And the Giants are 3 to 1 ahead!

An excellent game, with some tense moments. I especially liked Buster Posey's almost casual home run against Daniel O'Day. (I missed Aubrey Huff's two run homer in the 3rd - damn!) I think Madison Bumgarner allowed one Texas Ranger on 2nd; his pitching was superb! I also think it was a wise choice to bring Brian Wilson in to close.

So now the Rangers face an almost impossible task: they have to win the next 3 games. San Francisco just has to win one.

LETS GO SAN FRAN-CIS-CO!
:-)
(The only decent usage of "cis" I can think of... :-D And yes, I know it's supposed to be "GI-ANTS". I happen to like the sound of SAN-FRAN-CIS-CO!

Carolyn Ann

Live blogging The Rally To Restore Sanity... (on telly)

12:20: I've been watching since noon (when it started), and so far it's the Rally For Soporifics... Some band called "Roots" is playing, unintelligibly I might add. And then, in an effort to rally the crowd, and get them wound up, John Legend appeared on stage... And sang a hymn. Or a lullaby, I'm not sure which.

The crowd isn't into it.

At this point I'm glad we didn't go.

12:22: Where's that damn mute button? This is terrible!

12:23: The crowd is getting bored.

12:30: Nice shirt. The logo was "Taking it down a notch"

Those idiots are still on stage.

Why didn't they start with "What's Goin' On?" or "Born in the USA"? Why oh why?!?

(I notice the Democrats really helped. They have President Obama in Philadelphia... He should be on the other side of the country! In Nevada or somewhere.)

12:35: Is it me, or are these people really, really boring?

12:40: The MythBusters?!? At least they're more entertaining... Actually they're way more entertaining!

12:42: "Birthers for Hawaii Statehood!" LOL!

12:44: 150,000 attending? That's a BIG crowd!

12:49: The Wave didn't quite work, here. Two of us and a cat... Not quite the same as that crowd!

12:54: The Guardian and The Times didn't like the "concert", either.

12:56: YEES!!! Jon is ON!!! YEAH!!! FINALLY!!!!

12:58: National anthem time...
(good voices!)
Based on what I'm hearing, I think they should do the anthem at a World Series game! :-)
PLAY BAALLL!

1:04: Demographics... This will take awhile...

1:08: Stephen Colbert!!! As crazy as ever!

1:16: Father Guido Sarducci - thanking God for the relative ease of finding parking spaces!

Jews and Muslims could build on the fact they both don't eat pork!

So many religions, so little time!

1:20: What is Colbert wearing?

1:21: Sam Waterson. Reading the "greatest poem ever written"?

Oh dear!..

1:25: Cat Stevens, aka Yusuf
(This should be good!) Damn! I know this song, but I can't think of the title!
AH! Peace Train!

1:28: Ozzy Osbourne?!?

1:33 The Love Train! (The O' Jays)

1:38: Moments of Momentary Unreasonableness
(huh?)

1:44: Medals for Reasonableness! Armando Gallaraga... Velma Hart [sp...] ... Mick Foley! Jacob eisen [sp? Name?]

1:46: Medals for Fear... News organizations that banned their employees attending... Anderson Cooper's Tight Black T-Shirt... ??? Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)

1:47 Mavis Staples & Jeff Tweedy. ... Who are they? (Nice singing.)
(The Mrs tells me she's lead for the Staple Singers. I vaguely recollect who they are...)

1:55: PK Winsome's... Who?

This rally is not as good as it could be
On the other hand, there's none of the fear and loathing of Glenn Beck's effort

This guy is seriously not funny...

1:59: Everyone has a right to be patriotic! (Patriotism is not an abstract concept in America...)

2:11: Kid Rock. This should be interesting.

This guy is what John Legend wants to be when he learns how to sing...

2:25: Keynote...

Colbert: Could have burned this field to the ground!

A new thing to be afraid of! (Corbamite... sp? What the heck?)

Kareem wotsiname (Abdul-Jabbar)
R2D2?!?
Fearzilla... Stephen Colbert, in paper-mache form...
Ah - A montage of fear-mongering. Why is it all Fox News? (Glenn Beck: Wake up soon , or we'll wake up dead...)
What's wrong with America? Quite a neat little montage!

John Oliver as a pixie? Peter Pan?

2:40: Clapping for Jon!
Chanting: "Will this help?"

Stephen Colbert is melting. And he's now arguing that he's really dead...
He's crazy!

2:45: The soliloquy: We live in hard times - not end times.

"The inability to differentiate terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe, not more!"
"See no-ones humanity but their own"
"The light at the end of the tunnel might not be the Promised Land, it might just be New Jersey!"

2:55: TONY BENNETT!!! Yay!
(Looking good... Sounding good!)

2:58: I'll Take You There! By the cast of the show. :-)
(Sign: Make awkward sexual advances, not war"!)

3:00 Roll credits...

I'm kind of glad I watched it at home. I'm glad I watched it. :-)

Carolyn Ann

(We've switched to CNN.)

Damn! I really wanted...

to attend The Rally to Restore Sanity!

But our bank account disagreed.

Ah well. We'll watch it on the telly.

Damn! I really wanted a T-Shirt from the event. Oh well.

Carolyn Ann

Tea is GOP's cocaine?

Niall Stanage, writing in The Guardian, has interesting take on the whole Tea Party phenomena. One line, in particular, "rung that bell":

The answer is becoming ever clearer. Tea is the Republican party's cocaine: thrilling for a moment, but ruinous over time.

After reading that, I'm starting to think Karl Rove has made a grievous error: he's now the patsy, the person who wittingly funds the addict in the hope they'll get better with soft love.

What I do know is that the GOP is having a wild party, and tomorrow will bring about the hangover. It's more a question of how grumpy they'll be to the rest of the nation. So far they're proving to be nasty drunks, which leads me to believe they certainly won't be accepting of their condition when they wake up. Will they go for the hair of the dog that bit them? Somehow I don't think they'll pledge, and mean, abstention! I don't think they'll reach for the aspirin, either.

Whatever they do, it's not going to be pretty.

Carolyn Ann

A nightmare for Texans. And it's not even All Hallow's Eve!

Tonight's game was "interesting". I think the 7th inning started with San Francisco at 1-0. By the time the 8th was over, the Giants were 9 over the Texas Rangers. And then it was a shut out.

Aww. Poor Texas. :-D

I don't know, Texas really can't get their pitching together. Entering the 8th, it was 2-0 San Francisco. And then... Texas loaded the bases and... 11 balls, resulting in 3 walks? One after the other?!? And that 12th pitch wasn't particularly well inside the strike zone, either! What was it - 3 or 4 runs walked in? It was so ludicrous I forgot to count! Texas loaded the bases on walks, and then just kept throwing ball after ball. With no one warming up! Joe Torre, when he managed the Yankees, had a habit of leaving pitchers in far too long. The Rangers did a good impression of baseball masochism. That's how long he was in!

Good grief. Well, I'll give credit where it's due: the Rangers didn't give up. They just couldn't get it together at the worst possible time. San Francisco is now leading the series 2-0.

I wonder what they're doing in Dallas? :-D

Carolyn Ann

Another Good Grief Moment...

Amber Yust went to her local, San Francsico, DMV to get her name changed on her drivers license. The DMV official then felt it was necessary to send a personal letter to Ms Yust's home, telling her she was an "abomination", had made a "very evil decision" and would go to hell.

Nice bit of Christian charity, right?

The reason for this outpouring of Christian "love"? Ms Yust is a transgender woman.

This is up there with those two idiots in Utah.

I wonder what the penalty for misusing private information is in California? I sincerely hope it's time in a penitentiary. Such actions fall beyond any objections to someone's private business, and firmly into the realm of public trust. I'll be watching how this one develops.

Carolyn Ann

PS I spotted the story at Transtalk.

The case for deregulation of businesses

Here's a strong argument why businesses, like Haliburton and BP, shouldn't be forced to live with excessive and onerous regulations.

After all - if they hadn't been made to test the cement they were going to use, they wouldn't know it wasn't strong enough! And they could avoid any blame for their actions. Or the 11 men killed on the rig. Or the biggest oil spill in history.

So you see - the Tea Partiers are right. No one needs regulations, especially not environmental and safety regulations.

Idiots. The damn lot.

Carolyn Ann

God Bless America, and the God Bless the Republicans and The Tea Party!

It seems that the Republicans and Tea Partiers need a "final", cataclysmic apocalyptic important speech. It needs to be stirring, hit the major themes, and generally appeal to the unthinking violently-inclined right wing voter. No one else matters, what with them being commies and LIBERALS and all.

Guidelines:
- No press, except Fox News. (Remember: Fox News is not the lamestream press.) If you don't invite the press to cover your speech, you'll be consistent with your continued efforts to not speak to the press. You can later claim that the press hasn't covered your campaign very effectively, and totally ignored your speech. Don't forget to complain, to the lamestream press, that they're not covering you. Make sure you duck, or totally ignore, any awkward questions

- If a Fox News reporter comes across as being a reporter, report him or her to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity

- You should not change this speech. Towing the party line is critical for our defense of freedom. Remember: you can't have freedom if everyone has their own opinion

- Please book a Country and/or Western singer to sing before you go before the crowd. The singer should be so enthralled with right wing demagoguery they sing patriotic songs and a crowd-pleasing rendition of that old favorite "God Save Sarah Palin" (don't forget: it's to the tune of the English National Anthem, not Deutschland Über Alles.)

-Do NOT give the speech in a lesbian bondage club. If that's the only venue available, please make sure you invite Michael Steele

- Do NOT book the Dixie Chicks. They criticized our Dear Leader, and even produced an album of defiant songs. We cannot tolerate such freedom of expression. Don't forget: we stand for freedom!

