Straw hats on cats?

The Mrs told me the palm tree coat hook thing looked nice. I'd finally gotten fed up of it lying around. The palm trees are enameled metal, and quite prone to bending. I bought it for her shortly before we left Brooklyn, at a small store on 7th Ave, just by Union St. (Coincidentally, we recently found a couple of pieces of cat-decorated pottery I'd gotten her from there, as well.) She told me the hooks didn't look very strong. "They should hold a cat", I said. "A hat, a straw hat!" she responded. "We don't have any straw cats", I replied...

:-)

Carolyn Ann

Ah. Comment spam.

I didn't know this, but Blogger now has a spam-detection system. If it thinks your comment is spam, it puts it in a special folder.

I did not know that.

But I do now. :-)

The net-net? DM's comments never see light of day (I now have a rule set up, so that even the emails are deleted) and I know where to look if I notice that a comment has mysteriously disappeared! (This assumes I notice, of course.)

So that explains two missing comments, but I do wonder if there were more. Not that I'm going back to check.

Carolyn Ann

Progress comes in fits and starts

A Dutch graduate was re-awarded his diploma. It reflects who he is, now.

That should save him some effort in having to reveal more about himself than might be considered reasonable. After all - who's business is it how he started life?

Progress is in fits and starts, but eventually it happens. It's a pity it's more fits than starts.

Carolyn Ann

Immaturity as a conversational technique?

falconfire1379 asked, in an unnecessarily accusatory and immature manner, if I had "the stones" to repost their comment. The one that mysteriously never made it to the blog.

Might I point to falconfire1379 that overt machismo of the type favored by 14 year old boys is not exactly endearing or effective. Nor is it likely to engender respect.

The only ones who might be impressed are other people of similar immaturity.

Besides, issuing a macho challenge to someone going by the name "Carolyn Ann" is probably missing an important point... :-)

Carolyn Ann
====================================
(It seems to have escaped falconfire1379's attention that if I responded to it, noting that the comment seemed to have been deleted, that perhaps I hadn't deleted the thing. Why would I respond to a comment I'd deleted; notwithstanding the fact that I only delete spam, of course. falconfire1379's comment wasn't spam, it was simply immature and limited in its thinking and rhetoric. So it wouldn't have been deleted, because I prefer to let inanity hold its own flashlight.)

I should note that I have changed falconfire1379's name in the places where that is easily accomplished, put in a quick apology where it made sense, and generally apologize for getting the name wrong.

My blog as a pickup joint?

There's a first time for pretty much everything, I guess.

Nathyn loves and wants to engage in a "platonic, polyamorous [?] triad relationship" with falconfire1379.

I get platonic, I'm fairly sure I know what polyamorous means, but I don't know if, or why, Chinese organized crime has to be involved? Perhaps Nathyn wants a threesome; in which case I'm sure party #3 will want to know who they're being involved with, and I'm sure falcon1379 would like to know that, too.

However they want to structure their relationship, I wish them happiness and much fun and frolicking. :-)

Carolyn Ann

"Ze" and other inanities

When it comes to pronouns, it is alleged that  we now have to abide by the demands of others regardless of the English language. It seems that when someone says they want to be known as "ze", we have to abide that request. If it's their name, fine. If it's their chosen subject pronoun - well, we have a slight problem. He and she exist in the dictionary; they are known concepts. We can usually tell which one to use simply by looking at someone, or hearing their voice. Obviously, within the wonderful panoply of humankind, there will be a few who don't quite fit, or obviously don't fit into those two categories.

And then there's "Ze".

There has been quite a few attempts at providing English with a gender-neutral pronoun; all of these efforts have failed. Which is telling in itself. However, there's a new effort underway; it's based on a couple of borrowed ideas: our identities are ours to define, and you have to call me what I say. Both are reasonable-ish; taken to extremes, they do fail. Needless to say, it's generally not necessary to go to such extremes. But when it comes to gender-neutral pronouns, we don't have to go to any extreme: we have to merely open a reputable dictionary. If you perused the entire tome, you would not find any gender-neutral pronouns.

So we have a troubling intersection: the demand for "ze", and the lack of an actual, agreed, word. The concept exists, but the word to describe it doesn't. Well, it does, but as a colloquialism. Are we, then, to elevate the word "ze" in order to accommodate a demand?

The central complaint about gender-specific pronouns is that they are exactly that, and for some this is too limiting. They define themselves outside of gender; not in Jennifer Boylan's "gender outlaw" terms, but as actually outside of gender. As in having no particular gender, or a fluid gender identity or something similar. These individuals define themselves as neither male nor female; the idea of a fixed gender is rejected. Clearly, this is different to the demands of the transgendered, or the transsexual: they have a fixed gender. It's just different to their biological one. The idea of gender is firmly adhered to, even if its interpretation requires a little flexibility. The gender-neutral proclaim their rejection of a defined gender. As such, they need some new words to define themselves.

And this is where it gets interesting. :-)

The oft-chosen word is "ze". As in "ze" went to the store. I don't recall ever seeing a suggestion for the object pronoun: "zim"? "Zer"? "Zem"? The idea is communicate that the individual lacks gender. I wonder what the dictionary definition would be?

ze |zē|
pronoun [ third person singular ]
used to refer to a gender-neutral adult, or child, or animal previously mentioned or easily identified.

I took that from the definition for he and she.

"Animal" had to be struck, because gender-neutrality is a sophisticated concept and it's one that doesn't apply to animals. They can't tell you they're gender neutral. Gender neutrality is a concept that has to be actively communicated; it can't be derived from appearance, you do have to be informed.

Brother, sister, father, mother, aunt, uncle, son, daughter and so on. All gender specific, and all with well understood definitions. Some of these words also have colloquial meanings, but as those are generally well understood, or easily inferred, there's little need for additional explanation. There are no gender-neutral terms for these words. Indeed, it would be impossible to come up with one for a few of them. A gender-neutral mother is an impossibility.

Inadequate is a good way of describing the vocabulary of gender-neutrality. It seems to be limited to "ze". Granted, the language is always evolving, and I have little doubt that the number of gender-neutral words will increase; gaining common agreement on them will take much longer. In the meantime, the more important question is whether someone can impose a word upon a writer?

No, they can't.

I can agree that the concept of gender neutrality exists; indeed, I don't see how it couldn't. (Which is not to say it couldn't. I just don't perceive how it couldn't. Confused? You should see me! I'm hiding behind my office chair, lest I come up with some other contrivance... :-) ) I can agree there's a something of a need for a gender neutral pronoun or two. I don't think the need is any more urgent than it has been; although I'll concede that some might disagree with me about that. Overall, I think the concept needs more consideration; once a vocabulary has been developed (how does the mother of a gender neutral child describe the kid? I suspect it's still as their son or daughter), agreement on the specific words and meanings will come about.

At that point, I might think about using gender neutral pronouns.

Is this "disrespectful" of someone? Perhaps. If you consider some poorly thought through gender claim to be more important than the English language; my preference is toward the language. I wonder how the gender neutral react when their brother or sister describes them gender-specific terms? How about their aunt or uncle? Their grandparents? Do they suggest alternatives? Do they seek to impose their world-view (to borrow a religious phrase) upon their siblings and parents, as they eagerly try to impose such upon random strangers and colleagues alike? If the individuals concerned with such matters haven't clearly thought their argument through, it is not incumbent upon me to either respect it, or adhere to it. Never mind agree with it! Individuals such as falcon1379 and Nathyn obviously have some thinking and persuading to do.

In the meantime, my refusal to use the word "ze" implies nothing but a refusal to use the word "ze".

Carolyn Ann

Damn it!

I'm making a threshold to go between the breakfast room and the hallway; it's 41½" wide, and the plank needs to be about 4½" deep. There are some other measurements, but I won't bore you with those. On the ceramic tile side, I wanted a slope of 10°; on the other, 15°. Because of the colors used, we decided a nice piece of maple would do the trick. I had one piece... It had some interesting grain figure*, was clear (no knots) and was quite a nice example of the wood.

All was going well until I made the 10° cut. A slip of the saw, and the previous 2 hours of work was reduced to so much scrap wood. Oh well. At least I can make a jewelry box, or something, from what remains.

Damn it.

Carolyn Ann

* For a moment, I couldn't remember the correct term for what I was describing. Unlike some, I prefer to use the proper name for something.

Redefining confidence and identity?

I'm beginning to think that some of the more ridiculous and unsupportable claims about gender, such as a penis being a vagina if its owner says it is, aren't actually about gender at all. They are, perhaps, more an indicator of our lack of control over our bodies, and ultimately about how in control of their own life someone is.

