It wasn't me/us!

Paris Hilton and Dr Laura Schlessinger have one thing in common: a desperate need to divert attention from their own actions and words. Paris Hilton claims some cocaine found in her "borrowed" purse isn't hers - although everything else in the purse apparently was. Dr Schlessinger seeks to blame others for her own idiocy - she apologizes for using the word "nigger", and then places the blame for the result on those who seek to deny her any first amendment rights. Dr Stanley Fish points out that the anti-"Ground Zero Mosque" crowd flee any suggestion that their rhetoric and anger had anything to do with an hate-attack on a single Muslim man.

The common thread is unavoidable - if you're caught: blame someone else!

Ms Hilton will have to produce the owner of the bag if she did, indeed, borrow it. She'll also have to prove two things: that the cocaine belongs to the bag owner, and that she really didn't know it was there. That's going to be tough. Dr Schlessinger, and the anti-GZM crowd have an easier time of it: Dr Schlessinger will move to satellite radio, and be listened to by a smaller group that really has no problem with racism, and the anti-GZM bunch will continue with their lies and distortions.

The basic problem isn't that these people try to avoid being responsible for their own actions and words - it's that they deny those things have any meaning, any implication. It's as if they believe their words can float out there, with nary a consequence. All while they want their words to have consequences. They aren't avoiding responsibility - they're denying there is any to begin with! "Hypocrite" seems to mild a term, although it is an accurate one.

My version of Apple's "building anticipation" thingie

So what is this monumental piece of nonsense wonder I'm working on?

Look at it this way - most great inventions answer a need. Silicon Valley is basically a lot of guys (and a few gals) who want to scratch that itch. Even though there's probably a cream for it. (Sorry... :-D ) This particular invention, this bit of maniacal amazing engineering tinkering and messing about came into being because I was, well, mildly annoyed about something. And I was even more ticked off when I realized I couldn't do a couple of other things I really wanted to do, as well.

Sometimes someone comes up with an idea so brilliant, so simple and so ingenuous we all go around in awe, and wondering how no one else thought of it. This isn't one of those ideas.

What is it, then?

Well - you'll just have to wait! :-)

I need to get something working, and it's refusing to do that. It's not on strike, it just hasn't turned up for work...

Carolyn Ann

PS I'm guessing Apple's PR people won't be calling me, anytime soon...

I'm a little busy...

I have no idea if anyone is in the slightest bit interested - but I'm a little busy, at the moment.

I had an idea, separate from the one I'm trying to build a business around, and I'm pursuing it. If all goes to according to plan (I wonder when, if, that'll ever happen?), I should be announcing the results in a few days. :-)

But that explains the lack of posting. (Meanwhile, the rest of the world breathes a sigh of relief...) :-)

Carolyn Ann

Where are we, Dorothy?

In my just got up, bleary-eyed, haven't had more than a sip of coffee state I read this headline:

W.Va. Democrats Pick Manchin for Byrd’s Seat

as "W. Va. Democrats Pick Munchkin for Byrd's Seat"! Munchkin? Dorothy - are we are not in Kansas, anymore?!? :-)

Carolyn Ann

(And now I can't get that stupid song out of my head...)

Sigh...

I wish I could look that good. (TM_WBPurFlor1 in Tiffany Michelle's photostream. Sharing has been turned off, so I can't link to it.)

Sigh.

Carolyn Ann

Mr Obama isn't even down - never mind out!

The pundits all have President Obama down. The ones on the right have him out, as well.

That "professional left" is mad at him. The right is mad at him. The centrists are mad at him. Who isn't mad at him? (Me? ... Oh, sorry - I can't vote, because I'm not yet American. Damn it!)

But I think it's too soon to count him out in any way whatsoever. The man is learning - he's about as popular as other presidents, at this point, but he has one thing most never had: Bill's thirst to do whatever it takes.

He came in as the National Transformer - and when people figured out that he was actually true to his word - they decided they preferred the devil they know more than the chap they'd voted for. Of course, the Rabid Right would never like him; they told us that in no uncertain terms, today. People want change, but they don't want that change. Clinging to Guns and God? No - many cling to whining and ideas that were past their sell-by date when Reagan was elected.

Count Mr Obama out at your peril.

Carolyn Ann

Tone, argument and foolish deceit

There's a common platitude among the weakly minded that "tone arguments" are verboten. They argue that the tone of a discussion should be civil, and that anything less is more about the tone than the argument. They suppose the point of the opposing argument isn't valid, because if were - the tone wouldn't be so important.

Bullshit.

I use tone-based arguments. They work. I use them to make a point. (Actually, I'm astonished no one has actually accused me of using that [deplorable] [ahem] tactic.) :-) Considering how often I employ it!

There's a difference between using a tonal argument to make a point, and simply because you're appealing to emotion. Glenn Beck probably appreciates the difference. His audience, on the other hand - probably doesn't. Apparently, he's not above a bit of plagiarism, too. (I despise plagiarism.)

(Stupid question time: how does a non-political rally end up with conservatives saying it shows how powerful they are?)

Carolyn Ann

There's droll - and then there's The Economist...

In his new book, "Still Surprised: A Memoir of a Life in Leadership", Warren Bennis, ..., tells a story about Sigmund Freud's flight from Vienna to London in 1938. On arriving at his new home Freud asked Stefan Zweig, a fellow intellectual, what it was like. "London? How can you even mention London and Vienna in the same breath? Zweig thundered. "In Vienna there was sperm in the air!"

Schumpeter goes on to say:

Today there is no hotter topic in management theory then "sperm in the air". How do companies generate new ideas? And how do they turn those ideas into products? Hardly a week goes by without someone publishing a book on the subject. Most are rubbish. But "The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge" is rather good. Its authors are Vijay Govindarajan and Chris Trimble, two professors at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. Last year Mr Govindarajan and Mr Trimble (hereafter: G&T)..."

"is rather good..."? Mere mortals, such as you or I, would be shouting, singing, hosannahs at such praise! Considering its source. :-)

In all fairness to Mr Govindarajan and Mr Trimble - they just got the review of a life time. Considering the readership of The Economist, those two chaps have just become megastars in the business world. I think I could put up with being known as G&T - but only because The Economist said it first!

I look forward to reading their tome. :-)

Carolyn Ann
Who wishes he had such a command of the language! :-)

Wow - That's misleading

The Huffington Post has a story "International Child Porn Ring On Facebook Cracked By Police". As you might know, they like to put a small picture under the headline - this is the picture:

Doesn't that look a lot like this:

My oh my - it looks like the Huffington Post used a picture of Anna Chapman, the Russian spy, in a totally different context.

Idiots.

Carolyn Ann

Judge, jury and executioner

For all the chatter about extremist Islam versus the ordinary sort - I couldn't help but think that a substantial difference between Christianity and Islam is the way the extremists go about handling criticism. Neither does a good job (it's not in the nature of extremists to handle criticism very well). But if you burn a stack of Bibles, people get upset. If you burn a stack of Qur'an's - some bunch of testosterone-addled dimwits are likely to come after you with bombs and guns.

Notwithstanding those "Christians" who murder doctors, that is.

Far right demagogues have the same problem - criticize them, and you're likely to find yourself getting a large bit of metal pointed at you.

As a side note, it's one of the issues I have with 2nd Amendment laws; the best intentions of lawmakers (yes, I'm giving them the benefit of any doubt) are never backed up by the idiots and power-drunk fools who actually use those laws. One person, a transgendered individual, once told me - in a public forum - that "strongly hinting" (I paraphrase) that a weapon might get involved turned even the most adversarial conversation polite. The issue is a common one - those with weapons think that might is right; judging by the words of the NRA, they also begin to believe that.

Considering that a few cops have actually been murdered by far right idiots, I'd say the danger about guns isn't theoretical. When someone starts shooting the police because he's stupid to believe the propaganda and the quiet, "official", NRA support of that argument - the argument about gun control has gone from one of rights versus safety and firmly entered the realm of idiots who lack any vestige of self-control versus those who would rather not have a gun waved in their direction, never mind be shot!

The Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists do put forward arguments that go in the direction of violence; they tend to support almost-violent opposition to abortion clinics, for instance. They also tend to support passive-aggressive tactics such as using medical imagery in violent ways. Once you get onto that line of thought - that something is violent, and has to be countered with more violence - you're a short hop from actual violence.

This being people we're talking about - someone will make that step.

When I listen to fringe-Republicans, people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, what I hear is tacit support for violence. Their arguments never stop at the junction of reason; once you start appealing to the emotions, you're no longer arguing - you're simply inciting. But poorly disguising it with unabashed rhetoric. When someone like Sharon Angle suggests "2nd Amendment remedies", she's not indulging in intellectual argument - she's arguing that might is right, and that those who disagree with her and her cohorts and fans had better start living in fear. Because the next step is someone taking her words to justify violence.

To avoid charges of bias, the far left is equally prone to idiotic violence, too. The idiots who smash windows outside G-whatever meetings don't make any actual sense. They shout about being beleaguered, and toss a brick through a window. Yeah, they're suppressed. I'm fairly sure the Chilean basket maker they say they represent would rather sell a few baskets than be associated with an idiot who's more intent on destruction than the artistry of those baskets.

When someone like Laurie Penny, PennyRed, vandalizes a poster because she objects to its content, she's not making a political point. She's making a personal one: she's too unthinking to consider the difference between herself and the commonplace vandal; if, indeed, there is any. Her action was passive-aggressive at best, it was a childish act with no meaning other than to make her feel better. She had the power to destroy something that didn't belong to her - so she did so.