- Do NOT book Ann Coulter. She spoke to a bunch of Republican Queers, and we can't be acknowledging Republicans are homosexuals, too there are any Republican homosexuals

- Please, for the love of God and America, please make sure the Klu Klux Klan, the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, the local Christian Militia, your 2nd Amendment-loving neighbors or any other officially unapproved (but unofficially approved) organization are not hired to do security

- If there is no other choice, please ask them to leave their hoods, colors, M16's and heavy artillery at home

- Please do not handcuff reporters to chairs, Tea Party members or other immobile objects

- If someone stands on the head of a protestor, please make sure all footage of the event is deleted. You can send it to your friends and coworkers, but remember: it's embarrassing when the lamestream media gets hold of it

- Please try not to waterboard protestors, or leave any marks on them

- If you're called on to explain any allegedly violent words, you MUST explain that your words were taken out of context

Notes:
- Rich Iott: Please do NOT wear your Waffen-SS uniform to the event. Also, don't sing "Deutschland Über Alles", or set any words to that tune. Please try not to salute, either. Do NOT give that salute regardless of how patriotic you feel

- Christine O'Donnell: Please don't draw attention to the fact that you're not a witch

- Sharon Angle: Please try harder in duping the press. It's not enough for them to not know how you're running away from them fleeing avoiding them exiting the venue; if they see even a hint of your hair or an advisor, they can, and even more dangerously, ask questions. You must do all you can to keep that from happening

- Rand Paul: Please try not to get into economics. We don't understand it, you don't understand it and your audience doesn't care. On the other hand, please feel free to mention gold standards, Medicare fraud, and other economic issues. Please do not be tempted to offer solutions - we are about complaining and whining, not achieving

- Joe Miller: Whatever you do, try not to mention that you're a proven liar and cheat. Don't apologize for being so. After all, it's the only we can win this election!

One final note, if you're unsure of any point, don't be. It has been approved at Politburo level by Sarah Herself by Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity Our Benevolent Benefactors Sponsors, the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch and other Party leaders

Always remember: We're stand for freedom. Except those freedoms we don't like or make us go "yuck!". Or those that prevent the rich getting richer at our expense.

Please note: Explanations are in square brackets. These are square brackets: [ ]. You need to know these explanations so you can be convincing. Please sneer at the right moments; these are noted in the speech. Words in italics (this is a word that is italicized in italics) Remember: The right wing voter doesn't care who you are or what you've done - they want passion and incomprehension authenticity!

The Speech:
=========
Friends, Americans and Threadbare Patriots!
Listen to me!
We are here to bury the Liberal scourge!
Even though they, the liberals, claim they were duly elected,
they stole the last election!
And we WILL take our nation back from them!
The evil they do in their lives
is matched by the good of their buried bones;
the Second Amendment is almost too good for them!

The liberals have ambitions beyond any we have
Not for us the strivings for a better, more just, society!
Not for us the acceptance of diversity and growth!
Not for us any level playing field!
Not for us an environment and world that can pass onto our grandchildren!
Not for us any government handouts!
Not for us any changes to Social Security and Medicare!
No, we want, Demand!, a government that betrays our better instincts!
We demand a government that can't possibly balance the budget!
We demand no government bail outs!
Even if they're the only way of keeping the economy going!
We demand that the government keep its hands off our Medicare!
We demand all sorts of things that we vaguely, if at all, define!

Listen to me!
Listen to me!
We are noble men [mention women if you're concerned about sexism. You liberal.]
Ours is not a grievous fault, ignorance of the issues we yell about is our birthright!
I look forward to the day when we rally at the liberal funeral!
They are the ones who tell us alcohol and guns don't mix!
They are the ones who tell us that the police should be able to track weapons used in crimes!
They are the ones who tell us that we're at fault for selling lots of automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels! Let me tell you - if Mexico had our gun laws, there wouldn't be a drug problem in Mexico! You can see how well this has worked in America!
Liberals are the ones who want to take away your guns! Mark my words, given half a chance, they'll hold you responsible for shooting that terrorist, that bank robber, that jaywalker!

[This is inserted for Governor Chris Christie, but feel free to use it if you want]
In this great land of ours, we cannot afford to set our eyes on lofty goals!
We cannot afford to build bridges and tunnels that will provide jobs, boost the local economy,
improve the national infrastructure or be in any way ambitious! We must set our sights on the petty, the small, the trivial.
Not for us the grand ambitions of past generations!
Not for us the striving to do what seems impossible!

We Republicans, we Tea Party, we decrepit Patriots choose mediocrity, not ambition! We choose not to do what is ambitious and venturous, not because that is hard, but because we are really mediocre! Because we don't like goals that serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills! Because we're really unwilling to accept challenges, are eager to postpone, or even cancel, that which has a slight danger of making us a better nation, a better place. We vilify those who choose the hard, and ridicule those who try to do what seems impossible!

The Demcrats, this Muslim President of ours, wanted a beachhead of cooperation! He wanted to push back the jungle of suspicion! A new balance of power, one that gives people their rights over the fattened corporation, where the weak felt secure and peace was assured! Fat chance!
We fight to ensure the rights of corporations over citizens!
We fight to ensure the weak are pummeled!
We fight to ensure that we get into meaningless wars!
We fight for mediocre thinking and education!
We fight for mediocrity!

The liberals fight to educate our children, so they may take on these grand, expensive, tax-raising challenges they so love! We fight them, and we fight for more than a mediocre eduction! We fight for an education that is so blatantly stupid it's difficult to describe! Not for us the facts of evolution! Not for us the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson! Not for us the actual history of the nation!

Speaking of which!
Speaking of which!
These liberals would have you believe The Constitution of the United States was a living document! That our Founding Fathers didn't have the wisdom to anticipate every eventuality, or even know that the world would change! We fight them, these liberals, with obscure writings from even more obscure authors, with literal interpretations of the bits we like and flexible interpretations of the bits we don't, with flexible interpretations of the bits we like and rigid interpretations of the bits we don't! We might not know what we're talking about when it comes that sacred document, but coherence has never been a stop sign for us!

What about the Constitution don't these liberals understand? [It's okay to pause for a laugh, here. If your audience doesn't understand the joke, laugh out loud; they'll laugh with you even if they don't know what you're laughing about.]

Our vision, OUR vision, for America is anchored in time-tested truths that the government that governs least governs best, that the Constitution provides the path to a more perfect union — it’s the Constitution! Going back to what our founders and our founding documents mean — they’re quite clear — we need create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments!

Listen to me!
Listen to me!
The First Amendment doesn't say there's a wall between church and state!
We fight for a theocracy!
We fight to ensure that the Bible of Jesus Christ is our bedrock!
We are a Christian Nation!
We are really scared of the Apocalypse!
We're really scared of pretty much everything!

In our Holy War against Islam, we fight not the ordinary, peaceful Muslim - we fight and fear all Muslims! We fear Muslims because there has never been a Christian terrorist! We fear Muslims because all Muslims are terrorists! We fear Muslims because we don't understand Islam! And don't want to make any effort to!

[Pause for effect, here]

Listen to me!
Listen to me!
We are here to take America back from the duly elected government!
We are here because we can't make up our minds what we want!
We are fighting because we like to be recalcitrant two year olds who don't know what they want, but want it NOW!
We are here because we don't like blacks being president!

I challenge Imam [it helps if you sneer that] Obama to show us his birth certificate! I'll tell you - he can't! So many years ago, Hawaii joined the union, and then someone placed birth notices in Hawaiian newspapers to fool us into thinking that the socialists [sneer that, too] were not coming for us! They, they, those politicians [sneer that, too] of the United Nations [really sneer that] knew, forty or fifty years later that this radical Muslim would enthrall the American People, and lead them into a communist, fascist paradise [sneer that]!

We don't want no paradise! We want misery for all except the really rich! We want politicians that are easily bought and paid for! We want corporate fat cats to get even richer, to destroy our land, to kill our miners by ignoring regulations! We want the judiciary to be ours and not balanced, or fair! We don't want judges who read the Constitution and see equal rights in it! We want judges who don't read the Constitution! Who abide by OUR principles, no matter how discriminatory they are! We don't care about equal rights! We don't care about women! We don't care about gays!

We want America to be a God-fearing right-wing theocracy! These atheists and secular humanists [sneer at both] will lead us into a Godless world, where Christian doctrine is ignored and men mate with beasts and marry them!

Those atheists and liberals [sneer at both] argue that they have a right to their opinions! They don't! We don't want people voicing opinions we don't like!
As a free nation, we can't have people alleging they have the freedom to contradict Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck!
As a free nation, we can't have atheists and liberals claiming any rights!
As a free nation, we can't have liberals among us!
We can't tolerate that freedom, that anarchy!
We can't have Americans living as they want, as they do in liberal [sneer] cities like New York or Los Angeles! Those elites want us to embrace their idea of America as a free nation! While they strive to put the yoke of liberalism upon us! Liberalism, with its tolerance for gays and the transgendered [really big sneer], it's acceptance of Muslims and Mormons! It's love of abortion and euthanasia! Their worship of evolution and "scientific fact"[big sneer]! We want, DEMAND, sound bite solutions to complex, real world problems!

Those elites pander to the lamestream press, and the lamestream press panders to them! We are different! We don't think, we watch Fox News to learn the party line, and then parrot it incessantly! We're not elites, thinking for ourselves! We fear those who think for themselves!

We don't want Americans living as they want - we demand the right to dictate how others should live! We stand for FREEDOM! OUR freedom! They say we're fearful! I can tell you we are not fearful! The only thing we fear is EVERYTHING we don't like!

