; once or twice, I've ridden without one. I enjoyed the experience - but those experiences were in quiet settings. I wear a helmet because I value my life. You don't value your life? Go ahead - don't bother with the helmet. Want to pray to a non-existent deity? Go right on ahead. Don't impose your beliefs on me, or anyone else, however. Don't tell me night is day and that your savior is the one true god, because I'm ready to line up and denounce your idiocy, and your freakish, infantile, sadistic and deranged god, too. But you go ahead and pray - who am I tell you you're wasting your time? It's your time to waste.

Policing, defense of the realm, education, ensuring that all enjoy equality, health care and providing a decent living to seniors are obligations of any humane society. We left, long ago, the times when seniors were dependent upon their savings and the solvency of their bank. We left the time when Robber Barons could suggest a land-grabbing bill and it was enacted by tea time, by some beholden Member of Congress. We have left the world of JP Morgan and his locking the door on a bunch of bankers in order to save the economy. We've left the realm of the valiant knight, and the damsel in distress. The Tea Party wants to return to those times.

These twits claim to be libertarians. They're not. They're charlatans. They want to dictate your love life, and your life. If you're gay - forget it, these fools want to ensure you'll never enjoy equal rights, that you'll never get the same rights as they.

They shout about government interference, and want a government overseer in every doctors' office, lest they provide valuable advice about a woman's body. They shout that they value life - they don't. They value their power over your life.

I can't help but look at signs that say "Patriots don't buy from liberal business" [sic], and think of the Fascists and their pink triangles and yellow Stars of David. "Don't buy from this business - the owner is a Jew!" The message was communicated with beatings. I worry these people are but a few steps from there. With their revolting Evangelical Christianity, these fools want to help Israel - because a red calf signifies The Rapture, and it has to be bred in the promised land. These murderous souls look forward to the demise of all, for their own, selfish, salvation. They might find their keeper to be unexpectedly low in altitude.

These people think they know the Constitution of the United States. They debate it with passion, but their idea are preformed, and their research restricted. They start with an assumption about an intention, and then set out to prove it. With a document like the Constitution, that's not a hard task. I notice they rarely invoke the Federalist Papers. Because there the intent is often at odds with how they view this secularist's sacred document. They ignore the intent and history of the Bill of Rights, substituting their own wild interpretations. They want to repeal the 17th Amendment*, for crying out loud! If that's not a stand against democracy, I've a bridge I can to sell you.

*Direct election of Senators. They used to be (s)elected by State Congress's, but when that proved to be well, problematic, direct election was deemed the better choice. It is.

These idiots shout about special interests - without realizing, and without appreciation of the irony, that they're one of the most precious of special interests. They're as fragile as crystal glass, as persnickety as they come, and as ornery as an old sea captain with a bad leg! They'd be simpletons, but I'm not sure they can spell that.

The Tea Party is not about libertarian ideals - it's about fascist impositions. It's not about states' rights, it's about refuting all that unites America. It's about denying others their rights as people. It's about the right to not be offended by those they find disagreeable. It's not about libertarian ideals.

These Tea Party hypocrites couldn't understand Ayn Rand if they read her doorstop-insulting drivel. They'd have a fit if they actually took the time to understood Robert Pirsig - and I'm sure many of them were fans of Easy Rider when it came out. These days, they'd be the ones with the shotguns and the pickup truck.

Libertarians? They're not libertarian - they're the worst knee-jerk reactionaries can offer.

Shouting in the wind

When you throw a football, an American football - a rugby ball, if you will - with the wind, it flies forever. It seems that you can hit your mark, no matter how far, just about every time. When you throw it into the wind, it falls at your feet.

These days - I shout at the wind.

It, predictably, doesn't listen.

What was interesting about all this was a simple thought: I don't care. I really don't.

Carolyn Ann

Thoughtful conservatism isn't dead. Despite the rumors.

Andrew Sullivan has been whittling over the new conservatism. It's not neoconservatism - that was finally laid to rest when Bush left office. The new conservatism is about personality, simplistic pronouncements, ridiculous claims and a strange adoration of celebrity. It's as much about lying to achieve a specific goal - usually embarrassing someone - as it is about actually not thinking about the issues, topics or policies.

As a conservative, he does well to worry about his political stripes.

When Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart define conservatism as knee-jerk populism, and leading conservative thinkers are ridiculed - you know something is wrong with the world.

As part of his exploration of modern conservatism, Mr Sullivan linked to an interesting essay about contemporary conservatism. The writer of the original piece, P. M. Carpenter, is quite right in observing that thoughtful conservatives stay as far away from the Tea Party representatives as they reasonably can. Which, to be honest, isn't that far away. Congressional Republicans are pursuing a strategy that could only be written by a "my way or the highway" Tea Party leader; Michelle Bachmann continues in her efforts to prove herself as dim-witted as possible, and the talk show pundits all vie to be the most strident, the most outraged, imbiber of the Rhetorical Tea. It's a bitter beverage, to be sure.

But does the death of thoughtful conservatism mean that (thoughtful?) liberalism will soon die, as well? I don't think so, and I'm not so sure thoughtful conservatism has met its coffin, either.

Modern conservatism defines itself by its opposition to "liberalism"; it's a false liberalism, so there's little to shape the modern conservative debate. It doesn't affect the debates liberals have between themselves; those revolve more around how acceptable legislative sausage making is. When the populist right wing is busy getting hysterical about religious freedom (as in: they hate it), the left is not without debate. It doesn't have an effective counter, but that's simply a temporary luxury. In the midst of this right wing delirium, the right is missing any real effectiveness - it's not easy to argue against a fanatic, and people don't usually try something so foolish. This leads the rightward fanatic to consider they've won, when in actual fact they've not even engaged their 'enemy'. That's not a recipe for defeating liberals; it's a guarantee that they dictate what happens.

For instance, when Andrew Breitbart released that heavily edited tape of Shirley Sherrod, the result was stupid. Ultimately, however, the only one left looking stupid was Mr Breitbart. After various entities on the left and right apologized for their own stupidity and haste to condemnation, he's left looking like what he is: thoughtless, cruel and not especially moral. He may have hurt Mrs Sherrod, but he hasn't done anything to prevent thoughtful debate about civil rights. He has done much to prevent thoughtful conservative debate about civil rights; him and Rand Paul, together, (with ample help from Bob McDonnell, Virginia's governor) could destroy any impression the conservatives care about equal rights. Who loses? Not the liberals who generally wish to see civil rights expanded. (I strongly support expanding civil rights because, not being an Ayn Rand fan, I think that in the real world, sometimes we have to legislate equality.)

So, no - populist conservative thought, or lack thereof, won't destroy liberal debate. It will make it more insular, but the only thing this knee-jerk pretension can, and will, destroy is itself. It's just too difficult to stay mad forever. And it's really difficult to argue against entitlements that are popular, and that many of your members collect, and rely on. This isn't to say that populist politics will go away; I don't think it will - not in the age of the Internet, with its instant memes and oft-extolled outrage.

Besides, thoughtful conservatives like Mr Sullivan don't go away - they may get angry with their political movement, but they don't stop being thoughtful. At some point, the extremists will redefine themselves, and thoughtful conservatives will (likely) become a new political force, like the new liberals of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. What's most likely to happen is that the thoughtful right will learn how to not let extremists derail the conversation; the liberals have had to learn this. They've pretty much got it figured out, but the right? They're still reeling from the body blow of Tea Party extremism. They've not noticed that David Cameron is exploring a pretty good example of this new right.

Carolyn Ann

Juliet Jacques, another post

Juliet Jacques has another post up in The Guardian.