Take it from me, when you have no idea what gender you are, it's a show-stopper. When you rely on others to define your identity for you - because you have no idea what it is, yourself - you don't feel in control of your own destiny. Not that many of us are actually in control of our own lives; but as long as we feel that we can control those bits we are able to, we feel we have some modicum of confidence in ourselves. I know from experience that low self-confidence can be expressed as feeling that you (the individual you) has no control over anything. In one of those self-fulfilling spirals, you lose whatever control you might have had because you don't think you have that control; that, in turn, leads to you relinquishing even more control and confidence, and so on. But when you add into the mix an almost complete lack of knowledge of who you are - gender, despite some protestations and arguments to the contrary, is pretty essential in knowing who we are, as individuals - it's not just a downward spiral, it's one that defies any reasonable attempts to define even the spiral! I think of it as a airplane, falling out of the sky; the plane will spin one way. In me, it was if the plane was spinning both to the left, and to the right. So you try to control one direction, and it makes the other worse, and so on. That you're not actually spinning out of control is neither here nor there. The cycle becomes self-fulfilling. The disorientation is very real.

The highly religious nature of the arguments, the unwillingness to consider implications, the quick and meaningless issuance of insults, all indicate that the claim is more likely an article of faith than a carefully considered one. Well, the quick and meaningless issuance of insult merely indicates an almost complete lack of maturity; once you get past the default response of a 14 year old, the insults tend to be better. More satisfying. But I digress. :-)

I wonder if the foundation of the more ridiculous arguments lies not in redefining gender, or stupid accusations of "cisgenderism", but in redefining ourselves, as individuals?

(And now I have to get back to my carpentry. Sorry.)

Carolyn Ann

More on the penis is a vagina if you say it is...

Readers from Fetlife: While I absolutely respect your right to discuss my writing, I'm also very curious what you're saying about it. As no one has seen fit to leave a comment, I find it all the more interesting. Please leave a note and let me know what you're saying about this post? Thanks. (I don't care if it's good or bad. I'd just like to know. :-) )

Carolyn Ann

====

I had a rather peculiar "chat" with Nathyn about the naming of genitalia. Nathyn, I have to say, is quite annoyed with me because I steadfastly refuse to bow to his (?) argument that if a transgender person calls their penis a vagina, then it's a vagina.

Yeah, it's a surreal argument.

Here's the nub: I peppered Nathyn with a list of questions about the implications. Nathyn got mad and stomped off. I figured that would happen; just as I predicted when the "you're transphobic" line would be used. Nathyn also cried about my having too much time on my hands, and could write long "screeds"; or was it that Nathyn was annoyed I had the time to write long pieces? I'm not sure. Nathyn also doesn't know how fast I generally type! Or know the circumstances - I was drinking a glass of wine, and had the time, wasn't sleepy and the subject caught my attention. The problems with Nathyn's argument kept piling up. Result: a comment that had to be split into two. :-)

The overall problem is not what someone calls their genitalia; you can call your penis your goldfish for all I care. I don't know for sure, but I understand quite a few men have a pet name for that particular appendage. There are, instead, two interesting points against calling a penis a vagina, and vice versa. The first is that the two are quite different, both in function and appearance. I provided an extreme problem - it's a variation of the old "shoot the boy, or I blow up the planet" thing. I thought it showed the failings of Nathyn's argument quite well; Nathyn got mad.

The other problem is that this argument actually denigrates all transsexuals. If you're willing to go through the expense, pain and difficulties of gender reassignment surgery - then your genitalia does have a specific meaning, and it's not the one you want. So Nathyn's argument (I should note that I can't find any evidence that Nathyn actually derived the argument) is facetious there, too.

Then there are the political and moral implications. If the penis and vagina can be renamed to suit, then fine - feminism is no longer needed. Oh, darn: it is. Women still get a raw deal compared to men. It can be successfully argued, considering that feminism is about women, that redefining the penis to be a vagina (bear with me) is all about some (special class of) men imposing their views of womanhood is, and redefining it to suit themselves! Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer: where fore art thou? :-) At this point I should tell you that Nathyn sort of agreed that proper names are essential; but then Nathyn went on to say that my argument about proper names was facetious. I didn't know that calling something by its proper name could be facetious, did you?

All in all, Nathyn's argument was "of convenience"; it depended on context, it depended upon isolation and it really depended upon convenient redefinition. It also required someone knowing that you've assigned your various body parts different names. To be honest, that's not something I'm likely to bring up in conversation: "Oh, by the way, is your penis your penis, or is it a vagina? I need to know to ensure I don't demean your gender inadvertently!" Yeah, that's a conversation stopper. Calling your penis your vagina is wishful thinking, at best. I gather something like it is done a lot in transgender pornography, but I'm not sure that can be promoted as a bastion of the English language.

In fact, Nathyn seems to have spent most of the discussion being annoyed. I'd allege that Nathyn didn't consider my points at all, but I think that might be stretching the case; I don't think Nathyn even read my points before responding to them. Scanned them, perhaps, but there was surely no effort made to understand them, or respond to them. I'll also note that Nathyn got mad at me because I refused to call a minor digression a "derailment of the conversation". Nathyn, it seems, likes to get cross with people. Perhaps it's a hobby?

I couldn't help but notice that all of Nathyn's arguments (there were three, I think) supporting the idea were all convenient, and were ultimately very complex. Not a single one was actually able to stand on its own two feet. I'm quite convinced it doesn't have legs, never mind feet. The argument is actually a floppy Matryoshka doll.

So far, all I've seen is the usual. Someone comes up with an idea that is ridiculous; it takes hold because it seems to affirm something about a personal identity. The context is mutually agreed upon, but not stated, and the idea is assumed to be perfectly credible. Never mind its obvious shortcomings: you can always insult and attack the person who raises those. When the idea is challenged, instead of actually thinking about the idea, and having a discussion about it, it becomes a religious cause. The arguments are the same, the emotional venting is the same and the more ridiculous the idea, the more vociferously it is argued. Asking the inevitable side question, as either a digression or to find out something, is considered to be "derailing", and is, itself, viciously attacked. Well, it has potential to be vicious if the accuser bothers to check a dictionary. (So far that has never happened.)

All in all, the conversation went the way I thought it would. My gender is my religion, indeed.

Carolyn Ann

And the (amateur) Electrician said "Let there be light!"

And it was Gooood!!! :-)

We now have light where no light existed before. Well, it did exist, but I disconnected it a long time ago. In a galaxy far, far away. Funny how it replicated itself in this house... :-)

(Guess what kind of a day I've had...)

I finally figured out the hall lighting circuits. Well, I didn't so much figure them out as figure out to bypass the worst bits. Like 5 live wires going to one switch. With a quick jaunt over to switch next to it. Disconnect that - it's for the front deck light - and the basement goes dark. I ended up with down being "On" (in the US and Canada, up is on). "No matter", I thought. I reversed the two (new) connections, and - the basement went dark and the hall lights stopped working altogether. That one I couldn't figure out, at all. So, after reconnecting it as it was, I turned the switch upside down and screwed it back in. Job done. :-)

The breakfast room fan and light needed an electronic controller; I found one left over from a job I did a few years ago. In it went. Now I remember why it was "left over". It doesn't work properly - no fan. So we have light, no big deal. Except I have to turn the controller off to light the light. And it started sputtering when I put florescent bulbs in. We had some decorative incandescent bulbs in the closet and it's been fine since I put them in.

Tomorrow, lots of carpentry. Oh - I also tidied up the dining room electrics. I'd forgotten I'd put them in a bit of a hurry for some party we were having. So those are nice and presentable, now!

And I'm tired. I've been on step-stools, step-ladders (both of which hurt my bad leg) and my feet, pretty much all day. After I finish this glass of wine, I'm going to bed!

Carolyn Ann

Stop the presses! Willie Nelson arrested for possession of marijuana...

It's probably one of the most consistent headlines in the history of popular music: Willie Nelson is busted, again, for pot. It's a bit like telling us when Keith Richards, et al, were arrested in the 1980's. At some point it stops being news.

Carolyn Ann

Here Comes The Sun James Taylor & Yo Yo Ma

Another amazing song: James Taylor and Yo Yo Ma, doing "Here comes the sun" :-)

Carolyn Ann

Hallelujah Chorus. In a shopping mall food court?

The Hallelujah Chorus, as sung by the Niagara Chorus, at the Welland Seaway Mall, in Welland, Ontario.



Hat tips to Simone (for finding the video) and Melissa (for pointing me in that direction). :-)

Carolyn Ann

That was shocking, I say! Shocking!

I was quite shocked, today. Twice!

Once by a wire I "knew" was dead. The other time because I didn't check the wire beforehand, and it indicated to me that 110V was present upon it. YodelaydeedeeeEEE... And so on. :-o

I've been working on the electrical systems within the abode. In other words, I needed to get some lights working that I disconnected about 2 or 3 years ago, and have been avoiding ever since. Floor lamps are fine. And didn't humanity manage without illumination for a few zillion years before the light bulb came along? :-) That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it! Sort of... It was more like "Hmm. That's going to be one of those 'challenge' thingies. Perhaps I'll look at it tomorrow, when I can dedicate some time to it." This is otherwise known as "procrastination".

And I'm a qualified electrician! (The Mrs mentioned something about the shoemaker's kids...)

