Happy New Year!!!
Carolyn Ann
Friday, December 31, 2010
That sounds familiar...
Slate has a piece by Jody Rosen about a pop/country group, Lady Antebellum. I've never heard of them; with a name like that, I'd assume they're a counter-culture alternative to The Dixie Chicks. Not, as Mr Rosen accurately states in his headline "the world's dullest band". I've listened to a couple of their songs; even by country music standards, they are astonishingly dull!
Mr Rosen provides a link to a YouTube video that compares one of Lady Antebellum's hits to another by the Alan Parson's Project (they were incomparably dull in their time, too). A minor squabble in the comments highlights that the two songs are different, except for a few notes here and there. I'm not sure the technical differences are that important. What's really interesting, in a "I'm waiting for the Mrs" kind of a way is how replaceable the two songs are!
Both hits. Both sound the same. One can stand in for the other. Both are banal nonsense. All in all, there's little wonder someone like Justin Beiber or Kim Kardashian became stars. Sparkled banality sells. Apparently quite well, too!
Carolyn Ann
Mr Rosen provides a link to a YouTube video that compares one of Lady Antebellum's hits to another by the Alan Parson's Project (they were incomparably dull in their time, too). A minor squabble in the comments highlights that the two songs are different, except for a few notes here and there. I'm not sure the technical differences are that important. What's really interesting, in a "I'm waiting for the Mrs" kind of a way is how replaceable the two songs are!
Both hits. Both sound the same. One can stand in for the other. Both are banal nonsense. All in all, there's little wonder someone like Justin Beiber or Kim Kardashian became stars. Sparkled banality sells. Apparently quite well, too!
Carolyn Ann
Office politics
Jonathan Alter wrote a book, "The Promise". It's about the first year of the Obama Presidency. I've given up trying to read it; I'm sure it's good, but its densely packed prose doesn't make it ideal bedtime reading material! There's a new paperback edition out, with a new epilogue.
It turns out I read the tea leaves about Larry Summers quite accurately. :-) I don't know Mr Summers, but I do know his sort; he has to be right, because he's, well, brilliant. And clever people can't be wrong, can they? They wouldn't be clever if they were wrong... Sometime over the fall, I mentioned to the Mrs that Larry Summers was Mr Obama's biggest hiring mistake. I'd been reading snippets here and there: his dislike of Elizabeth Warren became a small news item, his name cropped up in economic debates, his name didn't appear with others and it should have. Little stuff like that. Basically, the small town gossip Washington is famous for. Except it gets reported to the world.
Mr Alter makes the claim that there was a serious rift between Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and Larry Summers that basically derailed (that's a correct usage of "derailed", by the way; this was a small digression) any of the Obama Administration's efforts to get the economy back on track and tackle unemployment.
The other revelation in the new ending is that Bill Clinton wasn't handled with kid gloves. Bill complaining isn't anything new; what was short-sighted of the White House was allowing Bill room to complain. Especially as his wife is probably the second most powerful person in the United States, and is rapidly becoming almost as powerful as Mr Obama. (Can he get rid of her? Not a chance. He'd be lucky to keep his shirt if he tried to fire Hillary.) Anyway, giving Bill the room to be petulant isn't the best political strategy you can choose.
(As another digression, George Bush's (in)famously opaque administration was more about preventing the reporting of petty office politics than it was about cracking down on leaks. Leaks are a fact of political life; petty office politics are a requirement in politics - but they make an administration look petty and childish. Mr Bush's and Mr Obama's efforts at keeping that stuff out of the news is more about that than it is about preventing (unapproved) leaks.)
Anyone who's worked with other people will recognize all of these things as basic "office politics". The difference is the number of people reporting on them, the number of people interested in them and the global and domestic implications of them. Office politics writ large, if you will.
Still, Larry Summers was Mr Obama's worst hire.
Carolyn Ann
It turns out I read the tea leaves about Larry Summers quite accurately. :-) I don't know Mr Summers, but I do know his sort; he has to be right, because he's, well, brilliant. And clever people can't be wrong, can they? They wouldn't be clever if they were wrong... Sometime over the fall, I mentioned to the Mrs that Larry Summers was Mr Obama's biggest hiring mistake. I'd been reading snippets here and there: his dislike of Elizabeth Warren became a small news item, his name cropped up in economic debates, his name didn't appear with others and it should have. Little stuff like that. Basically, the small town gossip Washington is famous for. Except it gets reported to the world.
Mr Alter makes the claim that there was a serious rift between Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and Larry Summers that basically derailed (that's a correct usage of "derailed", by the way; this was a small digression) any of the Obama Administration's efforts to get the economy back on track and tackle unemployment.
The other revelation in the new ending is that Bill Clinton wasn't handled with kid gloves. Bill complaining isn't anything new; what was short-sighted of the White House was allowing Bill room to complain. Especially as his wife is probably the second most powerful person in the United States, and is rapidly becoming almost as powerful as Mr Obama. (Can he get rid of her? Not a chance. He'd be lucky to keep his shirt if he tried to fire Hillary.) Anyway, giving Bill the room to be petulant isn't the best political strategy you can choose.
(As another digression, George Bush's (in)famously opaque administration was more about preventing the reporting of petty office politics than it was about cracking down on leaks. Leaks are a fact of political life; petty office politics are a requirement in politics - but they make an administration look petty and childish. Mr Bush's and Mr Obama's efforts at keeping that stuff out of the news is more about that than it is about preventing (unapproved) leaks.)
Anyone who's worked with other people will recognize all of these things as basic "office politics". The difference is the number of people reporting on them, the number of people interested in them and the global and domestic implications of them. Office politics writ large, if you will.
Still, Larry Summers was Mr Obama's worst hire.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Playing with batman... :-)
I'm waiting for the Mrs. So I figured I'd play with "batman" and some of those gender descriptions... :-)
The traditional chap: Batman.
The usual variation: Batwoman.
Our usual variation: Batcat. ("Okay, Batcat, what do you propose to do now that you've destroyed the evil, freshly washed and just folded towel?" The answer often involves a triumphant glare at the offending towel, snack and a nap.)
Applying the casual grammar of many transgender oriented bloggers: Trans bat or cis bat. Either one sounds like strange types of baseball bat.
According to the logic of Questioning Transphobia, etc, Batman should be Batcisman. Some might consider "cis batman", but QT's writers tend to thepedestrian "jaywalking on a I-5/M25 at rush hour" when it comes to gender description and grammatical accuracy. Besides, trans batman implies either a man turning into a bat, a person becoming a batman or a batman who fights crime and evildoers while wearing a pretty skirt and some lipstick. (The mask makes mascara and eyeshadow quite pointless.) If batman was more comfortable as a lass, perhaps we could her a battranswoman? But if a batwoman felt he was a man, perhaps we'd be more accurate in saying that Batman is a battransman? Either is awkward, but preferable to being a arguably demented baseball bat.
Some people like to call themselves "genderqueer". I've never been able to work out what that means; I have sincere doubts the claimants could define it, either! (Wikipedia isn't helpful on the topic, either; perhaps it's one of those "it's not what it is, but what it isn't" definitions. You know: vague, ambiguous and altogether too arbitrary to be of any real use whatsoever.) Anyway, would a genderqueer batman be batgenderqueer? I have no idea what he or she would wear to their crime-fighting galas.
:-)
Carolyn Ann
The traditional chap: Batman.
The usual variation: Batwoman.
Our usual variation: Batcat. ("Okay, Batcat, what do you propose to do now that you've destroyed the evil, freshly washed and just folded towel?" The answer often involves a triumphant glare at the offending towel, snack and a nap.)
Applying the casual grammar of many transgender oriented bloggers: Trans bat or cis bat. Either one sounds like strange types of baseball bat.
According to the logic of Questioning Transphobia, etc, Batman should be Batcisman. Some might consider "cis batman", but QT's writers tend to the
Some people like to call themselves "genderqueer". I've never been able to work out what that means; I have sincere doubts the claimants could define it, either! (Wikipedia isn't helpful on the topic, either; perhaps it's one of those "it's not what it is, but what it isn't" definitions. You know: vague, ambiguous and altogether too arbitrary to be of any real use whatsoever.) Anyway, would a genderqueer batman be batgenderqueer? I have no idea what he or she would wear to their crime-fighting galas.
:-)
Carolyn Ann
The cost of milk...
We did some shopping, yesterday, fetching such essentials as cat food and milk. So riddle me this, batman, batwoman, batranswoman, battransman, batgenderqueer, etc: if a half gallon is $2.29, why is a gallon $2.44?
The Mrs pointed out it was a special offer: you needed the store's (Wegman's) loyalty card. Otherwise it was $3.59.
"Ah." I said, the light dimly glowing. :-)
Carolyn Ann
The Mrs pointed out it was a special offer: you needed the store's (Wegman's) loyalty card. Otherwise it was $3.59.
"Ah." I said, the light dimly glowing. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Stress? What stress?
Jeezy peeps. I wish this whole money thing would come to an end, one way or the other. Of course I'm hoping "Plan A" works out. There isn't a Plan B.
Added: today is the day we're supposed to hear the yay or nay. Around here, the tension is palpable.
Stressed? Me? Definitely.
Carolyn Ann
Stressed? Me? Definitely.
Carolyn Ann
Monday, December 27, 2010
Lt Col Terrence Lakin: The Musical ..?
Orly Taitz, the halfwitted leader of The Birthers, would like Andrew Lloyd Webber to contact her. She wants to turn the story of Lt Col Terrence Lakin into a musical.
Seriously.
The Birthers, for whom witnessing Barack Obama's birth in a Honolulu hospital wouldn't be enough evidence of his American citizenship, are back in the news. Terrence Lakin, you might recall, is the soldier who decided that he didn't have to obey his deployment orders because he doesn't believe Mr Obama is American. He's now serving 6 months and has been tossed out of the military for disobeying orders. (The Birthers are upset, again, that they can't present "evidence" of Mr Obama's true nationality.)
One of the hazards of democracy is that people get to question your existence; never mind your ideas and what you've done! They enjoy impunity, you get their vague eviscerations.
There are idiots, and then there are the Birthers. And then there's Orly Taitz.
Carolyn Ann
Seriously.
The Birthers, for whom witnessing Barack Obama's birth in a Honolulu hospital wouldn't be enough evidence of his American citizenship, are back in the news. Terrence Lakin, you might recall, is the soldier who decided that he didn't have to obey his deployment orders because he doesn't believe Mr Obama is American. He's now serving 6 months and has been tossed out of the military for disobeying orders. (The Birthers are upset, again, that they can't present "evidence" of Mr Obama's true nationality.)