This one is about "passing" - something I'll never be able to do! :-(

Carolyn Ann

"Concern" trolling?

This morning I came across a phrase I don't think I've seen before: concern trolling.

I looked it up in Wikipedia.

Ah - in the real world of debate, we used to call that the false-flag argument. You basically put a strawman out there, either to derail the argument or sow confusion. Either way, sometimes someone would use it to hide their true opinion; not too often, though. It's a lot easier to suss someone out in the real world.

One piece of concern trolling is about advice: providing harmful, but plausibly helpful, advice to someone in the hopes they'll do something to harm themselves or their cause. This is different to setting someone up to make a mistake; that sort of thing is the province of generals and master politicians. Barack Obama is quite good at that sort of thing.

Anyway, as I was dragging fallen trees around (we've had some "interesting" weather, and as a result - a lot of trees are lying on the ground, instead of pointing upwards), I was thinking about this "concern trolling" and that moronic "How to Respect a Transgender Person" list. I doubt its creators were concern trolling - but if you follow the advice provided, you will place yourself in an impossible position.

Here's why: you can't tell others what to do. And if you try, you're being an ass, or arrogant, or asking for the impossible. More than likely, you're being all three. As a general principle, a few of those suggestions are impossible to enforce. And likely as not, if you're together enough to remember them, and try to impose them - you're more than likely not in need of them!

What is particularly insidious about that list is its demand for respect. It positively pleas for respect - do you really want to be in the position of groveling for respect? Unlike that idiotic "derailing for dummies", another list that's popular with those who prefer others to think for them, this list is a code of conduct - for others. As in: you, the transgendered person, seek to impose a standard code of conduct onto your friends and family.

Good luck with that.

Carolyn Ann

How to respect someone. No, seriously. :-)

I've spent The last few days wondering if this post from Chartreuse Flamethrower was real, or just a wannabe-cute prank. I'm still not sure. I keep leaning to prank, but it's too earnest. He seeks to provide instructions about how to respect a transgender person.

Except - it isn't respect he's describing. It's a mix of politeness, a power-play, and a demand for politically-correct deference. I'm intrigued by it simply because the post tries to unite a good amount of the transgender "conversation" (with apologies to Valeria!). Amazingly, some people actually liked the article.

I just clicked on a link at the top of Mr Flamethrower's post: he's copied and pasted an article from something called WikiHow. Ah, there's nothing like a bit of originality in the morning. :-) I must admit, I kept thinking "this isn't his writing", but didn't bother clicking on the provided link. The proper way to announce that you're purloining someone's work is to actually provide credit, not a link that Snap (a web-"preview" service) shows as Google ads. C'est la vie.

So - how do I critique this piece of drivel? Do I abstract it out, and debunk the various claims? Or do I concentrate on the specific topic? Oh, the difficulties of blogging - and I've only just got my 2nd mug of coffee!

The post has 9 ... Nine? Holy moly! That's a lot of instruction. What happened? The writers decide they didn't want to break the double digit barrier? Or did they suddenly wake up? ... instructions. Let's see: number one is Thank them. Because it's hard to "come out" to people.

Okay, I'll sort of accept that. If you're revealing you're transgendered to a friend, trust has to pay a part in the discussion. (FWIW, yeah, I've been there. More than once, actually.) Family and work don't quite have the same element of trust, however. At work, it's polite for the boss (etc) to say "Thanks for telling me". With family - who knows how they'll react? It's not trust you're after, that you either have or don't. What you're about to tell them can either destroy that trust, or affirm it. Tell your wife of 25 years that you're going to become a woman, I doubt thanking you for telling her is on her to-do list. So that's a stupid bit of advice, after all.

Number 2 is "respect their gender identity". Not "respect their identity", which would be better. And then it comes with a nice bit of confusion: "(Unless they are not out, or tell you otherwise. Ask to be sure if or when there are times it is not okay.)" Yeah, try that one in the real world. "Okay, I want you to call me Carolyn when we're in these situations, but don't do that elsewhere. I'm sure you'll figure it out!" (And remember it.) This is a bit like "if you love me, you'll do as I tell you". I think that's what sado-masochists tell each other. It's also what abusive husbands tell their wives.

If someone tells you they're a woman, who are you to question that? If someone tells you they want to be referred to as a woman, but only in certain circumstances, you're imposing an impossible burden.

Basically, this point can be boiled down to "respect their identity". You want people to respect you for who you are, so respect the other person for who they are. Simple, right?

No. 3 is really quite something. You've known someone as a man for many years. Now you want them to refer to your past entirely in the feminine? How is that even possible? I spend Passover with a lot of family and friends; do they now to have to think of those times where I was clearly a man, and reframe their memories to avoid hurting my feelings? A gentle epithet is needed: oh, get real, for fucks sake.

Let's say you've just revealed you're becoming a woman to someone; do they ask "when you were a little girl, did you know that one day you'd like to be a woman?" And don't tell me that's an inappropriate question: it isn't.

The writers make a reasonable suggestion, don't refer to the gender in your questions: when you were a child, did you know (etc)?" This is a little better; it avoids history rather than altering it. There's a general consensus within the transsexual and transgender communities that personal history should be buried, which is a bit silly in itself. History can be rewritten, but it can't be changed. I was never a little girl, and it would be disingenuous and stupid of me to pretend I was. I wanted to be a girl, but I'm not about to rewrite my history so that I feel better about it - it is what it is.

This evasion is generally accepted within the transgender community; it's nothing new. Cartoon Christians are prone to evading difficult questions their faith poses; Tea Party supporters live in a world defined by their evasion to rational thought. Evasion of reality is popular; it's annoying, but the act of avoiding the problematic is astonishingly (yeah, right) popular.

Number 4 is the same as #2 and #3.

#5 is beyond stupid. It says that you have an obligation to educate yourself on the topic. Extrapolating, I have no obligation to educate myself on anything! I can, if I wish. I should educate myself on various topics, and I have become an expert on other topics. But I have no obligation to educate myself on your identity.

If you declare, at work, that you're changing gender - your coworkers might have a lot of questions. Some might be comfortable asking, some might not be. Some might ask questions you consider inappropriate (the correct response there is "that's inappropriate"). You, like it or not, will become the sole educator of the topic. Not for everyone, but for enough that you might as well get used to the idea. And, as always, you can force a change to that; it'll just take a bit of effort.

Number 6 is a bit problematic. People will tell their friends you're transgendered - with or without your permission. You don't get to dictate what others say about you. No, you don't. You can ask for discretion, but that's about it. Celebrities have been dealing with this for longer than you have. They have learned that gossip is popular; just ask Perez Hilton, for instance. Heck, there are entire newspapers, never mind blogs, dedicated to gossip - and you want to control who knows you're transgendered? Yeah, that's going to work.

Let's say your friend runs into you at the mall, while you're all dolled up. (What about if you're on your way to your support group meeting? And he's in the car next to you at the light?) He or she recognizes you - what are you going to do? Tell them they have to respect your right to privacy, and not tell anyone, or simply accept that something you didn't want many to know is now going to be public knowledge in about the time it takes for him (or her) to upload the photo of you? Or, if they don't, their friend might. And the first you will know is when someone asks you about it. If that someone posts on their Facebook page "this is a photo of Jack's friend Zak", and Zak is wearing a nice skirt - you can't do a damn thing about it. You can't control what others say, or do.

What is needed is helpful advice on how to handle it. Telling your friends they can't talk about you is not in that collection of tips. Remember that old saying? People who talk to you will talk about you. Remember it - it's good advice.