Our freedom is freedom from!
Our freedom isn't brave!
Our freedom is fearful of others, of change
Our freedom is absolutely terrified of boldness!
We stand for OUR freedom - not YOURS!

Vote for me and I will ensure you never have a fair playing field to start from! I'll work to make it difficult for you to succeed, and easy for a corporation to make you fail! I protect the big corporations from regulations that make things better for you! I'll work, tirelessly, to protect the rights of your insurance company to cancel your policy because your child suddenly developed a life-threatening illness! I'll make sure the insurance company can say "tough luck!" when you fall ill! I'll make sure the banks can gouge you, force you to enter agreements no one can understand, and that they can fleece you with unknowable fees! I'll protect the rights of those who strive to create monopolies of critical parts of our society! I'll do it all in the name of FREEDOM! I'll do it for their FREEDOM, not YOURS!

God Bless America, and the God Bless the Republicans and The Tea Party!

===
Quick note to anyone considering using this speech: please pay me a gazillion dollars, or whatever Sarah Palin's current fee is, in advance.

Inspirations for the speech include Antony's little effort to the citizens of Rome, some things Sarah has muttered, Pastor Steven Broden, and JFK, along with a brief nod to TDR.

Carolyn Ann

I'm getting good at this...

Unfortunately, the thing I'm getting good at is "screwing up" some aspect of my various projects. Okay, let me provide that with a new context: I'm not so much screwing up as making mistakes of such magnitude, it's best to scratch most of what I've done, and start again. :-(

Last night (in the wee hours of this morning, more accurately) I finally figured out why something was so damned hard. My database design made it hard. Oops.

Oh well. At least this time all I have to do is figure out a new database structure. And make sure all the code is changed and works against that new structure. Good job I kept decent documentation... Oh. It seems I forgot to do very much of that, too.

So far a project that should have taken a few weeks is taking decades. Dynasties rise and fall. Ice ages come and go. Galaxies form and collide. Universes are created. Eternal Gods look down in aghast wonder. And so on.

Back to the drawing board! :-)

Carolyn Ann

He wants what?

Tim Profitt, the chap who stood on Lauren Valle's head wants her to apologize to him!

His inspiration must be Dick Cheney. As you might recall, he somehow managed to shoot a friend in the face, who later apologized to him for standing in the way of Dick's gun!

Mr Profitt must be thinking that it's her fault he stood on her, never mind pushing his foot into her head. After all, she made him angry and how can he, a grown man, be expected to control his emotions and anger? How could she expect him to behave reasonably? She provoked him with her effort to stage a peaceful political stunt! The gall of the girl! My goodness, next thing you know he'll be telling us he favors being responsible for your own actions!

It's not like he's bigger than her or anything. Or has numerous allies, helping push her and hold her down! After all, he's only much bigger than her. And he only had a five or six helpers (from what I can see). For a wee lass with a sign and an objective he didn't like.

In all fairness, he did have a button that told all and sundry, or at least those who cared to read it, "Don't tread on me". I'm guessing Ms Valle didn't have such a button, otherwise he wouldn't have trod on her! All her fault, you see.

Oh, apparently he has a bad back. Which is why his foot ground into her head. His foot must have done it, because he clearly didn't.

To summarize:
- She was trying to do a peaceful political stunt
- He's a big chap, and she's not
- He had a lot of help, and she was, to all intents and purposes, on her own
- She was pushed to the ground by an unseemly, angry, mob
- He had his foot on her neck
- He ground his foot into her head

All her fault! My goodness, why doesn't anyone else see it that way?

Maybe because he's the one doing the assault? Darn facts. They do keep getting in the way.

Carolyn Ann

A conversation that went personal quite rapidly

Anne, over at Elle Es Asi, had some suggestions for me:

@ Carolyn Ann, might I suggets that when yo re-do your profile you change your handle/avatar to either Carolyn or if yu prefer Carol Ann Carolyn-Ann, just doesn't sound quite right.

Anne also has a problem with my being a bit of an unrepentant former-ish Socialist:

Also, while you are at it might you also clarify the seeming contradiction in terminology. You see, I really do have "issues" with the word "transgender". It just seems so fluid in its definition, so much like 'socialist' in the hands of of a confirmed self defined 'ex socialist'. Is that flip flopping or just a change in self identification, like those politician do....oh I get it, spin!

But, after spelling Jews as "jews", in a different post, can't seem to get the idea that proper nouns should be capitalized:

... I will ask you to respect that just as I can respect your steely nerves when [you] board a plane with a small group of obviously muslim(is that a proper noun too? Seems like an adjective here), men and have not even a hint of doubt as to their benign intentions. But you see that is you and not me.

I'm loath to ask if Anne considers "christian" to be acceptable. And, for the record, I don't get all paranoid and fearsome when I see a group of Muslims on a plane. In the 1980's I didn't consider all Irishmen to be working for the IRA, either. Odd that, don't you think? Not painting an entire population with a brush that is used by a few?
And finally, Anne has a suggestion for my blog profile:

YOUR profile describes you as Male and trannsgender. To me that means a man that "transits" or crossesover genders.

So does that mean that you occasionally adopt the gender role of a woman? Because, you see, I see no problem with that whatsoever. I mean, if it feels good, DO iT!

Just don't do it in women's spaces, because, just because you put on a dress does not change the fact that you are still a man and most women would object to ther privacy being so rudely invaded.

And yes Carolyn, that is where I stand.

(I'm ignoring the many errors.)

(I tried to edit the comment, but couldn't do much in the time I made available, or do so without losing something of Anne's vitriolic voice. Sorry.)

Just for Anne's knowledge - no, I do not "adopt the gender role of a woman". Mostly because I don't subscribe to such arcane and primitive notions, but also because I think such ideas are stupid to begin with. (Oh, did I repeat myself? I think I did... :-) ) Also, I don't really care if Anne approves of my attire or gender identification. I know that whatever I wear, I'm still a man; it's not something that delights me, as regular readers of this blog will know. I don't care if she doesn't understand the play on words I use in my blog title and subtitle. Heck, I'm not bothered that Annie finds my name offensive (I did pick it myself! :-) ). What I think is interesting is that Anne ridicules someone's gender issues, is hardline on issues I merely [?..] ask questions about (not knowing the answer), is boastfully discriminatory, and is endorsed by T-Central.

Carolyn Ann

Ch-ch-changes...

Anne, over at Elle Es Asi, in a reply to me, said:

Our president offers us more socialism, more political correctness, higher taxes, and less freedom. This is not my cup of tea. As a self proclaimed entrepenuer and crossdresser, I cannot understand how it would be yours.

First things first - Anne called me "C.A." I tolerate that from friends.

Anne is not a friend.

I believe Mr Obama offers us more freedom, a better, more level, playing field, a more competitive America and is realistic about the true cost of it all. Besides which - our taxes went down under his programs.

Of course Fox News will tell us Mr Obama wants to raise taxes. If you're Juan Williams, who was just offered a $2M, 3-year contract, you will end up paying more taxes. Why should Warren Buffet pay a lower tax rate (16%) than his secretary (33%)? As Mr Buffet, himself, has noted! In a progressive tax system, if you earn more - you pay more. Your success is dependent upon society doing well, as a whole (unless your name is Koch), so you should pay more.

Anyway, Anne pointed out that my profile still said "crossdresser". So I've changed it.

And Kinsey Hope, who goes by the rather ugly title of genderbitch, pointed out that I'm an impatient sod. So I decided to use her observation as the first item in a new column: "Accolades". It's under the bit about free speech. (Which I'm sure is generally ignored.) Kinsey Hope is a pretty name; it doesn't quite "ring" with genderbitch. C'est la vie, etc.

I was going to change the background theme, but I'm off to bed, instead. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Vladimir Putin is a roadblock to democracy?

Who knew?

Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who set the Soviet Union on the road to being a democratic Russia has issued some stinging criticisms of Vladimir Putin. Mr Putin's spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, replied that the opposition isn't well liked:

Neither Putin personally nor United Russia as a political party can be held responsible for the inability of other parties to produce anything promising for citizens of this country.

I'm not sure, but I think it's very difficult to become known, never mind liked, if reporters are threatened when they write about you, you end up in jail on trumped up charges and the election you were running in was cancelled on the orders of one Vladimir Putin, President or Prime Minister or whatever he is next week, of Russia.

I must admit, I often wonder if Mr Putin is angry that the Soviet Union collapsed. I think he wanted that top Politburo job. So now he's doing his level best to recreate it.

And people worry about China...

Carolyn Ann

NY Botanical Garden Model Train Show

NY Botanical Garden Model Train Show
Originally uploaded by carolyn_ann_grant

Someone, lacecurtainmama, decided to use one of my pictures on ExpressTrainSet.com. She did not ask for permission - despite the fact that the photo page clearly says "All Rights Reserved".

The thing is - if she'd asked permission, I'd probably have given it. But she didn't.

I'm not telling ExpressTrainSet.com to take the picture down, but I'd like to know why they felt they didn't need my permission.

Sodding 'eck.

Carolyn Ann

Why isn't Questioning Transphobia writing about this?

I keep checking QT, hoping Ms Harney or Ms Emily will write about this article in the NY Times. (It's the one about the number of transgender candidates in this year's election.)

But they haven't squeaked a word about it.

Is it because the candidates are competing in capitalist races? Or because not a single one of them is competing on far left political positions? It's not like there's a lot to complain about - we've got everything from a candidate referring to his opponent as an "it", and a Florida candidate who opposes gay marriage. (Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out the philosophical grounds of that one, too. I suspect there isn't any.)