People who think they can be arresting magistrate (if they bother with that step), judge, jury and executioner aren't exercising their rights - they are denying the right of society to have its own judicial system. They deny society the right to determine what is acceptable, and what isn't. They impose their opinions, and tell us all we have to abide by their interpretations and live with their threats. They are selfish, intolerant and stupid. They assume a right they don't have; their weapons provide a power they use childishly. The danger is immediately apparent when you think about that - if someone is immature to consider that might is right, they are certainly stupid enough to consider it their right to exercise that power. These people think that if war is politics by other means, then the opposite is true - politics is war. In war, violence is required. In politics? Rhetoric and debate. These people forget that, if they ever knew it in the first place.

Carolyn Ann

An incendiary character complains about how hard it is a bigot, these days

I'm trying to wrap my head around this one.

A Pastor in Florida is moaning about how hard it is to be bigoted?

Pastor Terry Jones, of Gainesville, Florida, wants to hold a Qur'an-burning festival on September 11th. He's been denied a permit to have a bonfire (since when did bigots start applying for permits to burn things on lawns, anyway?). His church has its mortgage recalled, and the insurance cancelled (I wonder why?). He's taken to carrying a gun and he doesn't know anything about the Qur'an.

But he still wants to burn the book. Because it's all lies.

Yeah, well.

Oh, don't get me wrong - he can set fire to whatever he wants. He can hate Muslims as much as he obviously does. He can preach that all Muslims are baby-eating murderers (goodness knows, enough Muslims believe that Jews are that!) He can extoll as much as he wants about his lack of knowledge about a religion he would clearly like to destroy. I'm not sure, but I'd have to guess he has some unsupportive opinions about gays, lesbians and the transgendered. That's his prerogative. He can call whatever he wants "evil". I don't care: it all falls under free speech.

Free speech is free speech. You don't get to pick and choose which bits you allow, and which bits you don't because the utterance is obnoxious and offensive. However... There's always an "however", isn't there? :-) The Pastor and his supporters don't get to legitimately complain about how hard it is to be a bigot, act or threaten to act, upon their bigotry and then feel hard done by when that same free speech is used against them.

Oh, they can feel hard done by - they can complain about it, as well. Free expression is meddlesome and difficult, don't you think? :-) The ability, and right, to mutter inanities in no way provides credibility to those inane mumblings. There's no stipulation that anyone should listen. And there's certainly no requirement that anyone agree. His parishioners and he can hold hands and sing Kumbaya while they re-enact some of the grosser precursors of Hitler's Germany. (You knew that comparison was inevitable, right?) His neighbors and detractors can protest, and point out that the man is vile. TV cameras can watch the whole thing, and the world can see who's a bigot and who's not. Reporters can interview both sides, and the bigots can reveal their stupidity, intolerance and prejudice. It all falls under free speech.

What cannot be escaped, what can't be whined away, what he and his supporters fail to appreciate is that bigotry is not an ends to itself. It's a facilitator, it has implications that none can fully know, and repercussions that no one can predict. Just look at what happened with those Danish cartoons! You can't argue that their bigotry justifies your bigotry - it's a facile argument that hasn't been burned - it's been incinerated! Fight bigotry with bigotry - oh yeah, that's gonna to work. Idiots.

The man is worse than a bigot: he's an oblivious idiot and a mean, ignorant bigot. But it is his right to be that. Just as much as it is my right to say so. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Chicken tweets, Ebony (meanwhile) converses...

I just told Ebony that he should chat with Chicken.

She tweets a lot....

And he's very talkative. :-D

Carolyn Ann

So - why isn't Mitch Daniels a credible Presidential candidate?

Because he's not ideological enough.

Mitch Daniels, Indiana's Harley-riding governor, is being looked at as a possible for the GOP in 2012. He'll be going up against such luminous figures as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. I wouldn't be especially surprised if Mike Huckabee tries again, and I would be surprised if Glenn Beck didn't mull the idea of a run.

Mitt Romney suffers from John McCain's sense of entitlement. He just comes across as thinking it's his turn, and why don't they just give it to him, dammit! Newt Gingrich still has the problem of how he left his wife. And the extra-marital affair he had while he pursued Bill Clinton over his peccadilloes. He also has to climb the "influential has-been" mountain; that's not easy, as Rudy Giuliani discovered. Sarah has a fundamental credibility problem. She's got a fan base, but she's too extreme for most, and her unrelenting ability to be amazingly stupid doesn't bode well for her. She makes the news, and keeps some attention on herself, but until she learns to hide her eager ignorance, she'll always be the one who could have made it. Besides which, there are a lot of powerful women who would cringe, and work very hard, to make sure the Mrs Palin gets nowhere close to the Oval Office.

Mike Huckabee sounds reasonable, until you dig a bit deeper. It's why he lost the first time, and it's why he'll keep losing.

All of this leaves the field open to a reasonable, intelligent, moderate Republican. Which is where the whole thing becomes unstuck. The Tea Partiers don't like "moderate" Republicans. They want their candidates to sign pledges, to not veer from their script. That's not the way you get elected. That's the way you give your opponent a massive majority.

Mr Daniels could decide to do a McCain - and veer sharply to the right. He could start spouting meaningless rhetoric, and making himself popular with the far right. He could do that - but then he'd have to tack to the left if he won the primary. And as Sharon Angle is finding out, that's a good way of giving your opponent so much ammunition you might as well campaign against yourself. Because your opponent will make it look like you are, anyway.

Starting next year, we'll see a small and steady brain drain from the White House. Political consultants will begin the task of raising money for Mr Obama, and developing his election strategy. The experience of going up against one of the most potent political machines known (Hillary), will help. As will the experience of campaigning against John McCain. (He's not a contender. He is, frankly, too old.) The Sarah Palin Sound Machine won't be anywhere nearly as effective; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the gloves came off early, and the political nukes were hand-delivered. All of this makes it very difficult for someone like Mitch Daniels; he doesn't have name recognition, and he's associated with George Bush in a less-than positive way.

All in all, the reports of Mr Obama's political demise are premature. The reports about the Republican candidates, on the other hand, are probably ancient history. Like their last candidate.

Carolyn Ann

Damn! I hope Ms McArdle is wrong

Megan McArdle thinks the US might head into a double-dip recession. Just in time for the elections. Unlike Ms McArdle, I am ready to lay blame.

If the economy does double-dip, the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats can be firmly blamed. They forced a lackluster response to be even more lackluster, just about ensuring that it would fail. The neocons caused the original financial collapse; well, they laid the road and foundations for it. And then they gave it a nice push by advocating for the wealthy.

If President Obama is forced to deal with a larger Republican delegation, he's not likely to tack to the right. I think he'll head go for broke - after all, the GOP has no credible challenger for 2012 (Mitch Daniels isn't a credible candidate, no matter what pundits say), and they have a Tea Party Problem. His biggest weapon? He's likable. And he won't make the same mistakes he made last time. Where, if anyone cares to notice, he won quite handily!

The biggest problem the Democrats face isn't the Republicans - it's themselves. Robert Gibbs' "professional left" are a bunch of whiney blowhards who do more to damage the Democrats chances than anything any Tea Party neanderthal ever could. The Tea Party and the Republicans like to tell us the country is moving rightward; if that were true, at this point - it's being moving rightward for over a decade, now - America would be looking at the "presidency" of Augusto Pinochet for ideas. The country isn't moving to the right. It's not moving laterally at all!

Right now, America is stumbling along. The voters are trying to figure out whether they want to punish the incumbents, or reward the would-be usurpers. Of course, an electorate that holds their noses as they vote is meaningless to party that wins. It's even less meaningful to the loser. (Think this bad? I can't help but think that with proportional representation, the whole thing would be even worse!)

America does face some monumental, long-term challenges. These are not going to be solved by sound bites and implausible suggestions; but politicians get elected because they can provide the sound bite, look good and sound plausible, even respectable, as they suggest the most idiotic thing you've ever heard. Being beholden to their constituents isn't something I've noticed many politicians paying attention to, these days. This applies especially to those on the far right.

In the short term, I'm really hoping this is just a slow down, and not a double-dip. Goodness knows, the conservative elements in Congress have certainly helped create the right environment for a double-dip recession. All in all, it's a sorry mess we're in.

Carolyn Ann

Michele Bachmann is...

One of the most pernicious and stupid politicians in Congress.

I keep seeing her ads - and they say stupid things like "Put Constitutional Conservative Ideas In Charge". Not just "No" - HELL NO!

Constitutional Conservatism - quite the mouthful - is biased, bigoted, cherry-picking, ignorant, woeful and deliberate in its misunderstanding of the Constitution. It is also more concerned about the wealth of its billionaire funders than it ever could be for the wealth and health of "Main St" Americans.

I'd rather a dedicated, intelligent, Democrat like Nancy Pelosi than any Unthinking Sound-Bite Bigot like Michele Bachmann.

I'm guessing this won't stop the ads - but it feels good to berate one of the most manipulative and destructive politicians in Congress for them. Okay: Who's funding them? The Koch's? Through one of their secretive, back-door funds?

Carolyn Ann

John Boehner's Economic Policy. It's new. Really...

John Boehner, the GOP House Leader, unveiled the Republican's new economic strategy: it's the same one as their old one. But it comes with a promise that the Congressional Republicans will behave, erm, exactly as they did before. When The Shrub ran things, we ended up with massive deficits, a financial system in ruins and a tax system that couldn't possibly pay for all the splendid spending the GOP enacted. Not to mention that the gap between the rich and the rest increased almost beyond measure.

And now Mr Boehner wants to bring back those good old days. But he wants to do without some of the most acute financial minds available.

Carolyn Ann

There is no flower

Some folk tell me that there's a flower growing on that patch of ground. They argue among themselves what sort of flower it is, and who is its gardener, or if, indeed, it has one. They spend endless hours debating the shape and color of its petals, how long its stem is, and the soil in which it grows, and how it should be tended. These people get angry with those who argue that there is no flower - of course there's a flower! They've been told there's a flower there, and by golly there is! Some of those who argue that there's no flower there allow that there might be a flower on that patch of ground, or that they could have been, or there might yet be a flower in that soil.