I'm not quite sure how to even think about point #7. If a friend of mine told me they lacked the sense to not be a Born-Again Christian, I'd be curious how they ended up being an idiot. To understand that process, I have to relate their tale to my own experiences. It's that simple. Considering that most people are not gifted story-tellers, the only way we can perceive their experience is by relating it to our own.

Number 8 is actually sensible. (Stop the presses!) Gender identity and personal sexuality are two different things. This can be confusing, pay attention! :-) Your gender doesn't have any bearing on who you want to sleep with. That doesn't change for the transgendered individual. Simple, right?

Number 9 - finally! - could be simpler: treat people as people. It's pretty simple, really.

And the entire list could be reduced to: treat people with respect. I don't think that's so difficult! (Apparently, a lot of people have a lot of trouble with this idea.) What this list of whimsy does is tell you how treat others, in doing so, it hypocritically allows the transgendered individual power over others. Yup, you read that right: power. When you impose conditions on others, you're trying to exercise a modicum of power over them. If you follow this list, you're dictating what others can, and cannot, do. You're trying to exert power over them, basically (good luck with that, by the way). "If you 'out' me to your friends, I won't be your friend anymore!" is blackmail; blackmail is about power. There are so many ways to interpret this list as a power-play! You'd better be a master politician and diplomat if you're going to try and impose anything on this list.

Most of the list can tossed into the "oh get real" bin. Let's face it: you can ask things of people, but if they don't respect you, you ain't going to get them. No matter how you slice and dice it, if you start demanding things from others, they'll generally ignore you, get it wrong, wonder why you're being such an ass, and get on with their lives. The list is a facetious insult, really.

Better advice for the transgendered person would be: Treat others with respect, but don't expect much, if any, back. As a bit of personal advice, I'd suggest that whatever you do - don't go demanding whimsy. You can demand others respect you as a person, but that's about it. And that, oddly, should be about enough.

Carolyn Ann

A can of (transgendered) worms?

I didn't mention it in my previous post, but if biology is the cause of being transgendered - then there's a whole can of worms to open.

I think I'll leave it at that, for now. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Understanding the transgendered brain?

The civil rights movement was based on the idea that the black man is no different, no less talented, no less intelligent, no less masculine, than the white man. The feminist movement was a little different: it argued that gender should not be a basis for discrimination. Black women generally got ignored; it's only recently they've started to make any substantial gains in equality.

Other battles for equal rights rested on the idea that who you love isn't important to society. No one seriously questioned whether a gay guy was a man, a lesbian a woman. As it turns out, whom you love is considered an urgent question; who they love, in turn, is none of your business. The age of hypocrisy hasn't died out. As the gay and lesbian communities have made inroads, I figured the next pariah would be the transsexual and the transgendered. I think a lot of people came to that conclusion! Especially as it took about 2 or 3 years for the transgendered to go from forgotten to instant outcast. Not that the transgendered have ever been especially favored in western society!

The discrimination and violence that the transgendered regularly experience isn't abstract. It's very real, and I've wondered about it for a long time. As a child, for instance, I knew that being girly was enough to get me beaten; I didn't need telling, or need to the learn that the hard way. One or two bullies did teach it to me the hard way, anyway. Looking back on those miserable schooldays (Tom Brown was ever so wrong), I can understand my assailants for the simple reason that I now know hormones were raging through their bodies, as they were in mine - and that they weren't really in control of themselves. I don't forgive them, but I can understand them. Those boys were acting on primal urges and personal inadequacy.

As Louann Brizendine, MD, demonstrates in her "The Male Brain", boys and men have brains that are marinated (her word) in testosterone from about 8 weeks after conception. As she points out, when you're 9, the male brain has to cope with about a cup of testosterone a day; by the time you're 15 - it has to handle about 2 gallons of the stuff in a day!

But it's not just testosterone that makes us male - it's also a chemical called "Müllerian Inhibiting Substance" (MIS). This little wonder actively seeks out and destroys anything feminine within us. It "suppresses the brain circuits for female-type behaviors, destroys the female reproductive organs" and a few other things to like building the male sexual organs. With a few other chemical juices, boys brains become wired differently to girls' brains. (There goes the whole "gender is a social construct" thing. Thankfully!)

And therein lies an interesting point.

Having read more than an average number of writings from transgendered, and transsexual, writers, I notice that one theme keeps cropping up: many knew they were different from other boys, or girls. This is often understood from an early age; in my case, it all came into focus when I was 6.

I don't know, but I would I suspect that the transgendered individual has a slightly different chemical mix than the average person. There are 9 chemicals that go into creating our brains; if they're all provided in the right proportions, we're who we are. If one of them is out of synch, who knows what could happen?

(I should fess up to having discussed this sort of thing with the wife for a long time. I have often said my confusion about who I am is deep within me; it's not social, it's not something I can eradicate. It's there, and it causes a lot of distress.)

Discrimination against the transgendered is rampant; it's also irrational. Most prejudice is. But what's particularly interesting is when the critic says "a man is a man" - they neglect what appears to be a fundamental point: a person is a person. We have no control over the chemicals that shape us; in today's world, with the endless man-made molecules floating around, we have no idea of how they affect a fetus. We can't say there is no affect, because it hasn't been studied fully. We can't say there was an affect. We can't say if the proportion of people who are transgendered is more now, or not - no one can agree on how many transgendered people there are (no one can agree how to define if someone is transgendered or not, which doesn't help), so we can't even say what percentage of the population is transgendered. I wouldn't be surprised if we knew more about jelly fish than we know about the transgendered. I suspect that's the case, anyway.

All of this makes the discrimination against the transgendered all the more heinous - basically the transgendered are blamed for being who they are. That's a bit like blaming a man for being a man.

Society has, generally, stopped discriminating because of skin color or gender. Gay rights are becoming a non-issue (all rights remain an issue, because the prejudiced will always exist); young people care less about sexual orientation than their parents do. The last group - the transgendered - are not long started on equal rights; their enemies are vociferous and cruel. Knowing that there might be, probably is, a biological reason for their gender dysphoria, provides another arrow to their quiver. After all, we never blame someone for being who they are - except when they're transgendered.

That anyone has to fight for equal rights is a scathing indictment of society, anyway.

Carolyn Ann

OH MY! America has commandos!

And their job is to hunt and kill enemy leaders. Who would have thought it?

Oh, get real.

I'd be more alarmed if the British SAS and the American special forces weren't involved in the fight. The quote:

Third, the site asserts that the Pentagon employs a secret task force of highly trained commandos charged with capturing or killing insurgent leaders. I suspect that in the eyes of most Americans, using special operations teams to kill terrorists is one of the least controversial ways in which the government spends their tax dollars.

Too right!

Mr Exum, writing in today's NY Times, states what should be obvious: the release of the documents has turned out to be less than compelling. They don't change the impression that the war is going badly - partly because of Pakistan's ISI - and partly because of severe mismanagement for so many years.

What is not very helpful to anyone is the ridiculousness of Julian Assange's claims. His assertions pander to a biased audience, and his earnest denunciations show little appreciation for the complexity of both war and Afghanistan. Are the documents sensitive? Some think so. Some show what should be counted as war-crimes. But overall? Turns out they're generally big "yeah, we knew that." These revelations are not the Pentagon Papers.

Carolyn Ann

Ban Ferrari

Two of the lamest excuses ever: We've always done it that way and Everyone does it.

Ferrari has used both in trying to excuse its shoddy behavior at Hockenheim, this past Sunday.