One of the hazards of democracy is that people get to question your existence; never mind your ideas and what you've done! They enjoy impunity, you get their vague eviscerations.
There are idiots, and then there are the Birthers. And then there's Orly Taitz.
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Decisions, decisions...
I have a problem. I know, I know - "Only one?" my fans and detractors ask, alike. I can only deal with them one at a time. :-)
Here's today's problem: what to wear.
It's cold out; so a long, warm skirt and a sweater would be good. I've got the perfect skirt (I think it even fits), the boots and the sweater. But it's smart, not funky. And I'd like to "do" funky, today. Short black suede skirt, bright red tights and boots (I'm not sure what could go on top).
Oh, the problems. If only all my problems were so difficult! :-)
Carolyn Ann
Here's today's problem: what to wear.
It's cold out; so a long, warm skirt and a sweater would be good. I've got the perfect skirt (I think it even fits), the boots and the sweater. But it's smart, not funky. And I'd like to "do" funky, today. Short black suede skirt, bright red tights and boots (I'm not sure what could go on top).
Oh, the problems. If only all my problems were so difficult! :-)
Carolyn Ann
Mr Polanski isn't a poet
I've just watched Roman Polanski's ode to Tony Blair, Ghostwriter.
Ewan McGregor plays the ghost writer for the memoirs of a controversial British PM. In the end he realizes that "the beginnings" tell the tale.
Trite nonsense.
When I view something, such a as a movie, I like to be entertained. If it's informative as well, so much the better.
As I write I realize my anger toward Mr Polanski and his oh so vapid little tale is misplaced; perhaps he didn't get editing rights, perhaps he didn't care? The story itself is meaningless, so the editing is neither here nor there.
Perhaps that was Mr Polanski's point?
Think about the setting: a windswept island. If you didn't get that, the editor provides a resolute Wyath in movietone splendor that informs you. A concrete palace, replete with art no one understands, but it's worth millions. It's pretension built on pretension; the powerful and the rich conspiring, the underdog striking back with violence.
And dying in the process.
That's not a story; it's not even a lament! (Although there are some protestors who should watch the movie.)
A sad, desperate poem. That's what Mr Polanski gave us. I should know: I've written a few, myself.
Carolyn Ann
Ewan McGregor plays the ghost writer for the memoirs of a controversial British PM. In the end he realizes that "the beginnings" tell the tale.
Trite nonsense.
When I view something, such a as a movie, I like to be entertained. If it's informative as well, so much the better.
As I write I realize my anger toward Mr Polanski and his oh so vapid little tale is misplaced; perhaps he didn't get editing rights, perhaps he didn't care? The story itself is meaningless, so the editing is neither here nor there.
Perhaps that was Mr Polanski's point?
Think about the setting: a windswept island. If you didn't get that, the editor provides a resolute Wyath in movietone splendor that informs you. A concrete palace, replete with art no one understands, but it's worth millions. It's pretension built on pretension; the powerful and the rich conspiring, the underdog striking back with violence.
And dying in the process.
That's not a story; it's not even a lament! (Although there are some protestors who should watch the movie.)
A sad, desperate poem. That's what Mr Polanski gave us. I should know: I've written a few, myself.
Carolyn Ann
The Court Player in a Republic
Your smile
Lights a thousand suns
The Greeks would admit
for me, it is those thousand suns
They would wage war
over your smile
Me? I'm content to see it
When you grant me my wish
to see it
In desperate times, it's barren
In temerarious times, I feel it's all I have
In these times I want to see it more
so I ban talk of that which worries you
and can lead to our ruin
although she is our neighbor
Dark lonely nights
Nightmares abscond with delight,
a mere hint of your smile,
or your happiness
Misery is what they want
and impose
'tis Christmas
A time for all
to be
what, exactly? Joyful?
To be thy penitent fool?
To be the jester in a sad act?
To be the court player?
In a Republic?
Thou art the jester if thy think that!
Ambivalence, despised
Carolyn Ann
Lights a thousand suns
The Greeks would admit
for me, it is those thousand suns
They would wage war
over your smile
Me? I'm content to see it
When you grant me my wish
to see it
In desperate times, it's barren
In temerarious times, I feel it's all I have
In these times I want to see it more
so I ban talk of that which worries you
and can lead to our ruin
although she is our neighbor
Dark lonely nights
Nightmares abscond with delight,
a mere hint of your smile,
or your happiness
Misery is what they want
and impose
'tis Christmas
A time for all
to be
what, exactly? Joyful?
To be thy penitent fool?
To be the jester in a sad act?
To be the court player?
In a Republic?
Thou art the jester if thy think that!
Ambivalence, despised
Carolyn Ann
Judy Collins - "The Blizzard" 1989
We've seen Judy Collins a few times; the Mrs tells me we've seen her outside of Carnegie Hall, but I don't remember. What I remember is a performance similar to this one. :-)
Happy Holidays, to all :-)
Carolyn Ann
Manhattanites... Oy vey.(Or The Back End of Beyond)
There's one thing about people who live in Manhattan: they assume that if you don't live on that Golden Isle, you're pretty ignorant of it.
They tend not to notice that some folk actually *did* live in New York County, but don't anymore.
Carolyn Ann
They tend not to notice that some folk actually *did* live in New York County, but don't anymore.
Carolyn Ann
The wife sent me to the pub...
As the Mrs completed her baking, she sent me to the pub. I found, there, loose women, lax morals and strong ale. I had quite a nice time. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Rabid hysteria, under the tree
I have images of all those Tea Partiers and other Rabid Reactionaries, gathered around their Christmas Trees, opening entire libraries of heedless, impetuously written times of anti-Obama sentiment. These audaciously temerarious volumes will all quote each other and their heroes, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr Obama is taking us all into a world that would make Stalin and Hitler green with envy.
All that stands between now and such a hideous end to The Greatest Nation Ever (not including the occasional and timely sentiments of the Romans, the Spanish and the British) are these ill-informed, fact-less, careless and entirely too excitable writers.
The fact that none of this is possible within the time frame of an American presidency is beside the point. All that matters is the hysteria.
Carolyn Ann
All that stands between now and such a hideous end to The Greatest Nation Ever (not including the occasional and timely sentiments of the Romans, the Spanish and the British) are these ill-informed, fact-less, careless and entirely too excitable writers.
The fact that none of this is possible within the time frame of an American presidency is beside the point. All that matters is the hysteria.
Carolyn Ann
"I need glue..."
"I need glue", I told the Mrs. At 5PM on Christmas Eve. "Why didn't you think of that earlier?" She demanded. "Erm, I forgot..."
Fortunately there are some stores that prefer treating their employees as so much chattel; the odious Walmart being the most obvious (they, of course, also like to consider their customers to be so much cattle...) And they were open to 8PM! (Although I didn't know that at the time.)
Here's what happened: we had a slow morning; I was supposed to be working on my toy train layout, but was wandering the gardens and thickets of the Internet, instead. I took a couple of photographs - you might have read them? :-) Then we went out; the Mrs needed some ingredients, and I indulged in my favorite pastime of procrastinating and going somewhere; so I went with her. I sat in the car, reading an old (1997) toy train magazine, fantasizing that my almost 3 foot by just about 6 foot toy train table could accommodate Horseshoe Curve and the Tehachapi Loop, leaving room for a couple of small stations and a cute village. :-) (I read of a chap who did the Horseshoe Curve in toy train size, but he needed a 10ft by 12ft bump out in his basement to accommodate it. And the only T.L. I've ever read about was a sizable N-scale (really small) thing, that took up quite a lot of room.) Not once did I think to mention to her that I needed some glue. Besides, I thought I knew where a tube of some old UHU glue was. (UHU was the go-to glue of my childhood. It fixed broken pottery, pets and children alike. A few years ago, well, perhaps a decade and a half ago, I disdained American glues because they weren't UHU. So I bought some on a trip to the old homestead. Which was a new one, because my Mom and Dad had long moved from any place I could call the old homestead.)
Anyway, time marched on, as it does. I squirmed under the toy train table, fixing a small racking problem with a shelf bracket, and went to find my tube of UHU glue. Which I couldn't find. Off we went to one of those big box pharmacies. They had superglue (not ideal, but it would do), and school glue, which seems more intent on not being suitable for gluing Billy to Sally together than actually being useful. I got the superglue.
It didn't work. Not that the glue didn't work, I didn't get a chance to try that. No glue came out of the tube! By now it's about 6:30, and I'm a little concerned. Frantic, actually. My dreams and ambitions to be a Robber Baron (Railroad class) were being thwarted! My railroad empire was going to be derailed over a tube of glue! This was not a minor digression! :-) The Mrs valiantly helped look for some glue. Nary a bottle or tube was found; I discovered some Liquid Nails "Aha!" I thought... But it was for panelling. And was old and dried up. Instead of putting it in the trash, I carefully put it back where I found it, so I can forget about it and thwart myself (again) at some time in the future. Probably next week.
A check of the web, a couple of phone calls later - I had the answer! Walmart. Damn it! Off I went. $2.97 for a tube of Liquid Nails Small Project glue later, I had the railroad base glued to the two bridges! "I'll be done in an hour or so!" I told the Mrs. She's eagerly looking forward to seeing the village and trains together. This was about quarter past eight. Somewhere around eleven, she poked her head in to the room and said "I'm going to bed!" And off she went! (I wonder if I can get anymore exclamation marks in?)
I quit a short time later. It's the trolley track that's giving me grief, you see. I want a small trolley running up and down the village, taking people to each station. Which the train also visits... But we'll leave that duplication of service aside. :-) I tried different combinations of track, some curves and straights and s on, but none of them seemed to really "do it". It's now 10:50AM, and I'm off downstairs to continue building my railroad empire. Unfortunately, the Horseshoe Curve and the Tehachapi Loop didn't make it into the final design... :-)
Carolyn Ann
Fortunately there are some stores that prefer treating their employees as so much chattel; the odious Walmart being the most obvious (they, of course, also like to consider their customers to be so much cattle...) And they were open to 8PM! (Although I didn't know that at the time.)