I think Ms Harney and Ms Emily haven't written about the races because they are about empowering transgender candidates and people. They're not about being victims. After all, unless you're campaigning as a Tea Party candidate, being a victim is not going to appeal to the voting public.

I've also noticed that the number of comments has declined on QT since they put up a banner that says "Capitalism is an act of war upon the poor and the working class". Perhaps their audience isn't quite as willing to blame capitalism for all that ails the transgender community? What an outdated sentiment it is, anyway!

Has Questioning Transphobia achieved irrelevance? I'm beginning to suspect it has.

Carolyn Ann

The Tea Party Fights Voter Fraud - With Intimidation...

The Raving Right  is on its usual election day rant: their perennial complaint about (essentially nonexistent) voter fraud. They're worried that someone other than their candidate might get elected.

I swear, if these people were allowed to, they'd impose Soviet style "freedoms". So we can be free. Or something.

What these morons propose to do is interview people, and challenge anyone they don't think should be voting. So if you're black, Asian, Hispanic, flamboyant, transgender, foreign looking, young, old, young black and male, black and female, or just nervous to be around so many very angry people - they'll challenge your right to vote.

All in the name of preventing voter fraud. What a cause! What a generous gesture... I mean, we can't have people who weren't allowed to vote in 1776 being allowed to vote now, can we?

The only fraud going on around those Witless Wonders is the fraud they are inflicting upon the democratic process.

Carolyn Ann

Apparently it wasn't his fault...

Tim Profitt, the man who stepped on the head of a Rand Paul protestor, said he did the deed. Be he blamed the police for not calming the crowd, and the protestor for, well, protesting.

It seems that people wanted the cops to stop her protesting. (So much for free speech, huh?)

So it wasn't his fault his foot ended up on Lauren Valle's head. You see. It was the cops' fault for not preventing the situation where he felt compelled to put his foot on her head.

Here's hoping he's charged.

Good take on it all here.

Carolyn Ann

Good grief!

So a bunch of Rand Paul supporters pushed a protestor down, and then one of them trod on her head.

Wow.

The Tea Party at its best, no doubt.

First we have the Republican Vice Presidential candidate telling her supporters to lock and load. Then a Tea Party candidate who feels a need to tell us she's not a witch. Then another telling a reporter he'll "take him out". And then another who has his security detail handcuff a reporter - basically for asking awkward questions. And now we have one who's supporters prefer violence.

On top of that, it seems that a bunch of Tea Party and Republican candidates can't read. Or at least they can't read the 1st Amendment.

Yup. The Tea Party and the Republicans at their best. I dread to think what their worst could possibly be! I sincerely hope we never have to find out.

Carolyn Ann

Taking a moment...

Phew. I need a short break. All this intellectual exercise is tiring me out!

(What am I doing? Working on a project of mine... :-) )

It's the first chance I've had to work on my projects in awhile. This college course requires a lot of reading, and considering that I have other stuff to do as well - I found I didn't have much time for much of anything else.

(For the first time in awhile, I decided to wear a bracelet. It's one I got somewhere in the southwest a few years back - it's silver and turquoise. It has a screw fastening that I can't seem to get undone. So it's rattling on the laptop like there's no tomorrow. After I put it on, and started typing, I remembered why I stopped wearing bracelets... :-|  )

I'm hungry, too. It must be about lunch time. :-) (Munch, munch...)

Carolyn Ann

Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!

Kinsey Hope just told me I'm

...the most godawfully impatient human being I have ever met."

And that I should

"Learn to wait without blowing a gasket."

Hmm. All I can say is: Nah.

Funnily enough, the Mrs and I were discussing my considerable number of achievements, the other day. I'm quite proud of them. :-) Being patient wouldn't have gained me those accomplishments, nor would it have gotten us into the straights were currently in! (Oops.) I've packed a lot into the last twenty years; I intend to pack a lot more into the next twenty or thirty.

I like life. I like living it. (And anyone who knows me knows that I really am not good at waiting.)

Live life at full throttle, as they say. I like to. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Leaf-peeping at Monkton, MD

Last Friday we decided to treat ourselves and do some leaf-peeping in Maryland. We know a lovely little village, Monkton, that has a nice walk in it. There used to be a lovely art gallery there,  but it closed somewhere in the previous year. (It's about a year since I took a ride over there!)

Anyway, some of the pictures are here. :-)

Carolyn Ann

A monarchy, for all intents and purposes...

The first mega church, the Crystal Cathedral,in California, has a bit of a problem. It's forty-odd million dollars in debt, and the family that run the place can't figure out a succession.

Say what?

Let me get this straight: a church is having a problem because the family of the founding pastor can't get the succession right? The succession to what - the royal throne? Considering the sums of money that seem to be involved, it might as well be. But wait - there's more! Apparently the media side of this church didn't quite keep up with the times. As a result, it's not the most popular religious program, and its audience numbers are dwindling. Smaller audience, smaller advertising, smaller base for donations, less money. And then there's the church they sold for $22M. It was the training ground for the son. By all accounts the dauphin isn't quite the stellar star they were all hoping for. He was removed from office in a palace coup. Led by his sisters.

Let me guess: this isn't about who's the best at passing on the word of some deity or other. This is about money. Disputes about money will always bring a monarchy down. Or highlight the fact that it actually exists.

Carolyn Ann

They like conspiracies

Politics are, of course, a fascinating subject. Not quite a blood sport, but not quite a fair game, either, they are the epitome of sense and reason being beaten to a hopefully bloody pulp on the sidewalk. In general, however, politics are about policy (duh...), and the art of the possible. As some famous politician once observed.

Any sensible person would assume that politics is the art of keeping your enemies happy; they'd be wrong. That's diplomacy - an entirely different trade to the politician's. Both may lie, but one does it by necessity and the other because it needs to. No, in politics you make as many friends as you can, and hope they don't become enemies. Unless you're a Social Democrat, you'll make enemies aplenty, anyway. Actually, if you're a Social Democrat you can probably count everyone, including your dog, as an enemy. To be honest, your goldfish will hate you every second turn around the goldfish bowl. Think positive: at least your goldfish is fond of you at feeding time.

The art of politics lies in the surreal mixture of promising to do things, and then riding the storm when you actually do those things you promised. As a politician, your constituency might differ on what they were promised, but they'll punish you for delivering whatever it is they wanted, anyway. It has always been thus.

Another thing that has always been is the artfulness political commentary. No political commentator could, or if they were half way decent, would tell the truth. Promising unbiased political opinion is a bit like promising that you'll take the trash out. No one except the garbageman, and your spouse, is interested.

In the provision of political news and opinion, you can sway between the incredulous, the dubious and the frivolous. Some, such as Politico, resort to a mix of the incredulous, the dubious and the frivolous. Fox News keeps to the dubious, incredulous and the frivolous; CNN to whatever interests the garbageman.

Bloggers, a new breed of political commentator, have proven to have neither the wit of political commentators, nor the resources, nor the access, nor the erudition, nor the temper, nor the backing. (Mr Sullivan being a notable exception.) What they do have, often enough, is a following. People who abide by their words of wisdom, with actual wisdom being an impediment, and an invariable anger that leads them to frequent idiocy. The right wing blogger proves how angry he is; the left wing blogger desperately tries to be relevant to the discussion they're having. (No one else is involved.) The blogger that hews to a sensible line is every political blogger out there. Bloggers write about themselves, their fellow bloggers, themselves, their opponents and themselves. Rarely do you read a blogger writing that President Obama's visit to a school was wonderful; it's either pointing out that such a visit is preparation for his communist take-over of the nation's young, or a lament about the sad state of teaching and schools in this nation. But don't you dare try to actually fix the problem, Mr Obama! What would the left complain of? (The right can, and do, always find something to moan about.)

The usual path for a political blogger is to ally themselves with some cause or other. The left wing blogger laments the state of the world, and the right wing blogger laments to the state of the world. They're both very eager to point out what is wrong with it, but are noticeably less eager to note possible solutions. What is particularly interesting is how little these bloggers actually know.

I was once told, cynically, that an expert is someone who knows a lot about a little. If he or she becomes even more expert, they know ever more about less and less. We get to the point where, never in the field of human endeavor, has someone known so much about so little. But I'm trying not to talk about Fox News.

As a blogger, you're expected to adhere to a party line. Oddly, if you actually have the temerity to question the party line, you're vilified as a sock puppet for the enemy. In times of genuine war, you'd be locked in the Tower, and executed at the first available opportunity. If you have the impudence to continue in your quest, you will lose your original audience, and gain another. They're usually conspiracy theorists, but that's not so much a given as an unfortunate fact.

Every brand of political philosophy has a blogger, it seems. I have absolute confidence you could find a right wing Wiccan New Ager who specializes in warding off illegal immigrants and is moving to Delaware so she can vote for Christine O'Donnell. Not that I'm about to try and prove that. (One unavoidable canon of political blogging is: never try to prove your points. There's too much a danger you'll end up disproving them.) In this maelstrom of voices, you'll invariably find someone who's reasonable, intelligent and articulate. (That would be me... ;-D ) They have an audience of such quantity, you can use their goldfish's toes to count them.

Rightly ignoring the reasonable political bloggers, their numbers are so few they can be safely ignored (and you just know they'll be quite reasonable about it, too!), bloggers fixate on one topic: their subject and the number of readers they have. No one has ever accused political partisans of being able to count. Their counting abilities are the fodder of much angst and many words; we can (safely) assume that skill in the counting trades is an encumbrance best sacked at the beginning. I understand that the New York Times bloggers columnists dispensed with competitively comparing page views when Paul Krugman won a Nobel. How do you compete with that?