Many argue about where the flower is. Some say "everywhere", some argue not. Many agree it is both everywhere, and nowhere specific. And yet it's location is deemed to be specific enough that people argue about the kind of housing they should provide for it. Many of these individuals and groups argue which way the flower is pointed. They usually provide their own compasses and maps.

When the flower people meet, and debate, those who argue that there is no flower, they all end up discussing the flower. What shape it is, how many petals, leaves or buds does it, or doesn't, have. They endlessly trade insults on how fertile the ground is, for it to have borne the flower. Is it a flower, or a tree? It's considered as noble, grand and permanent as the most ancient redwood, but it's as delicate and rare as a blue rose. Some of the debates get into quite exotic territory - discussing the nature of the flowers existence, or what it would be if it actually existed. Discussing the shape or nature of nothing turns out to be be both hard and very contentious. Around and around they go - some arguing about the shape and color of the flower, some arguing that there is no flower at all! These discussions usually end up on the dirt the flower grows in. After all - if you can't agree if there's a flower, then surely you can agree that there's some soil for the flower to grow in? It seems that there is a lot of agreement that the flower needs the dirt.

None of these people look to see if there is a flower.

I took a peek.

There is no flower. There isn't even a patch of dirt for a flower to grow from.

Carolyn Ann

An intelligent discussion of gender-neutral pronouns

The Economist's online edition has an interesting, and intelligent, discussion about gender-neutral pronouns.

There's a link to Dennis Baron's post about it all in the article.

Carolyn Ann

Darkness comes - and I fight it

There's a form of darkness that overtakes its participants. This darkness knows no bounds, excuses no enemy, and knows no ally. It exists within, and without. It is sans tangible form., it's not even a darkness - the light doesn't change.

Except it does.

I've heard it said that there is a bright light, a heavenly construction that's only visible to those who have seen death. For themselves, that is. They tell of forbidding, or lit, towers. They extoll on about magnificent white horses, drawing chariots made of precious metals, commandeered by brave, divine, warriors.

The truth is - they see a little spot of light. Their hearing goes last. They can't process the experience, and so they invent this wonderful world - and they, and all around pronounce their continued life a miracle. They presume their God has granted them a new lease on their life. And they experienced a small, bright, dot as their mind collapsed. Unable to cope with the events - it shuts down. It saves itself, sod the ephemeral idiot that happens to be attached, he can drop by later.

When that happens, paradoxically, you enter a world where up is down, down is up, left and right have no meaning. You see nothing, and might even be exquisitely aware of your surroundings. You might feel the quilt, every fiber of it, the colors of those fibers, the creases. You might be able to feel the leather under you, or the cold steel of a bridge.

You definitely feel the fall, when the young cop crashes into you; oddly, you don't feel the actual impact. You see him running toward you, calling your name. "Mister Grant? Mister Grant?" And then you feel each bit of asphalt.

With a bit of luck, your wife wakes you at that moment.

I'm never that lucky - I remember it in all vicious detail while I sit there, on that leather sofa. Sometimes I don't need to remember it. I just simply relive it.

Carolyn Ann

My apologies

I was quite the idiot, last night. I'm sorry.

I've been under an unbelievable strain, lately. And then, late last night, I came across something that - in my inebriated state - I perceived as a direct threat to my wife. I added two and two and came up with something, I'm not sure what, but it wasn't four, or anything close to that!

Not having anyone to lash out at, I swung wildly; eventually I came across a post about marriage - and I suddenly had a focus for my anger. I should have kept on beating, and berating, myself; eventually I would have run out steam, and headed to bed. Instead I unleashed an inarticulate torrent of anger on someone who didn't deserve it.

I also hit "publish" on some amazingly nonsensical twaddle.

I'm sorry.

Carolyn Ann

PS I'm copying this over to QT.

PPS Thanks, Jess. I needed that!

HooYa!

Those fugitives were caught!

I'm sure the NRA will be arguing that their gun rights were violated.

Carolyn Ann

Whimsy

I wonder if anyone actually reads my mutterings.

That's not a challenge. It's simply a moment of whimsy.

Sorry.

Carolyn Ann

Fuck you - Poisongirl

Fuck you, poisongirl.

When I first saw the girl I was to marry - I was in Love. Love. I'd spell it in capital fuckin' letters, but that wouldn't be "genteel", aka "politically correct " [,]enough for the likes of you.

Fuck you.

I love that girl. You dare challenge me on that? I'll give my life for her - and don't you even breathe doubt on that statement. I've lived it - you fuck around with abstract ideals.

You want to challenge me on my feelings to the only girl I've loved as much as I've love this lass? Do you?

Do You Feel Lucky, punk? Do you?

I married that girl because I wanted to make a commitment to her. I married her because I want to spend the rest of my life with her. What she thinks is none of your damn business. Suffice to say: she's stood by me[t] through thick and thin. Have you stood by someone walking through their personal hell? Have you had "that" phone call? Have you ever loved anyone enough to ... You know what? You clearly don't even know what I'm talking about.

Marriage is commitment. It's not an odd abstraction, the emotions behind something [like marriage] - [are] something you should tread carefully around. My wife and me didn't get married because of abstract ideals - we got married because of an old fashioned idea: love. I love [her] my wife, she loves me. That is not an abstraction - that's a reality. And I'm glad of it!

You are poison, girl. You most certainly are.

Carolyn Ann

PS I have no idea if this will be published, except here.

Update: Wow. I really felt that one. A lot of typos, too. I've corrected this version; the corrections are noted.

I found myself writing a justification. I spent a long time on it; I was tweaking sentences, ensuring the entire thing sustained my central point - and I suddenly thought: I don't need to justify myself to this person. I most certainly do not need to justify my marriage to this idiot. The moment she told me her boss had asked her if I'd bended my knee - I figured, well you know what? I remember the moment as clear as day.

I didn't have a ring, but I went to bended knee. We were in her apartment in Murray Hill, and the sun was shining. She giggled. I got onto my knee, and asked her to be my wife. She giggled. She looked radiant. I don't remember the rest of that day.

Really! :-)

When I did get her an engagement ring, we'd been wed more than a few months. It was a trifle pricey; I needed some "temporary assistance" from the bank - the lass approving my application couldn't stop giggling. I did make a point of showing her the ring.

My boss had a safe in his office, in which I kept the item. I also kept a New York Subway sign in his office; we'd spotted it at a Soho antique store, but she felt it was too expensive for us to buy. Needless to say: I disagreed. (Fiscal responsibility: Wozzat?) All the lasses in the office enthused about the ring; they weren't so sure about the old sign from a subway train.

Back then, we celebrated Hannukah and Christmas; I had particular reason to want a Christmas tree. We decorated, and I placed a small box up top the tree.

I can still picture her when she opened that box. It reminded me of the moment when my eldest niece opened a small package - and a Bugs Bunny the size of Mount Everest exploded out!

So, Fuck You poisongirl. My marriage is not about some abstraction that devolves. It's about moments in time, and a love that intersperses, and continues within, them.

Don't read this

The other night I wrote a comment on "Z"'s blog. She didn't publish it. She decided she was the arbiter of my words; she cast herself as censor. Because she can.

One of the things I said to her, in that comment, was that she concentrated on the despair (I paraphrase - I think). I'm trying to build a business as a transgendered individual - I concentrate on the other end of the spectrum - the hope, the enthusiasm for life, the sheer willingness to take a risk as who I am. Not to mention my really profound belief that what I'm doing could change the world. :-)

Oops, make that: :-D

I can't hide the fact that I spent a short time in a certain type of medical facility. It wasn't an institute for broken bones, either. I've written of that experience; I hesitate to paint a picture of it. ...

Please, allow me the indulgence?

"Art" class was, I think, a Thursday. An hour or so of therapeutic art. Yes, it was Thursday. It was the day I figured out how to escape that damned floor. (I wasn't as clever as I thought. I was thwarted.) We, the budding art students, were asked to depict something within the circumference a plate.

I knew, immediately, what I was going to paint: the room I was in. Not my room-mate's bed; that would be hinted at, through a shadow, I would paint the room.

I'm rather glad I was called to a meeting with that particular bitch - the social worker. Her job, her aim in life, seemed to be incarcerating the innocent to gin up the hospital fees.

I was, you see (perhaps you don't? Because I've not explained it, yet... :-) ), going to use disparate vanishing points. I hadn't decided if I was going to base them on Pi or the Golden Rectangle. I felt it would be cheating to use both; one or the other - that was it. I was leaning toward the golden rectangle.

The colors would be based on the real colors; just pastels. The image was about the lines.

Once upon a time, I tried drawing it. I broke down in tears - perhaps it was too soon?

[At the meeting] The social worker and the doctor gave me some conditions to meet before release - I'd met them, already. I played that fucking place for everything I was worth, and then some. I played politics like my life depended on it - and I knew it did. When those bastards locked me in that place, they didn't know I was I'd be their bastard, their devil.

...

My Mrs was, naturally, there when I was released. That morning I'd attended one of the two or three "morning meetings" I was, supposedly, obliged to attend. I was given a round of applause - I was well enough to be inflicted upon a callous world. Woopdeefuckingdoo. Doo.

I didn't know if I should throw up from the display of subservience, or shout hallelujah from some fucking roof top. Not that I was allowed near any roof tops, fucking or not.

Actually, that was my plan - I'd climb to the roof. Down was out of the question; straight on was, what?  a hopeless case? Something like that. Up. That was the way to go. Perhaps they should check that you can't climb before they put ... I know a few special forces soldiers who could climb that wall. A sheer concrete wall, and they could climb it like I climb a Welsh cliff. I'm not that good.