Here's what happened: we had a slow morning; I was supposed to be working on my toy train layout, but was wandering the gardens and thickets of the Internet, instead. I took a couple of photographs - you might have read them? :-) Then we went out; the Mrs needed some ingredients, and I indulged in my favorite pastime of procrastinating and going somewhere; so I went with her. I sat in the car, reading an old (1997) toy train magazine, fantasizing that my almost 3 foot by just about 6 foot toy train table could accommodate Horseshoe Curve and the Tehachapi Loop, leaving room for a couple of small stations and a cute village. :-) (I read of a chap who did the Horseshoe Curve in toy train size, but he needed a 10ft by 12ft bump out in his basement to accommodate it. And the only T.L. I've ever read about was a sizable N-scale (really small) thing, that took up quite a lot of room.) Not once did I think to mention to her that I needed some glue. Besides, I thought I knew where a tube of some old UHU glue was. (UHU was the go-to glue of my childhood. It fixed broken pottery, pets and children alike. A few years ago, well, perhaps a decade and a half ago, I disdained American glues because they weren't UHU. So I bought some on a trip to the old homestead. Which was a new one, because my Mom and Dad had long moved from any place I could call the old homestead.)
Anyway, time marched on, as it does. I squirmed under the toy train table, fixing a small racking problem with a shelf bracket, and went to find my tube of UHU glue. Which I couldn't find. Off we went to one of those big box pharmacies. They had superglue (not ideal, but it would do), and school glue, which seems more intent on not being suitable for gluing Billy to Sally together than actually being useful. I got the superglue.
It didn't work. Not that the glue didn't work, I didn't get a chance to try that. No glue came out of the tube! By now it's about 6:30, and I'm a little concerned. Frantic, actually. My dreams and ambitions to be a Robber Baron (Railroad class) were being thwarted! My railroad empire was going to be derailed over a tube of glue! This was not a minor digression! :-) The Mrs valiantly helped look for some glue. Nary a bottle or tube was found; I discovered some Liquid Nails "Aha!" I thought... But it was for panelling. And was old and dried up. Instead of putting it in the trash, I carefully put it back where I found it, so I can forget about it and thwart myself (again) at some time in the future. Probably next week.
A check of the web, a couple of phone calls later - I had the answer! Walmart. Damn it! Off I went. $2.97 for a tube of Liquid Nails Small Project glue later, I had the railroad base glued to the two bridges! "I'll be done in an hour or so!" I told the Mrs. She's eagerly looking forward to seeing the village and trains together. This was about quarter past eight. Somewhere around eleven, she poked her head in to the room and said "I'm going to bed!" And off she went! (I wonder if I can get anymore exclamation marks in?)
I quit a short time later. It's the trolley track that's giving me grief, you see. I want a small trolley running up and down the village, taking people to each station. Which the train also visits... But we'll leave that duplication of service aside. :-) I tried different combinations of track, some curves and straights and s on, but none of them seemed to really "do it". It's now 10:50AM, and I'm off downstairs to continue building my railroad empire. Unfortunately, the Horseshoe Curve and the Tehachapi Loop didn't make it into the final design... :-)
Carolyn Ann
Friday, December 24, 2010
Obnoxious Christians
Andrew Sullivan highlighted a particularly twisted and depraved example of conservative religious thinking.
How do you go from a desperate tragedy to caterwauling about atheists and liberals? By being so ideologically obtuse and personally obnoxious you don't see human tragedy for what it is.
Carolyn Ann
How do you go from a desperate tragedy to caterwauling about atheists and liberals? By being so ideologically obtuse and personally obnoxious you don't see human tragedy for what it is.
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Simplify...
There's a very strange idea out there that you should simplify things, but not simplify them too much:
The principle of simplicity is why conspiracy theories, up to and including basically all religion, fail: they rely on complexities. A bit like how planetary paths were once explained with decorative ellipses; it was the only way anyone could retain the Earth at the center of the universe. Which is a pretty complex idea, really.
This isn't to say that the thinking behind an idea has to be simple. Look at some of the great minimalists: their work is very simple, but extremely complex in the articulation of an idea. Just look at the work of Frank Stella, Sol leWitt or Mark Rothko. The Apple computer and system interface are very simple, but the ideas they contain are very complex. Simplicity is valued in architecture, too: Farnsworth House is very simple; Fallingwater is a grand composition of simple shapes, arranged in an astonishingly simple, and incredibly beautiful way; Zaha Hadid's sinuous buildings and spaces are very simple; Frank Gehry's constructions are actually pretty simple, too. Deconstruction is a simplifying philosophy, and no one would ever accuse Mr Derrida's invention of being simple in itself. We can safely conclude that simplicity doesn't imply the simple. To put it simply. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. :-) )
None of this crossed my mind as I perused our "Holiday Toy Train Layout" that is in our dining room, thinking "It's too complicated!" :-)
I neglected to get it working last year; electrical problems were one part of it, and trying to figure out a way to get a large antique toy train around the track successfully was another, significant, problem. I still haven't solved that one.
Well, this year I'm going to get it working! :-)
I was standing over it, looking at it. Just taking it in, remembering what I was thinking when I did "that", or "that", and what exactly was I thinking, or, more likely, I wasn't when I did "that bit". In a nutshell, the track plan is far too elaborate. Three sidings, a trolley track and a small, inadequate reversing loop in that space? Complex doesn't begin to describe it! Besides, all those switches crowded the Department 56 buildings, leaving no sense of anything but a rather byzantine and overly difficult ornament.
It needs to be simplified.
I was going to do it tonight, but Bongo sat on my lap and dozed off. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Changed: An "Oops". I had "simplicity" where "the simple" was needed. Sorry about that. :-)
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.When you think about it, it's pretty obvious. It's also known as "Occam's Razor". There it's noted that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. But the general principle is the same: keep it simple, stupid. (Is it telling me I'm stupid? Or that I should keep it simple and stupid? It's all far too complex for me... :-D )
(Albert Einstein)
The principle of simplicity is why conspiracy theories, up to and including basically all religion, fail: they rely on complexities. A bit like how planetary paths were once explained with decorative ellipses; it was the only way anyone could retain the Earth at the center of the universe. Which is a pretty complex idea, really.
This isn't to say that the thinking behind an idea has to be simple. Look at some of the great minimalists: their work is very simple, but extremely complex in the articulation of an idea. Just look at the work of Frank Stella, Sol leWitt or Mark Rothko. The Apple computer and system interface are very simple, but the ideas they contain are very complex. Simplicity is valued in architecture, too: Farnsworth House is very simple; Fallingwater is a grand composition of simple shapes, arranged in an astonishingly simple, and incredibly beautiful way; Zaha Hadid's sinuous buildings and spaces are very simple; Frank Gehry's constructions are actually pretty simple, too. Deconstruction is a simplifying philosophy, and no one would ever accuse Mr Derrida's invention of being simple in itself. We can safely conclude that simplicity doesn't imply the simple. To put it simply. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. :-) )
None of this crossed my mind as I perused our "Holiday Toy Train Layout" that is in our dining room, thinking "It's too complicated!" :-)
I neglected to get it working last year; electrical problems were one part of it, and trying to figure out a way to get a large antique toy train around the track successfully was another, significant, problem. I still haven't solved that one.
Well, this year I'm going to get it working! :-)
I was standing over it, looking at it. Just taking it in, remembering what I was thinking when I did "that", or "that", and what exactly was I thinking, or, more likely, I wasn't when I did "that bit". In a nutshell, the track plan is far too elaborate. Three sidings, a trolley track and a small, inadequate reversing loop in that space? Complex doesn't begin to describe it! Besides, all those switches crowded the Department 56 buildings, leaving no sense of anything but a rather byzantine and overly difficult ornament.
It needs to be simplified.
I was going to do it tonight, but Bongo sat on my lap and dozed off. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Changed: An "Oops". I had "simplicity" where "the simple" was needed. Sorry about that. :-)
Just keep Flickr running, thanks! :-)
Yahoo has given me until the 13th of January to pay for my email service. It is, I think, $24.95 a year, and I've been paying for it for quite some time now. Let me put it this way: until I checked, I thought it was still $19.95.
Years ago, Yahoo provided a decent email client. It didn't fit the way I worked; not having a Wifi card in my iBook, I needed to download my email, so I could read it at Starbuck's, etc. So that's what I did. Then Yahoo started charging. If you looked at your email through their interface, no charge. Reduce their costs and they charged you. (Great business model, by the way.) Still, it worked for me and the price was negligible.
These days twenty five bucks is a lot, the quantity of email I get has gone down so significantly I can go for a few days without getting any. It's all Facebook updates, these days. So I'm looking at my email and saying "Do I actually need it?" It's good for getting bank notifications ("You owe us money, pay up!", "Where's that payment?" and so on... Perhaps it's not so good), and for communicating with those not on Facebook. I also need it for some software downloads and some Internet services; you get the confirmation email and then you can download the app, or access the service. But I often use my Google email for that sort of thing. It's easier! I'm moving a lot of my "instant" communication over to Tumblr and Twitter; they're so much easier, less finicky, too.
I do use Google email; I like how it works. It's actually better from their servers than Apple's "Mail" application. (Which is infinitely better (simpler) than that behemoth, "Outlook"!)
I pay for a Pro account on Flickr, another Yahoo service. I enjoy using Flickr; I think its picture organization services are so much better than Facebook's. I also like the fact that it's not a closed garden; Facebook is a walled garden with a very high wall. But Flickr is slightly expensive, as well; I enjoy using it, and I'm way behind on uploading pictures to it. So I can justify paying for that. I use Blogger (free), and Facebook (again, free). How many communication channels do I actually need?
All in all, I'm not actually sure what I use email for. I can't say for certain that I need Yahoo's email service, in particular. Sorry, Yahoo. I will not be helping you get out of financial difficulties. Just keep Flickr running, thanks. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Years ago, Yahoo provided a decent email client. It didn't fit the way I worked; not having a Wifi card in my iBook, I needed to download my email, so I could read it at Starbuck's, etc. So that's what I did. Then Yahoo started charging. If you looked at your email through their interface, no charge. Reduce their costs and they charged you. (Great business model, by the way.) Still, it worked for me and the price was negligible.
These days twenty five bucks is a lot, the quantity of email I get has gone down so significantly I can go for a few days without getting any. It's all Facebook updates, these days. So I'm looking at my email and saying "Do I actually need it?" It's good for getting bank notifications ("You owe us money, pay up!", "Where's that payment?" and so on... Perhaps it's not so good), and for communicating with those not on Facebook. I also need it for some software downloads and some Internet services; you get the confirmation email and then you can download the app, or access the service. But I often use my Google email for that sort of thing. It's easier! I'm moving a lot of my "instant" communication over to Tumblr and Twitter; they're so much easier, less finicky, too.
I do use Google email; I like how it works. It's actually better from their servers than Apple's "Mail" application. (Which is infinitely better (simpler) than that behemoth, "Outlook"!)