People watch Formula 1 because it's the pinnacle of motor sport. We want to see drivers competing in their cars - we don't want to see team orders dictating the pace of a race. If Fernando Alonso isn't quite good enough to get past Felipe Massa, then so be it. We don't see team orders playing a part in the Mark Webber - Sebastian Vettel tete-a-tete! We shouldn't see one Ferrari slowing down to let another pass. We should see the drivers duking it out, not putting on airs and graces and saying "after you, old chap, our boss insists!"

I'm not sure what Ferrari were thinking - the team orders ban came in because Rubens Barrichello was told to let Michael Schumacher pass in 2002. It destroyed the credibility of the result - if Mr Schumacher couldn't win on his efforts, what the hell were we watching? Ferrari haven't learned - watching Mr Barrichello stop for a cup of tea while his team mate zoomed by, and win the race, I was disgusted.

Of course, Mr Formula One himself, Bernie Ecclestone proves he just doesn't get "it". He thinks team orders should be allowed - they're teams, right? I only need one epithet to answer that: bollocks! We want to see drivers race. We want the best driver to win - the best team is a secondary consideration. We don't want to see team mates cooperating, blocking the field for the faster guy. We had quick parades for a few years, and they were pretty boring - allowing team orders will reduce every race to a colorful and noisy conga line from the start line to the flag. Effectively, the races would be fixed from the get-go as No. 2 drivers tirelessly work to prevent the field from catching the teams principal driver - heck, with the technical sophistication of Formula 1 teams, it's not unlikely that the cars would be tuned to be really fast off the line, and merely adequate after that. All the driver has to do is cruise in a way that makes it very difficult for anyone to pass.

Ferrari were fined a measly $100,000. What happened to the huge fines like McLaren had to pay? Those were a deterrent! A hundred grand? That's not even half the petty cash jar for a team like Ferrari. They should be suspended for the rest of the season. At the very least, they should be stripped of their 1-2 finish and any points.

Ferrari not only brought the sport into disrepute, they proved every critic right, they insulted the fans of F1 and they proved themselves to be thoroughly unscrupulous. They're not a sports team - they're a bunch of cheap politicians who can't resist cheating.

Carolyn Ann

A coincidence? :-)

I enjoyed the ad coupled with the story:

:-)

Carolyn Ann

Oh. Dear?

As you have no doubt heard - Wikileaks has released a ton of classified material from American archives. The Guardian, the NY Times and Der Spiegel haved mined the material - and it's not all that good for anyone.

Pakistan's secret service, the ISI, has been involved with the Taliban all along. Check - we knew that. Karzai's government is corrupt - check. We knew that, too. (We might be surprised just how corrupt, but that's more a matter of degrees than any actual change in what we know.) Iran is involved. I think you'd have to be an idiot to not know that. And so on. Whatever will these revelations reveal next? That neither Hillary nor Condi like dealing with macho-obsessed cretins? That the US was at a bit of a loose end in Afghanistan for a long time? When the leadership forgets the place exists, when George Bush says he's forgotten all about Osama bin Laden - then, yeah. That's a forgotten war.

US allies won't be happy. The Germans will probably try to leave; who knows what Britain will do? Certainly not David Cameron. There's going to be some fallout from the shoot first, don't bother with questions policy that seemed to exist. That's to be expected - the right blames the left, and the left considers the right to be little more than tribal apes. Not to insult apes, of course.

Still, the whole thing is going to land one young chap in jail. Rightly so - he violated his oath.

Fox News will be annoyed. I'm sure they have a bunch of young analysts combing through that heinous left wing, European housed, treasury of revealed secrets for anything they can pin on President Obama. They'll be miffed two ways to Sunday - for not being invited to dredge through the stuff, and they'll be outraged that someone actually published American secrets. If they find something that is mean to the current president, they'll not be so outraged over that bit. I daren't think what Sean Hannity is doing.

A little transparency is a good thing. I'm just not sure that shining such a brilliant light onto these secrets is such a good idea. Too many real secrets will be hidden by the glare.

Carolyn Ann

Shady mortgage practices lead to stupid headline

In breaking news, it was learned that the Huffington Post produced a really stupid headline... :-)

Apparently Gretchen Morgenson wrote that "Wall St. Refused To Stop Shady Practices In Order To Keep Profits Flowing"! Who'da thunk it?

The evidence:

The NY Times story is actually about the futility difficulties of figuring out who knew what, and when. Ms Morgenson also wonders who knew what, when and what did they do when they knew? And once you know, is there anything you can do about it? (In a word: No.)

Well, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure that one out: nothing. It wasn't, isn't, Wall St's job to police the retail mortgage industry. Besides - with all the frenzy, who was going to turn away all those potential profits? "Oh, sorry, we can't make a gazillion dollars profit because our traders have some qualms about the products other people are selling." Oh yeah, that would happen. Not.

Still, it's really exciting to discover that people will engage in dubious means to gain a profit. I mean - who would ever know folks would ever do that?

Carolyn Ann

When you're right, you're... (It's a binary question: have a guess.)

Just out of curiosity, I Googled "transgendered". I'd looked it up in the American Heritage dictionary and the latest print edition of Merriam-Webster, this evening, at a local Barnes & Noble. One of them had it transgender as a noun and an adjective. (I want to say it was M-W, but I think it actually was the American Heritage dictionary. I should be able to remember, considering the size of the A-H, but I'm drawing an absolute blank on that point. If I remember, I'll pop up there tomorrow, and take another look-see.

Merriam Webster has transgender and transgendered as adjectives. Wiktionary, which cannot be counted as an authoritative source, has transgendered as a verb and an adjective. They have transgender as a noun and an adjective. Someone inserted a note in the transgendered entry that is more du jour than accurate:

Transgender is in itself an adjective, and therefore does not require the suffix -ed.

Considering that they call themselves "idislikeusernames" and their exceptionally shoddy English, I'm not sure we can accept their word as anything but meaningless. Looking at the Wiktionary definition of transgender, I think it's proven that it isn't to be used as any sort of authority. (Except, perhaps, a lackadaisical one.)

So far, no one has proven me wrong on my claim over at what used to be an interesting discussion. Now it's just people getting mad at me for being persistent.

Carolyn Ann

Oh, that's nice...

I see North Korea is promising a bit of a temper tantrum if South Korea and the US go ahead with their planned naval exercises. Isn't it nice that they care so much?

What's with these idiots? They're threatening nuclear war? Over military exercises?

They sink a South Korean vessel, and then throw a temper tantrum when that's discovered? And then when the South Koreans and their allies, the US, decide to put on a show of force - they have an even bigger tantrum? Pyongyang isn't staffed by idiots - it's staffed by the most self-important, stupid, immature, irrational and bombastic idiots anyone could find.

China is providing Pyongyang with some cover, which is astonishingly stupid on their part. China might not be willing to enter into nuclear war with its biggest trading partner - but North Korea might be.

This has passed the point of being academically interesting: this is now at the point where war actually is possible. We can hope that they're full of the usual bluster, and that China can tell them to "chill for awhile". Otherwise it's going to get nasty, very nasty, very quickly.

I sure hope they're being their usual childish brat.

Carolyn Ann

Oh great! Like it wasn't bad enough out there!

I was, to put it mildly, alarmed by this story.

I've seen far too many oblivious drivers out on the road - the way they drive, I'm fairly sure they're neither drunk nor stoned, just oblivious. And now I read that some people take sedatives and muscle relaxants - and they still get behind the wheel of a car? What are they? Absolutely blithering idiots?

The story mentions a guy who had Xanax, Ambien and Oxycodene in this body; he managed to kill a pregnant woman and her 10 year old daughter. Justice was sort of done - he got 30 years. No one can argue that he shouldn't have been behind the wheel of his SUV.