And the bastards locked the windows, anyway. (That was the bit that thwarted me.)

---

It's a problem, all this negativity. Not just mine - and I'm a fucking optimist!

What? A gentleman does not discuss such matters!

I'm either a lady (yeah, wanna buy a bridge?), or a gentleman (we give a good price!), but I say too much, already.

(Make an offer, make an offer!)

Here's the difference between the original feminists, and todays transfeminists: the original feminists knew they could change the world. Today's transfeminists are content to whine about it.

(I'll excuse you, dear reader, while your physician attends you for your whiplash.) :-)

Metaphorically speaking. :-)

(What was it that the Mommy Tomato said to her son?) :-D

 ... ... ... ...

Oh, I'm so damn clever.

Why do write this drivel?

Because I need to. I write because the alternative ... ... is there an alternative? (Excuse me while I "sound" like a 1960's B-movie).

Fuck: I am a B-movie. But without the coherence.

Let me put it this way: it would take someone less than 3.16 seconds to figure out I'd "enjoyed" the hospitality of a certain New York City institution. 2 of those seconds would be typing in the query, one would be spent digesting the results and point one six would be spent by Google figuring out the answer, and delivering it, proudly in 0.58 seconds (the discrepancy to be accounted for, later).

Years ago I had an apprentice. I was, by his own admission, not his first choice as teacher. I can't blame him. I've fired people for the simplest of reasons. At that time, I didn't have firing powers.  --- (Im consulting with my PR person and my lawyer... Actually, I'm not. I don't have either - I'm trying to figure out, in an amazingly drunken state, if what I'm about to write is a good idea, or not.

Oh, who knows.

Oh, yeah. He was amazed I mathematically figured out the delivery time for email across the entire bank. Me - the man who never got above A-levels. (I actually never did those, either. I did something called a "City and Guilds" exam. I think. It was all a bit hazy; and that wasn't just my inebriation.) What the fuck: I left school when I was a wee while, perhaps a month, after my 16th birthday.

I've never liked playing the role of the subservient honcho. (Whaaa?)

I just know I will regret this.

You know when you're really, really drunk and you lose whatever thought happened to be unfortunate enough to cross your mind was lost? Forever?

Yeah - that's me, right now.

Sorry
Carolyn Ann

Falling apart. Again.

I've had quite an upsetting evening.

I am not going to go into the details. Suffice to say - when a man loves a woman, it usually entails "protecting" her. Usually from himself...

My Mrs is a little annoyed with me, right now. I can't say I blame her.

Damn it!

I'm doing my best, and it's not a scratch on her best. When she feels a little lazy (when was that?) it leaves me looking soporific. "Be the lox" she says. "The lox is dead!", I retort. "That's not what I meant..." "I know, I know - I know that's not what you meant. I have to relax", I respond. Hyperactively.

Speaking of such things - that third sentence. It has number of meanings. I might be stupid, but I'm not entirely idiotic. What I meant - and the Mrs understood - is that sometimes my enthusiasm gets the better of me. I perceive situations developing that couldn't possibly do so.

Except when they do.

When I was 15, someone lied to me in a profound way. I paid the penalty for their deceit. You know how teenagers are - the approval of their peers is all. I accepted responsibility for something that, these days, would endear me to the jailhouse boss. He'd have his bitch lined up and waiting - and it would be me. nuff said?

Patterns came together, tonight.

I like patterns; they exist outside of time, although time is often a component.

I'm drunk. No potato(is that with an "e"?)-juice. Just me, some memories and a girl I love.

If I can make sense of it, I'll let you know. Perhaps.

Carolyn Ann

Do Republicans (really) hate America?

I'm beginning to think that the Republicans are trying to prevent the economy from recovering. If they gain enough seats in the fall, I can't help but wonder if they won't try to engineer a really slow recovery. They've proven themselves immune to the plight of the unemployed; they're more interested in obstructing Congress than trying to be leaders, and they've got a leadership that is, by turns, incompetent, obstructive or cruel.

If the economy doesn't improve, their chances of regaining the Presidency and Congress improve. America's chances of being the nation of the free diminish in direct proportion.

It's a strategy that worked for Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich.

Looking at the policies the Republicans are touting: unequal treatment of citizens, a small, unobtrusive government that is as concerned about the moral conduct of Americans as Saudi Arabia is of their citizens, that shows a disregard for the environment that the Soviet Union could have used as an example, and an increase of religious fervor and forced piety that Muslim dictators and kings would be recognize, you have to wonder if they truly hate what America really is? (The land of the free. I guess you didn't notice, what with all that bombast and pious denouncement emanating from the right.) Judging by right wing "media", I'd argue that the Republicans, and the right wing, in general, want an America that lives in, nay- is a fantasy. Not for them the hard reality of a changing world.

The Democrats, naturally, are eager, oblivious, allies in all of this.

Carolyn Ann

Swiftboating Obama

The liars behind John Kerry's Swiftboating started a right wing trend: instead of attacking the man's politics, attack the man - directly. Such insidious and cowardly thinking is making its mark: 20% to 25% of  Americans think Obama wasn't born in America. As in: he isn't American. 18% think he's Muslim. Whatever next? People will be equating him with Stalin and Hitler! Oh - hang on, they already have! Perhaps Pol Pot is next?

The White House seems to be employing the highly effective John Kerry response: ignore the distraction and keep on being policy wonks. That strategy was very effective for the Swiftboaters. It wasn't quite as successful for Senator Kerry. And it's working out pretty much the same way for President Obama.

Let's get one thing clear: the man is not a natural-born politician. He's a scholar. He's definitely not a street-fighter, preferring more subtle forms of political combat. Which might be interesting intellectual exercises, but so far aren't really working with the population at large. He doesn't have Bill Clinton's grasp of how down and dirty you need to go to get things done; he's big on compromise and working with the other side, and he's finally starting to figure out that being the President is a dream wrapped in a nightmare. You're a target for every kook and idiot out there.

And it turns out there are lot of idiots and kooks out there. Heck, one of stupid supermarket tabloids had a front page yelling about how there's a Kenyan birth certificate for the man. I took a look - the article is devoid of facts. Lots of whimsy and innuendo, but no actual facts. But since when have verifiable facts stopped conspiracy nuts? What I, and many others would like to know, is who is in the cabal, and why are they planning to turn the US into a socialist haven? And why would they pick someone like Barack Obama's Mum?

The problem isn't that President Obama is still reasonably popular - it's that his detractors are fear-mongering racists, more interested in yelling and disrupting than actually having a conversation, or making any attempt to understand how ridiculous they are.

Here are the facts: Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. He's a Christian. He's black. He's very intelligent. He's photogenic. He has a great smile. He's had an interesting life. He's inspiring. He's not shy about being left-wing. He's fairly certain where America should go (no, it's not to a socialist paradise). He's taking his own sweet time learning the ins and outs of bare-knuckle politics.

I just wish the man would either get down and dirty, or have some of his lieutenants do it for him. That's what they're there for! The White House ignores those fools at its peril. They hide behind free speech, and launch personal attacks on the man simply because they can't stand the thought of a black man being the President. That they hate his politics is just icing on the cake, as far as they're concerned.

He's a good man. Unlike the previous President, who was about as complacently evil as you could get. Maybe that's why they don't like him? He's not evil like their political leaders?

Carolyn Ann

Aww. I feel so bad for the poor diddums...

Apparently the market isn't being kind to the Quants. You know: those genii that brought the world economy to its knees, a couple of years back? Well, it seems the market isn't obeying the Chicago model - it's being a little obstreperous, I guess. One guy's hedge fund has gone from $31B to $19B. I wonder how he'll cope? Maybe he'll have to cut back on something, like peanut butter or going out? Maybe he'll have to drop his health insurance?

Mind you, he provides the "money" quote:

“It’s funny, but when quants do well, they all call themselves brilliant, but when things don’t go well, they whine and call it an anomalous market," said Theodore Aronson

In a staggering bit of common-sense, Maggie Ralbovsky understates it when she observes "... that not all quants are created equal". (Common sense isn't very common in any arena; it's almost unheard of in the market. And I think we've all met those guys who are really, really clever, but don't have an ounce of common sense.)

If you have an ounce of common sense, a decent grasp of the market, and perhaps read the newspapers once in awhile, you'll know that people don't always act in their own best interest. In fact, if they do that, it's anomalous. People do things that defy explanation; pack a lot of them into a crowded space - and they'll behave irrationally from the get-go. En-mass and individually. They don't know all the information out there, and they just want what's best for them. Some will be altruistic, but not in the market, and others will sell their Granny for an edge. If you can model that - you're either an idiot, delusional, a persuasive liar or a bloody fool. I'd go with all four.

No one can consistently out-perform the market. Any quant who thinks he (they always seem to be men) can just hasn't been in the game long enough. Either that, or they use the same accounting methods as New Jersey's pension fund. It's based on whimsy and illusion.

Mind you, I'd like their failure rate. I'd buy a nice Ferrari with my pocket "lint".

Carolyn Ann

New Jersey gets caught in a financial lie - and nothing bad happens

Who could have guessed? New Jerseys pension fund gets accused of lying to the bond-buyers. Amazing. I'm stunned. Astonished. Flabbergasted. Etc.

No I'm not. I'd have been more surprised if the SEC came back and said "New Jersey didn't do nowt wrong". (Not least because it would mean a Yorkshireman was the SEC spokesman. Spokesperson, etc.) Greece should have consulted New Jersey before ringing the alarm bells on its bonds. Ah well - New Jersey taxpayers will be stuck with the bill. No one goes to jail, no one even gets a public reprimand. I know a bevy of governors said the pension fund was fine; I doubt they even knew how deep in the red it was. Well, Jon Corzine might have, but somehow I doubt it. He's far too savvy to take too close a look at a budget that rivals old fish in its scent.