I pay for a Pro account on Flickr, another Yahoo service. I enjoy using Flickr; I think its picture organization services are so much better than Facebook's. I also like the fact that it's not a closed garden; Facebook is a walled garden with a very high wall. But Flickr is slightly expensive, as well; I enjoy using it, and I'm way behind on uploading pictures to it. So I can justify paying for that. I use Blogger (free), and Facebook (again, free). How many communication channels do I actually need?
All in all, I'm not actually sure what I use email for. I can't say for certain that I need Yahoo's email service, in particular. Sorry, Yahoo. I will not be helping you get out of financial difficulties. Just keep Flickr running, thanks. :-)
Carolyn Ann
I was wondering the same thing, myself...
Mr Sullivan quotes Ezra Klein on what is actually quite an important point: why didn't the Republicans simply run out the clock?
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
How I got to be a self-appointed expert on TG porn...
That was one of the most unpleasant bits of research I've ever done. I don't care about porn; if people want to watch it, someone will supply it. Personally, I'm not "into" pornography. I was curious about it, because I recently changed my "what I can see" setting on Flickr. I was irritated about the many "are you sure you want to look at this picture?" messages I was getting. So I changed the setting to "I'm an adult, I can handle it".
Oy vey!
Here's how I got interested in this: I see a picture on Flickr. In an idle moment, I click to see who's "Favorited" the thing. Click on a few of the names; check their profiles, see what they favorited, and so on. In the transgender community on Flickr it doesn't take long to find pornography. The other night, it took me 3 clicks!
While the sight of a blow job might excite some, it really repulsed me. (I guess I am a prude?) Transgender porn seems to revolve around the topic. That actually fits with something I read about the US Navy's anti-gay efforts in the 1930's. Apparently they had to end their efforts when it turned out that the investigators didn't really care who was giving them a blow-job...
Anyway, the things I was seeing reminded of an article I'd read a long time ago in New York (or was it the old, long-defunct "7 Days"? I can't remember, sorry) about a lass who'd decided that male-produced "girl-on-girl" porn wasn't doing it for her. So she set up a small lesbian porn operation in the Flat-Iron district of NYC. I remember that because at the time I used to go to a lot of meetings just down the street from the alleged location of her lesbian porn chamber. (We're talking late 90's, here.)
And then, this morning, I saw the article in The Daily Beast. A quick wander around Flickr, and I had the information I needed. One thing I noted was the astounding lack of sensual imagery; it was all sexual. Even the "come hither" nonsense had overt sexual posing. There was no sympathy, no attempt at artistry and absolutely no attempt at presenting the sexual players as individuals. Individual objects, yes. Individuals? No. There also seemed to be a staggering amount of bondage. The individual becomes a feminized sexual object, complete with cock, and we're supposed to be excited by that? I guess some are. I couldn't look at the stuff; I was repulsed by it.
I think it would be very interesting to see someone do a sympathetic series of photographs about the transgendered, and the transgender experience. (I'm not the one to do that; I'm not a very good photographer!)
While I don't need to throw up, I'm not sure I want to eat any breakfast. So call me a prude. Each to their own. I'm not about to tell people they shouldn't do what they do. That's up to them. I'm clearly not their audience!
I think I'll stick to kittens.
Carolyn Ann
Oy vey!
Here's how I got interested in this: I see a picture on Flickr. In an idle moment, I click to see who's "Favorited" the thing. Click on a few of the names; check their profiles, see what they favorited, and so on. In the transgender community on Flickr it doesn't take long to find pornography. The other night, it took me 3 clicks!
While the sight of a blow job might excite some, it really repulsed me. (I guess I am a prude?) Transgender porn seems to revolve around the topic. That actually fits with something I read about the US Navy's anti-gay efforts in the 1930's. Apparently they had to end their efforts when it turned out that the investigators didn't really care who was giving them a blow-job...
Anyway, the things I was seeing reminded of an article I'd read a long time ago in New York (or was it the old, long-defunct "7 Days"? I can't remember, sorry) about a lass who'd decided that male-produced "girl-on-girl" porn wasn't doing it for her. So she set up a small lesbian porn operation in the Flat-Iron district of NYC. I remember that because at the time I used to go to a lot of meetings just down the street from the alleged location of her lesbian porn chamber. (We're talking late 90's, here.)
And then, this morning, I saw the article in The Daily Beast. A quick wander around Flickr, and I had the information I needed. One thing I noted was the astounding lack of sensual imagery; it was all sexual. Even the "come hither" nonsense had overt sexual posing. There was no sympathy, no attempt at artistry and absolutely no attempt at presenting the sexual players as individuals. Individual objects, yes. Individuals? No. There also seemed to be a staggering amount of bondage. The individual becomes a feminized sexual object, complete with cock, and we're supposed to be excited by that? I guess some are. I couldn't look at the stuff; I was repulsed by it.
I think it would be very interesting to see someone do a sympathetic series of photographs about the transgendered, and the transgender experience. (I'm not the one to do that; I'm not a very good photographer!)
While I don't need to throw up, I'm not sure I want to eat any breakfast. So call me a prude. Each to their own. I'm not about to tell people they shouldn't do what they do. That's up to them. I'm clearly not their audience!
I think I'll stick to kittens.
Carolyn Ann
Transgender porn is the absolute objectification of women
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
====
[As I think about this, I keep thinking of things to add to this post. As a result, it's going to change. I'm not going to start a small "series" of posts about the subject; one is quite enough!]
So I was quite startled to see a headline "The Lesbian Hugh Hefner", by Itay Hod, in The Daily Beast. He describes Jincey Lumpkin, a lawyer-turned-porn entrepreneur, and how she's become a sort of (er) lesbian High Hefner. She has a different take on feminine, well, lesbian, pornography: less of the objectification and more about style, fantasy and femininity.
She also runs a lesbian social network, Digiromp, that the Village Voice noted was "The new social network for gay, bi, and trans ladies is anything but subtle―it's got dirty stories, kinky videos from lesbians across the world, and the tagline "Where all the hot girls come." Boys, not only can't you touch, you can't look either. Men get turned away at the door." On top of the all that is happening, I am - the article was written in 2008... :-)
So yet again a gender difference is highlighted: the penis-wielding "gurls" of transgender/gay porn versus the more stylized stuff lesbians actually buy. (Believe me: those penii are wielded liked swords. Not a pretty sight; quite repulsive, actually. It was actually quite difficult to check the facts in this post!)
I doubt the transgendered porn will change; as far as I can tell there's no particular need for it to change. The audience and participants clearly have figured out what they want; they even tout for partners on Flickr. (Which struck me as quite dangerous, but whatever. Their life. As long as they don't infect others with AIDS or STD's, what do I care? [One of the things that struck me about the TG porn I saw was the complete absence of condoms. In this day and age, it's not just your life you're dealing with. Such reckless disregard for others isn't unexpected; it is dismaying, however.]) I was actively reminded of an old, passing, argument sometime in the mid-90's about gay porn and the casual gay sex "trade". Keith Haring, the artist, argued quite vociferously that anonymous bath-house sex was an essential part of the gay (New York) scene. I've read other accounts, even last year about a bathhouse in Philadelphia, that seem to support Mr Haring's claim. The idea is that "your" sexual gratification is all that actually matters. Your "partner" could be a machine, and is, to all intents and purposes. (It's a wonder I didn't see any rubber dolls and transgendered porn-"stars"! I probably wasn't looking hard enough...) The feeling looks mutual, which doesn't make it legitimate! Considering how masculine the transgender porn is, I'd say it's absolutely in line with Mr Haring's argument, and it also supports feminist arguments about how pornography objectifies the person. In the case of transgender porn, it seems the participants want to be sexual objects.
Here we have some guy, dick swinging in the wind, presenting himself as some sort of feminine ideal, photographing himself giving blow jobs to all and sundry. The implication being that women are easy, slabs of meat, sexual objects that would act the same given half a chance. Sexual conquest is more important than the partner, it seems. But you have to retain your lingerie and high heels while engaged in sex. Fantasy is a large part of transgender porn; bondage is, too. I couldn't look at the bondage stuff, but the one or two thumbnails I saw in someone's "Favorites" pile seemed to indicate that being a feminized sexual object, intent upon some sort of "feminizing" ritualistic humiliation, was the goal! I also noticed a large amount of pedophiliac "young boys being turned into girls" cartooning; the cartoons I looked at were highly sexual and, if photographed, would be child porn. If you don't consider any of that to not be objectifying women, I'd like to know what you think is! The whole affect, with the lingerie, stockings, high heels and so on, is also a strange, twisted and quite evil parody of women. In the end, transgender porn objectifies women in a way that regular pornography couldn't even hope to achieve.
And people wonder why Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel are so vociferously and vehemently anti-transgender?
Carolyn Ann
I need a girly day
As I call them... :-)
When it's stressful, I find comfort in putting on something pretty. And avoiding mirrors. Which is hard, because the coat closet, which is between me and the kitchen, has big mirrored doors.
Ah well. First, some coffee.
Carolyn Ann
When it's stressful, I find comfort in putting on something pretty. And avoiding mirrors. Which is hard, because the coat closet, which is between me and the kitchen, has big mirrored doors.
Ah well. First, some coffee.
Carolyn Ann
Happy days...
Are in the far future. Yet again we paid the bills (trying very hard not forget any) - and we have no money left for things like, oh, food. Never mind food and wine, we're trying to figure out how to feed ourselves until next pay day. Fortunately that's only a week away.
Beg? No. Mutter darkly at the provosts that be? Most assuredly.
Carolyn Ann
Beg? No. Mutter darkly at the provosts that be? Most assuredly.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The absurdity of religion
Catholic hospitals, it seems, are obliged to let both the mother and the baby die if there's a close to 100% chance the mother might die during pregnancy. Apparently it's morally wrong to save the woman's life if you're in the situation of determining what to do. If you do what most of us think is right - save the woman's life, you're rewarded with excommunication. The highest punishment possible in the Catholic Church. Such a fierce and draconian punishment, for trying to do the right thing. What else is possible? "Oh, we had to let her die!" That makes the responsible parties morally responsible for murder, and legally culpable for her demise. No one can argue that the "baby" was murdered, because no one knows if the fetus would have survived anyway. And if the mother has an almost certain chance of death, the fetus is dead, anyway. There's no ideal solution; there's only bad choices. The pious and the anti-abortionist think in terms of ideals; it's why their arguments are so facetious and desperate.