Of course, like the rural driver mentioned in the story - they don't take responsibility for their idiocy. It's the drugs, you see.

It's hazardous out there. Remember: rubber side down! It just seems to be getting harder and harder to do that, these days.

Carolyn Ann

Closure to a debate

I have no idea if Calie will publish this comment, so I'm publishing it here. It's my closure to the T-Central debate I've been participating in.

This is my closure to the whole "PSA: "Transgender" or "Transgendered"?" discussion on T-Central.

I have also changed my latest T-Central post.

Carolyn Ann

===============================

Renee, I owe you an apology.

Clearly the rules of English are open to debate. What a verb, an adjective or a noun are not the clearly stated things we all learned, long ago. Their very definitions are open to democratic debate. They are what a community decides they are - no more, no less. Your strangely unaddressed issue of transgender being, simultaneously, a verb, an adjective and a noun shouldn't be given the time of day; you insist on providing it with a calendar. I'm not used to debating what is a verb, an adjective, a prefix or a noun. Perhaps fortunately, I'd be rapidly stuck if we'd ventured into adverbs!

Your lack of response to a rather pointed comment of mine led me to believe you'd dropped out of the discussion. I didn't presume to know why, but I see you're still participating with anyone who agrees with your incorrect assumptions about the English language. That was a bit unnecessary and hurtful, to be honest.

You find transgendered offensive; I find it useful. Who is right? Neither of us. If your argument was based on the rules of English, you would have a case. It isn't, you don't. Mine is, I do.

Anyway, who am I to argue if you [find] transgendered objectionable? If your objection is based on an incorrect understanding [of] the language we use, does it matter to me? That you use an argument that wrongly assumes, without stating as much, that transgender is a verb? Not really. That all of the arguments supporting your objection assume that transgender is simultaneously a verb, an adjective and a noun? It makes no difference to me. I know what transgender (the word) is, colloquially and formally, and that's fine by me. I lament that you're treating the word, the concept, exactly as the transphobic do, but ultimately, I trust that such languid thinking is not matched, but exceeded. (I believe such sentiment is called "faint hope".)

Some of your defenders have told me that language changes; I would be a grand fool if I wasn't aware of that. I know the English language changes; furthermore, I know it has marvelous variations all across the world! It's not a static language, it's not subject to any arcane, arrogant, academie. It's almost a living entity! It's wonderful to be able to see how English is changing, adapting, so quickly to a new era. It really is - I love it!

So I owe you an apology. If I had known then what I know now - I would not have engaged in this discussion. Experience should have taught me that defending this language is a futile exercise; rest assured: I provide no safe harbor for illusions of that futility, now. I'm sadder, but perhaps a wee bit wiser for the discussion, and for that I can only thank you. I enjoyed most of the discussion; I sincerely hope you did, too.

===

The "oops" comment [changes made in above text]:

Despite my best efforts, I made a mistake or three. Sorry!

The sentence "Anyway, who am I to argue if you transgendered objectionable?" should read "Anyway, who am I to argue if you find transgendered objectionable?" There's an "of" missing in the next sentence; it should be between "understanding" and "the".

I didn't address "trans" because, frankly, it's not worth addressing. If people want to use it, who am I argue? I might as well argue that the moon is made of cheese; which is how I have come to feel about the whole "transgendered" thing. I have learned it's a pointless argument.

I do wonder if we'll run out of adjectives to describe the experience of being transgendered. But I'm quite sure the bloggers on your list will either invent new ways of describing the whole experience. Those ways might not be intellectually consistent, but that's fine; I have never looked to others to describe my experience as a transgendered individual*.

Carolyn Ann

*That really wasn't a criticism of your series, Calie. I am quite fascinated by the experiences being described; it's an inspired series. [Calie started an interesting series of posts about the "transgender" experience. It's really quite fascinating, and it was quite inspired.]

The transphobic use transgender as a verb, too

Actually, you know what? Renee wasn't hurtful. I was offended - but I've gotten over it.

Her response, and lack of, wasn't hurtful. It did tell me a lot about her.

I owe her, and everyone involved in that 3rd grade English debate an apology: I didn't intend to waste anyone's time; I don't care about my own - defending the language we use is never a wasted effort, although it's often a futile one.

If I had known she basically doesn't care about the mechanics of the language, I would never have gotten involved. Who really cares what is an adjective, or a verb? Who cares about participles and tenses? My goodness - perhaps we can confuse adverbs for nouns, and vice versa?

Who ever wants to be a better writer? A better thinker? When you can use languid language and its indolent cousin, listless thought, and your choir understands you? Indeed, goes out of their way to preach your words?

Who, indeed?

Does it really matter if people keep saying "transgendered" is offensive? If they find it offensive, they find it offensive! Who's to disagree?

My objection is two-fold: the lack of thought that goes into the argument, and the carelessness of understanding of the offended. Need either worry me? Not really. If such indolent thinking leads to them embarrassing themselves - who am I to concern myself with such trivialities? That they don't realize they are wrong is neither here nor there.

One or two, at least, have - in the course of this discussion - told us that the language changes. They take the linguists point of view, and say that's neither good, nor bad - it is what it is. C'est la vie and all that jazz. I disagree, but the only person I can hold to a standard is me.

I take pride in my writing. I might be, probably am, an idiot in my musings, but at least I know the language is used with affect. I know my words can't be picked apart on trivialities. Well... Perhaps they can, and I choose to ignore that? :-)

One thing I've noticed is that no one questions my arcane, lackadaisical exhortations on the language! Which leads me to the conclusion that either those I try to debate are far too polite, or that they really don't know the subject they write of: the English language.

It was a bit annoying to see that Renee decided to respond to someone who, desperately - I hope - tried to prove her right, and not to me when I invested some effort into the discussion. That's the nature of discussion, especially a political one. (What? You thought this was solely about language?) And, as I've learned, when the offended have the option of saying "you're right" or walking off in a huff, they usually pick the latter option.

I'll repeat what an important point: this is not arcane English. It's 3rd grade stuff. This is like disputing your times-tables! Seriously: it is.

So, I apologize to Renee. If I had known she wasn't interested in discussion, but merely in agreement, I'd have simply ignored her post. I would have counted her as yet another individual with no appreciation for the language, and moved on. She was wrong. She has a robust choir approving of her incorrect understanding. Who am I, indeed who am I, to dispute that?

It is not for me to correct anyone's English. I will refrain from doing so in the future. It's a futile exercise: if someone wants to believe transgender is a verb, why should I concern myself with that?

... ... ... ... ...

Because the transphobic use it as a verb, too? Perhaps that why?

Carolyn Ann

You know what? That's hurtful

When someone takes time to participate in a conversation with you - and then stops, it's mildly annoying.

When they then take the time to respond to someone who, while being wrong, provides support for their (incorrect) argument?

That's simply hurtful.

Renee is telling me she doesn't think my arguments are worth her effort. Even though I'm simply quoting 3rd grade English! But wrong arguments, plainly wrong arguments, that support her incorrect point? They're worth responding to.

Makes me wonder why I bothered engaging in the conversation in the first place.

If you want to be wrong, say so. If you don't care about this language - say so. I don't really care one way or the other. I'll just know how to read anything you do write forever after.

Carolyn Ann

Spanglish

We watched Spanglish the other night. What a movie!

I'll venture to say it's one of the great movies. :-)

Marketed as an Adam Sandler comedy, a romantic comedy - to please the ladies, no doubt - it's a simple tale, not a comedy, of a group of people. As told by a young lass trying to get into Princeton.