Which highlights an interesting difference between a columnist and a blogger: columnists win Pulitzers and so on. Bloggers win awards that are given by other bloggers. It's not likely a right wing blogger will award a left wing blogger a "Best Blogger" prize. But I digress.

Lesser bloggers still compare their page view numbers, or, if they use Google's Blogger service, their Followers. These figures are touted, automatically generated graphs are displayed and the blogger basks in their self-inflicted glory. Until someone they know gets more followers, or page views or something. (The result of such a discovery is best not described...) With political bloggers, these numbers are badges of honor. They lead to invitations to political speeches (good for a nap, or an angry rant followed by a nap), to political dinners (good for indigestion and Alka-Seltzer sales) and to political fundraisers (not usually good for your wallet; ramen noodles for the next month to pay for that contribution you made when slightly drunk on the house plonk). Lower numbers, fewer invitations. Just look at Arianna Huffington - millions of readers, and invitations to talk shows, for goodness sake. While Ms Huffington is a definite exception, these numbers are used to prove the expert"-ness" of the blogger. More readers, more expert-ness. Fewer readers, less expertise. Be a reasonable, intelligent and articulate blogger and you have so few readers you're generally considered to an imbecile, best flattered and, at worst, tolerated. Hopefully you'll go away and water roses for a living, or something.

In short: numbers count. Number of readers, number of comments, number of angry posts and so on. No one has ever said that any of the posts or comments have to be sensible. No one sensible has, anyway. Trying to be sensible in a partizan blog discussion has the adrenalin rush of Pamplona, but without the physical danger. Not that I would know, never having been to Spain. :-)

All in all, the wonder of political discourse is still alive. It's still as vibrant, as amazing, as partizan, as accusatory as it ever was.

That being said, there's one sure-fire way to total irrelevancy: be so extreme in your views, that you leave your audience behind. Well, not so much behind: it's difficult to leave behind those whom are running as fast as they can for the exits. You're still on stage, warbling your tune. But not only does no one like it, they fear you'll actually continue talking! (In the same vein...)

At which point you'll discover you've got a new audience. They like conspiracies.

Carolyn Ann

Transgender politicians make ground

Talk about empowerment! Transgender candidates are making inroads into American politics. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Did I call it? Did I ever! :-)

I said it was going to be a Rangers-Giants match up - and it is!

What a game!!!

We joined it at the top of the fifth, two-two, with one out. The Phillies played amazingly - strong performances from their fielders ensured that the Giants didn't go much beyond the tie. And then, in the 8th, Juan Uribe (Giants) hit a homer off of Ryan Madson into the stands at right field!

After that, it was a matter of holding the Phillies for two innings - which proved rather to be a precarious proposition, what with Tim Lincecum arranging for two on and only one out. Fortunately he was replaced by Brian Wilson. In the 9th it looked dicey for him, too! With one hit, and one walk it was touch and go for a moment, two out, but the tying run on second it was touch and go for a moment. Carlos Ruiz shot a line drive out to right field, and into the waiting paw of first baseman Aubrey Huff; he pushed it to Edgar Renteria who got Shane Victorino to end the inning, and the game.

Apparently there was a little bit of a fracas earlier in the game, which we didn't see. The pitcher was put on warning, and no one was ejected. Speaking of the referees, I noticed that the Home Plate Umpire had a very loose outside edge to the strike zone. He called one guy out on a clear ball. It was particularly noticeable, I thought, with left handed batters. Still, the call is the call.

3-2 Giants.

And I said it would be a Giants/Rangers match up! :-)

I'm going to say "Giants" for the Championship.

Carolyn Ann

What a disaster!

The Yankees lost.

Not only did they lose - they absolutely threw away any chance they had of winning. Where others work hard to win, last night, the Yankees pitching "staff" worked very hard to ensure there was absolutely, positively, no chance of the Yankees doing anything sensible.

Considering some of his calls and decisions, Joe Girardi might be managing some Little League team, next year. If they'll have him. And Brian Cashman should be given lessons: "This is a baseball pitcher. He pitches the ball. He's pretty essential to the team and their winning games."

I don't get why you would intentionally walk anyone - never mind doing so in a championship game when you're a game down and need to win two to win the championship. I also don't get Phil Hughes. Was he even at the game? Or was he in his head, thinking "I can't screw up!" As he delivered screw up after screw up. (How did he screw up that gentle throw?) And who the heck put A.J. Burnett on the mound? When he's "on", he's good. When he's not, he shouldn't be allowed to know what a baseball is! Actually, when he's not, he doesn't know what a baseball is. The one bright moment was A-Rod coming in due to a pitch that was eventually designated "wild".

Jeez. I watched the game for a bit, last night. And then I got disgusted. The Mrs watched the whole thing.

What a disaster!

Here's hoping the Giants win. I'd like to see a Rangers-Giants match up.

Carolyn Ann

Call 'emse'n socialists do they?

Excuse the damned French? They have no excuse, they're French. Me? Excuse my fucking language in this one. I'm mad enough to spit.

So Lisa Harney and Queen Emily call themselves socialists.

They're not even ready for a frickin' Young Socialists meeting. You know: meetings where the "chair" points out he's taking college classes when they're fuckin' meeting? Where platitudes of world domination will get you laid by some socialist chick? Where everyone in the fucking meeting looks at you, admiringly, for taking on the job of charing Young Socialist meetings. They know what you don't, but I guessed at: they're a fucking joke.

Ms Harney and Ms Emily would be fuckin' mincemeat in those meetings.

Oh, they talk the talk - but without conviction. Without sincerity. They can't even re-iterate criticism of themselves! They don't know what it means to have some fuck buy you a pint and then take you apart, piece by fucking piece, in the meeting that follows. If they did, they'd be less sure of their fucking socialism and more sure of their own selves. And I had to drive the fucker home, afterwards. Lessons in socialism? Fuck that. It was a lesson in politics.

The two of them, socialists? Fuck me. If they're socialists, I'm a monkeys fuckin uncle, and the last I checked no member of the family was a fuckin monkey.

Socialists? Between the two of 'em, they might even be able to frickin spell the word. They sure as fuck don't have a clue what it means. That fucking website they say they "joined"? It's a frickin' load of Marxist victimhood. Woe is me and all that fuckery. Whining little tossers.

Fuck 'em and fuck the fuckin' poor, unfortunate camel they fuckin rode in on. Socialists. Don't make me laugh: I'll piss my panties, laughing. If they're fucking socialists, I'm a fucking monkey's uncle. And like I said - no one in my family is a fucking monkey.

Fuck 'em. Socialists. Fuck me, them two? Socialists? Fuck.

Carolyn Ann

You judge the difference

I wouldn't be so amused by Ms Harney and Ms Emily joining the international socialists if it weren't for one minor point. In their post about joining the aforementioned society of idiots, Queen Emily says:

So Lisa and I have been talking about economics a lot lately

I'm guessing by "talking about economics", Ms Emily is referring to such meanders as this: "What we can afford".

I'm not sure, but in reading that post, I'm not sure I see much of any economic argument. I see political triviality, but I'm not sure I see any economics.

Oh, I'm not talking about formulae and actual economic projections (you know: statements that involve actual numbers; preferably factual ones). I'm referring to discussions that have relevance to the economic woes of many within the transgender world. Touting obviously failed economic platitudes is one thing; joining and advocating for failed economic systems is quite another.

I'm reminded of the Labour Party in the 1980's. In my first meeting, I thought I'd walked into Bolshevik Russia. No wonder Labour kept losing - their ideas were unworkable, and contrary to the ideas of a free society.

Queen Emily and Lisa Harney have firmly put their feet into the idea that economic equality is more important than any meritocracy. I work hard, and I hope my ideas have an affect. If I happen to structure my ideas so that they might make a profit - might being the operative concept - so much the better. I'd like to get out from this hole we're in. But I won't do it by accepting wealth I have not earned. Ms Harney and Ms Emily, on the other hand, are perfectly happy ensuring that any wealth I might accumulate, is distributed equally among those who have no idea who I am. Never mind that they never shared in the creation of my ideas.

Here's the difference between Lisa Harney and me: I am willing to fight for what I have earned. She is willing to fight to ensure that what I have earned is distributed to those who had no idea I, or my ideas, existed. Here's the difference between myself and Queen Emily: I make no assumption of monarchy. Although I have to admit, I'm hard pressed not to laugh at the idea of a "Queen" in her brand of far left socialism! It is amusing. (If you don't see the humor, please consult a qualified comedian.)

...

I'm an old socialist. I can talk the talk, and I've walked the walk. I hated the old Marxist-inspired idiots when I was 18 years old. (By the way, my 15th birthday present was membership of the Labour Party. This is where I stick out my tongue and act like a 15 year old. :-Þ )

:-)

I still adhere to the ideas that nearly sent me to jail. I still abide by the principles behind the strike I, as a member of the committee, voted for. Given a chance to do it all again, would I do those again? Yes. Except I'd figure out the committee didn't have a backbone, and I'd do my best to persuade it to have one. I well remember walking into that damned meeting knowing I could be jailed for my vote. I'd still walk out, as I did. I'd still go out and tout for money for the strike fund (of which I never received a penny, I'll have you know!). I'd do it all in a heartbeat. I just about gave up my house for that strike. I was lucky, I had an understanding bank manager; some others didn't. Those two can talk about socialism - I doubt they've walked the fucking walk.

Pissant socialists like Lisa Harney and "Queen" (don't make me sodding laugh) Emily have no idea what socialism is. They haven't stood a chance of being jailed for their committee vote. They don't even know what economics is. Not once have they advanced anything except platitudes and outrage. I haven't seen a coherent economic argument from them - ever.