Tomorrow arrived today. It took me all afternoon, but I finally figured out that some of the house wiring doesn't make sense. What should be neutral carries a current (gee, thanks for marking those lines, Mr Electrician Who Built The Place), and what should be live is - ouch! - actually live. Or not. I found out the kitchen fan and over-the-sink light isn't connected to where it should be. It's connected to the bathroom light circuit - which is halfway across the house. The back hall light has its wires backwards - literally. What should go to the fixture provides power, and what you'd think was the power goes to the fixture. And the red wire on the man switch, which should match the red wire on the other switch (it has two switches), isn't. I don't know where it's connected to. I figured out a system where if the main switch is on, you can use the other switch to turn the light on and off. If the main switch is off, the entire thing is off. Works for us!

And then there's the front hall circuit. I have no idea where it goes. I do know the wiring makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I have a suspicion, based on a tripped circuit breaker, that the red wire for that circuit is mixed up with the red wire for the back hall light. When the house was built, so many wires and circuits were crammed into light switch boxes, the electrician probably had to be "inventive". They were certainly original.

Oh well, it'll either be finished, tomorrow. Or I'll be the illumination. Zap! Ouch?

Carolyn Ann

Creating a Fifth Column

We know the likes of al-Qiada want to bring their meaningless carnage to the communities of their enemies. We also know that such groups want to create a legion of martyrs within those communities. What is particularly nasty about their tactics, however, is that they are turning innocent people into that community.

Young Islamic reactionaries seem to pop up, eager to destroy the communities they've benefited from. If it's not London cabbies going on vacation jihad, it's young men trying, and occasionally succeeding, to destroy innocent lives. Like the man arrested this morning.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in places like Murfreesboro, it's not the terrorists and would-be terrorists who become the martyred community - it's the innocent Muslims who want to create a new life, open to the opportunities that places like Britain, America, Germany and so on offer. Eager idiots vilify entire faiths in their unthinking sanctimoniousness. This, in turn, helps some Muslims feel alienated, unwanted, reviled within their own communities. Some of these go on to plot carnage, feeding the cycle.

It's an almost perfect way to create a fifth column. All it relies on is the heedless, hypocritical and self-righteous to react as they do. Both groups need each other - one to feed the fear, the other to be fearful. It's almost as if the fearful need something to be terrified of!

Carolyn Ann

No more anonymous comments

I am suspending anonymous comments.

David Marbus likes to use them to harass. Therefore, they are going away.

Carolyn Ann

Fucking creep

This guy is a creep. He's left a death threat for Mojoey, and he left the same Nostradamus comment on this blog. If you track your visitors, watch out for this guy.

The host is: cable-12-103-165.b2b2c.ca
The provider: Cidc Internal Use
IP address: 72.12.103.165
Coming from Outremont, Quebec
They're using Firefox 3.6 on a Windows 7 system.

The visitor is reported as being on my blog for 1 hour, 39 minutes, 3 seconds.

The spam he leaves is:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

HOW NOSTRADAMUS WON ALL THE PARANORMAL PRIZES!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus

_______________

THE HIGH PRICE OF REVOLUTION

--- YouTube link ---

Here's a post about the idiot from the Atheist Jew.
Apparently his name is David Marbus, aka David Markuze. And he's known to some in the atheist community. Well, leaving a death threat is probably a good way to be known to the police, as well.

I've saved PDF's of the various bits of information from the logs, etc.

Apparently he forgot to logout of Google before leaving a comment on this blog: his Google login is Davi. (The second comment he left was "anonymous".)

Great. Another idiotic bigot on the march. If it's not politically correct twits, it's Christian nut-jobs.

Ah, the joys of blogging.

Carolyn Ann

Context matters

The recent discussion with Kinsey, et alia, was centered around a concept that's currently quite trendy: the context of tribal, native, aboriginal or other not-Western artifacts; those artifacts being beliefs, graphic designs, or iconography. The specific, but oft ignored, question is centered on that context: who's context is more important, the native one, or the influenced one?

It's a question that was asked and definitively answered about 70 years ago. It was ignored a few decades ago when it really should have been asked anew and it's cropped up again. Basically, Western designers, gurus and so on were influenced by native designs, and the umbrage such usage might have caused was ignored.

There was a recent art exhibition in Australia, at the 2010 Sydney Biennale. In the exhibition was a piece by Aboriginal Australian artist Brook Andrew called "Jumping Castle War Memorial" (if the link doesn't work, just Google it). The piece is about the "racial oppression that continues in Australia" even now. It's a large plastic bouncy castle, painted with Wiradjuri designs; upon deciding to bounce around in the thing, the viewer, now participant, is "unwittingly contribut[ing] to a symbolic desecration of a native culture". Apparently this suggests "how easily personal gratification an override cultural understanding". (Quotes from Art in America, Sep '10, "So far away, and yet so near" by Felicity Fenner.)

Another piece, Kasbah, by French artist Kader Attia, was built of corrugated metal sheeting from various places; they were arranged in a shantytown-inspired manner. This is supposed to suggest how first world cultures ride roughshod over other, non-Western, cultures. I can't help but think it accurately shows the poverty in shantytowns.

The big question is: if you're invited, by the artist or venue, to bounce in the castle is the artist encouraging the alleged desecration? It's a shallow question that Brook Andrew poses; it supposes an answer to a question it barely knows how to ask. Which is the same problem that saying western society "appropriates" native artifacts has: the question is suggested, and the answer is supplied. Frankly, the argument that supports the answer doesn't exist. Mostly because the question doesn't exist.

Supposing there is an actual question, it's vaguely posed, at best. There's also, I will note, an almost desperate effort to be politically correct in the (supplied) answer. If we were to ask the question another way, by asking if the context of an artifact matters, we end up with two answers: yes, it does and no, it doesn't. It might matter to the group from whom the design was "taken", but it doesn't always matter to the one who "took" it. (It might mater in the very different context of "oh, isn't that interesting?") Design, after all, is human and universal. Disappointingly, religion proves to be pretty universal, too.

One of the aspects of this whole question we have to examine is the concept of "taken". In general, if something is "taken", it's removed from where it was located. In the sense of software piracy, we can say that something is "stolen" if the person who holds the rights to whatever it is, is denied their due compensation. We don't say the software was "appropriated" unless we're trying to be clever or failing to be witty. You can't actually take a design from a group; you can only copy it, usually imperfectly. This doesn't trouble many, it seems. In general, the copying of a design is seen as a desecration of a culture; in my discussion with Kinsey Hope, et al, it was poorly alleged that the "taking" of a religious belief amounted to the debasement of an entire race - with little regard to either the concepts more general history (which was conveniently redefined), or the fact that the concept can be easily derived.

I don't think there's any doubt that western cultures walk all over native ones; the allure of modern conveniences means the end of pretty much any culture encountered. (Which begs the question: does the west walk all over a culture, or do the members of a culture run toward what the west offers?) Throughout history, stronger cultures have imposed their values upon the conquered or even encountered. The Romans imposed their culture, as much as they could, upon their Empire; the Egyptians did before them. The Mongol Hordes imposed their structures; Islamic invaders imposed religious and cultural norms on the Spanish, and so on. Some might argue, facetiously and with little understanding, that America and Britain impose their cultures on the rest of the world. It's unarguable that Britain imposed itself upon a good quarter of the world, and strongly influenced the rest of it.

When Elsa Schiaparelli was designing her outrageous gowns, often using iconography from other cultures, was she debasing that culture? Or was she merely using those designs to further her own art, and her own need to create astonishing and beautiful clothes? When Picasso was inspired by African masks, and created an entirely new genre, was he deprecating the cultures that originated the masks? No - he was using their representation in new ways. Where would Guernica be without that primitive influence? Picasso certainly appropriated the bull and horse in his painting, but did it defile the culture he was from? Some might say yes - because the use is contradictory to their accepted roles in Spanish culture. These days, and for the last 70 or 80 years, the "taking" designs from other cultures has gone from the occasional to the routine.

When it comes to religion, the New Agers derive their influences from many other religions and philosophies. They take ideas from all sorts of places, blend them together and come up the usual religious nonsense. No one idea is any more sacred than any other; indeed, if anything, the New Age creed is to that all is one, and one is all - which makes any one idea equal to any other idea. Is that basic idea a desecration of any other religious idea? No one can successfully argue that any one religious idea is superior to any other religious idea, simply because to do so would be to force a hierarchy of religious expression. You can't argue that "two spirits" is more sacred than a virginal birth. You can argue that within a particular group, an idea is sacred, but it's actually impossible to argue that being inspired by that idea is racist, or debasing a culture. Denigrating the idea is different; when you're inspired by something, you're not denigrating it, you're elevating it. You assign a relative degree of (immediate?) importance to an idea. Denigrating the idea and not others of like-minded feebleness is not racist - it's simple short-sightedness. Denigrating the people who hold an idea because they hold that idea, or because they are of a different skin color or race, is racist. Denying people the ability to be influenced by ideas from different cultures or religions because they are not the same skin color or heritage is racist.