The deranged wife - an Oscar worthy performance by Teá Leoni - provided the foil for most of the "action". Mr Sandler's performance was as understated as it could be when it needed to be, and as heartfelt and amazing as anything I've seen. He seemed to channel Jerry Seinfeld and Chevy Chase's superb performance in "Driving Miss Daisy", simultaneously. He seemed to know that the story wasn't about him, and held back accordingly.

What can you say about Paz Vega? Beautiful, might be a poor start. She's stunning in her role as Flor Moreno; Cloris Leachman provides a superbly crafted backstop to the entire enterprise, and the kids are amazing.

Directed and written by David L. Brooks, the movie is a microcosm of American life. I thought it one of the best studies of America since Clueless. Deborah, the wife (played by Ms Leoni) was the childish, irresponsible part of America - the one that wants it all, but has no appreciation for the consequences of their decisions, their actions. Mr Sandler played the other part, and Ms Vega was the balance; America is a nation of immigrants. It's not one thing, or the other: sure, some people are selfish, self-absorbed, and unwilling to accept responsibility for their lives. Others are better at that; Mr Sandler shows us that side of America with great affect.

I'd like to say it was a story about humanity, but it isn't. It's a story about America, and how it's growing. Fittingly, you're left not knowing the end, but you just know that much compassion, humility and wisdom must be good. Is good. Perhaps I saw in it what I see in America?

The performances were wonderful, the writing superb. It's movie I'll long think of.

Carolyn Ann

Goldman sachs: The definition of über-machismo (?)

Goldman Sachs keeps insisting it was okay during the financial crisis.

Which is why they grabbed $13B in bailout funds. And they keep insisting they were fine.

Let me see... They had insurance against losses. That insurance came from the basically insolvent AIG - not having hedged their exposure with anyone but the tooth fairy. Some of Goldman's insurance was with other Wall St firms. Who probably insured their exposure to Goldman with AIG.

So yeah - Goldman Sachs remained solvent throughout the worst fiscal crisis in 70 years. Can I interest you in a nice, slightly used, bridge over the East River? It's not far from Goldman's headquarters.

Goldman Sachs has a "I'm macho" problem.

Basically.

Carolyn Ann

(And they need to get over themselves.)

Stop the Presses!

It seems that Apple has been having trouble getting the exact shade of white for its white iPhone glass.

I'm sure that's really, really important to someone. I just can't think who.

Carolyn Ann

Troubling times - for some

Dell is in trouble. Again. It appears Dell executives were, well, how do I put this? They lied. Apparently.

AMD makes a decent competitor to the aging, but still useful, Intel product lineup. Intel didn't like that, so they paid Dell to use Intel. The size of payments, apparently, depended upon how loyal Dell was. Sounds like the Republican Party. Loyalty first, sense and fiscal honesty? Hmm. What are those last two things?

I once read that Dell's business model was to lose money on its computers. It made its profit from its float - you pay for your computer, and a few days later, you get it delivered, and the suppliers get paid. Between those two events, Dell did financial magic, and made a profit. As one Dell executive said (to take his statement out of context): it's a hell of a way to run a railroad.

A stupid way, come to think of it. Amazingly stupid. You're open to so many problems, I doubt anyone could actually count them. Forex issues, LIBOR fluctuations, central banks in a dozen or more countries, interest rates in even more places. That's not a business - that's a badly managed hedge fund! It just happens to produce computers instead of profits. Big fucking deal.

When your payments rely on certain things happening - you're not producing cheap computers. You're producing your own bankruptcy. When you're alive because of injections of cash that prevent competition, you're not competing in the free market: you're the business equivalent of a kept woman.

I have no problem with playing the financial market - heck, if Dell lodged the money in a bank, they'd play with it, instead. It's better that Dell uses its financial muscle to realize some gain - but to rely on payments from a major supplier? One that cuts out the competition?

C'mon guys and gals at Dell: get real. For once.

Carolyn Ann

PS I will *never* buy another Dell. Besides the fact that last product I bought from them was a piece of crap, they keep giving me reasons to think ill of them.

Fail that which you're intended to pass?

How the heck do you fail a test that's designed to make you pass?

The banks had to do the equivalent of writing their names at the top of the paper to pass. And 7 European banks flunked even that!

After an endless round "stress tests" that are intended more to prove that European politicians can still finagle with the best of them, it seemed that no bank could fail. And yet 7 did. Apparently the National Bank of Greece passed - presumably it hasn't invested in the Greek economy for quite some time. (With its newfound fiscal prudence - perhaps it should? Personally, I think the Greek economy is looking better and better all the time.)

Ah well. The usual results will happen: the bond markets will blame someone else (Britain), the government will panic (Mr Cameron) and austerity will preached. France will, as always, ignore the results, Germany will bemoan them, and everyone else will wonder where the bond buyers actually get their information - Fox News?

I was reading a piece in that Bloomberg weekly - I forget its name - and wondered if their reporting came from watching the financial segment of Fox News' morning show. It was that "good". A piece about David Cameron meeting Barack Obama became a referendum on Mr Obama's economic policies. Mr Cameron's are fine - they pass the right wing muster test of "reducing government", even if they: 1. Don't really, 2. Keep the rich, rich and 3. Simply make a bad situation worse.

I once said you have to love idiots because there are so many of them. Why do they all seem to be right wingers? (And perhaps run a few European banks as well?)

Carolyn Ann

Shees! Do I have a hangover?!?

Do I ever!

The Mrs, after a really bad day at work, brought me some beer. (After 21 years of marriage, I've given up trying to figure how I'm the luckiest chap in the world.) The usual Dogfish Head 60 Minute IPA, and a brew I'd not had before. It's one of the Stone Brewery ales (the bottle is in the trash, and I'm not about to fish it out to read the label!), and it's strong. Strong? Sodding lethal is more like it.

All was well with the world, last night. Well, sort of - I see I did my usual drunken muttering. Fortunately I didn't embarrass myself. Too much...

(Oddly, I remember watching Tim Geithner on Charlie Rose, and I sort of remember writing. I guess the booze was flowing freely at that point of the morning!)

So I woke up this morning with a pounding head. A couple of excedrin later, I basically slept the morning through. It's 12:30-ish, and I'm sitting here almost able to think, and not quite able to figure out exactly where my head is. Denver, probably. It's still (a duller) pounding, but my eyes can focus now, which is a step in the right direction.

My coffee is extra strong, this morning, er, afternoon. I need it! I might be able to join the human race sometime later this afternoon. :-) Ooo. That hurt.

Carolyn Ann

Republicans to Small Business: Fuck You!

The Senate GOP is using its power to block a bill that would help small businesses. And the economy!

More interested in power for its own sake, and in helping their wealthy donors, along with being all for big business, Mitch McConnell doesn't give a rats ass about small businesses. Senator Olympia Snowe has the strangest reason I've ever heard: she thinks the $30 billion lending program is a bad idea:

“It has all the quality and features of the TARP program, I think we’ve been down that road.”

Oh yeah, that whole TARP program was a really bad idea. It only stabilized the global economy and prevented a decade of economic stagnation.

Sure, a scaled down version would be helpful. The Republicans just don't want to give the Democrats a thing; they're not interested in the plight of Main St - they're too busy taking massive donations from Wall St! The Republicans should have learned by now: hold up a spending bill that helps people - and you get pilloried in the press. By the time the November elections come around, the Democrats will have trumpeted the idea that the Republicans really don't care about the small business owner: all they care about is Wall St, big insurance companies and power! Is that a viable strategy for winning elections?

Pass the damn bill and claim it was your idea to help Americans. For crying out loud.