And never mind "free" speech. They own the venue, you disagree, you criticize: you're not allowed a say. It ends up with Lisa Harney losing an argument against herself, with Queen Emily chipping in with banalities that make no sense - unless you know what she was responding to! Which you don't, because Lisa won't publish comments that she doesn't like. The courage of her convictions? What convictions?

I'll tell you what, if either of them walked into a working mens club, they'd be laughed out of it. Their "socialism" isn't any I know, and none the men I worked with would know. It's a high-falutin' academic discourse that lost touch with reality back in the 1950's. It's not the speech of a socialist with a distressed mortgage and a wife who's barely speaking to him. It's the natter of a twit who's got no idea what it means to stand up, really stand up, for a cause. Put your livelihood on the line, your dwelling, your sense of self worth as a man, a woman, whatever - put that on the line. Put it on the damn line, and then ask me if I respect you. Because I've been there, I've done that. I was part of that working mens socialism you, Ms Harney and Ms Emily, want to be a part of. You sadden me, you sicken me. Are you what socialism is?

Not my socialism, you're not! And I am a socialist. But I believe in opportunity. You believe in being victims.

They want to help people? Talk about opportunity. Talk about empowerment. Talk about how to make something your life.

It's cheap, it's easy to be victim. Lisa Harney wants her audience to be victims; I sometimes wonder if she doesn't need them to victims. Queen Emily needs "you" to be a victim.

Me? I want "you" to succeed.

You judge the difference.

Carolyn Ann

Libération pour tous! (Well, sorta...)

I see the ladies over at Questioning Transphobia have put their money [sic] where their mouth is... They've joined a blog called "Socialism and..." (lots of ellipses follow from there. Brevity is not, apparently, a trait they admire.)

The blog name is "liberationforall(.blogspot.com)". Which sounds like a call to arms in 1774.

I'll ignore the fact that the blog is possible because of capitalism... ... ... ... Okay. I can't. I admit it! I'm too weak to let such an opportunity pass! Sorry. :-D

Liberation for all? Isn't that in..? Oh, why, goodness me! It is! It really is! God be in heaven, satan in the Village (or LA, I make no judgements on that) and so on. Here it is:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Oh goodness me. Whatever next? A call to play the L'Internationale?

(The pedant might note that the document doesn't mention women. Consider the times, and go join the Literalists in their discourses. You'll both be very happy together. I'm sure of it. But then again, I'm an optimist.) :-)

I'm sorry. Does my 'voice" drip with sarcasm? It doesn't? I'm clearly not trying hard enough.

Lll iiii bb eee rrr aaa shun fer y'all, y'know. As in: you're a liberated chap, and so am I. Except you wear breeches, and I a dress.

Oh, dammit! That damned First Amendment. Always gets in the way of a good political rant. Especially when your opponents demand the truth, and lie to get their version of it.

You know, the left and right both hate that amendment. It does things like bar the government from setting up a state-sponsored religion, and guarantees that the press is a valuable component of a democracy. It makes it impossible to silence your critic, and it allows the satirist to taunt you. What a nefarious and evil amendment! Who let it in?

Oh, the states. They insisted on it, in fact.

Not that all of this affects Queen Emily - she's in Australia. Which has a Parliamentary system (when it works, which isn't that often, considering recent events.) I don't know if she's Australian, so I won't make that assertion. Anyway, the last I checked, Australia was still a democracy and a capitalist one at that!

Lisa Harney has less of an excuse. As far as I can tell, she's an American. She just doesn't seem to be especially proud of her nation. In fact, I'd go so far as to say she's definitely not too happy with America at the moment. I'm not sure if she's not proud to be American, but she sure comes across that way.

Who, in this grand and wonderful nation, wouldn't be proud to be an American? So many (including myself) want to be American, and yet Ms Harney, while enjoying the fruits of the American experience, seeks to disavow her own nation?

I can understand wanting to change your allegiance to the nation of your birth. I'm seeking to become American, for crying out loud! But to disavow a nation like America? To complain about it, seek a fundamental change in its governing, all because you have a thwarted and stupid idea of what America should be? And yet not stand for election? To argue that America should become what it is not, simply because you fail to understand economics? To dispute that America is not a special place, using the platforms that are available because America allows, nay: encourages the free flow of ideas, the exploitation of a creativity and innovation? To use the idea of the blog, an idea born in capitalism, to explain why capitalism fails? That's not hypocrisy. That's stupidity.

What arrogance. What stupidity.

Carolyn Ann

Mr Williams survives Anne's English Language test...

Whew! I was worried for a moment.

Okay, I didn't give the matter any thought. Mostly because I didn't think anyone would so stupid to say something as "Juan Williams, a well spoken liberal Black commentator". This isn't like saying  "Julia is a well-dressed transsexual." Okay. It is. You can say someone is well-spoken. You can admit someone is well-dressed. You can say someone is black, or white, or pink-with-purple-dots. But you don't judge someone on their race and their erudition at the same time. Mostly because by saying someone is a "well spoken black", you're basically admitting you believe that Frederick Douglass was an "intellectual nigger". (I make no apology for the analogy.)

Anne, of course, fails to mention that Bill O'Reilly is a well-spoken White man.

Would she mention that he was white and intelligent? Somehow, I doubt it.

Mr Williams is an erudite chap, of that there is no doubt. What his race has to do with anything, I have nary a clue. Rick Sanchez is an intelligent chap, too. He's of Cuban descent. He screwed up by making a comment about Jews and the "media". Personally, it would never occur to me to say "Rick Sanchez, a well spoken Cuban liberal commentator". Why is Mr Williams race important? Because he happens to be black and those who despise the "LIBERALS" can use that against those durned LIBERALS.

So, by using the fact that Mr Williams is black against someone, they promote the idea that race is still important to them. NPR fired the twit because, while intelligent, he didn't have the intelligence to figure out that there are some things that deeply offensive. Especially when one of your jobs is to objective, not subjective.

Anne (oh, how I wish she had a last name, then I could refer to her in less familiar terms; she can refer to me as Mr Grant; although I'd be flattered by Ms Grant) alleges that NPR was assaulting Mr Williams' free speech rights. And yet she has no issue with Fox News not providing a "fair and balanced" view of the news. She mentions George Soros and something called a "New World Order". Excuse me, but would't creating a new world order include grand schemes and opacity in funding? Unlike Mr Murdoch and the Koch brothers, I understand that Mr Soros is quite transparent, and accountable, in his donations.

(Ms Anne? God, no.)

And god doesn't even exist!

Anyway, I left a couple of comments on Anne's blog. It was supposed to be one comment, but Google has a 4096 character limit. So I split it into two, got a couple of comment forms mixed up and eventually ended up with something I hope reflects my, erm, comments on her racist comment.

Here it is in its entirety:

Mr Williams is a "well spoken liberal Black commentator" is he? Presumably you would say that Bill O'Reilly is a well-spoken conservative White Commentator, too? Oh, hang on - I don't see any mention of Mr O'Reilly's race! How about that? Well? How about that?

And the "Liberal Left" strictly enforce their narrative, do they?

Let me see... Was it Wil Rogers who said he didn't belong to an organized political party? He was a Democrat. And wasn't it the forerunner to the Tea Party that produced a document of 10 or so points of view that Republicans had to agree to, and sign, before they were considered "conservative" enough? Oh, yeah. My apologies. Facts are a nuisance, aren't they?

You know, NPR didn't silence Mr Williams. They simply made it obvious they didn't want to be associated with him and his bigotry. Anyway, the last I checked, Mr Williams walked away with a $2M contract from Mr Ailes, the head of Fox News. So: whom is being silenced? To whom is the disadvantage?

And... Yet you're happy to espouse exact, obviously biased, talking points from Fox News. Did anyone get fired from Fox News for denigrating Muslims? Well, did they? Name one nattering nabob who has been fired for denigrating anyone on Fox News. One. I'll even take someone being fired for ridiculing a Republican.

There's a word for your change of heart depending on who is doing the nattering. Oh what is it? It begins with h...

In your languid assessment of Mr Williams and NPR, you confuse venue and right. Don't worry. Many do. It's an easy mistake to make. After all, if you advocate a truly left wing position on Fox News, you're either Mr Hannity's punching bag, or an aberration in scheduling.

(Am I, someone who is decried by the left wing of the transgender community as a right wing demagogue, a careless rogue in need of locking up and, in a paraphrased accustation, allegedly a bastard incarnate, silencing you?)

Am I member of the gay left? I'd be quite surprised, to be honest. I'm not gay. I'm quite happy, to be honest. :-) But no one has ever called me gay. Mostly because I'm not. (Unless you want to get into a debate about whether I'm gay because I love my wife? Actually - don't go there.)

I must admit, I haven't gone through your whole blog, but I can't see much silencing going on. Perhaps thou ist as much thy own victim as thy sistren of Questioning Transphobia? :-)

Let me see. You have a blog. You voice an opinion. Some don't agree with that opinion. They say so. You accuse them of trying to silence you. Hmm. This is really difficult...

Okay. I get it. You watch far too much Fox News, Anne.

Try CNN - they're hung up on this thing called "journalistic standards". A bit like NPR and the BBC. Actually, I can recommend the BBC. It seems to be a given that the BBC is the fairest voice on the planet! (Oh, drat. It doesn't have a right wing bias. Therefore, it must have a left wing bias. Oh, darn. The evidence is that is has no bias. Oh, that's right. They fire reporters who exhibit any bias. Darn it!)