By the time it's all finished, it's a footnote in the sordid budget. And the SEC thinks this is a warning to other pension funds? If this is their punishment, they'll be tripping over themselves to report themselves.

According to a spokesman, New Jersey has “never failed to pay a bondholder.” I wouldn't mind betting there are more than a few minds wondering what would happen if they didn't pay the pensions they've promised public employees.

I guess they've promised not to do it again. Oh - they haven't? Let the shenanigans continue! (It is New Jersey, after all.)

Carolyn Ann

Roger Clemens to be indicted for lying to Congress

Good.

He should be indicted. Roger Clemens, a baseball player, is likely to be indicted for lying to Congress.

Carolyn Ann

Interesting take on marriage. For the pious.

Rita Nakashima Brock, Ph D, has written a fascinating refutation to "Bible believing Christians" re Prop 8 and gay marriage.

Carolyn Ann

Sharon Angle rewrites history. To suit herself, naturally.

Sharon Angle, the idiosyncratic and embattled Nevada Republican Senate hopeful, had this to say about modern conservatism and the Founding Fathers:

“I’m sure that they probably said that about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Benjamin Franklin,” she said. “And truly, when you look at the Constitution and our founding fathers and their writings, the things that made this country great, you might draw those conclusions: That they were conservative. They were fiscally conservative and socially conservative.”

Sorry, Sharon. I'm pretty sure you won't find anything like that in the extensive record of the founding of this great nation. Modern conservatism has been around since, oh, 1964 and Barry Goldwater's dead-on-arrival campaign against Lyndon Johnson. (By all accounts, Mr Goldwater took a water pistol to a shootout at Dead Man's Ranch.) Social conservatism of the modern sort has been around since the 1980's. Tea Party activism has a long history - it's been around since 2009. (Yes, I'm ignoring the No-Nothings, a party that was very much like today's Tea Party.)

The Founding Fathers didn't have to think about illegal immigration, for instance. Abortion wasn't a litigated subject. Marriage was when a man assumed ownership of a woman, and all her property. Medical ethics were a subject no one had heard of, and the repayment of debts was paramount because there were a lot of people who didn't want to repay the debts America had built up in the War of Independence. (James Madison was, in particular, quite concerned. He owned a bit of it, you see.) The solution was to tax the people! They weren't fiscally conservative - they were fiscally aware that without repayment to foreign and domestic lenders, the fledgling Republic didn't stand a chance of surviving.

Of course, Ms Angle might be thinking that the odious compromise on slavery was an example of social conservatism. Just a point she might want to consider before making stupid statements, again.

Carolyn Ann

Get to China to be free?

You've got to be desperate if China looks like a beacon of freedom!

According to the story, a North Korean pilot, flying a Soviet-era jet, crashed while apparently trying to defect.

I guess it's all relative. China would seem almost carelessly free to someone who lives under the oppression the North Koreans do. South Korea would be almost giddily free, and the western world? Such freedom is probably impossible to even contemplate.

That's so sad.

(I wonder what North Korea will say. Probably nothing. They need the largesse, and blinkered vision, of their neighbor and ally. The pilot's family is probably already on their way to some penal "re-education" camp. I feel sad for them.)

Carolyn Ann

DocNo is annoyed at me (who's DocNo? I don't know...) :-)

I woke up, got my pot of coffee ready, gave the cats their milk, checked my email - and was greeted by an email from one DocNo (no, I don't know who that is, either) telling me I must be an unhappy and intolerant (and myopic) person for registering for a forum simply to complain about something. Wow! It's not every day I get to read such enthusiasm.

It all started on a dark and stormy night... Well, it was dark, and a bit of rain was heading our way... I  noticed a story about a new graphics update for OS X, and the writer used the word "performance-y", as in:

Has the graphical performance of [some apps] not felt quite as performance-y on your 2009 or 2010 Mac since installing Mac OS X 10.6.4? Apple’s got an update for that. [My emphasis]

Leaving aside the hideously contrived, extremely derivative phrasing - I was little ticked off by the Palinism. So I decided to register a complaint. Apparently DocNo was ticked off by my complaint.

Anyway, I replied. I told him I was, in fact, very happy. I even checked again, and I was still very happy. Amazing, right?

I also told him:

May I point out that if something annoys me, and there's a mechanism to express that annoyance, and readers of the website are encouraged to participate in the conversation - then why shouldn't I join? Sarah Palin's language and logic are ambiguous diversions; they vaguely distract us from realizing that she's really a stage-managed bimbo, which is what she is. So, given that a forum is provided, participation is encouraged, I was irked and had some time to say so - why shouldn't I? It is a free country, after all! Until Sarah and her Right Wing Cronies manage to persuade us that we can't say things they don't like, that is. While it is a free nation, I'll exercise that freedom. I hope you don't mind? ... I don't particularly care if you mind or not, to be honest. I'm just trying to be polite. Something you're clearly proved you're not with your opening sentence.

I saw a phrasing that was a trifle exasperating, so I decided to say something. If that annoyed you, I wish I could say "sorry", but I can't. That's life in the big city.

It is a free country, even though Sarah Palin wishes it were probably a lot less free. She hates it when people ask her difficult questions, for instance. Or try to figure out what she just said. I understand that drives her wild. She must hate it when a journalist goes off-message and actually asks her a question that she doesn't know the answer to. She must be Sharon Angle's hero. (Ms Angle demanded that journalists clear their questions with her team, first. That way she could rehearse her answers. Sarah Palin probably wondered if she could do the same... Actually, I think she did wonder the same.) That durned liberal "media", always asking difficult questions!

Anyway, it's not every day I get an obnoxious email. It livened up my morning, that's a fact! And now I really do need more coffee.

Carolyn Ann

That dress...

It was lilac in color; a little faded, perhaps. Okay, it was quite faded - it hadn't been stored properly since the 1950's, and I bought it somewhere about 1983. It had a tight bodice, with a side zipper (all dresses had a side-zipper at that time; talk about "inconvenient"! How do I know this? I collected vintage dresses for awhile. :-) )

Buying it was an interesting experience. It was a small store in either Attercliffe, Sheffield or Crookes, Shefiield. I forget which. ... It might have been in Broomhall, Sheffield. It was in Sheffield. The proprietor knew me - I'd been in to buy feminine garments, before. I think I'd dropped the whole "it's for a fancy dress" baloney. She didn't care. I found the dress, and - tried it on! Being payday, I had cash burning a large hole in my pocket. I think it was about £50. In 1983. I loved it, the moment I knew it fit.

Made out of some nylon-ish satin, it had a small stain or two - I think they were imperfections in the making of the material, because they didn't match any organic stain I'd ever seen. Lucite "pearls" were sewed across it, running the down the bosom in three lines on each side. A waist "belt" ended in a pretty bow at the back; it had a hook and eye fastening, and fastening it was a three-act play. The shoulders were wide straps, and the back was pretty low for the style of dress. A bit of daring for its original owner, perhaps?

A full skirt, with a lace petticoat or two, completed the garment. That skirt was wonderful - I'd turn, and the skirt would swirl with a wonderful "whoosh"! After a difficult day, I'd put it on, and twirl, just to hear it.

Putting it on was an effort. I'd put a modern, satin, slip on, that I pulled over my waist, simply so that the dress would slide over my hips. I'd do up the zipper, and pull the slip off; I used one slip for the purpose - it was ruined for anything else! I had a different slip for actually wearing the dress - those lace petticoats were scratchy! After the whole "slip thing", I'd try to do up the bow. After a year of practice, I could usually get it the first or second time; it was a pain in the neck! Wearing a contemporary bra was out of the question - especially for a young, very nervous, crossdresser who's bra collection would give the Happy Hooker heartburn. Shoes, at the time, were a confusion - I didn't know my size, didn't think I could ask (it was the early 1980's, and I was in a small northern town in England. Whaddya want?), and I had a collection that varied in every imaginable parameter. One or two even fit! Eventually I found a pair of (lowish) heels that fitted, and were of the right vintage, even if they were not of the right color. Stockings (tights? (pantyhose) Yeah, my Mom wore those) were often the wrong color, and it took me a long time to figure out the right size.

It was heaven on earth.

One thing I never did in that dress was dance. I was big on dancing at the time - I won an award for it, once! (And cleared a dance floor, for three songs!) I wore a full-skirted black dress when I practiced my boogying. With black high heels that sort of fit. Sort of. I can still remember those shoes - can't think why... :-)

I didn't know it at the time, but the buy/purge cycle was pretty common among crossdressers, back then. When I met the lass who became my Mrs, I tossed my entire collection - original designer garments, thrift-store buys, vintage dresses, "casually" purchased lingerie, the lot, the whole lot, the whole damn lot, into a distant canal. It's something you did; you'd buy some clothes, not need to "dress", and toss 'em. I did it because I didn't want her to know I was a crossdresser (yeah, that worked real well), and I thought I was "cured". The worst bit of that whole buy/purge cycle was thinking you were, somehow, miraculously, cured. You weren't. What can cure you if you're the wrong damn gender?

What a damn waste. I loved that dress.

Carolyn Ann

Appropriate attire?

Vanessa, over at her Crossdresser's Heaven, complains about fashion. Apparently, there is the question of attaining the feminine silhouette.

Once upon a time I had a really nice figure. Really. It was quite the hourglass, and I came by it naturally. Considering that I'd never seen the inside of a professional gym, drank beer by the gallon and could still look good in a size 10 (British) - yeah, it was nice. :-)

I could wear dresses like that wonderful 1950's number I had. :-D Sigh... And, just the other day, we were in a department store (the Mrs needed something), and I spotted a yellow gown that was a hideous knock-off of an original designer gown I owned! What are the chances of that? I picked the gown up in Camden Locks (London), if memory serves, although it probably doesn't. Long, graceful and supremely elegant, it was everything this knock-off wasn't. I could wear gowns that emphasized the figure. :-)

These days, I'm substantially larger - and not just around the middle. :-(

So I wear different garments; I have some wonderful dresses from Mexico; one or two serviceable ones from Macy's, and a really smart maroon dress with big black button details that somehow match some circular earrings I have. I feel fabulous in the outfit, even if I still look like a man in a dress. (I even have the perfect shoes!)