Again, the context of the idea matters. If it's an important belief for a group of people, they might feel disempowered when someone comes along and uses it in a different context. If there are enough unimportant beliefs used in the same way, the members of that culture could feel disgruntled and trodden upon. There's no denying that; only a fool would do so. Unfortunately, it's impossible to stop others from being influenced by native designs, beliefs and icons.

According to Kinsey's argument, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints debases Christianity, because they take a fundamentally sacred concept - the prophet - from Christianity and reapply it to Ol' Joe Smith. More than a few Christians might agree; after all, the Mormons are viewed pretty much as the anti-Christ in most evangelical and fundamentalist Christian circles. The unfortunate fact is, however, that no one can actually stop them from doing exactly what they did. Oh sure, people can jump up and down and complain, but at the end of the day, the Mormon belief is what it is. The Mormons took a basic idea and reapplied it in a new context. Islam didn't, by the way. They view Jesus as a minor prophet, with the real one being Mohammed. Christians and Muslims disagree on who the prophet is,  Mormons on how many there are and Jews are still waiting for Elijah. What the Christians, Mormons and Muslims do agree on is that their religion is superior to all the others. One fact about all of these religions: they were influenced by the various religions that went before them. Christianity, in particular, also incorporates many ideas from the converted; or it could be said those people adapted their Christianity by incorporating historical ideas of their own. What's indisputable is how Christianity asserted its "superiority". Destroying temples and killing opposing priests pretty much guaranteed a vacuum the Christian missionary or monk could step into.

I can't help but think in that is the nub of the problem: ancient-ish Christianity, aka the western world, basically destroyed whatever culture it encountered. Considering how little truly native culture exists, today, whether this will continue is moot.

Clouding the issue is the eagerly made but clearly thoughtless charge of racism if you differ from the "accepted" view. While this knee-jerk criticism might satisfy the immediate need of the critic to prove they are incapable of reasonable thought, it doesn't advance the discussion. The answer has been supplied - all that is left for you is to agree with it.  What this ignores is that design has, for centuries, been influenced by contact with other cultures. Whether a particular shape or icon is important to the derived-from culture is almost moot; the fact that the design was transferred is much more interesting. The same goes for religious beliefs; in the early days of religion, we see the same stories and base beliefs turning up time and time and time again. Even independently! 

What is particularly lazy is blaming the entire race of "white men" for the actions of their ancestors. We do not live in that world, we live in this one. We didn't perpetrate the massacres of native Americans, the Spanish enslaving the Mesoamerican cultures, the British revenge upon the Indians or the general massacres of peoples who were not-white. To lay the blame at our feet is to indulge in a fantasy; while it can be acknowledged that Europeans were, on the whole, a pretty sordid and vicious lot in times past, it's futile to blame today's population for what their fathers did wrought. To provide the pedant no room, I will also insist that this does not, in any way, imply that the world is perfect. It very clearly isn't. Turning the debate into one of the efficacy or desirability of affirmative action is a diversion if we're talking about the context of cultural artifacts. It's an important discussion, but is not relevant to the subject immediately at hand.

In short, the artist or religious believer is not beholden to the originator of a design or concept. This is not to deny the right of the originating culture to feel that its beliefs or designs have been "appropriated"; it simply means that in the universal language of the visual and in the annals of belief, pretty much anything can be an inspiration. It has always been thus, and when mankind ventures into the stars and discovers new civilizations, it will be thus as well.

Carolyn Ann

A pronouncement

I think it's late enough in the year to make a pronouncement on the damn thing.

This has been my worst year, ever. Even 2004 wasn't this bad.

If "it" could go pear-shaped, it did so in all 11 dimensions. If it could go slightly awry - it gave a spectacular crash and an impressive mushroom cloud. If it was a minor bump on the road, it turned into a multi-car pileup that blocked the road forever. If it... Well, I think you get the picture.

Oh well. Next year will be better. Just have to get through the next couple of weeks. After that - there's not much time for anything else to happen. I hope, he squeaks.

C'est la vie. You've got to take the rough with the smooth.

Carolyn Ann

Something went wrong...

Something went wrong with the "Recommended Reading" list. I don't know what, but it seems to be fixed, now.

Carolyn Ann

Table of Contents to the identity discussion

I think this is a chronological list of the Two Spirit argument I've been engaged in. I don't know if anyone else has written about this argument. (If they have, and would appreciate a link, drop a note into the comments section; I'll put the link in, here.)

(For some whimsical reason, I decided to check the statistics for this blog; I noticed that a lot of people arrived to read this post about identity and labeling. While I have no idea who came and went, I thought a table of contents to the discussion would be helpful.)

Interestingly, Art in America (the magazine) had some discussion about native and aboriginal identities being trampled on by western civilizations. I'll write about those in a moment.

Refuting, and rebutting, Kinsey
Continuing my thought re Kinsey's argument...
A(nother) response to Kinsey Hope
The thing with Kinsey...
Jemma seems to be annoyed with me
Free speech can be offensive. Wow.
The saga continues
Two lesson I should have learned long ago
Kinsey tells me I'm a racist. Wow.
(Hopefully) My final statement re Kinsey Hope

Kinsey's original post: The Sacrosanct Identity, Bigotry And The Enabling Of Oppression

Where Kinsey and me first discussed identity: Relabel yourself (to accommodate me)!

Carolyn Ann

Blah. Again.

This is a demonic little bug. I'm definitely on the mend, but oy! Getting some snoring in is either nodding off at some random moment, or a trial of coughing and sneezing, with a final, exhausted, metaphorical falling over.

The dreams, when they're around, are pretty surreal and vivid. I'm not sure if that's cough medicine or the bug, but this morning I was riding a motorcycle, a Suzuki I think, across an ocean. With various hordes from the Pirates of the Caribbean chasing me. Then the phone rang (probably the bank wondering their money is; I'd like to tell them I wonder that, too... But they don't seem inclined to jovial or agreeable conversations). Another dream had me drag racing a decent bike; I don't know if I won, but it was fun. :-)

Right now, I need another dose of cough medicine.

Carolyn Ann

Sarah wants the US to support who?

Sarah Palin exhorts the US to stand with its allies - North Korea. Oops.

And this woman wants to be President?

When she gets that 3AM call: "Drop nukes on South Korea! Oh, dear, I meant North Korea!"

Carolyn Ann

Forbes is stupid

The other night, at the library, I noticed Arriana Huffington on the cover of Forbes magazine's October edition. So checked it out, and read it last night.

That magazine is stupid. It has certain mantras and a style of writing that is best described as "breezy" and "not particularly informed". Sarah Palin would do well to read it, in other words. I thought it was supposed to be one of the best business magazines out there? It's a hackneyed shallow jaunt through topics that are at the top of no one's list. Saying that the fashion magazine InStyle has more depth in its coverage isn't exactly a ringing vindication of either, but at least InStyle is interesting.

What did I learn about Arriana Huffington? Not much. But I did learn that the writer, an ex-Gawker editor, is breathless with excitement when she meets famous people.

Oh well. At least I didn't pay for the stupid magazine.

Carolyn Ann

Helen has an amazing picture of The Louvre.

Helen Sotiriadis has a stunning, and beautiful, picture of The Louvre on her Flickr photostream.

I love Helen's photography. :-)

Carolyn Ann

North Korea goes off the deep end. Again.

North Korea is one of those places you wonder about. How can a national leadership be so stupid, so often - and get away with it? At some point they'll get the war I can't help think they want. And they'll regret it. But so will the rest of the world.

(China, especially.)

Carolyn Ann

(Hopefully) My final statement re Kinsey Hope

I wasn't (after a cheap bit of name-calling that I sort of regret) going to comment on Kinsey Hope again - but she responded to my last comment with a rather ludicrous assertion:

You need to stop seeing the word racist as an insult. It’s a situation.

Say what?

I'm not sure which planet Ms Hope fell off of, but on this one being told you're a racist is an insult! Besides, asserting that racism is a situation isn't possible. You don't find yourself in racist circumstances, or consider your state of affairs to be racist.

I've met racists. I've chatted with them. They're not situational. They are racists regardless of the situation. I've met black racists (in London, in the late '80's), and I've met white racists (all over, but generally in the south).

Unless you happen to have a really odd view of racism, it's a bad thing. Racism is discriminating based on skin color, race, ethnic background, and so on. It's about believing that specific races have specific attributes. It's about judging one race to be superior or inferior to another. It's about proscribing behavior, opinions or attitudes because of skin color. It's about "feeling uncomfortable" when someone with the wrong skin color or ethnic background enters "your" environment.

That's not a situation - that's bigotry. Putting any race ahead of any other is bigotry. Arguing that a universal concept is off-limits to someone because they're white is bigoted, and racist. I already know Ms Hope didn't rush to condemn a moment of anti-Semitism from a commenter. Actually, she didn't do anything with that. She let it pass without comment.

Mind you, Ms Hope is a racist. Perhaps that's why she can argue the impossible? As it stands, I know she doesn't think too deeply, preferring knee-jerk platitudes, arguments of convenience and shallowness to actually examining what she's asserting. Within her cloak, she prefers blinders to sunlight. Well, this is a rather strong searchlight pointed at her.