Carolyn Ann

I suppose a grand man fell

The (internet) case of Pastor Delbert Thigpen continues.

Considering the lack of vociferous enmity, I can only assume that Pastor Thigpen was an honorable man. I regret poking fun at his name; it was a cheap shot, and there's no excuse. I shouldn't have done that. I did, and it was an "educational moment".

Anyway, it seems that the pastor has some allies, who wonder why anyone would choose "Carolyn Ann". I can only assume they haven't cottoned on to who Carolyn Ann is. They responded on Mojoey's blog, and it took me a couple of days, but I responded back.

I feel a strange urge to undoubtedly own these words, so I'm publishing them, here.

You should know I was told

"Carolyn Ann you need a good case of dementia and you would have a different outlook on this preacher.Leave him alone!!"

Anonymous told me that.

Anyway, here's my reply:

I need a case of dementia? Are you for real?

Who would want a name like Carolyn Ann? Me, that's who. Beats "anonymous", anytime! You know what? I came up with it all by myself. Not nobody else involved. Been wantin' that name since I was 15; I'm a hell of a lot older now, and I've had a turn or two. So I figure I can call myse'n anything I want. You got a problem with that, stranger?

Biily sue, I ain't done nuthin' to your grandpa. Nuthin'. I'm just commenting on this here blog. It's run by a man I respect a great deal, and I count him as a friend. I know he won't tell me no lie. Your grandaddy - I don't know him. I know the local newspaper told a story, they got from the police, and that if weren't true, they wouldn't print it. The man was charged, and when he's charged - that charge becomes part of the public record.

If he's innocent, I'll be happy to apologize. Trouble is: he's admitted he's guilty.

And that's what I was commenting on.

I feel bad for your Grandaddy - I really do. I feel worse for the lass, though. It's never nice to see a grand man fail so. No it isn't.

It feels like Friday

The clock thingy on the Mac menu bar is telling me it's Thursday, 2:13AM. So it's not long past Wednesday.

I'd like it to be Friday. I have a date with a lass I don't see often enough, these days: the Mrs.

It sure as heck feels like Friday.

Carolyn Ann

Do you want to be the transgendered version of Sarah Palin?

A couple of recent posts by the Chartreuse Flamethrower got me thinking.

Is "misgendering" so important, and why does trans-grammar have to be so frickin' difficult?

If someone calls you Sir instead of Miss - is it really their problem? In day to day interactions, people call you what they perceive you as. If you look like a lass, they'll say "Miss". If you look like a lad, they'll say "Sir" - if you're old enough.

I get "Sir" a lot, these days. And no one cards me. :-(

Besides: people screw up. They just do. Rebecca's misgendering woes don't equal a careless moment on a blog, for instance.

Just because you want to be genderally [sic] ambiguous imposes no constraint upon those who are simply trying help. Especially - I have some experience with this - when their $8/hour job demands they help the customer. They don't want to get your gender wrong: they simply want to get through the next few minutes and keep their job.

And I really don't know why the average transgendered English language debater doesn't open this device called a "dictionary". These tomes, heavy as they are, contain things called "definitions". You look up the word you're interested in - they're alphabetical, so it shouldn't be too hard - and you get some information about that word. (Who'da thunk it?) Things like how to pronounce it, what it is (verb, adverb, adjective, or a noun), and a definition. If you're looking at a decent dictionary, you'll get an example usage, too. If you look up the word in another, specialized, dictionary - often called a thesaurus - you'll get its synonyms, too. You might even get a short list of antonyms as well! How about that - buy a list of synonyms, and get a half way decent list of antonyms for free! TV specials should be so good.

Anyway, the whole trans debate was brought into focus by none other than: Sarah Palin. She of excruciable English. Do you really want to be counted with the woman who thinks "refudiate" is a word?

Carolyn Ann

T-Central

I'm not saying a damn thing.

Added (7/27/10): Well, this was an amazingly stupid thing to write. Sorry and all.

So... I got to thinking about T-Central.

Why is this blog not on their list?

I'm transgendered. I have a startup that is running under the ownership of Carolyn Ann Grant. I write about transgender issues. I participate in general discussions on transgender issues. Like Questioning Transphobia, I'm a bit controversial. I have 3,807 posts to my name - as compared to "Carry On Karen" who has 5.

Calie, Veronica and Renee know I exist. I have no idea if "dr. morbius" or Halle know I exist. (Veronica, it seems, has gone from Blogger; perhaps she's no longer one of the T-Central team? Who knows? I'm sure they do.) Heck - I've just participated in a lengthy discussion with Renee about a central transgender concern: the inadequacy of the English language. Calie - she approves the comments - said, and I quote,

"You always have something worthwhile to say and I would never not publish your comments."

So ignorance of this blog is not a concern. Not knowing I exist isn't something I need wonder about. Especially if someone gets on the list after 5 posts - and I have 3,807. 3,808 if you count this one. I daren't mention SaladBingo - who, ostensibly, started blogging in May, 2010. Oh - she had a few other blogs. But this time, she's real. Honest.

Pu-leeze!

I'm fairly sure that not everyone on their list applied to join. I can't say when the "Getting a Blog/Site Featured on T-Central" first appeared, but I find it difficult to believe all of those bloggers applied for membership of the list.

T-Central feature Alan's blog, Lost In A World Awhirl. Last I checked: he's not transgendered. He never writes about transgender issues. Never. I don't think he's even transgendered. But he gets a place on a transgender blog list. And then there's Autogynephiliac. I have no idea what the word means, but the blog is about some bloke who dreams about being a woman.

Here's me - wishing I was born a lass, but wasn't, starting a business under "Carolyn Ann", and not as a "DBA" (doing business as; my DBA is under a corporate name) [That's all very nice, but it's also absolutely irrelevant]. And I write a blog that deals with transgender issues. Among other stuff. I love current affairs, I love motorcycles, I love cars, I love a lot of stuff. Let me put it this way: when I'm enthusiastic about something, I'm an enthusiast. And I've been wearing skirts since I was 6 years old.

I happen to have an opaque bit between my ears; it's something I put to use, not knowing what else to do with it. What that opacity produces is sometimes not as palatable as my adversaries would like. But I've never failed to either back up what I've stated, or say "ooh, you know, you're right!" A chap with a mind that never changes has no mind, essentially.

I do wonder why this blog is not listed. Someone as well reviled as I should not have to apply for membership to a club. (Let me put it this way: tell me I have to apply for membership, and I will be a trifle disappointed. I won't indulge you, either.) On the other hand: would I want membership of club that would have me as a member?

Am I that toxic? Really?

Carolyn Ann

Wow. That's, er, a lot of work!

I'm kind of glad I don't put this much effort into my appearance!

An onnagata (crossdressing) kabuki actor, Nakamura Shibajaku, getting ready, from The Guardian.

(Video, 4:13)

Carolyn Ann

Andrew Breitbart overreaches.

Mr Breitbart's little "editing" escapades got Shirley Sherrod, an USDA political appointee, fired. It seems everyone overreacted, didn't bother checking who was behind the story - and basically announced themselves as stupid, easily duped, fools.

(Added: You would think that after the whole "Beergate" brouhaha last year, The White House would have learned not to jump to conclusions. You'd guess wrongly, of course...)

Mr Breitbart is the one behind the implausible ACORN tapes. Turns out someone got fired then, as well. I can't say I've noticed any apology from Mr Breitbart. He feels "bad" about Ms Sherrod, though. I guess he either doesn't consider what the consequences of his actions, or is a really good liar. So he's a fool or a liar, whichever way it swings - he's lost whatever credibility he had.