In reply to your earlier question: No. As a matter of fact, I've never boarded a flight, seen a chap in "Muslim garb" and felt nervous. But that might be because I lived in London, one of the greatest people I've ever known (and an amazing friend) was a Muslim and he wore whatever the hell he wanted to, whether it was a suit and tie or a dishdasha. (I think it depended on if he had to go to his embassy or not. Never stopped him being a brilliant thinker and an amazing friend, though.) Ah, the memories. Walking into a pub in Stratford on Avon, and he kept the place open. (He was quite wealthy; I think that was because he was stupendously brilliant.) Oh, he was wearing a dishdasha at the time. I've worked with Muslims in London and New York, know one or two in South Jersey and lived through the IRA bombings of England in the 1980's. (Oh, dang. They didn't wear identifying garb!) As a matter of fact, I used to go to the pub with a devout heavy metal fan (unfortunately, he thought Kiss was a good band, but hey - who's perfect?) who wore a dishdasha on a regular basis. He wasn't Muslim, he just found it to be comfortable to wear. So, no, I can't say I don't judge people on what they wear.

You, however, judge African Americans on their erudition.

Carolyn Ann

Dubious complaints, dubiously expressed

With great fanfare, T-Central has introduced us to Anne.

Anne runs a blog, Ella Es Asi, in which, among other things, she complains about George Soros contributing to NPR and defending people who say things like

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
(Part of the comment that got Juan Williams - Anne spelled his name "Ron" - fired by NPR.)

Apparently NPR is a "LIBERAL" organization. Those dastardly folk! How dare they hold any view except those approved by right wing thinkers? And there was me, thinking that NPR was as liberal as the BBC. Anne makes sure you know NPR is LIBERAL. She's not so keen on noting that Fox News is full of RIGHT WING views. Oh, she mentions it - in passing and by inference. She also fails to mention that Fox News is being sued for racist behavior; they allegedly fired an African-American when he complained about the racism he had to endure from others in the organization.

George Soros gets complained about for funding NPR (does he? Well done, Mr Soros!), but I can't see Anne complaining about Rupert Murdoch donating a million or two to Republicans. Besides: how many listeners does NPR have, compared to Fox News?

The NPR spokeswoman comes in for a nice ad-hominem attack:

When pressed, a spokeswoman for NPR stated that Juan had been fired for expressing his "POLITICAL VIEWS" despite the fact that expressing LIBERAL views and perspectives has been his MAIN function on the more conservative talk shows. I am sorry, but I am just NOT getting this. Can anyone help me out? In addition, I was poorly impressed by this (seemingly militant feminist) de validating [sic] Juan's opinion by her off-handed reference to "his psychiatrist", for which she later apologized.
[My emphasis]

Anne doesn't get it. She wants someone to explain it to her. Here goes: an NPR political analyst goes on Fox News, from whom he now has a $2M, 3 year contract, and makes a blatantly bigoted statement? He admits that he judges people by their clothing? If I had to guess, I'd say that NPR has had some concerns with Mr Williams being a commentator on one, politically biased, news network while also being a political news analyst on a network that is not politically biased. And then he makes a comment that's not exactly impartial?

Anne can't figure out that Mr Williams' comment was deeply offensive? I wonder if Anne knows any Muslims? I wonder what Anne thinks of Rick Sanchez? He made a derogatory, sweeping comment about Jews and got fired from CNN. I've never read of anyone getting fired for making sweeping, derogatory comments on Fox News. Have you?

I wonder if Anne would be outraged if someone judged her by her appearance? Clearly Anne thinks it's okay to say you're nervous when you see Muslims on a widely viewed television show! I wonder if she'd be as confused if someone on Fox News made such a sweeping, derogatory, comment about women? About the transgendered?

Anyway, Anne wanted some input on it all, so I left her a comment:

You're complaining that NPR has standards and Fox doesn't?

Really?

This doesn't concern you: "But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

I'm not sure, but if someone made a sweeping, derogatory, statement about the transgendered, you'd probably be a bit outraged.

But because he made it about Muslims - it's okay to judge someone purely on their appearance?

On another topic: I don't get the fascination with George Soros. The Koch Brothers are okay, and Mr Soros isn't? The main difference between the two is that George Soros is above board with his contributions.

But aside of that, Fox News' fascination with George Soros borders on the creepy.

It's hypocritical, really.

I hope she finds the comment useful.

Carolyn Ann

Stretching credulity

Well, that was a bit of a downer. I wanted a totally-girly day, so I got a little dolled up. I thought the ensemble looked cute. It did. It would have looked better on someone else, though. :-(

Looking in the mirror, I realized I'd have to stretch credulity beyond its breaking point to be assessed as anything other than what I saw: a middle aged, pot bellied man in a ridiculous costume. Even painted nails failed to provide an illusion.

To be honest, the last few years haven't been kind to me, physically, and it shows. I need to take better care of my skin, lose that beer-fuelled stomach and generally get into some sort of shape. The desired illusion will be easier to achieve, even if it will never be convincing.

So much for the whole "I am who I say I am" argument! I could argue that all day, but in the end, we're not who we say we are. We're a composite of how we perceive ourselves, and how others consider us. I'd like to think of myself as something other than a pot-bellied, middle-aged chap with a bit of a worried face and a receding hairline. Alas, that is who I am at this moment. I don't think that would be that much of an issue for other blokes; well, maybe with the exceptions of the receding hairline and the midsection protuberance.

Only thing for me is that I don't know who I am. I'd like to be one thing, but am quite clearly something else entirely. No wait - that's not it. I've spent a long time, at least 40 years, trying to figure out who I am. I'm still not sure. If I were the lass I'd like to be, I could, perhaps, live with my physical flaws. I'm not a lass, I'm a bloke, and very clearly so. Oh, I could whine about how nature was cruel; nature is never cruel - nature is what it is.

Kinsey Hope introduces the idea of "two spirited". It's a common enough idea; but I couldn't use it to describe myself. I'm not of "two spirits"; I'm of a single consciousness (I think, therefore I am. I think...) Others adhere to this strange idea that they are who they say they are. That might work for them, but it sure as heck doesn't work for me. Basically, I can't dictate how you perceive me; therefore, my identity is as much a shared concept as it is a personal one. I can tell you how I perceive myself and try to insist that you respect and abide by that; notwithstanding the practical issue that I can't actually tell you how I perceive myself. Beyond "middle aged chap with a receding hairline and a beer belly"of course; that's not quite how I'd like to be perceived... :-|

There's two competing, and frequently contradictory, issues going on here. The first is that how I perceive my gender, and my individual identity, is not clear. The other is how others perceive me. Oh, and then there's the whole "I like to look as good as I can" to (not) help. For instance, I have some nice skirts and tops; some of them even match. If I wear them, I look nice (the Mrs, who has a superb sense of style, tells me I do). But I still look like a man in a nice top and skirt. Sitting in a bar in NYC, once upon a time, that little fact was made quite obvious. But I've also been told I'm quite convincing when I am in a dress.

(Just as a sidebar, if I wear something nice, I feel good. I just feel more like myself, but not quite, when that nice something is feminine and, preferably, pretty.)

It's all quite confusing, really. I'm beginning to suspect there is no "answer".

Carolyn Ann. Or whomever the heck I am.

Think God is mysterious? The affairs of men (and women, etc) can be more so!

A Saudi prince has just been jailed for life - which means 20 years - in Britain, for the murder of his "servant". Apparently he killed the servant in some sort of crazed homosexual rage. When he's eventually released, he could go back to Saudi Arabia. Where he's likely to be executed. Considering that no one else will accept him, he might have to turn to his jailers for asylum.

The affairs of man are mysterious.

Carolyn Ann

The Giants v the Rangers?

I think this years' World Series will be between the San Francisco Giants and the Texas Rangers.

The Yankees were thoroughly defeated last night, and tonight. (I'm still trying to figure why anyone would  intentionally walk a batter when there's two on deck?!?) As Derek Jeter said: “They’ve pitched better, they’ve hit better”. No kidding.

I joined the game in the bottom of the 5th, and thought it was going quite well. Unlike last night's game, which I could barely stand to view! I felt like a kid, watching a scary Doctor Who. I didn't quite hide behind the couch, but I sure felt like doing so. This evening, we gave up in disgust when the Yanks were two down in the 9th. And, as usual, no one thought to take AJ Burnett out when his pitching went south. Which it always does.

One of things I've been telling the Mrs is that Yanks will go through a drought. They'll be a poor team for a bit. Brian Cashman, the GM, can't pick a pitcher for the life of the team, and Joe Girardi insists on making strange calls. Besides, the core of the team is getting old. Frankly.

I think Yankee fans are in for some dire times.

Carolyn Ann

If Ms Hope is interested...

Kinsey Hope and I were exchanging a few pleasantries in an old post of mine. So old, Google had to fetch an archaeological team to dig it up. (It's dated October 1st, 2010...)

To recap the conversation so far, I wondered about Ms Hope's claim that one individual's claimed identity outwitted, or at least made irrelevant, someone else's. Her specific example was the lesbian who dates a transman; the transman's identity is, in Ms Hope's opinion, superior to the lesbian's.

Ms Hope then went on the say:

If an identity is built on bigotry (like say regarding trans folks' genders not being valid), it isn't sacred.

I don't let white people call themselves Two Spirits either. Just sayin'

So now we have two restrictions. Up from the original one. We're making progress... Soon, there will be so many restrictions, we'll all have to walk around with massive tomes just to describe who we think we are!

Ms Hope is a bit "inconsistent" in her stance, anyway. She can call herself whatever she likes, indeed, she has a post devoted to explaining her pseudonym. But if you dare call yourself something she disapproves of - her choice of identity for you supersedes yours. If I wanted to call myself "Two Spirits" (because I felt like it, perhaps), she would object. I'm not sure why.