For so many it's doctrine over life. An empathic, real and considerate abortion policy? Not a chance. Perhaps Bishop Thomas Olsted can explain his logic to St Peter when he meets the man at those Pearly Gates?
Ah well. Being excommunicated is probably a lot better than having the death of a young woman on your conscience. One is essentially meaningless the other has meaning.
Carolyn Ann
PS Do I really have to add "metaphorically speaking"?
For so many it's doctrine over life. An empathic, real and considerate abortion policy? Not a chance. Perhaps Bishop Thomas Olsted can explain his logic to St Peter when he meets the man at those Pearly Gates?
Ah well. Being excommunicated is probably a lot better than having the death of a young woman on your conscience. One is essentially meaningless the other has meaning.
Carolyn Ann
PS Do I really have to add "metaphorically speaking"?
Overall, that was quite a shellacking, Mr President...
There's a pattern emerging: Mr Obama gets most of what he wants. It's just that the getting there is so much more painful and tension-filled than it probably could, or should, be!
He's got DADT (does anyone really doubt the certification will be coming?); he got a major stimulus, and more recently a mini-stimulus and the tax problem put off. He had a major foreign policy coup when he had those Somalian pirates shot. He's succeeded in getting health care reform started. More importantly: he's changing the debate about health reform.He's on the verge of getting New START ratified He got the new START Treaty with Russia ratified. Somehow the Republicans have made the 9/11 First Responders bill a win for the man (they were stupid about it). His major stimulus will do more to reform medicine in this nation than anyone knows. He's got most of the troops out of Iraq, and he's making some headway in Afghanistan. He's won a Nobel Peace Prize.
He's had some failures, too. If you're aiming to do what he's aimed to do, not all of it can be a success.
To be sure most of the successes can be attributed to his lieutenants; he's been fortunate in picking some very capable people. He's annoyed those on the left and really got the right as mad as all hell. Which has the interesting, and pleasant, side affect of making them all out to loonies.
So I'm guessing the man will tack to the center, and he'll drag the Republicans any which way he chooses. Because it seems this man is a better politician than many think he is. The Republicans help him, of course. How could they not? They're so intent on opposing him they come across as childish and petulant. They have so many lunatics in their Congressional ranks that they make him look middle of the road. And they are so out of touch with all but their rabid base they keep making strategic mistakes.
I still wish he'd toughen up, though.
Added: I missed some of his and the Democrats' accomplishments. Mostly I forgot the two women now serving on the Supreme Court.
Carolyn Ann
He's got DADT (does anyone really doubt the certification will be coming?); he got a major stimulus, and more recently a mini-stimulus and the tax problem put off. He had a major foreign policy coup when he had those Somalian pirates shot. He's succeeded in getting health care reform started. More importantly: he's changing the debate about health reform.
He's had some failures, too. If you're aiming to do what he's aimed to do, not all of it can be a success.
To be sure most of the successes can be attributed to his lieutenants; he's been fortunate in picking some very capable people. He's annoyed those on the left and really got the right as mad as all hell. Which has the interesting, and pleasant, side affect of making them all out to loonies.
So I'm guessing the man will tack to the center, and he'll drag the Republicans any which way he chooses. Because it seems this man is a better politician than many think he is. The Republicans help him, of course. How could they not? They're so intent on opposing him they come across as childish and petulant. They have so many lunatics in their Congressional ranks that they make him look middle of the road. And they are so out of touch with all but their rabid base they keep making strategic mistakes.
I still wish he'd toughen up, though.
Added: I missed some of his and the Democrats' accomplishments. Mostly I forgot the two women now serving on the Supreme Court.
Carolyn Ann
Selling your image
A bit over a year ago, Dr Neal Krawetz did an analysis of a Victoria's Secret photo. The results are pretty startling!
I'm not averse to advertisers manipulating images - it's part of selling an image and not just a dress. Selling the "image" is much more important than selling the garment. People buy clothing like that not because it's functional, but because of how it makes them feel. Looking good is important, basically. We feel good when we look good. :-)
Which also explains why I don't have many pictures of me on Flickr. The image I'd like to project simply isn't matched, or even hinted at, by the results I see in iPhoto. I could manipulate the images, I guess. I don't because I don't have the expertise, and I'm not exactly selling anything. (Well, I am, but we'll leave existentialism alone for the moment.)
One of the things about the online transgender "experience" is how popular personal photos are. The affirmation of having people tell you that you look great is a wonderful confidence booster! After awhile, however, the viewer gets a little tired of seeing the same old poses, with the same old backgrounds, with the same old bits of furniture, house or scenery sticking out the back of someone's head. There's also a lot of "lewd" imagery out there; I'm not a prude or anything, but I can tell the difference between a sensual pose and one that's purely intended to titillate the masculine members of species; or, as it often seems, the male sexual responses of crossdressers and other more "male-oriented" folk. It's often possible to tell the difference between a male and female photographer when you see a nude, or a glamor shot; women treat women much more empathetically than men and it comes across in the imagery. (Not always, but often enough.) With transgender imagery, it's not a case of women taking pictures for other women; it's often that certain individuals simply dabble in a little soft porn, or hint at it. A bit like those individuals who think all women want to look like teenage hookers.
Most of the time, the imagery isn't professional. That fits with the rise of amateur porn. There often isn't much manipulation of the images, either. The days of people inserting themselves into scenes, putting their heads on different bodies and so on seem to be, for the most part, well and truly over. (Thankfully!) One of the leading "catchers" of this sort of misdeed went off-line awhile ago; 'tis a pity; she was rather good at catching and embarrassing the fraudsters. To be honest, it's astonishingly difficult to grab that "natural" look when you have to set the camera timer, dash to your set, pose and hold. And wonder if you missed hearing the shutter "click". So you move right at the moment the shutter clicks. And so on. Keep at it for a few hours and you might have absolutely no pictures worth publishing. Having a photographer do the shooting and even some direction, is so much better. (How do I know? I tried it, once. Just to see if I could do it; I couldn't. These days, I give the Mrs the camera and she takes the pictures. So it's not the photographer who's at fault in my pictures; it's the model. That would be me. :-| Heck, I tried it for awhile on my various motorcycle trips. Stick the camera on a tripod, run to where the scenery is, turn around and realize I just took a picture of me running to where the scenery is... Now I ask passing motorcyclists to do the deed for me.) The pornographic pictures seem to be taken by amateur photographers, with the sole intent of portraying what is basically gay sex.
[I wonder if this post has a point?]
Overall, transgender imagery seems to be of two sorts: "Look at how pretty I am!" and "Here I am having a great time!" And then there's that damned soft pornography. I can't help but think that the transgender claim about womanhood would be bolstered and boosted a bit more if the soft (and hard) porn wasn't as easy to find on Flickr, and the imagery was more empathic. After all, how many women take endless pictures of themselves, and publish them to show the world how pretty and feminine they are?
Clothing is very important within the transgender community; it's arguably the single most important facet of the transgender experience. Transgender pornography never has nudes; it always has lingerie on the various participants. Less titillating imagery does concentrate on the clothing, and the makeup; hair, too. The desired image is of prettiness; the result often isn't. Mostly because of the "tripod" photographer, it has to be admitted. It's really difficult to get the lighting correct, for instance. What is really unhelpful is the fact that wigs light up differently to real hair; beards are exceptionally difficult to hide and the bulkiness and structure of the male body is just darned difficult to conceal. The only real way to conceal all of that is by "touching up" the image. You can try limiting the size of the image, and so on, but touching it up is the only really effective way. either way, you're simply doing what the artists at Victoria's Secret are doing: manipulating a picture to "sell" an image.
Ah well. People take photographs of themselves; I think it's wonderful that they do so, despite the hurdles.
Carolyn Ann
I'm not averse to advertisers manipulating images - it's part of selling an image and not just a dress. Selling the "image" is much more important than selling the garment. People buy clothing like that not because it's functional, but because of how it makes them feel. Looking good is important, basically. We feel good when we look good. :-)
Which also explains why I don't have many pictures of me on Flickr. The image I'd like to project simply isn't matched, or even hinted at, by the results I see in iPhoto. I could manipulate the images, I guess. I don't because I don't have the expertise, and I'm not exactly selling anything. (Well, I am, but we'll leave existentialism alone for the moment.)
One of the things about the online transgender "experience" is how popular personal photos are. The affirmation of having people tell you that you look great is a wonderful confidence booster! After awhile, however, the viewer gets a little tired of seeing the same old poses, with the same old backgrounds, with the same old bits of furniture, house or scenery sticking out the back of someone's head. There's also a lot of "lewd" imagery out there; I'm not a prude or anything, but I can tell the difference between a sensual pose and one that's purely intended to titillate the masculine members of species; or, as it often seems, the male sexual responses of crossdressers and other more "male-oriented" folk. It's often possible to tell the difference between a male and female photographer when you see a nude, or a glamor shot; women treat women much more empathetically than men and it comes across in the imagery. (Not always, but often enough.) With transgender imagery, it's not a case of women taking pictures for other women; it's often that certain individuals simply dabble in a little soft porn, or hint at it. A bit like those individuals who think all women want to look like teenage hookers.
Most of the time, the imagery isn't professional. That fits with the rise of amateur porn. There often isn't much manipulation of the images, either. The days of people inserting themselves into scenes, putting their heads on different bodies and so on seem to be, for the most part, well and truly over. (Thankfully!) One of the leading "catchers" of this sort of misdeed went off-line awhile ago; 'tis a pity; she was rather good at catching and embarrassing the fraudsters. To be honest, it's astonishingly difficult to grab that "natural" look when you have to set the camera timer, dash to your set, pose and hold. And wonder if you missed hearing the shutter "click". So you move right at the moment the shutter clicks. And so on. Keep at it for a few hours and you might have absolutely no pictures worth publishing. Having a photographer do the shooting and even some direction, is so much better. (How do I know? I tried it, once. Just to see if I could do it; I couldn't. These days, I give the Mrs the camera and she takes the pictures. So it's not the photographer who's at fault in my pictures; it's the model. That would be me. :-| Heck, I tried it for awhile on my various motorcycle trips. Stick the camera on a tripod, run to where the scenery is, turn around and realize I just took a picture of me running to where the scenery is... Now I ask passing motorcyclists to do the deed for me.) The pornographic pictures seem to be taken by amateur photographers, with the sole intent of portraying what is basically gay sex.
[I wonder if this post has a point?]