All of these outfits do not emphasize one thing: my (lack of) figure. For some reason, I have a lot of clingy T-shirts; I can't wear those. Heck, some of them haven't even been worn! And those skirts? Not a chance. I hang on to them - because they're wonderful, and I might be able to wear them, one day. (Yeah, right.)

In the future, when I have a place to sew my own clothes, I'll go for the more architectural outfits - Vogue has a series of patterns from some Soho designers that look great on the less-than-ideal figure. There are, after all, many styles that look great, feel wonderful and are fabulously feminine - without being figure-revealing (some are, fortunately for me, figure concealing!) and they're usually pretty easy to wear, as well. Speaking strictly for myself, I love some of the art-fashion designers out there. I just wish I could afford their clothing!

But it is an interesting question: why does the transgendered person gravitate to the figure-revealing outfit? I've attended enough outings to know that comfort is not a priority within the transgendered support group goer. (Speaking, again, strictly for myself, comfort is my top priority! Feeling good in the outfit is also a priority, and you can't do that if the damn thing itches and scratches and is too tight. You can't be convincing if you're not comfortable!) I have my theories, but I doubt they'd be well-received within the transgender community. (Most (all?) of my theories don't have the welcome mat laid out for them by the transgender community...)

Either way, I think you should wear what you want. But if you want to look good, you really do need to pay attention to style. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Dr Laura isn't a quitter, like Sarah Palin... Oh, hang on a minute...

So Dr Laura, after using the dreaded n word, has decided that she wants to exercise her 1st Amendment rights somewhere else. Somewhere that probably closely resembles her living room.

She quit her show.

There's a theme here: if you're conservative, outspoken and prone to saying stupid things - quit the job. But redefine it. Pretty much as Bill tried to redefine "is".

National Review, a magazine that used to be good, had a recent thing about why Sarah would be a good president. They had a half-hearted effort on why she would be a bad president, too. The key point? She quit as governor of a state that receives more tax dollars than it sends. She quit when the going got tough. What kind of an example is that? "It's okay folks, I quit so I could makes lots of money on the speecher circuit?" She's everything George W. Bush wasn't. (That, if you're awake, is a terrifying thought.)

So now Dr Laura has proven herself to be a member of the stalwart, come hell or high water or if the going gets a little difficult club. She should find herself in worthy company.

Carolyn Ann

Ouch, Mr President

Maureen Dowd on the President's fumble.

Carolyn Ann

Midnight mutterings

Midnight mutterings. I'm taking the night off. 

I redefined the project, but the deadline stayed - so I'm now a little behind schedule. A password problem with MySQL didn't help.  The solution: "Do you feel lucky, database? Well, do you?" Today was not its lucky day... :-)

Brings to mind a slight issue I had, once. The DBA and the SysAdmin realized they'd screwed up: they'd not only installed Oracle incorrectly, they'd actually managed to install Solaris as if it were a copy of IBM's unix server (what the heck was it called?) The only feasible solution - considering that no data had been loaded? Reinstall.

They were against such a move, so, having been told by my boss to be a "team player", I agreed to their solution. After a little over ten years, I've still not figured out what they intended to do - hard links were involved, and a lot of "mv" commands - we spent the weekend fixing the stupid thing. My way would have been a busy Friday night, with the celebration funded by me. 

Ah well. Long time ago.

I left a note on Questioning Transphobia, apologizing. I have no idea if Lisa Harney has read my apology, here. So I figured the best thing was to apologize where I know she would read it. It's now up to her. 

Overall, I've been rather vicious about Ms Harney. I did feel "somewhat disgruntled" with the way she, and her friends, treated me. I raised a serious issue - and they insult me? Unless I get a categorical denial, and an honest one, I'll still consider "a certain person" responsible for some of the anonymous insults that were dished out. Who wouldn't be angry at them? I get raped, and get laughed at when I question the motives of a rapist? Yeah - it still makes me angry. 

Convenience of argument, and the ability to be anonymous, are no answer. They just reflect immaturity, and an innate inability to operate in the grown-up world.

Religion. Again. Another post.

Carolyn Ann

Opportunity-seeking populism runs, head first, into the 1st Amendment

The spat over the mosque has gone beyond stupid - it's now entered the ridiculous. From the very start, the objections have been hypocritical.

Conservatives, neo-cons and the religiously right wing don't want the government involved in religion, but they do want religion involved in government. Which bit of "power corrupts" do they not understand?

They don't want the government telling them where to build their churches - but they want a definite veto over a mosque. We're not at war with Islam, they cry, only Islamic extremism - but every Muslim is deemed an extremist. They seek to make the WTC site hallowed ground - and are quite happy to let a commercial building arise on it. Eventually. Because the government shouldn't be involved in real property decisions.

Furthermore, they tell us the Constitution should be a sacred document but seek to change it. They say their Bible is a sacred document, but hate criticism of it. These people are 5 year olds being told to have a temper tantrum by their power-hungry, duplicitous and cunning leaders. This isn't any unfortunate whimsy - it's a dangerous manipulation of emotion.

Carolyn Ann

The Expendables

I forgot to mention that I went to see The Expendables, last Friday. What a movie! :-)

A pure testosterone-fest. Manly men, and gory gore. Fists, bullets and kicks rule the day! (And night.) Sensitivity training consists of knowing the most sensitive parts to ram a fist - where it will either hurt the most, or cause the other guy to go down in tears, crying for his Momma. Who is, obviously, a long way away.

But it's a bit different to the usual.

For starters, it has a plot, some good writing, some good bad guys (..?), some good acting and some great action scenes! Oh, and there's a couple of ladies in it, too. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I counted them all: 2. :-)

Let me put it this way: YEEHAA! Go get 'em, boys! :-D

And I'll get the DVD when it comes out... :-)

Carolyn Ann

(I think A. O. Scott in the NY Times said it better... :-) )

Oh: my synopsis to the Mrs: bang, bang, bang! Sarcastic and funny comment, punch, punch, punch, bang, bang, bang, BOOM!

I love this...

From the Green Candle:

You can reasonably expect that…

* words to describe your gender not only exist in every natural language, but are commonplace
...
. * when you see a gender therapist, zie has dealt with people of your gender and will treat you with respect (my emphasis)

Zie is commonplace, is it?

Let me see... It turns up in Wikipedia. It's also the Zimbabwe Institution of Engineers.

Whomever wrote the Wikipedia article starts with an amazing bit of information:

A gender-neutral pronoun is a pronoun that is not associated with any gender.

Wow! I'd have never guessed. Although, to be honest, the "-neutral" bit should have tipped me off. I guess I learn something every day. :-| :-D

Idiots.

Zie is not commonplace. It's contained in a table headed "Invented pronouns". And it's basically meaningless.

In English, words exist to describe a man and a woman. There's a question whether gender-neutral pronouns are needed. If gender isn't important, then yes: gender-neutral pronouns will be needed. But gender is important, and so gender-neutral pronouns aren't required.

(And to prove it, I'll simply point out that the Sickly Green Matchstick says gender is important, simply by discussing it.)

Is there a need for gender-neutral pronouns? I'd argue "some think so". I would, however, say that "zie" isn't on my list of candidates for the job. It's too Germanic, too contrived and far too difficult to remember. He or she are easy; "zie" has one too many letters, and no relation to the current gender-specific third-person pronoun. Ze is arguably confusing and contrived, but a potential, and promising, candidate. (Yeah, yeah - it's Germanic, too. I do hold that against it. That's why it's only promising.)

It all depends on how these English wannabe experts perceive their argument. Will they persuade, or bludgeon? Persuasion usually works.

Carolyn Ann

The crossdresser...

From The New Yorker's Letter from Chicago, July 26, 2010, p45 "What About Me? The United States versus Rod Blagojevich", by David Mendell.

Leaving his radio show the next weekend, Blagojevich was greeted by an autograph seeker, a deeply tanned man wearing lipstick, a strawberry-blond wig, and a dress. The cross-dresser handed Blagojevich a photograph to sign: a picture of Blagojevich and Obama sitting together at a Democratic Party event several years earlier.

Leaving aside the rather obvious suggestion that anyone with any inkling of Chicago politics would know that Blagojevich and Obama can't really stand the sight of each other - was this observation problematic? I'll translate it into the contemporary insistence of transgender being used as a noun:

Leaving his radio show the next weekend, Blagojevich was greeted by an autograph seeker, a transgender wearing lipstick, a strawberry-bland wig... (etc)

Now, if you're going to tell me that sort of usage is acceptable - I have only pity for you. Let's try with the ever-popular "trans":

Leaving his radio show the next weekend, Blagojevich was greeted by a trans autograph seeker...

Convincing me this is any better will be a hard day's work. Telling me it's worse? That's easy - I already know that.

Okay, how about this:

Leaving his radio show the next weekend, Blagojevich was by a transgender autograph seeker...

I'm not sure if that's worse (it is), or just inane. You might as well say "male autograph seeker"; the point is - the gender of the person is relevant. This tells you nothing:

Leaving his radio show the next weekend, Blagojevich was greeted by an autograph seeker, wearing lipstick, a strawberry-blond wig, and a dress.

Who was wearing the lipstick? Mr Blagojevich? Or the autograph seeker? Sure, it could be rephrased, but would the rephrasing, the dropping of the "deeply tanned man" create the impression Mr Mendell sought? Hardly. The entire article would suffer for the lack of this little vignette.