I'm sorry I got involved in her debate. I should have spent a moment looking through her previous posts; perhaps I would seen her for who she is: a sad figure, trying to be relevant to her "friends". (I'd not wish friends like those on my dearest enemy!) She fails to see that you can't argue equality by introducing arguments that have inequality at their core. I'm not so sure she's arguing much beyond her own prejudices.

Ah well. I'll know better next time.

Added: Oops. I forgot to mention - Kinsey was kind enough to provide her permission for me to continue treating people as people. I'm so glad she did so, otherwise I wouldn't have known what to do.

Carolyn Ann

Normalcy has a nonsensical aura to it

The news usually brings a few moments of nonsense to the daily feast of daily happenings. The NY Times brings two such items to the fore: Mr Obama's lack of clemency, and the White House pushing back against the over about the new TSA pat-downs and full body scans.

It appears that Mr Obama is headed toward being the most lackadaisical president ever when it comes to granting pardons. His record is on a par with Mr Bush The Younger's - none, this far into the term. The writer, George Lardner Jr, makes a stunning admission:

It’s difficult to understand why the president has been so unwilling to grant any clemency.

Willie Horton ring any bells?

The simple fact is that in such a poisonous political environment, clemency will inevitably be all but impossible to grant. Mr Lardner goes on:

As someone who has taught constitutional law, he knows that the founders gave him, and him alone, the power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment.” It is likely that he also knows that a disproportionate number of federal prisoners are black, that mandatory sentencing guidelines have left many of them with excessive sentences and that at least a few of them deserve clemency, whether they’ve asked for it or not.

I'm not sure I'm reading that correctly. Yes, we know the constitutional grants him this right. It doesn't say anything about either political expediency or the president's own feelings about the incarcerated. It's well known that the drug laws hit the African-American community hardest; the drug laws and their associated punishments are generally seen, by all except politicians who want to be re-elected, to be what they are: capricious, draconian and often nonsensical. Unfortunately the political environment, especially at the Federal level, is not conducive to exploring less costly ways of punishing people and preventing the crime in the first place. It's more about needless punishment and locking jaywalkers up for life.

The next bit must have the more strategically limited Republicans laughing in the aisles. Travelers are upset about the new intrusive body scanners and pat downs. I believe Robert Shofkom, a traveler quoted in the article, who, besides intending to wear a kilt on his flight, said:

“If you give them an inch, they won’t just take in inch. Pretty soon, you’re getting scanned to get into a football game.”

These days "security" is the name of the game. It's invoked to cover anything from inexplicable infringements on civil rights to officious efforts to hide information that should be in the public domain. Heck, Tony Blair tells us he was wrong to push through government transparency laws. The people are governed by who, again?

(Then again, you could opt to travel only in a Speedo. Take a blanket - they cost money for a tissue-thin thing on the plane, and those planes tend to be cold.) [I didn't think of "taking a coat". Oops.]

Added: Of course, a bikini is a possible option, too. :-)

This isn't a story about how the security effort wasn't "sold" correctly. It's a story about how people are frustrated with travel. We need to travel, it's that simple. America is a mobile society, travel has been an essential component of life since the railways joined the nation. But the airlines, and the TSA, have managed to alienate just about everyone. If you're not being charged for turning up, you're being charged for not turning up. If you have the audacity to pack something, you get charged for that, too. The whole experience has become miserable. The TSA responds to the last security threat, and the airlines try to gouge you regardless. Both sides then tell you they're working hard to make your travel experience a positive one and a secure one. But in the meantime, your experience proves they prefer to make your life a living hell inhabited by petty officials and rules that make sense to their originator. Who's last moment of lucidity was as the appeals judge in Joseph K's trial. Condescension doesn't work, so treating the traveling public as universal idiots is the next best choice?

All in all, a pretty quiet day.

Carolyn Ann

What's two, again?

I'm at the "Two plus two is..? Wait! What's two?" stage of this damn cold.

I spent this morning - when I should have been working - lying around, out for the count. In the last 24 hours, I think I've slept through about 18 of them. Not good.

Right, time to get on with something. Like figuring out what that "two" is...

Carolyn Ann

Blah.

I'm sick. I feel lousy. I need a hot toddy. Or a cup of that ginger and lemon tea the Mrs makes.

Blah. Sniffle, sniffle. Blah.

Carolyn Ann

Installing the stovetop fan and light. A saga of pathetic proportions.

Well that was a tiring day.

I decided, for a particularly good reason that has to remain unstated, to install the stovetop fan and light. It's been waiting about, oh, four years for installation... I knew it was going to be an ornery job, so I've been sort of avoiding it. Until today.

Installing a fan should be a simple job. Take the old one out (done a long time ago), and put the new one in. The old one blew onto the bottom of a cupboard. And was held in place by wishful thinking. It had to be that because I couldn't find much else holding it up!

Still - a simple job. Measure and cut a hole for the ductwork in the bottom of the cabinet. Measure, cut and install the ductwork and the outside vent. Shouldn't take more than a couple of hours, right? It took 9 hours.  And the damn thing still doesn't work!

If it could go wrong, it did. Everything from having an endless supply of the wrong sort of jigsaw blades. I had the straight ones; I needed one "T" blade. It took me half an hour, but I found a small package of them. And then there was the unused cabinet hanger bar - a 2x4, stretched between the studs, to hang cabinets from. I didn't know it was there. So that took some removing. As I mentioned, the old fan was held in place by prayer (and grease). I didn't think that would work on the new one, so some sort of fastening system had to be devised. A few 1x3's, cut to length and screwed in place. It was there that I discovered the cabinet bottom wasn't plywood - it was a formica-like thing. Cheap crap, in other words.

Eventually I had all the holes cut, the bracing bars installed, and the conduit not only found but ready to be installed. It took an hour to simply "measure" and get the two pieces of conduit to agree to mate. Considering the animosity they seemed to have for each other, I'm not expecting any small pieces of conduit to be running around... I actually ended up taking a table lamp outside to illuminate the workplace. Not quite OSHA (occupational health and safety people; they're very keen), but it worked. For once the vinyl siding was somewhat cooperative, and then it was inside to do the electrics.

I should mention that damned wire. The previous fan had about 3 inches of wire, and a very short grounding wire. About an inch. There was no more to be had - so I had to lift the blower into place, try and slide the wire through its hole, and then fasten the blower to the cabinet. Took a few goes and a generous quantity of words and phrases the cats didn't know but now do, and then I had to get the "grommet" into place. It's a small bit of plastic that keeps the plastic wire from rubbing on the sharp metal edge of the blower. It was a bit like trying to get a Republican to agree to a sensible course of action. Eventually you can do it, but its a heck of a lot more painful and difficult than it should be.

Anyway - wire, connected! Time to go downstairs and flip the breaker... Erm, which breaker would it be? The only ones that are "Off" have no cable attached to them. Maybe it's one of the cables I cut last summer? They weren't needed, so I removed them from the breaker box. Nope, not one of those four cables lit the lamps or spun the blower. Perhaps it's connected to the "Range" breaker? Nope. How about that cable? Nope. Okay, something is seriously stupid here. Try them all again. Nothing doing.

What now? Ah! Bottle of wine, cafe table and the Mrs is home. I wish I had the energy to put on something pretty, but simply standing up to let the cats in, out, in, out, out, out, in, in, out, etc, was arduous enough.

Tomorrow (today?) is another day. I'll probably end up running a new cable to the blower, because sometimes that's easier than troubleshooting. And I have a banister to put in, as well.


Update: Jeez, I feel awful. This cold is worse than ever. I was so tired last night I fixated on one idea: that the blower line would do a "home run". If I'd thought about it for a moment, I'd have realized two things: if it's not disconnected at the breaker box, it must be disconnected somewhere else. And that the likeliest place for that would be those cables from when I moved the kitchen light switch. So I'll try that, today. :-) <cough, cough, wheeze, wheeze="">

Carolyn Ann

Senator Snowe drinks too much kool-aid

Olympia Snowe, the Senator from Maine, was recently quoted in The Huffington Post as saying:

"As I asserted during the debate on this legislation, the individual mandate has no place in a health care reform bill unless and until affordable health insurance is available for all Americans,"

So let me see... The one thing that ensures that health care is affordable is the one thing she objects to in the health care bill. I think another Republican senator, Chuck Grassley of Iowa said it best:

"There isn't anything wrong with it, [...] except some people look at it as an infringement upon individual freedom. But when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance, because everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren't insured, there's no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it."

It's not often I wonder if Ms Snowe has drank to much Republican Kool-Aid, but this one of those moments.

Carolyn Ann

Kinsey tells me I'm a racist. Wow.

Kinsey dislikes personal attacks. What she means is that she dislikes it when someone points outs a deep flaw in her pronouncements, or points that her argument is discriminatory in some way . Ah well - sticks and stones and all that. I've been called worse. I know I'm not racist, and it's pointless trying to defend against such a charge. It's a bit like being asked if you've stopped beating your wife!