Overall, transgender imagery seems to be of two sorts: "Look at how pretty I am!" and "Here I am having a great time!" And then there's that damned soft pornography. I can't help but think that the transgender claim about womanhood would be bolstered and boosted a bit more if the soft (and hard) porn wasn't as easy to find on Flickr, and the imagery was more empathic. After all, how many women take endless pictures of themselves, and publish them to show the world how pretty and feminine they are?
Clothing is very important within the transgender community; it's arguably the single most important facet of the transgender experience. Transgender pornography never has nudes; it always has lingerie on the various participants. Less titillating imagery does concentrate on the clothing, and the makeup; hair, too. The desired image is of prettiness; the result often isn't. Mostly because of the "tripod" photographer, it has to be admitted. It's really difficult to get the lighting correct, for instance. What is really unhelpful is the fact that wigs light up differently to real hair; beards are exceptionally difficult to hide and the bulkiness and structure of the male body is just darned difficult to conceal. The only real way to conceal all of that is by "touching up" the image. You can try limiting the size of the image, and so on, but touching it up is the only really effective way. either way, you're simply doing what the artists at Victoria's Secret are doing: manipulating a picture to "sell" an image.
Ah well. People take photographs of themselves; I think it's wonderful that they do so, despite the hurdles.
Carolyn Ann
Changes are a-coming
Coming so soon after Zoe's ill-informed alarmist post, I had to read this story in the NY Times. It's about an issue Zoe actually raised in her previous financial-disaster post. I wonder is Zoe has read this post, again in the NY Times? It's about how a well-intentioned California law had an unfortunate side-affect: people can't hire lawyers to help them get out of financial trouble.
The problem is that people are being discarded; they're treated as so many scofflaws, and receive the short thrift such criminals must. So to speak. (Personally, I think the whole thing pokes a massive hole in the "Austrian" economic model; but anyone adhering to that supply-sided nonsense can't be all that capable of spotting the problems their pet theory regurgitates. Ideology will always get in the way of the practical and pragmatic...) What should be happening is that the banks slow down their fevered pace; it would help the housing market recover for one thing. When we've got about 11 months of supply available, increasing it doesn't actually help, does it?
The banks aren't helping themselves. They're generally despised. They're doing things that don't help their public image. Bank of America is one of the worst at this sort of thing; granted, they inherited a mess when they took over Countrywide, but they've not really made any effort to clean that or their own messes up.
Will it destabilize the economy? Not on its own; coupled with the $6T of expected US public debt next year? It won't help any recovery, that's for sure! But the problems aren't structural. They're temporary, and I think the public debt numbers are more important. Despite the best efforts of the Republicans and Tea Partiers, we've not entered a reenactment the 1930's with its financial devastation, and its hoboes and Okies moving west. The economy is growing and the recovery is gaining momentum. It could have been faster, but the ideologically blinded really wanted to trade political power for American, and global, well-being. In their insistence on preserving "American exceptionalism" they've actually hastened the day when America is a superpower among many very important powers. Still, the economy is slowly recovering. It'll take years before we're back to a normal-ish boom/bust cycle - I think the days of the Great Moderation are over, for now. Unemployment will become a structural issue like it is in Europe; although as the economy recovers, some of the more idiotic sentiments (e.g. the racist antipathy toward immigrants) that drag on the economy will subside. If it's not too late, that will help America attract those superstars and entrepreneurs that helped create the amazingly dynamic thing that is the American Economy.
Sure there is uncertainty in the public finance market; the bond traders might get worried about the levels of US debt, which will constrain Congress and Mr Obama more than they might like. No one can, realistically, propose another round of quantitative easing, which further restricts what the Fed and the politicians can do. At some point taxes will have to rise, simply to pay for the things people want their government to provide. Will it be painful? Yes. Will it happen before 2012? No. What might, should, happen is a re-thinking of local governments in the US. They should be simpler; I foresee quite a battle between those who would rather preserve the opaque and expensive structures that currently exist, and those who perceive the need to move forward. You don't really get to fantasize about what you can do, or what you can pay people, if you don't have the money to keep the lights on.
All in all, the next 4 or 5 years are going to be quite turbulent for the American and global economies. The world is changing, and its doing it in predictably unexpected ways. Change, especially massive, structural change always has unknown and unpredicted consequences. But I'm not sure I'd stay in precious metals, especially gold, too much longer. Bubbles burst at the most inconvenient times.
Carolyn Ann
The problem is that people are being discarded; they're treated as so many scofflaws, and receive the short thrift such criminals must. So to speak. (Personally, I think the whole thing pokes a massive hole in the "Austrian" economic model; but anyone adhering to that supply-sided nonsense can't be all that capable of spotting the problems their pet theory regurgitates. Ideology will always get in the way of the practical and pragmatic...) What should be happening is that the banks slow down their fevered pace; it would help the housing market recover for one thing. When we've got about 11 months of supply available, increasing it doesn't actually help, does it?
The banks aren't helping themselves. They're generally despised. They're doing things that don't help their public image. Bank of America is one of the worst at this sort of thing; granted, they inherited a mess when they took over Countrywide, but they've not really made any effort to clean that or their own messes up.
Will it destabilize the economy? Not on its own; coupled with the $6T of expected US public debt next year? It won't help any recovery, that's for sure! But the problems aren't structural. They're temporary, and I think the public debt numbers are more important. Despite the best efforts of the Republicans and Tea Partiers, we've not entered a reenactment the 1930's with its financial devastation, and its hoboes and Okies moving west. The economy is growing and the recovery is gaining momentum. It could have been faster, but the ideologically blinded really wanted to trade political power for American, and global, well-being. In their insistence on preserving "American exceptionalism" they've actually hastened the day when America is a superpower among many very important powers. Still, the economy is slowly recovering. It'll take years before we're back to a normal-ish boom/bust cycle - I think the days of the Great Moderation are over, for now. Unemployment will become a structural issue like it is in Europe; although as the economy recovers, some of the more idiotic sentiments (e.g. the racist antipathy toward immigrants) that drag on the economy will subside. If it's not too late, that will help America attract those superstars and entrepreneurs that helped create the amazingly dynamic thing that is the American Economy.
Sure there is uncertainty in the public finance market; the bond traders might get worried about the levels of US debt, which will constrain Congress and Mr Obama more than they might like. No one can, realistically, propose another round of quantitative easing, which further restricts what the Fed and the politicians can do. At some point taxes will have to rise, simply to pay for the things people want their government to provide. Will it be painful? Yes. Will it happen before 2012? No. What might, should, happen is a re-thinking of local governments in the US. They should be simpler; I foresee quite a battle between those who would rather preserve the opaque and expensive structures that currently exist, and those who perceive the need to move forward. You don't really get to fantasize about what you can do, or what you can pay people, if you don't have the money to keep the lights on.
All in all, the next 4 or 5 years are going to be quite turbulent for the American and global economies. The world is changing, and its doing it in predictably unexpected ways. Change, especially massive, structural change always has unknown and unpredicted consequences. But I'm not sure I'd stay in precious metals, especially gold, too much longer. Bubbles burst at the most inconvenient times.
Carolyn Ann
Damn those torpedoes! (Oh, erm, not that one...)
So I have decided that come hell or high water, I'm going to wear a nice evening gown on New Years Eve.
Well, I will if my "frontage", that bit of me that precedes me everywhere, doesn't get in the way. In which case it'll be jeans and a sweatshirt. Perhaps some cute shoes, too.
Oh well. I'm starting a diet in the new year.
Carolyn Ann
Well, I will if my "frontage", that bit of me that precedes me everywhere, doesn't get in the way. In which case it'll be jeans and a sweatshirt. Perhaps some cute shoes, too.
Oh well. I'm starting a diet in the new year.
Carolyn Ann
This is going to be interesting...
How will the Republicans feel when it's Republican government leaders that come a'beggin'?
As Tip o'Neill said, "All politics is local". So if your "friend" is in need, because of past promises, are you going to get them out of their hole, or not? Will you let a town go bankrupt, simply so that you can hold to a political principle? It's going to be America's "Euro Moment". Towns, counties and states can't print their own money; letting them go bust isn't likely to be an option and bailing them out is going to be painful.
Part of the problem is the complexity of local government in the US; while different states have different structures, the overall theme isn't the "state, county, town/city" thing you'd expect to see. It's a mix. Sometimes, as in NJ, the township has a financial relationship with the state and the county. Sometimes the county and city are one and the same. School districts don't match election districts, either. And they often have the power to tax homeowners. And now add in the fact that people are contesting their tax bills. Homes aren't worth what they were, and so many are empty. (Appallingly, the government can evict you for not paying your property tax bill. So they take a family that might get back on their feet, and a property that has a theoretical ability to hold its own, and reduce both to so much rubble. No one has ever accused governments of being imaginative.)
What generally happens is a hazard of democracy. The Tea Party call it something else, but they're in cahoots with those twits who think a male body part is feminine if you wish it hard enough. The elected people meet the union leaders. They're elected too, by a much smaller body and are generally more experienced in the art of negotiation. The union officials promise to make the next election difficult for the incumbents. The incumbents realize they like their cushy jobs, with its perks. The fold like bad cheap umbrellas. The accountants figure out how defer the promised payments. The union is happy. Government workers retire after three and a half days on the job; you get full pension if you last the entire fourth day. The politicians are happy. The taxpayers don't notice because who the heck is interested in local politics? Until they get a tax bill. Then they go off and form a Tea Party, denouncing the Feds for interfering with their lives when the ones who do the interfering are the ones they sought to put in local office. And the taxpayer remains screwed and the on the hook for lots of unpayable promises.
At which point the local politicos go to the state and ask for more. The wiser ones read Oliver Twist. The even wiser ones head for the hills. On a full pension, of course.
Carolyn Ann
As Tip o'Neill said, "All politics is local". So if your "friend" is in need, because of past promises, are you going to get them out of their hole, or not? Will you let a town go bankrupt, simply so that you can hold to a political principle? It's going to be America's "Euro Moment". Towns, counties and states can't print their own money; letting them go bust isn't likely to be an option and bailing them out is going to be painful.
Part of the problem is the complexity of local government in the US; while different states have different structures, the overall theme isn't the "state, county, town/city" thing you'd expect to see. It's a mix. Sometimes, as in NJ, the township has a financial relationship with the state and the county. Sometimes the county and city are one and the same. School districts don't match election districts, either. And they often have the power to tax homeowners. And now add in the fact that people are contesting their tax bills. Homes aren't worth what they were, and so many are empty. (Appallingly, the government can evict you for not paying your property tax bill. So they take a family that might get back on their feet, and a property that has a theoretical ability to hold its own, and reduce both to so much rubble. No one has ever accused governments of being imaginative.)