(I haven't forgotten:

Leaving his radio show the next weekend, Blagojevich was greeted by a transgendered autograph seeker, wearing lipstick, a strawberry-blond wig, and a dress.)

:-D

(Tell me that doesn't read better! :-) )

Mr Mendell's words are in keeping with the rest of his piece - a slightly askance, somewhat caustic, look at Rod Blagojevich, erstwhile and currently indicted (but not, so far as I know, convicted) Governor of Illinois. He's continually setting the stage - and the reader is constantly rewarded.

Is he setting the crossdresser up for ridicule? No - he's using the man as a foil (Is that inaccurate gendering of a person? Alas, I will never know, for the simple reason: Mr Mendell is not interested in the crossdresser. (I will note that the New Yorker must have an interesting style guide: crossdresser becomes cross-dresser as reelection becomes reëlection. A spelling that highlights some of the arcane rules that exist in within the English language! If I were to argue the grammar with a literate staff member of The New Yorker, I wouldn't: I'd defer. And learn. :-) )

Some might object to Mr Mendell using the crossdresser as a foil; I can't see why they should. Plenty of writers have used swarthy men and pretty ladies as foils, as aids to their story. Why shouldn't Mr Mendell use an obvious crossdresser as such? Would you rather he wrote:

Leaving his radio show the next weekend, Blagojevich was greeted by an autograph seeker, a woman, wearing lipstick, a strawberry-bland wig... (etc)

That's lying. Sorry - it is. Mr Mendell is iterating the scene as he perceived it. The fact that it fit into his narrative tells me more than if he'd adhered to some arcane, unknowable, ever-changing rule about how he "should" write about a man in a strawberry-blond wig and lipstick.

(Perhaps the man in the wig wants to be known as a man? I don't know, and you don't, either.)

Mr Mendell is a journalist. He obviously thinks about the atmosphere of his essays, and is more than willing to underscore this with an honest observation or two. He uses a quote from Mr Blagojevich's mother to make a point, too. The average reader of The New Yorker is pretty sophisticated; I'd guess know crossdressers' exist. I wouldn't assume they're familiar with the various rules and demanded constraints of writing about men in dresses, seeking autographs from indicted politicians.

Mr Mendell exercise journalistic integrity when he accurately recounts the scene. Should he have described the environment? Some would say "yes", he didn't; I don't think he needed to. His editor at The New Yorker didn't think so, either. If you insist on knowing "all" the details of a moment, I can only suggest you wait for the movie. Assuming that particular moment doesn't end up on the cutting room floor, that is. If it makes it that far!

If your sensibilities are offended by Mr Mendell's description of a moment in time, you're either far too sensitive for the real world, or are in desperate need of a dose of it. If we circumscribe how people can depict individuals, we arrive at a point where we can't depict anyone. And that's where we lose sight of who we are, and, as a side show, kill literature and kill.

Do you really want to live in that world?

Carolyn Ann

Well, don't I feel the louse?

Yes I do.

The reason why.

Sometimes all it takes is wondering why someone is so hardline in their views. Some of my opinions are diametrically the opposite of Ms Harney's, but that's by-the-by.

The greater pity is that she, and her friends, don't extend the same courtesy to others - disagree with them, and you're a pariah. Point out you were raped as a kid, and her friends still vilify you, lend you no empathy and taunt you for being a victim. I know that - they did it to me. Ms Harney was nowhere to be seen in offering what she writes of in her post. She still isn't.

Still, I have a clearer idea of why she holds some of her opinions and attitudes. I don't have to agree with them, there's no demand I like them. I did think I understood them - and I was wrong on that. I'll admit that such a thing could be a possible explanation; it's not something, I think, many would think of! Perhaps if they'd been through it, themselves, but otherwise, it would be extremely difficult to realize that she'd been through an abusive relationship. (Full disclosure: I have helped people get out of abusive relationships; I did not have anything to do with them immediately afterwards. Because of the rules, etc.)

I'll still disagree with Ms Harney (with some of her positions, I couldn't do anything else), but at least I'll know their root. It really does put some of her writing in a new perspective.

Lisa: I apologize for many of words. I do not apologize for disagreeing, but I apologize for some of the anger-ridden rhetoric I've thrown your way.

Carolyn Ann

Unexpectedly hard deadlines?

I hate that sort of deadline - the project suddenly develops a deadline that didn't exist before. I've dealt with unexpected constraints - they happen all the time in construction, in car maintenance, and in many networking projects. Sometimes they can be overcome, but usually they result in a change of plan.

What I really hate are the suddenly changed deadlines. Especially when there's a damn good reason why it has to change.

The deadline changed, last night. Instead of it being a fairly loose "mid-next week", it became "Sunday night".

Ah well. Instead of whining about it, I should just get to it. :-)

Carolyn Ann

That makes sense...

Another installment in the "what is gender" debate...

The Guardian has an article about how gender might be wired into us, but it's not hard-wired. That means the wiring can change. That makes sense - I've read of studies that show people adapt to brain trauma; if that's the case, why shouldn't the brain adapt to gender, as well?

There is one small point, however: if brains can manipulated - then someone can be changed from being gender-dysphoric to accepting their biological gender. Likewise, we could (in theory) give someone gender dysphoria. Which would make some sort of sense.

The male and female bodies give off lots of supporting hormones; as we age, the quantity of hormones changes, and our bodies - and presumably our minds - change as well. This would indicate that some level of reconditioning is possible. How much is probably unknown, and variable. But that doesn't mean that someone who is, for instance, gay can be changed into a "straight" person. It is possible, almost certain, that in such a complex organ as the brain, that some things are hard-wired. Or as they're as close to hard-wired as can be managed. Otherwise there'd be no reason, or affect, for the brain of the male fetus or teenager to be marinated in testosterone. And we know that's not true - the brain is changed by all that testosterone. (It's not mentioned in the article; we know it from Louann Brizendine's "The Male Brain".)

The article says that gender behavior is socially-derived. I'd have to disagree - the animosity the transgendered face surely has a deeper root than that? Otherwise it wouldn't be as individual, or as violent. (I'd hate to have been transgendered in "olden" days! Mind you, I probably wouldn't have survived puberty; assuming I survived childhood, that is. After all, valuing the individual is a fairly recent phenomena.) Certainly some gender behavior and expectations are socially derived, but not everything. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for various differences in attitude.

All in all, the debate about what a man or woman is, and how they're constructed has just begun. We'll undoubtedly be amazed at what is different, and perplexed by what is the same. What all this does do is undercut the superficial religious arguments about gender - "God makes you a certain way", basically. If "God" makes you transgendered, then surely it's not up to anyone to challenge that? Unfortunately for the Christian Evangelic Fundamentalist, we can't force someone to take drugs to "straighten out" their gender dysphoria, nor can we force someone to take a medicine that changes a gay person to a "straight" person. That would be going against the will of God, wouldn't it? :-)

(Oy. Why is it so easy to demolish religious argument? Because they are all built on sand.)

As I've said before, we're not in charge of who we are. In the modern world, we don't know what happens when this or that chemical reaches a fetus what might happen. We have no idea how many people are transgendered, and we have even less information about how many people transgendered individuals there were at any point in history. I think we can safely assume there were some! (The evidence is overwhelming; we also know the transgendered enjoy(ed) a different status in some cultures. That provides ample evidence they've always been around.) The human body, and mind, are complex entities; simplistic arguments about "men", "women" and so on make less and less sense as we start to perceive just how complex we are.

It's all quite fascinating. :-)
(And it underscores how ridiculous and stupid discrimination is.)

Carolyn Ann

Apocalyptica - Enter Sand Man

Refute transgender activists bloggers? Heck no - I've discovered YouTube has lots of interesting music (I knew that already) - and a connection to Blogger! :-)

(Mind you, I'm so hip, I'm out of date... Hang on, that didn't quite come out right... I'm so hip, I'm catching up with 3 years ago? :-) Yeah. Much better... I think? :-D )

Another one:

Carolyn Ann

IRON MAN off the new VON CELLO CD: CELTAR!

Black Sabbath's Iron Man - played on the cello! It's worth watching just for the facial expressions!

(I'm posting this from YouTube, so I have no idea how it's going to turn out.)

Carolyn Ann

It's the end of the...

Apparently, the Middle Class As We Know It Is Coming To An End.

Who knew?

Let me see: being middle class is, erm, yeah. What is middle class? It's a bit like quality, or porn - you know it when you see it. Or live it.

The middle class, right now, are experiencing some unhelpful and untoward issues. But is it the end of striving for a decent living?

Hardly.

Carolyn Ann

Learning picture taking with Lisa Bettany

I came across Lisa Bettany's blog this afternoon - and she's written a very interesting post about bad pictures and the lessons she learned from them.

Considering the enthusiasm for self- [...] portraiture within the transgender community, and how many of those pictures almost work - I thought it useful to bring her post to your attention. Considering I have about 3 transgendered readers (judging by the comments I've received), I'm not sure this suggestion will make much of an impact. :-)

Still, it doesn't hurt to try. :-)
And now I have to get back to work. :-(

Carolyn Ann

Becoming the "other"

In this article, Andrew Sullivan shows that support for gay marriage is increasing; indeed, its on the verge of being the majority opinion.

His final paragraph is interesting:

Of course, the same poll showed an even division on birthright citizenship and hefty opposition to the Cordoba Project. Maybe the new "other" is increasingly not the gays, but Muslims and the children of illegal immigrants. Sigh.

While I think there's something to this statement, he's forgotten, or isn't aware of, how the transgendered community and individual have become the "other".

(He doesn't allow comments on his blog posts, so I think I'll drop him a quick email...