She seems to think I need to apologize for being white, male, English, and so on. She's a fool.

Anyway, Kinsey told me I'm a racist, so, not being one to let a good time to go a wonting, I responded:

You dislike personal attacks, huh? You're a cheap thinker, Kinsey.

I *know* I enjoy certain advantages. I've never denied it. I also know I'm not a racist, but I've long considered you racist, Kinsey.

Because you dislike personal attacks, I'll simply publish this on my blog.

(The comment is currently awaiting her "approval". I think it will awaiting it for quite some time.)

Apparently I misconstrue her arguments. I think it's more that she expresses herself so poorly, and with such little care to examining her own arguments, that it's difficult not to misconstrue her.

One day I'll learn that nattering with bigots, especially poorly expressed bigots, is not a good use of my time. Until then, Kinsey Hope can be assured that her cheap logic is still available in the discount bin.

Carolyn Ann

PS Of course, Kinsey is welcome to comment here. She'll find her comments are not filtered for appropriateness or inoffensiveness, here. I don't hide behind a wall, yelling cheap insults. Unlike Kinsey.

I've got the dreaded lurgy. Or a cold. Whichever is the more dramatic...

The Mrs gave me the Dreaded Lurgy. Or a cold, I'm not sure which.

But the love that she is, she brought me a cup of lemon and ginger tea - it really soothes the throat! "I can't stand lemon tea!" I croaked in protest. "It'll soothe your throat, and it's more like a ginger biscuit". It was.

That and some rest should see me through today's little challenges.

Grooaaannn... I don't feel well...
Carolyn Ann

More tea?

I watched the body as it floated by the window. A blood-white crocodilian corpse, it had a smashed helmet and a burned space suit. Something that looked like a gun hung from its side on a tether. I guess I should tell you about the arms and legs, the overbite, the short tail and the boots, but so much has been written, so many photographs taken, about those I don't really see the point.

I remember it clearly. Nancy and me were sitting on the left side of the ship, in the front lounge. Fancy traditional deck chairs they were; I was impressed. Wooden framed and all! Her Mom and Dad had paid for the trip, and my parents were enjoying the Wonders of Saturn's Moons. Fat chance. They were probably arguing for all they were worth, and taking on loans, too. The peace and quiet was nice, and I liked Nancy and she liked me.

Do I need to explain that Nancy was Nancy Penscott, a friend? So much has been written about our friendship, so many lies told, I'm not surprised we lost contact. Oh, we could Facebook each other, but why should we? We have this to share, and it's enough.

As you know, it was the first time anyone had seen another species in space. But no one has ever told the story accurately. A newspaper man - I wonder why they still call them that? - told me it was the "real deal". He never did tell me why, though.

Tea? It's cold out, and I'll fancy you're ready for a cup? Yes? Let me put the kettle on, then. I don't know why, I just like my tea from the kettle. Better flavor, I imagine. Where was I? Oh yes. We'd been out for a couple of weeks, and we were just entering unknown territory - no one had ever been to that part of the galaxy, before. The captain stopped the ship a little before the Unknowns, as they were called - they still are? That's nice to know - and told us that if we wanted to get off, we could. No charge, no adverse record on our credit reports or what-have-yous on Facebook. Some folk did get off. One woman had to be helped off, but I was told she was pregnant and was about to give birth.

I stayed, and so did Nancy. We went where the ship went! What a grand adventure it was! Besides, her Mom and Dad were still swanning about, and my parents had taken out mortgages. Beats me why they stayed together. It was on the second day in the Unknowns that I saw it - a small speck, moving too fast against the stars. It seemed to be getting larger, coming toward us. I pointed it out to Nancy but she couldn't see it until it was quite large. I was excited - I'd seen something! And then I remembered being told that if you see something, you should say something. So I called the Bursar over and pointed it out to him. He peered into space, and not seeing it, asked me to point it out, again. And then he saw it! He muttered an oath - I promised him I wouldn't repeat it, and I never will - and he ran to his desk like a man possessed.

It was after that when panic ensued. I like that word. The newspaper man told it to me; it's stuck with me eversince. The ship suddenly stopped and the dot grew larger and larger. I grabbed my phone and took a few pictures of the thing, but couldn't Facebook them. I was told the Captain had closed all comms links as a safety measure. She shut down Nancy's conversation with Amja'in pretty fast! One minute Nancy is thinking of patching Amja'in to me, so we could have a normal conversation instead of only through Nancy, and the next - nothing! Not a thing! Nada as my Dad used to say.

As the dot got closer, I watched it take shape. By now there were lots of people gathered around us. Even Nancy's Mom and Dad had come down to watch. As it got closer, it seemed to slow down, but I was told that was an illusion; to this day, I don't believe it. It definitely slowed down. The body sailed by, no more than a few meters from the glass! It was clearly dead, but no one had ever seen an alien before. So we looked and looked and looked some more. And we took pictures, oh did we take pictures! I don't think anything has been photographed or youtubed more! I heard Facebook had to add a server farm to cope with the images! Twitter was, of course, dead, but when it came back online, it almost melted from the tweets!

When the captain threw those wild maneuvers, we were all startled. I was startled, let me tell you, by the sight of the First Officer in a negligée! Apparently the Captain had woken her up and ordered down to the lounge to grab as much information about the corpse as she could; she must have had a dozen crew with her! They were all taking pictures and youtubes and carrying on as if they were the only ones on the ship! The next time I saw her, she was in uniform.

As you know, we hightailed it back to base. The military provided an escort, I heard it extended out for a dozen light years (but they won't say, obviously) as we got into regular space. I know we weren't allowed to disembark for a long time. Not that I was anxious to do so. Although I have to admit, when I got off, my parents were happy to see me. And they didn't bicker at all on the way home.

But yes, young man. I did see the first alien anyone has ever seen. More tea?

Carolyn An

The sanctity of marriage? Poppycock!

We were watching a "House Hunters" (the wife likes the show; I can barely stand it), and a young lass was moving from Boston to Chicago for the better dating scene. Helping her with her move were two chaps. One had moved from Boston to be with his lover, in Chicago.

I said the Mrs something along the lines of "If two people are that committed, denying them the right to marry is not protecting the sanctity of marriage - it's debasing the entire principle of the thing!"

When you marry, you publicly commit to that person. You gain a legal standing that unmarried couples don't have. For me, it wasn't enough to say I love this woman, I wanted it to be known that I loved her, that I wanted to share my life with her. I was (very) lucky that she wanted to share her life with me! So if some chap moves to Chicago to be with the person he loves - but is denied the right to marry that person because the love of his life is another man - why shouldn't the two of them get married? Who's business is it, anyway? I don't want you telling me whom I can marry, and I most certainly do not want to tell you whom you can fall in love with and marry.

(And, unlike some, I'm not exactly happy with circumscribing why people should get married, anyway. Want to marry? Why is it my business? I'll appreciate invitations to the party... :-) )

When someone argues that gay marriage is somewhat troubling to the sanctity of marriage - I know I'll be responding that denying someone the right to marry whom they want is not supporting the sanctity of marriage. It's debasing the entire idea of it.

Carolyn Ann

The exam was wrong

I recently took an exam - I got either 96% or 100% depending on how you view one particular question.

The exam required an answer that encompassed "all" of some quantity. The coursework informed us that "almost all" of this quantity is actually the answer. Common sense says "almost all".

I pointed this out, very politely, to the course director. After receiving no response, I pointed it a little more brusquely. (I was my usual self...) She was not happy.

Damned furious, to be honest.

But not at the exam. At me!

I've failed a couple of exams in my time. One math exam I didn't even bother showing up to. Another I apparently wore high heeled boots to. I don't remember it, but I know I flunked it. (I was probably roaringly drunk. I often was in those days.) One exam, I got there immediately after partying - quite hard - all night and most of the morning. (Astonishingly, I not only read it, I passed!) Other exams have taken me a months of study and a lot of angst. I hate exams.

Actually, I think I've failed exactly two exams in my time. Unless you count driving tests. (Oops.)

Anyway, I was rather astonished that I had to persuade a few people that "almost all" is not the same as "all", and that the course director was damned mad at me. Yelling across a crowded classroom, she berated me and berated me and berated me. At one point I simply asked "I don't understand what you're accusing me of?!?" That was probably not helpful. The yelling didn't abate; indeed, it assumed a renewed vigor!

The results of the exam are, apparently, no longer counted toward our course finals. I'm not sure what will replace it - it was a third of the total - and I'm not sure that such a decision is legitimate. I might have to protest it.

What gets me is that some people got 96% and 100% because they answered the question incorrectly! I got penalized because I understand that "almost all" is not the same as "all". You know the sad thing? Only one other person in an overall class of 75 realized the question was wrong. But only one made a fuss. Because I care about the difference between 96% and 100%.

Carolyn Ann

Two lesson I should have learned long ago

This whole discussion with Kinsey Hope has taken a decidedly stupid turn. I am, apparently, wrong for considering that folks is folks. In an astonishing development, it would appear I'm also a racist because I don't elevate some group or other, or consider their plight, or something. I'm not actually sure what. I almost understood the rant.