What generally happens is a hazard of democracy. The Tea Party call it something else, but they're in cahoots with those twits who think a male body part is feminine if you wish it hard enough. The elected people meet the union leaders. They're elected too, by a much smaller body and are generally more experienced in the art of negotiation. The union officials promise to make the next election difficult for the incumbents. The incumbents realize they like their cushy jobs, with its perks. The fold like bad cheap umbrellas. The accountants figure out how defer the promised payments. The union is happy. Government workers retire after three and a half days on the job; you get full pension if you last the entire fourth day. The politicians are happy. The taxpayers don't notice because who the heck is interested in local politics? Until they get a tax bill. Then they go off and form a Tea Party, denouncing the Feds for interfering with their lives when the ones who do the interfering are the ones they sought to put in local office. And the taxpayer remains screwed and the on the hook for lots of unpayable promises.
At which point the local politicos go to the state and ask for more. The wiser ones read Oliver Twist. The even wiser ones head for the hills. On a full pension, of course.
Carolyn Ann
A book by Art Buchwald
Every now and then you come across a writer who makes you stop and think. Often the thoughts include phrases like "who published that degenerate example of slime?" as you peruse the work of someone so obviously superior below to your meagre unbounded talent. Other times you're wondering if the Editor In Charge actually read the drivel he or she put in their allegedly esteemed tome. Sometimes you come across an editor who even speaks some English, and isn't a passing Neanderthal the Publisher pressed into service, no one else being available. They often go onto found successful websites that they don't quite know what to do with. On the Internet, you at least have a clue who the publisher is. They often hold the same credentials and abilities, or noticeable lack thereof, as the writer, the two individuals being one and the same. (This blog being an exceptional exception. Of course. The writer and publisher are both wonderful people and will one day meet. :-) )
Sometimes, in your perusing, you happen upon an old book, one written by a master of the language, and you hold it to be a Holy Grail. And then you open it. Philip Roth has that affect on many. William Gibson can do that as well. But every now and then you see a small volume, and recognizing the author - you grab it! A wonderful gift if it's free; not too bad if it's not (and cheap).
My newly acquired volume of Art Buchwald's columns is such a tome.
This evening I happened upon "Down the Seine and Up the Potomac", a collection of Mr Buchwald's newspaper columns from about then to around about another then. It was free. :-)
To be honest, I've not read much of Mr Buchwald's work. He published a number of books, and wrote a syndicated column for a long time. I'm sure Wikipedia could take the mystery out of it all, but what good would that be? So I settled into a tub of lavender bubble bath, with a couple (three if you're particular) of pints (English pints, again, if you're particular) of Boddington's finest and read and read and read. And read some more. And then I read some of them to The Mrs. "If Barry Goldwater Had Been Elected" (p258) is probably the driest piece of wit I've ever had the fortune to come across!
After that I settled down with some of Boston's finest ale, and wrote about the experience. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Sometimes, in your perusing, you happen upon an old book, one written by a master of the language, and you hold it to be a Holy Grail. And then you open it. Philip Roth has that affect on many. William Gibson can do that as well. But every now and then you see a small volume, and recognizing the author - you grab it! A wonderful gift if it's free; not too bad if it's not (and cheap).
My newly acquired volume of Art Buchwald's columns is such a tome.
This evening I happened upon "Down the Seine and Up the Potomac", a collection of Mr Buchwald's newspaper columns from about then to around about another then. It was free. :-)
To be honest, I've not read much of Mr Buchwald's work. He published a number of books, and wrote a syndicated column for a long time. I'm sure Wikipedia could take the mystery out of it all, but what good would that be? So I settled into a tub of lavender bubble bath, with a couple (three if you're particular) of pints (English pints, again, if you're particular) of Boddington's finest and read and read and read. And read some more. And then I read some of them to The Mrs. "If Barry Goldwater Had Been Elected" (p258) is probably the driest piece of wit I've ever had the fortune to come across!
After that I settled down with some of Boston's finest ale, and wrote about the experience. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
"You are what your record says you are."
Oh dear. That sort of flies in the face of "you are who you say you are", doesn't it?
The comment is from Te-Nehisi Coates in an article about how pathetic John McCain has become. Mr Coates had better watch out: if certain individuals are consistent, they'll be shouting that he's transphobic. Because their identity relies on everyone agreeing they are who they say they are.
It's all a bit stupid, really. We're always a composite of who we think we are, who we are and how others perceive us. If we think we're competent, and no one else does, the result is often bitterness. If you're competent and others think you are, well, that's a different story altogether. The only path to competency I know is via hard work, application and considered thought. And it discards lazy thinking before it even starts. You're incompetent, in other words, if you argue that a penis is a vagina and a vagina is a penis simply because you say it is. You're competency, in a specific arena, can be questioned if you get your facts so egregiously wrong it takes three seconds to find flaws in the material you're using. And most of that is the time it takes a website to load. If you mix up the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States, you're not exactly proving your competency with those documents, or proving that you can issue authoritative edicts upon them.
Why? Because when you get your facts wrong, or confuse two historical documents in important ways (it's important if your point relies on not mixing them up!), you've proven yourself incapable of figuring out that your own "facts" undermine you. The competent don't do that. When you argue that your perception of yourself is the overriding perception, you're imposing your view on others. Try that and see how many people view you as competent in the field of human relations. The competent don't impose; they persuade.
The temptation to argue that your perception of yourself is the only that matters is a bit of a stupid way of hiding incompetency. Simply arguing that proves your incompetence! We are all a mix of who we think we are, who we are and how others perceive us. We can only hope for some accord in all three.
Carolyn Ann
The comment is from Te-Nehisi Coates in an article about how pathetic John McCain has become. Mr Coates had better watch out: if certain individuals are consistent, they'll be shouting that he's transphobic. Because their identity relies on everyone agreeing they are who they say they are.
It's all a bit stupid, really. We're always a composite of who we think we are, who we are and how others perceive us. If we think we're competent, and no one else does, the result is often bitterness. If you're competent and others think you are, well, that's a different story altogether. The only path to competency I know is via hard work, application and considered thought. And it discards lazy thinking before it even starts. You're incompetent, in other words, if you argue that a penis is a vagina and a vagina is a penis simply because you say it is. You're competency, in a specific arena, can be questioned if you get your facts so egregiously wrong it takes three seconds to find flaws in the material you're using. And most of that is the time it takes a website to load. If you mix up the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States, you're not exactly proving your competency with those documents, or proving that you can issue authoritative edicts upon them.
Why? Because when you get your facts wrong, or confuse two historical documents in important ways (it's important if your point relies on not mixing them up!), you've proven yourself incapable of figuring out that your own "facts" undermine you. The competent don't do that. When you argue that your perception of yourself is the overriding perception, you're imposing your view on others. Try that and see how many people view you as competent in the field of human relations. The competent don't impose; they persuade.
The temptation to argue that your perception of yourself is the only that matters is a bit of a stupid way of hiding incompetency. Simply arguing that proves your incompetence! We are all a mix of who we think we are, who we are and how others perceive us. We can only hope for some accord in all three.
Carolyn Ann
Haley Barbour's memory is more selective than Sarah Palin's
The furor over Haley Barbour's comments about growing up in Yazoo City, Mississippi, is well deserved. Mr Barbour, the governor of Mississippi and an aspiring Presidential hopeful seems to capture the mood of the southern conservative quite well: rewrite history until it fits into a nice mold. It's the same idiocy that leads the Texas School Board to write Thomas Jefferson out of the history books; or a school board in Dover, Pa, to try and teach creationism. Facts? Who needs facts?
People will rewrite history. They always will, and - especially when they're fond of lazy thinking and writing - rewrite with gusto. Some people like to rewrite facts once or twice per blog post. Some people don't actually care about the facts, and will tell you whatever suits their point best; even if their suppositions undermine their own point! (I can think of at least two transgender bloggers who do that.)
It's idiotic, but people do it anyway. The problem isn't so much the rewriting of history; as I said, that's always going to happen. The problem is the laziness and contempt that are the behind the efforts to rewrite history.
Ah well. Anyone who thought this was a post-racist society shouldn't be thinking that anymore. Mind you, if they did, they're just as fanciful as Mr Barbour, pretending all was well in Yazoo City during the 1960's.
Carolyn Ann
People will rewrite history. They always will, and - especially when they're fond of lazy thinking and writing - rewrite with gusto. Some people like to rewrite facts once or twice per blog post. Some people don't actually care about the facts, and will tell you whatever suits their point best; even if their suppositions undermine their own point! (I can think of at least two transgender bloggers who do that.)
It's idiotic, but people do it anyway. The problem isn't so much the rewriting of history; as I said, that's always going to happen. The problem is the laziness and contempt that are the behind the efforts to rewrite history.
Ah well. Anyone who thought this was a post-racist society shouldn't be thinking that anymore. Mind you, if they did, they're just as fanciful as Mr Barbour, pretending all was well in Yazoo City during the 1960's.
Carolyn Ann
PS: Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic examines Haley Barbour's very odious historical memories about Yazoo City, Mississippi.
Ms Brain finds hysterical purveyors of news to be reliable...
Even though it's somewhat customary to predict the end of the world (as we know it?), sometimes the casualness of the prediction undermines it. Like Ms Brain's most recent attempt at predicting doom and gloom.
Ms Brain seems to be developing a habit of reading alarmist "financial" sites such as the "Gold Survival Guide". It's claims to be a guide for surviving and prospering in the current financial crisis. What it really seems to be is a con job. There's no actual reporting on the site; instead we gets lists of disparate claims (none are backed up with substantive claims), and guides about how to buy gold and silver at pennies on the dollar. And an offer that comes from the Bernie Madoff's playbook:
That's an impartial view of the gold market? That's a place to go for information about gold prices? I can sell you a really nice, well maintained bridge that goes across the East River. Just send me your email details... (Please, don't...) Oh, it's nice that they promise not to sell your name to anyone. I wonder if that's possible to verify. Or do they run their own spamming operation, and don't need to sell your email on?
"Gullible" is a word that comes to mind.
Here's what's happening in gold: hedge funds are buying. The price has risen about 25% this year; if it goes down, it will leave a lot of people looking like idiots. And what happens to prices in bubbles? Prices go down. (Gold fell, yesterday, in light trading.) The one thing about hedge funds is that you can never know if they're buying at the spot price, anticipating a quick turn around, or are buying for the long term. Treasury bonds seem to indicate the former; they're still being bought if someone wants to go "to cash". Only idiots and Ron Paul (..?) hold onto gold as an investment.