Why should anyone believe him when he next releases a carefully, and/or heavily, edited tape purporting to reveal some truth about those he apparently hates?

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Carolyn Ann

Added: I've just listened to Mr Breitbart explaining his (disingenuous) confusion about all the fuss he's caused. The man is, quite simply, contemptible.

An enterprising young man

He trades his way up from a cell phone to a Porsche.

That's enterprising!

Carolyn Ann

Muslim man gets convicted of rape because he lied about who he was?

Here's a case that should have the Israeli transgender community (and a few others) quite alarmed: a man was convicted of rape because he lied about who he was. He told the lass he was a Jew; she found out he was actually a Muslim, complained - and he got convicted of rape.

Because his personal history wasn't what he said it was.

If you subscribe to the view that you have some control over what you tell other people - that is, your history - and you don't want to reveal your past, who's to argue? We do, indeed, have a right to our history; we can reveal as much, or as little, of it as we want. (Please note: we can't stop others revealing what we would rather keep secret.) So you meet someone, go to bed with them (in Israel), and wake up to find you're wearing handcuffs, and they're not for kinky sex. All because they thought you were a woman, born a girl and all that - but your history is a little contradictory on that point.

The conviction is, as the man, Sabbar Kashur, says: racist. If a transgender woman was convicted on the same grounds, she would be perfectly correct in saying it was a transphobic verdict. The judge, Judge Zvi Segal, obviously hasn't read "To Kill a Mockingbird".

The truth is, our partners are not entitled to know our past. The desire to know it is not the same as having the right to know it. We can reinvent ourselves, we can ignore our past, we can do whatever we want with it. We can't change what happened in it; if you went to jail for something, there's no getting around that. To a certain extent, we can limit knowledge of that. You're not, for instance, obliged to reveal childhood infractions where the record has been sealed. You're not obliged to reveal your sexual history, or your gender history for that matter.

Mr Kashur lied about who he was. So what? He should not be convicted of rape because he didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He deceived her - that's something between them. It's not a matter for the state, and it's certainly not a matter for a heinous criminal conviction! The woman is being a racist; the state is condoning her racism by putting its own on display.

It's a stupid decision with implications far beyond the original case. If you're in Israel, and you're a transsexual, and you meet someone - you now have to tell them your history. Lest they find out, and have you arrested for rape. The conviction will stand under this ruling.

I wish Mr Kashur luck in getting this ridiculous verdict overturned. It's a travesty of justice.

Carolyn Ann

Givenchy and a transgender model

Givenchy is in the news, again.

Provocative ads, and a story that seems gossipy. The NY story seems Some interesting pics, too.

Oops. forgot to mention: It seems Women's Wear Daily broke the original story.

I'm having one of those days... I forgot to mention that I saw the story on Jillian Page's blog first.

Carolyn Ann

Slow ruminants

I sincerely hope Mr Welch won't go after me as if I was the slowest wool-providing ruminant, but I have to mention that I love his signature line:

©2003-until I'm fucking dead and then some. you steal my shit, and I will fuck with you like you were a lonely shepherd's slowest sheep.

Some can be effective with the profane. The problem comes when you think you're one of them. And you aren't.

Mr Welch is.

(And I would never, ever, consider stealing Mr Welch's shit.) :-)

Carolyn Ann

A reply to Anil Dash

Anil Dash requires registration before he'll accept a comment. This is despite his exhortation that you can comment anonymously. As I don't want to do that - here's my reply to this piece of dubious thinking.

Your lack of knowledge about the Constitution is striking.

Since when has a corporation had the same rights as a person? Can we now put corporations in jail if they break the law? Or evade their tax burden? What if I don't want a gun? The 2nd Amendment says I can have one; it doesn't oblige me to do so. Can a corporation vote? No - it can't. Although, considering what you've written here, you'd welcome the change.

The only way Citizens United can seem like a good idea is if you don't think about it. Want a car that gets you from A to B safely? Well, you have better have a lot more money than the car companies. Want a Wall St that can't collapse the global economy? I hope you're good at playing Wall St, because they have lots of money. With that money they can sway public opinion. If you don't believe that - you're seriously indulging in some fantasy.

I'll summarize your argument: Robber barons, good. Arguing that those who don't have access to the corridors of power deserve a say in their country as well: bad.

No matter how it's read, Citizens United is a seriously flawed judgment. Have you actually read it? Either you haven't, or you haven't bothered remembering Eisenhower's concerns re the military/industrial complex. And can't extrapolate.

On a related subject: you quote yourself? [He does.]

Carolyn Ann

It's only polite. Isn't it?

My wife and I were chatting about social graces, this evening. How they've changed, and how they're almost entirely ignored on the Internet.

The rule used to be that you stood when a lady entered the room; these days, if she's a modern woman, she's likely to clobber you if you do so. You didn't talk with a full mouth, you held your knife and fork correctly (I was alarmed to read, about 20 years ago, that corporations had started providing lessons to its employees on how to dine in public!), you didn't stare, you tried not to walk around with your fly open, or your skirt half way around your ass. (Speaking of which, one thing I've noticed is that almost no one, girls and trans-girls [ :-) ] alike, sweeps their skirt under them; the result is usually a crumpled mess where a smooth line is often desired.) Some of those mores survive, some have died a thankful death and some are hanging on, desired by some, considered archaic by others.

One of the nice things about arguing in person is that (if you're me), it's your round next you can gauge your argument by the non-verbal cues we're provided. If the person hits you in the nose, you can be sure the argument will classified as ribald; if y'all start screaming at each other, it's a robust affair. If everyone is quiet and deferential, you can safely assume you've walked into a contentious wake. Reaching these heights of enthusiasm usually takes awhile.

On the Internet it seems that there are two distinct modes of argument: the we're having a little fun, here and the "you've offended me and now I'll make you life miserable, you stupid little twerp". Deportment seems to go from cool, calm and collected to scaring the Devil in no time flat, and insult seems to be rather popular pastime. One thing I always appreciated was an acknowledgement of a communication; whether it's an email, a letter, a comment on a blog - it's always nice if the person you're corresponding with takes the time to acknowledge your communication. I don't think it's a conversation, per se, but it's definitely nice to get an acknowledgement. Part of that principle is providing an apology when it's called for.

What is not usually seen is someone saying "thank you" when provided with an apology.

Once upon a time, I was a member of a forum where I was pretty much the only guy around. The forum owner dropped in from time to time, usually asking really difficult questions - he's caught me out a time or two! - but most often it was a lot of ladies, and me. We had a lot of fun. I have to mention it turned quite ugly one day, and I felt I couldn't keep a reasonable manner around a certain individual after a heinous, and unwarranted accusation.

Anyway, we'd get into tiffs and arguments; we'd disagree and we'd agree. I was continually struck by the grace of the women on that forum. If I screwed up - you can accurately suppose that was quite often - and I apologized, the person I apologized to always acknowledged it.

If you've read this blog for more than a few days, you'll know I usually have to do a lot of apologizing. What is interesting, and I mentioned this to the wife, is that I *never* get an acknowledgment.

Let's take Chartreuse Flamethrower for a moment. He accuses me of getting his gender wrong - misgendering him. I explain it wasn't intentional, and that I apologized for doing so. I got his gender wrong; I should apologize! Now, if it were me, I'd be checking back for a few days to ensure my comment had been read, and responded to in a satisfactory manner. It's what you do after leveling an accusation against someone. If the accusation wasn't important, you wouldn't bother making it, would you? So it seems reasonable that the offender (me) would provide a response. And then the onus is on the offended (CF) to acknowledge the apology.

That's called grace. It's not gender specific.

Carolyn Ann