(Actually, one thing I did notice about many of her arguments is their inconsistency.)

[As a side note, if a lesbian and a transman dated, how is it anyone's business how they identify themselves? And if Ms Hope is saying that she won't allow any white person to call themselves "Two Spirits", I'm tempted to change my name to Carolyn Two Spirits. Mostly because I can, and also because she can't banish anything. She definitely has an inconsistent standard when it comes to personal labeling.]

After Ms Hope's comment, I suggested clarity. Because I have, quite frankly, no idea what she was saying. She suggested that I might learn something from googling "two spirit", "trans" and "appropriation".

I did.

I didn't.

To be honest, I wasn't sure what I should be looking at. The junction of Wicca and Native American religions? Arguments put forth by transWiccans? What's a transWiccan? I have no idea. Transgendered Wiccans? Why should I listen to one them? Because their religion is more or less as stupid as any other? I did ask Ms Hope for some suggestions. So far she hasn't returned to the conversation.

So this is an invitation to Ms Hope to continue our discussion in circumstances that don't include me having to "approve" comments. (Stupid concept, that is.)

I do wonder if she'll take me up on the invitation.

Carolyn Ann

Israel, the modern apartheid state?

I see Mr Netanyahu wants Mr Abbas to recognize the "Jewish state of Israel". Some leading diplomats think this is perfectly reasonable. Idiots. The damn lot.

Israel is a state. It's the home of about half the world's Jews. And it has some folk who are Muslim, and of "Arab" descent, too. They aren't treated too well. In fact, their plight reminds me of stories of the Antebellum South, with its Jim Crowe laws and it's official suspicion and denigration of those not white. Except for Israel, it's those who aren't Jewish.

If South Africa was the old pinnacle of racism, Israel seems to be trying, very hard, to be its contemporary successor.

It's pathetic, really. So many want war, and they're trying to be as discriminatory as possible in order to provoke that war. "You can't trust the Arabs", they say. And then they provoke a war and exclaim "See! I told you!"

Idiots and buffoons.

Carolyn Ann

Two comments...

I had two comments to "approve". Sorry about that. (Actually it was three, but one consisted entirely of "......." (etc), and Google counted it as spam. Who am I to argue?)

I keep Google's defaults on comments, so if a post is gathering dust, any comments get relegated to the "do you want to approve this?" pile. It's a short pile. Non-existent, most of the time. :-) This weekend saw the pile accumulate a comment, and then double in size.

Anyway, Ms D'Orsay refutes my assertion that her political career has come to an end before it got started. She also managed to misspell my name. I wish her luck.

And Genderbitch, Ms Hope, left a comment I have little hope of ever understanding. I suggested clarity. I hope she does.

Anyway, my apologies to Ms D'Orsay and Ms Hope. I was laid low by a damn tooth, and haven't looked at my computer just about all weekend.

Carolyn Ann

Out for the count

Back in action!

Just in time for bedtime... :-)

I was out for the count, this weekend. Knocked for six. And so on. My metaphor meter ran out. Sorry. :-(

:-)

For some reason, a wisdom tooth decided it needed to put in an appearance. Considering that I don't have any medical, never mind dental, insurance, all I could do was take aspirin and try and get some "Orajel" topical anesthetic onto it. Durned painful, to be honest.

We did go for a nice drive on Saturday (to fetch the aforementioned pharmaceuticals); afterwards, I felt so tired I slept for hours! I laid down on the sofa, and the next thing I knew the Yankees were down 5-1 or something. And then I dozed off some more. I couldn't eat anything, so it was a lot of soup, and some the Mrs made some pancakes. I made the really stupid error of trying to munch my favorite cereal, a corn-flake like thing that has strawberries in it. (What the heck is it called? I'm drawing a blank!) Ouch.

The worst of it was I felt like I'd been in a good old fashioned bar brawl, but without the bar brawl. (And I'm a bit too old for them, anyway.)

Ah well. I can open my jaw a little more, and it doesn't hurt quite as much. When I have thrupence ha'penny, I'm going to get my teeth properly looked at. They've had a bit of a hard time, the ones that are left. I tell the Mrs "Hang on, I'm just brushing my teeth. Won't take long, there's not that many of them left!"

Oh well.

Carolyn Ann

One of those days

You know those days? The ones that you'll remember for as long as you have a memory? The perfect day, the sun shining, the trees in their red and gold gowns, the sky sparkling with clouds? An unforgettable sunset, pinks and oranges lingering longer than they should? And you got to share them with her? Her smile? Her conversation? A gentle kiss at a surprising moment? The feel of her hand, as she held yours?

(And the Yankees had a come-from behind win? In the 8th?)

I had one of those days. :-)

Carolyn Ann

On simplicity

I'm really trying to figure out what Queen Emily is saying in this post. Its title is "On modification".

Ms Emily starts with an odd statement - she wants to "talk about modification – how some treatments women use are considered to be real and others fake, and why."

Frankly, it gets worse.

(I do not recommend reading her piece. God knows it was a trial to get through for me, and I'm an atheist!)

Apparently women take hormones. Oh - and transwomen (grammar is not Ms Emily's strong point; she spells it "trans women", as if the prefix were an adjective all its own!) are judged by Platonic ideals. Of masculinity.

Yeah - masculinity.

Not if you spend a few minutes looking through the relevant pictures on Flickr.

The transgendered are judged by their adherence to their claimed gender. It's not nice, but it's a fact. It's a biological fact. If you look like a dude in a dress and lipstick (yeah, well. I try) you'll be judged as a dude. If you look like a girl, you'll be fawned over as if you're a supermodel.

In an interesting, but entirely unsupported, point, Ms Emily states that you're not immune to "blood clots, migraines and breast cancer ... because you are supposedly “not a real woman.”" Well, no. Men do get breast cancer, but at a much lower rate than women. Migraines, as far as I know, are not gender-specific. Blood clots, well, those know no gender boundary. What a transwoman won't get is cancer of the uterus. What a transman won't get is pancreatic cancer. Does Ms Emily seriously think that comparing cancers is a reasonable measure of being a "real woman"?

Ms Emily then goes into ... ... ... Well, I'm not actually sure what she dived into. Custard, probably.

I think the second paragraph provides a clue to her intent:

So when cis people ask questions like “is that [assigned name] under there?” as though my body were a costume, it is a “real” cis male imagined to exist, one which is presumed to still exist… and not that the material which makes up my body developed one particular way rather than another.
But matter is always developing and changing, it has no “real” telos (that is, end trajectory) and no natural, inherent meaning other than the ones we assign to it.

(By the way, telos means the "ultimate object or aim", there's no reference to the trajectory.)

I get the idea of body as costume; it's the essence of fashion, and has been since the Greeks invented modern athletics.

Indeed, it often seems that the body as a costume is central to the idea of being transgendered. Speaking strictly for myself, my body is a costume; I wish it weren't, but it really is a macabre cloak.

Carolyn Ann

Cousie has a bad morning

Poor Cousie (aka Cousin, because we thought she was related to Max; turns out she isn't. She was an abandoned pet we took in). She had a terrible morning! It started when she took over my pillow and wouldn't move. I tipped her off the pillow, and she got really upset. And ran off. I felt bad.

An hour or so later she jumped down from the top of the armoire, onto the wicker chair and started sharpening her claws. (Wicker furniture and cats? Not a good idea...) I had to get up and pick her up. The Mrs wondered what was happening, so I presented her with a thoroughly miserable cat.

On top of all that, Ebony chased her up the stairs and under the bed! He got yelled at ("EBONY!!! Leave her alone! I'm trying to sleep here!"), whereupon he trotted off downstairs, probably thinking "That was fun!"

And then I accidentally startled her! She was sitting, staring blankly out of the back door, and I thought she'd seen me. She hadn't, like I said, she was staring blankly out the door. (She likes to just sit there and just blankly watch the world go by. Not much world out there, but whatever. It's something she likes to do.) I was fetching the laundry in, and she awoke with a start and fled, to the top of the kitchen cabinets.

The poor lass. She's having a bad morning.

Carolyn Ann

Get ready to rumble...

We watched Eric Cantor get destroyed on Jon Stewart, last night.

It was quite a sight. Mr Cantor couldn't answer any question without resorting to inanity, and Mr Stewart just kept popping those questions. I should watch the entire 22 minute interview; apparently they made some progress. Probably in getting Mr Cantor out the door in one piece, such was Mr Stewart's evisceration of him.

Carolyn Ann

Marxism appeals to those who won't think

As I was pouring out my first cup of coffee, I was struck by the thought that Marxism appeals to those who refuse to think.

The only way a "fair" society can exist is if you define fairness in some unpredictable ways. You can't, obviously, impose fairness on anyone (a point missed by every far left thinker I've ever read), because what's fair to me isn't fair to you. The only way a Marxist, or even a far-left thinker, can define fairness is by reducing the problem of fairness to an economic argument. You have, someone else doesn't - therefore the world is unfair. The answer? Give that something to the person who doesn't have, or remove it from the person who has it and share it with the person who doesn't have it.

I'm trying to come up with scenarios that prove my point, but Marxism is so rife with idiocy it's a bit like trying to argue that God doesn't exist by proving that God doesn't exist. Here's the problem: there's no definition of fairness in Marxism. It's a platitude, not even elevated to the level of an idea. Fairness is Marxism's god. Malleable, conveniently defined and just as elusive in provenance. Marx had to resort to a different idea, class warfare, to define his god; his economic argument became intrinsically linked to his ideas of society. That doesn't seem to bother Marxists and other communists, but that's because they prefer not to think.

Carolyn Ann

ADDED: Mind you, the far right, the Tea Partiers for instance, have no particular fondness for thinking, either.