Added:

Mr Sullivan - While I your post about gay marriage was, as usual, interesting and insightful, I do have to nitpick one point. You mention that Muslims and the children of illegal immigrants are, have?, become the "other". While there's a lot of truth to that, perhaps you're not aware that the transgendered are very much the "other" as well?

Unfortunately, the transgender community does not have any well-funded political organizations and lobbyist groups, so the many efforts to curtail and deny the transgendered equal protections usually pass unchallenged. These efforts range from their exclusion in ENDA to local and state governments explicitly denying the transgendered individual any legal protections by including them in hate crimes legislation or equal housing laws.

Just thought you should know,

Sincerely,
(etc)

Carolyn Ann

Why transgender shouldn't be a noun

I, unwillingly, accept that transgender can be a noun, but I don't believe it should be used as such. This comment on T-Central illustrate why:

A transgender has not paid that price, although I suspect that the long term frustration and angst involved in not being and living as the REAL self is in fact a higher price.

The context is irrelevant. (If you're curious, it's a comment about why the transsexual person can feel superior to the merely transgendered.)

That does not read as "The man has not paid that price" or "the woman has not paid that price". What it does is assert that the transgendered individual is of a distinct gender - not a third gender, but a separate one that is neither betwixt nor between. Or perhaps it refers to someone who is between genders. Outside of the usual understanding of gender.

That won't please the "genderqueer" - they seem to prefer to have the monopoly on that view of gender.

Considering that only one dictionary (I wish I could remember which one it was - and I keep forgetting to look it up when I'm Barnes & Noble) lists transgender as a noun, perhaps my disquiet is justified? I will not use it as a noun, that much I know.

Carolyn Ann

Cranky cats

I've got a bunch of cranky cats, here. They want to go out, but a thunderstorm is rolling through. And they don't want to go out in the rain. So they're fighting with each other, and generally being cranky.

It's not like most of them do anything when they're outside. They find a place to flop down, and have a long snooze. Which is what they do in the house. The difference is the location. Ah well - the storm should be over in an hour or so.

In the meantime, I'm hiding. :-)

Carolyn Ann

If they're not going to let fly over...

the United States because of a potential discrepancy with your passport, why would you think they'll let you in? Because you chose to enter through one of the most politicized borders the United States has?

Some new rules have the potential to make life difficult for Ms Brain. The US is now requiring full information for anyone flying over the US. Never mind into the nation! Ms Brain has a conference in New Orleans to attend. So, if there's a discrepancy that prevents her from flying into the US - she plans to fly to Mexico, and enter overland via the US/Mexico border. Getting from, say, Mexico City to the border isn't the easiest thing in the world. There's probably a luxury bus that goes from the northern bus station; getting from the airport to the bus station isn't easy. (I know...) but once you get there - what next? If there's the slightest discrepancy, those border guards aren't likely to be sympathetic to your plight. And it's not like you can say "well, I couldn't get permission to fly into the US, so I'm heading in this way!" That will get her deported - back to Mexico. Need I mention that the border areas of Mexico are experiencing some of the world's worst violence?

I don't get it. I was trying to be helpful.

C'est la vie - her life, her decision. If she gets it wrong, she goes to jail and then gets deported. And she'll be barred from entering the United States for a period from 5 years to life. Like I said - her decision.

Carolyn Ann

Wide-eyed believers and the bomb?

Who is being talked about, here?

“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” he said. “When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening ...”

Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers?

No, it's Benjamin Netanyahu, on the possibility of an Iranian bomb, and the possibility of an Israeli airstrike to prevent that.

Carolyn Ann

In reverse?

Top Gear America - it even sounds like a stupid idea.

Turns out: it is.

(I couldn't watch the trailer. It was so boring.)

Carolyn Ann

Waking up...

For some peculiar, and unknown, reason, I got up early, today. By "early", I mean "before noon-ish". (Which could be on either side of that hour!) :-)

Making my coffee, I noticed the thermometer on the kitchen window climbed a few degrees - promising another scorcher. It hit 102°F, late in the afternoon, yesterday. It'll probably be close to that, today. No rain in sight, and only a slight chance of some in a day or two.

Orange had his 1%; Oscar could hardly keep his eyes open drinking his milk (he prefers the 2%), and Jeremy is feeling very crotchety. Copper is curled up, out cold on the bed. He must have had a busy night!

I finally downloaded some pictures from my cellphone and the camera; I'm so far behind on my Flickr stuff it'll take a concerted effort to catch up! I don't know when I'll have time to do that, though.

The Mrs bought some artisan bread, last night. I think I'll have a couple of slices for breakfast. Although I do fancy some Weetabix; perhaps I'll have both, and scrimp a bit on lunch? I'm still trying to lose weight, although that's proving to be quite the futile effort. No marmalade in the house; I must remember to buy some.

Right, I'd better get on with my day.

Good day to you, too! :-)

Carolyn Ann

An Airline Passengers Code of Conduct

The NY Times has a debate about a Passengers Code of Conduct.

If you travel on an airline, you know the service stinks. If they get you there on time, they turn around and go back, just to keep their poor reputation going. If your bags arrive at the same place, never mind the same time, as you - you have proof that God Exists and He is looking out for You and only You.

So it sucks to take an airplane.

Not that I would know. During the 1990's, I was on airplanes more often than I was on buses. Seriously - I was. In the last decade, I've taken maybe six flights. And I spent 5 weeks doing what others take 6 or 7 hours doing - crossing from the Pacific to the Atlantic. (I did the other way in a little over 2 weeks.) What can I say? That motorcycle isn't terribly fast. :-)

During my flights, I saw quite a lot of bad behavior.

But here's an idea for a code of conduct for passengers:

• The flight attendants are just doing their job. Do you want someone to give you a hard time over your procedures and rules? (Which probably don't have the same safety issues?)
• When you're told not to do something, it's usually for a good reason - something like "you could get hurt". Don't do it
• If you treat the flight attendant as a misbehaving servant, you're the one who looks like an ass, not the flight attendant
• Should the desire to prove how important you are by ignoring the flight attendant overcome you - remember, everyone else thinks you're an ass
• The flight attendant doesn't make the rules. But they will get reprimanded, and maybe lose their job, if they don't make an effort to enforce them
• No matter how frustrated you get, acting like a 5 year old who is denied ice cream is not going to help your case
• If you're frustrated with the flight - imagine how the flight attendant feels. They've had to put with a couple of hundred of you. And they get to do it again, in half an hour
• If you're a man - be a Man, not the selfish brat everyone wanted to beat on
• If you're a woman - be a Lady, not a selfish queen of mean
• (If you're a screaming baby, do everyone a favor and take a rowing boat)
• (If you're transgendered, be the gender you're supposed to be... I'm sorry - was that not PC? :-) )

Remember: it's an aluminum tube you're all in. You're probably a lot of money to take that flight, which is paid for by your employer, and the taxpayer. The flight attendant gets to fly places and enjoy miserable wages, a recalcitrant and condescending management and appalling working conditions: you. Once the flight is over, you get to leave it - the flight attendant gets to enjoy your belligerence, with a hundred different faces attached to it, on the next flight. Which leaves in half an hour.

How's that for a passengers code of conduct?

Carolyn Ann

Insults galore

Apparently I touched a raw nerve with Z.

She's the one that declared war on society for being discriminatory. Turns out, I shouldn't have criticized her. (I got the pronoun from the blog title: sheisz; She Is Z. Is that Zee or Zed?) Well, it seems Z can't handle a little bit of criticism. Heartfelt criticism? Oh, that leads to an ad-hominem attack. Profane criticism? Tears.

Great way to win a war: get angry when someone disagrees with you in a profane way.

Z criticized me (yeah, well), and I wrote a caustic reply. Z's blog suddenly developed a severe case of moderated comments. Fortunately, I copied my replies. How would I know what they were, otherwise? :-) <-Trying to be innocent smiley. (Well, I guess that didn't work...)

Ah well.

Her initial comment to me was, hang on - I want to get it right -  "Fuck you too." Shouldn't that be "Fuck you, too"? I don't know, I really don't, how someone could make such a basic grammatical error. (He says, making about a dozen, himself. :-D )

My replies, because I don't trust her to leave my comments up:

1. 
   
   
   Carolyn Ann said, on 2010-08-11 at 5:09 am

   Your comment is awaiting moderation.

   Oh – that piece of erudition? “Fuck you too?” That one?

   You do express yourself so well. 

   You:
   1. Don’t know what the hell you’re writing about (especially when it comes to characterizing me), and
   2. If that’s how you respond to lil’ ol’ moi – what would do you if someone who makes enough money to own several homes, and a private jet, decided to take you on? Someone like, oh, I don’t know: Rush Limbaugh?

   You’d fold like a cheap newspaper in the rain. Judging by your response to me.

   He makes that much money because he understands the power of words. Get that idea into your head: it’s not about how angry you are. It’s about how you use words. And you don’t. You employ them for 50c an hour.

   Toughen up, dear. If you’re going to declare war on anyone – toughen up. Just a friendly, non-confrontational bit of advice. Oh – and start appreciating words and ideas for what they are. Right now, you’re playing with Barbie dolls.

   But above all: toughen up.

   Reply
2. 
   
   
   Carolyn Ann said, on 2010-08-11 at 5:09 am

   Your comment is awaiting moderation.

   Oh – I forgot: at least you have the courage to take a stand. Unlike some I’ve come across.

   Well done on that – don’t lose that honesty.

   Reply
3. 
   
   
   Carolyn Ann said, on 2010-08-11 at 5:11 am

   Your comment is awaiting moderation.

   Oh, forget what I just said. You’ve put your blog on moderation.

   That’s what people who don’t want debate do. That’s not exactly what people who declare a virtuous “war” do: Let’s have a war, and stop the other side from participating! That way: we WIN!

   Toughen up. Just some friendly advice.

   Reply