The simple thing is this:

If you ban a basic human concept such as "x" because of skin color, you're either a racist, or employing racist arguments. 

Someone pointed me to a blog where a young person (I forget their gender, and it's not important) felt uncomfortable at a street fair when white folk turned up. This person was told it was fine to feel uncomfortable. 

Nonsense.

Situational racism is racism.

If you object to white people turning up at your fair, how can you complain when white folk complain when you turn up in "their" neighborhoods? Just because you're not white and they are is not excuse. If equality is to mean anything, it has to be equal. Providing a "better" equality for some because of past grievances might be advisable - I'm not convinced it is - but it's not an answer for an equal society.

Sure, some want a homogenous society to live in. That's their prerogative. But to complain that whites turn up and make you uncomfortable? Isn't that akin to a southern racist arguing that blacks want their own space?

And then to argue that a common idea is off limits to some because of their skin color? 

Kinsey tries to make dropping your keys and pointing out racism as equivalent. I'd hope she know better, but apparently I'm mistaken. Dropping your keys is not the same as noting an argument is anti-Semitic, or racist or what-have-you. She also decided to be the arbiter of my annoyance.

So the discussion can continue in its oblivious glory without me.

One thing this discussion has demonstrated is that Ann Coulter's meanly-titled idiocy "How to talk to a liberal (if you must)" and her follow-on continuation of outright stupidity, "If Democrats had brains, they'd be Republicans" have a symbolic root. Ms Hope and her supporters seem to be more intent on proving that some group is worthy of more consideration than some other group that they forget that they're actually arguing about equality. When you try to be as inclusive as Ms Hope and her supporters, you end up alienating some other group. In the end someone such as me gets criticized for arguing that reasonableness is a reasonable option. I get told that being colorblind is promoting the worst of racism, that treating people as people is something I should be ashamed of.

Two lessons. I've learned two lessons from all of this.

One. Never argue with people who don't know their own argument. 

Two If you don't argue, some of these ridiculous ideas take hold.

Oh, and Three: if someone can argue that a racist argument is not racist - they will do so. Squirming is optional.

More fool me for not remembering these points.

Carolyn Ann 

Aching (and Wow - That's (not exactly) feminine...)

Except for a couple of wires, I rewired half the downstairs, over this weekend. I've got a couple of problems to sort out with the existing wiring, and I'm aching.

Here's what happened... For a couple of reasons, the bathroom needed to be rewired. And we have a funky 1950's lamp hanging on the wall that really should be powered, and an old railway sign that points to Ebbets Field (the Brooklyn Dodgers played there; these days, it's a block of mundane and slightly dangerous flats). I wanted to install that, too.

And then the wife's office needs a phone line (we've been relying on wireless phones, but they knock out my laptop's connection), and while I as at it, a network wire probably wouldn't go amiss. (I wonder if I should have run Cat-6? Probably. Oh well.)

So I set about rewiring.

And ended up running out of wire. Rewiring a substantial portion of the house because I couldn't figure out how the existing wires run and it was easier to do it my way, and getting the back deck light working after about three years of it not doing so.

I also welded a switch screw to the switch and almost zapped myself to Kingdom Come, wherever that may be. I decided to do the testing "old style". Not quite up to using my tongue to see if 110V was traversing a wire (a line), I decided on the next best thing - an old extension cord with a couple of alligator clips on one end and a plug on the other. Turns out that one of the back hallway switches already had power running to it. My "test" resulted in a lot of sparks, a screw that holds a wire on the switch actually being welded to the switch and a fairly generous quantity of cursing.

I told the wife off (... :-) ), and commenced checking my personal accouterments for both proximity, assemblage and usefulness. All appeared well.

I moved on to the job at hand. Three trips to various home renovation centers provided the needed bits, along with the unneeded, but associated, bills and I switched on the bathroom to be greeted by... Light! And sound. After a confusing moment or two, I realized I'd switched on the fan, as well.

During the "discovery" phase, I discovered the wire that fed the deck light, and the Mrs switched various switches while I labeled their associated disconnected cables in the basement.

All in all, a productive day. Tomorrow, I fix the remaining problems, provide the stove with a much-needed hood and break down in tears when I realize I probably have to rewire the kitchen as well.

After a well-deserved lounge in the tub, I "slid into something more comfortable". Unfortunately our hall closet doors are large mirrors. I had to walk past them to get to the kitchen. I wish I hadn't glanced at my image. The fantasy was so much prettier.

Carolyn Ann

Wimp

Lord Young has resigned over an ill-advised comment.

He said people had never had it so good.

In the resulting furor, he decided it was better to quit.

What a dimwit. If he had something to offer, he doesn't now. If he didn't, fine. But to quit because the headlines are a little combative? If that's all it takes to step down, let's tell the Republicans they're in league with Lord Young. (They are, but no one has told them that.)

He said one thing that was true: "people would look back on the recession and "wonder what all the fuss was about". The Republicans, Glenn Beck, Fox News and the Tea Party are already doing that. So are many Tories (it seems the anti-Europe ones are especially keen on this viewpoint).

It takes so little to destroy a career, it makes you wonder if the effort is worth it. After all, if all it takes is a headline or two, you're not exactly made of sterner stuff, are you?

Carolyn Ann

As it happens, I do know what I said

Yes, I know what I said.

(Damn this infernal calendar-based posting!)

I just don't any especial need to explain it. Mostly because I can't - my friends and other regular readers will know that's not exactly unusual for me... :-) )

Carolyn Ann

Merely annoying

For the first time in my life, I'm not sure how a financial negotiation is going to work out.

I was just sitting here, sipping the last of my beer, and it just occurred to me that I actually don't know how the negotiations are going to work out. I don't what the result will be.

Some might note that such a revelation can be liberating. Personally, it's merely annoying.

Merely annoying. Mere sticks and stones.

Carolyn Ann

Added: this is not to imply that financial negotiations always go the way I want them to. Let's be reasonable... :-| (Sort of.) But I usually know what the outcomes will be: I'm broke, or I'm not. This time, I have no idea what the outcomes will be. I do know that there are two freight trains in the tunnel, but only one track. And I'm standing on it...

The saga continues

Chatting with the Mrs about this conversation, I said to her "if you apply context to morality, you have lost the context of morality". Why can I say that? Because if you're stuck on that proverbial spaceship, trying to decide if it's more moral to kill the child, or save the planet - you're applying a context to morality. And once you do that, you've lost the context of all morality - both options are hideous. It's not the Kobayashi Maru.

Kinsey, in her quest to do justice to a group, discards how that group might influence others.

In a comment, the one where Jemma told me I was a racist, I was referred to another blog. The blog post asked the question about discomfort. Is a young lass (if memory serves) entitled to feel discomfited when, at a festival, white folk show up. The answer was "it was okay to feel discomfited". Now turn that into a simple "A B" moral question. Is it okay if I feel discomfited that a family of skin color "X" bought the house next door? The difference is stark - on the one hand we're talking about a few hours of public entertainment. On the other, we're discussing a few years of living in the same neighborhood, on the same street, as a family of some other color. It's not okay to be discomfited in the one circumstance, but it's okay to be discomfited in the former one.

No, it's not.

People are people.

Anyway, because I'm not sure I trust Kinsey, I'm republishing my comment here.

(I need to explain that Kinsey has been disputing my British history, and we've been trading barbs about many things. Her latest barb is about the weather; where that came from, I know not. A bit like those peels of thunder I heard, yesterday, in what was allegedly a clear sky. Kinsey, in a suitably superior manner, asked if I knew that storms arose from global conditions, and not local ones. I responded that she needs to ride a motorcycle through the panhandle of Texas and Florida...)

Anyway, here it is :-) :
===

Kinsey, I once had the misfortune to work with a chap who was both extremely intelligent, pungent and ill-informed. Your words re the Celts reminded me of him. He was equally certain, and the foundation for his claim equally uncertain. I hope you're not as pungent as he was. (Not for any particular reason, of course.)

Let me get this straight. You argue that a religious concept is off-limits, even derogatory, if "white people" are inspired by it, take it to be a truth, or even consider it in their thinking. Even if that thinking is derived from first principles? Or from a different base. You argue that other cultural and religious "appropriations" are okay, depending upon context.

You further argue that I'm racist because I don't support your idea that Native Americans deserve a more special affirmative action. Your cohort argues a decidedly anti-Semitic argument that because Jews from the Caucuses of Russia are white, they can settle wherever they want. The circumstances of their fleeing their native lands isn't considered, because, well, they're white.

And then you argue that because I treat any and all as people - I'm lacking because I don't immediately take up your cudgel and wield it in your favor.

Are Native Americans short changed? Yes. Are they mistreated, abused by a bureaucracy that seems more favored to their disenfranchisement than in promoting their culture, their history or they, themselves? I think that's indisputable.

Am I to blame for that bureaucracy? No. I've only been here since 1989. The first 25 years of my life were in England and Scotland. Am I to blame for the racism Native Americans experience? I fail to see how I am responsible for the stupidity and outright bigotry of others, even though I share a skin color with them. It's all I share, and it's something I was born with.

What would you have me do? Carelessly toss the problems in your argument aside because you're chasing a greater good? You don't even define "privilege". (Do I enjoy certain advantages because I'm white, reasonably educated and speak without a discernable accent? Yes. Does that make me a pariah, a bearer of all that is bad for the white man? Hardly.) What is your greater good, anyway? I have a strong suspicion you don't actually know.

The trouble with your argument, Kinsey, is that it is facetious and it is racist. I'm not saying you're racist, I suspect you simply didn't spot the essential racism of your argument. Reduce your argument to its core, and it's the same as the Nazi argument against the Jews. You fail to consider that people are people; they get their inspirations from multiple sources; some they know, some they forget, some they don't even realize. You are careless in your differentiation; if context matters, then the context I have put forth matter, too.

You now seek to argue that I should accord one group a special status, when I consider all to be equal.

When you accuse the individual of failings that belong to society, you ridicule yourself for not understanding the difference. When you argue that society discriminates because they aren't aware of the problem, you destroy your credibility. When you accord the failings of a few to society as a whole, you undermine your argument because most people aren't even aware of the failing you accuse them of. They don't discriminate on a personal basis, and your argument accuses them of doing so.

When you accuse society as a whole, all you do is undermine your own argument. You annoy people - not to the point of action, but to point of tuning you out. Like Jemma's accusations against me, they are cheap, easy and - as a result - meaningless. It's easy to accuse people of racism. And then you meet a real racist. I've met a few. I met one in Oxford, Mississippi. The chap who lived at the end of my row of houses in England was a bonafide, locked-up in the the Second World War fascist. I've met and known racists, and they deserve opprobrium. Accusing someone of the same moral crime because they don't agree with you? That's facetious and insulting.

Appropriating a religious conceit is not racism. It's not even "appropriation". It's being inspired by. So what if the inspired thoughts don't include all the clanging ironwork of the original concept? Religion is a bag of bones hardly worth mentioning, but you seek to impose a racial concept upon it?

When you apply a context to morality, you lose the context of morality.

Basically.

Carolyn Ann

PS It might interest you to know that I am quite good at reading the weather. My hobby is long distance motorcycling; in that, you either learn to read the weather or you get wet. I also happen to know that some storms are local. If you don't know that, you've never driven a motorcycle in Florida or across the Texas panhandle.

I'm sure I'll regret this comment. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Ah, the joy of satin

You have an arduous day, some would argue a day that is somewhat fraught, and at the end of it - a looong, hot bath with some wonderful bubble bath (one day I'll remember to note where it comes from), a few beers (wine might be more feminine, but I prefer a beer), a good book or magazine (Foreign Affairs, which isn't about the heart) and then I slip into some relaxing satin. Constructed especially for lounging in. :-)

And the world and its demands fades. 

Carolyn Ann

Moving on to Plan B. Which doesn't actually exist...

That light at the end of the tunnel? I think it's now further away, and it might just be a freight train...

Damn.

Oh well - Plan B.

"What's plan B, captain?"
"I have no idea, we'll make it up as we go along!"
(And that's different to plan A, how?)

Update: Plan B? Wot plan B?

After a phone call this afternoon, I decided to look behind us. That freight train has a brother. The two of them are having a family reunion, it appears. On a single-line track... Remind me why I'm standing here.

I would scream, but that would disturb the cats and annoy the Mrs.

C'est la vie

Carolyn Ann

Mr Krugman's on the QE2...

So I'm not the only one who thinks the Republicans want to destroy what ever is left of the economy - in order to gain power. Paul Krugman thinks so, too.

Cynical? Me? Nah.

I really think they want to keep the economy in the doldrums. Because it's a path to power.

Carolyn Ann

Lie, lay, whatever

You lie down. But you don't lay the lady down. However, you can lie her down.
You lay the cat down. But she still gets up and goes to where she wants to lie down. (On your nicest frock, no doubt.)

Who knew? I, apparently, did and didn't even know it. :-)

(The Mrs and me were chatting about this, last night. Honest... (Sorry :-D ).

Carolyn Ann

President Palin: more than a nightmare

I was just reading about the Start treaty and the Stuxnet virus.

And all of a sudden I thought of President Palin.

There are plenty of folk who would like to see her in the White House. Can you imagine that 3AM call? "Mrs President? The world has ended!" "What? My pastor didn't say anything about the Rapture happening tonight!"

And The Guardian is conjecturing that she'll run. Mike Bloomberg is, apparently, also thinking of running. The stars align. And, as usual, disaster, mayhem and so on are predicted. Actually, the stars would have to more than align for Sarah to gain that Oval Office - they'd have to a Highland Jig.

The piper just showed up.

Carolyn Ann

Republicans want a Stop (Obama making any actual difference) treaty

So I see the Republican'ts are struggling to explain why they want to screw the Middle East, simply because they want to screw Mr Obama.

Let me see how that's going to play on the world stage:
President Obama: We need Start
Republicans: Yes, but you're suggesting it
Mr O: What's that got to do with it?
R's: Nothing. We just don't like you.
Mr O: You're willing to give Iran the bomb, because you don't like me?
R's: Yes, and we'll blame you
Mr O: Sod ya.

Hmm. I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate. I missed the bit about the Republicans asking Sarah what she thought.

Carolyn Ann

Jon Stewart v Glenn Beck (fetch Mr Beck a constitutional lawyer)

We've just watched Jon Stewart do another fantastic Glenn Beck parody!

The man is so parody-able (is that a word?), but it takes a true master to get the parody right. Mr Stewart is that master. The best bit? When he replayed Glenn Beck stating he couldn't say his fabrications on the air if they weren't true! He's on the TV channel that sued to protect its right to lie!

Fetch Mr Beck a constitutional lawyer. There might be one in the White House...

Carolyn Ann

Something seems awry...

I don't know if you've got the same problem I have - if you look at this blog, the "Recommended" reading list looks a little bit strange. If you do, I'm not sure what I can do. Try another template, perhaps?

I think it's because of that video.

Carolyn Ann

Tumultuous days...

They promise to end, soon. Perhaps as soon as tomorrow?

And then I can get back to my projects.

Oy vey. I'm not sure the days could be any worse. All I hope is that light at the end of the tunnel isn't an oncoming train. We'll find out tomorrow.

Carolyn Ann

Goodness gracious me! (Amazing cycling video)

I saw this mentioned in the Guardian. It's 7¾ minutes of astonishing bicycle stunts around Scotland.



Carolyn Ann

Free speech can be offensive. Wow.

One of the things that I've sort of avoided in this little "debate" with Ms Hope is that her idea is not just racist, it's against the idea of free expression, too. It's very much against the idea of free expression.

Pakistan is one of the most vociferous supporters of the idea that religion is, or should be, free from criticism. Free speech as it is if defined in the Constitution precludes that idea. If the state can't interfere with your religious opinion, it can't interfere with criticism of religion, either. There's a central idea behind it that contradicts the ideals of a free society.

Many pious folk object to that idea. Many left wing thinkers, including Noam Chomsky, also object to that idea. They just frame the question a little differently. Lots of activists object to this idea. Many on the right object to criticism of their ideas. It's fairly pervasive, this idea. So what is the idea that unites all these people?

The assumption that the right to free speech also includes the right to not be offended.

Basic, right?

You can't say that because I find it offensive. (A wordier version with some immediate pertinence is: you can't "appropriate" that idea because doing so is offensive to this or that group.)

Poppycock.

The right to free expression contains no clause guaranteeing that you won't, or can't, be offended.

It contains no requirement that the speech, the expression, conform to any ideal, or avoid any particular idea or other expression. The practical limitations aside, free speech requires that the offensive be given equal protection as the inoffensive or accepted.

Free speech doesn't imply any right to be heard. It simply guarantees that you have a right to say what you want.

There are some contemporary, and relevant, curtailments. You can't promote racism, child molestation or anti-Semitism on Google's Blogger service, for example:

While Blogger values and safeguards political and social commentary, material that promotes hatred toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity is not allowed on Blogger.

There's quite a lot of leeway, but it's still not the free speech that's in the First Amendment. Google own Blogger, so they can put some restrictions on what is said on their service. However, one important thing to note is that criticism of a group, a religion or an individual is not restricted.

One of the central ideas behind Kinsey's admonish against "appropriating" a religious concept is based on the idea that using, or being influenced, by this bit of religious twaddle is offensive to one particular group. Jemma takes that idea a step further, off a very high cliff, and asserts ... Well, I'm not sure what she's asserting, so I'll ignore her assertion.

I don't think Kinsey will agree that her post supports the idea that she's arguing what she actually is arguing. But that's because, as I think I've noted before, the idea she is expressing has been lazily thought about. It it has been thought about.

Basically, free speech contains no guarantee against offense, and it contains no guarantee of being listened to. Other than that, and a few practical limitations, it's quite possible that someone will be offended by the idea free speech can be offensive.

How about that?

Carolyn Ann