In the first part of Ms Brain's post, she asserts that Bank of America and the like are sitting on a ticking time bomb, in the form of some new paperwork mysteries. Been there, done that. That's now sorted, to almost no one's satisfaction (although I'll note the banks seem to be more satisfied than anyone else). Any new revelations won't be as bad. It's well known that Countrywide was dire. Ms Brain says BofA isn't the only bank in this sort of trouble; probably not, but I'll reckon that it's the worst. Simply because it acquired Countrywide! It's a legal issue that will get sorted. BofA might have to plead for a waiver on some capital requirements while it sorts out the mess, but in general, by now the legal teams involved are used to figuring out the mess that was Countrywide.
The only thing on the horizon is US debt. Spanish, Portuguese and Irish debt aren't on the horizon; they're much closer to the rocky shoreline than anyone would like. German debt is a concern, but while its economy is growing, any concern is reduced to a slight frown. No, the biggie is US debt: the tax deal was reasonable(ish), but what would be better would be an intelligent way of dealing with the medium term debt. Congress and the White House haven't even glanced in its direction. All the tub-thumping about the Fed isn't really helping, but it might change some of the practices over there. It could do with a little more transparency, to be honest. (Let me clarify: the tax deal was the politics of the possible; was it ideal? No.) Next year the Tea Party and its populist rhetoric will be sorely tested when US debt becomes a significant issue. $4T of additional debt is not a number to sneeze at!
The economic recovery is fragile. I think it will gain some momentum; unlike Ms Brain, I don't allege that the recovery is the eye of the storm. I think we're past any double-dip recession. The reason? Christmas hiring was strong and Christmas sales look to be slightly up. If you rely on Bernie Madoff wannabe's to tell you how the economy is doing, you're always going to get a gloomy picture. Ms Brain would be better off reading Bloomberg, the Wall St Journal, Yahoo finance and so on, for a picture of the global economy. Not a gloomy peddler, is intent on getting you to buy his gold. Ask the pessimistically hysterical if the world is coming to an end and they will always tell you it is. Ask those who require the world to be in disarray, and they'll tell you it's disintegrating in front of their very eyes. Ms Brain needs to find more reliable, less interested and less hysterical purveyors of economic news.
She might want to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the global economic market, and of individual markets, while she's at it. After all, it helps to know what you're talking about if you're going to make dire predictions.
Carolyn Ann
"So you’ll save up to 5.0% on what you’ll pay elsewhere. ...
Just enter your name and email in the box to the right to get all the details.
You’ll then get access to the full details of the gold supplier, and how to get a quote. This will be 4.5%* above the current world or spot gold price (* plus ingot charge) - even if you only want a couple of ounces. ...
Why do we make you sign up? We only want to deal with those genuinely interested in buying. So by making it slightly difficult to get the information, only the genuinely interested will bother. So if you don’t want to learn how to buy the lowest priced gold bullion we’ve managed to find in New Zealand then don’t enter your details to the right.
Full disclosure: We do get a referral fee for anyone that buys after being referred from us - but you’re free to shop around and see if you can find a better price elsewhere, but we couldn’t."(My emphasis)
That's an impartial view of the gold market? That's a place to go for information about gold prices? I can sell you a really nice, well maintained bridge that goes across the East River. Just send me your email details... (Please, don't...) Oh, it's nice that they promise not to sell your name to anyone. I wonder if that's possible to verify. Or do they run their own spamming operation, and don't need to sell your email on?
"Gullible" is a word that comes to mind.
Here's what's happening in gold: hedge funds are buying. The price has risen about 25% this year; if it goes down, it will leave a lot of people looking like idiots. And what happens to prices in bubbles? Prices go down. (Gold fell, yesterday, in light trading.) The one thing about hedge funds is that you can never know if they're buying at the spot price, anticipating a quick turn around, or are buying for the long term. Treasury bonds seem to indicate the former; they're still being bought if someone wants to go "to cash". Only idiots and Ron Paul (..?) hold onto gold as an investment.
In the first part of Ms Brain's post, she asserts that Bank of America and the like are sitting on a ticking time bomb, in the form of some new paperwork mysteries. Been there, done that. That's now sorted, to almost no one's satisfaction (although I'll note the banks seem to be more satisfied than anyone else). Any new revelations won't be as bad. It's well known that Countrywide was dire. Ms Brain says BofA isn't the only bank in this sort of trouble; probably not, but I'll reckon that it's the worst. Simply because it acquired Countrywide! It's a legal issue that will get sorted. BofA might have to plead for a waiver on some capital requirements while it sorts out the mess, but in general, by now the legal teams involved are used to figuring out the mess that was Countrywide.
The only thing on the horizon is US debt. Spanish, Portuguese and Irish debt aren't on the horizon; they're much closer to the rocky shoreline than anyone would like. German debt is a concern, but while its economy is growing, any concern is reduced to a slight frown. No, the biggie is US debt: the tax deal was reasonable(ish), but what would be better would be an intelligent way of dealing with the medium term debt. Congress and the White House haven't even glanced in its direction. All the tub-thumping about the Fed isn't really helping, but it might change some of the practices over there. It could do with a little more transparency, to be honest. (Let me clarify: the tax deal was the politics of the possible; was it ideal? No.) Next year the Tea Party and its populist rhetoric will be sorely tested when US debt becomes a significant issue. $4T of additional debt is not a number to sneeze at!
The economic recovery is fragile. I think it will gain some momentum; unlike Ms Brain, I don't allege that the recovery is the eye of the storm. I think we're past any double-dip recession. The reason? Christmas hiring was strong and Christmas sales look to be slightly up. If you rely on Bernie Madoff wannabe's to tell you how the economy is doing, you're always going to get a gloomy picture. Ms Brain would be better off reading Bloomberg, the Wall St Journal, Yahoo finance and so on, for a picture of the global economy. Not a gloomy peddler, is intent on getting you to buy his gold. Ask the pessimistically hysterical if the world is coming to an end and they will always tell you it is. Ask those who require the world to be in disarray, and they'll tell you it's disintegrating in front of their very eyes. Ms Brain needs to find more reliable, less interested and less hysterical purveyors of economic news.
She might want to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the global economic market, and of individual markets, while she's at it. After all, it helps to know what you're talking about if you're going to make dire predictions.
Carolyn Ann
Getting back to some sort of "normal"
As much as the "normal" is despised by so many, it's nice to know that my life is getting back to some sort of normalcy. :-)
Things have been just a little too hectic for my liking!
Ah well. It'll be normal until we get "that" phone call. The one we're waiting for, with dread and baited breath. What the chap tells us dictates so much!
Frankly, I'm getting fed up of "frugal". Zoe Brain, the other day, wrote one of her alarmist misinterpretations of economic "theory". In the comments section, she describes her ideal, very frugal, life. Not for me, that life. I like the nice things in life; nice cars, good motorcycles, nice clothes, and so on. Call me a capitalist if you want, but I happen to like what it brings.
I'm not particularly interested in being rich. I'd just like to know that I don't have to rob Peter to pay Paul, while I then go back to Peter to beg his forbearance. I'd like to have some financial security in our lives!
The ideal first step is that phone call.
Carolyn Ann
Things have been just a little too hectic for my liking!
Ah well. It'll be normal until we get "that" phone call. The one we're waiting for, with dread and baited breath. What the chap tells us dictates so much!
Frankly, I'm getting fed up of "frugal". Zoe Brain, the other day, wrote one of her alarmist misinterpretations of economic "theory". In the comments section, she describes her ideal, very frugal, life. Not for me, that life. I like the nice things in life; nice cars, good motorcycles, nice clothes, and so on. Call me a capitalist if you want, but I happen to like what it brings.
I'm not particularly interested in being rich. I'd just like to know that I don't have to rob Peter to pay Paul, while I then go back to Peter to beg his forbearance. I'd like to have some financial security in our lives!
The ideal first step is that phone call.
Carolyn Ann
Monday, December 20, 2010
Waiting for the end...
Of an update.
I'm updating the old white laptop (it's an iBook). It's updating its Microsoft software. I told the Mrs I'd be through when it finished: sometime on Wednesday at the rate it's going.
And now it's telling me it needs to update Safari.
Make that Thursday.
Carolyn Ann
I'm updating the old white laptop (it's an iBook). It's updating its Microsoft software. I told the Mrs I'd be through when it finished: sometime on Wednesday at the rate it's going.
And now it's telling me it needs to update Safari.
Make that Thursday.
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, December 19, 2010
A cruel bazaar
I've never thought of freedom of expression as a cruel bazaar, but it really is.
It's popular to natter on about the marketplace of ideas; the Tea Party hate such treason (in the name of freedom, of course), and Noam Chomsky... Well, regular readers of this blog will know the disdain I hold for Mr Chomsky's particular vision of "free speech". It includes the clause "for historical reasons, you can not offend me". Not in the sense of "I have a tough skin, so try your damnedest and all you'll do is waste your breathe", but in the sense of "you cannot utter that particular expression because it offends me".
It's all about "me", in other words.
Except when it isn't.
I, for one, argue that the odious are shown to be so only by shining a light on them. If you hide what they do, what they argue, you abide them and their ideas. Show the roots of their arguments, take their arguments to their logical conclusions, and so on. Show how odious, hideous or incredulous their ideas are. The modern bazaar has a nasty habit of both highlighting the hideous, and generating interest in it. Modern conspiracy theories, from Mr Bush's involvement in 9/11 to Mr Obama's mysterious "foreign" birth, require the Internet. Without that, they would collapse of their idiocy.
Of course, Mahatma Gandhi would have a hard time surviving the modern bazaar. His alleged ride on a Nazi submarine would be enough to doom him to a historical foot note. We assume that allegation is truth, and we neglect truth in our allegations. (I don't, of course... :-) You know, I have a part interest in a really nice, exceptionally well-maintained East River bridge I need to sell.)
What will happen in this modern bazaar is not that the truth will set us all free. Nothing could be further from the truth. (So to speak... :-| ) We will fall into a multitude of factions; there will be a faction for those who believe Mr Bush was the instigator of 9/11; another for Mr Obama having been born in Kenya, another for those who think Mr Bush was blindsided, but that dark forces were responsible, and another for those who argue that a Hawaiian birth in 1961 shouldn't be recognized because Hawaii wasn't a state until 1959. Heck, in the future I expect to see people arguing, inanely, that the designers of the World Trade Center, London buses and Madrid trains were in cahoots with Islamic forces because there's no other way the facetiously murdered could have died. People always confuse the now with the past.
The erudite will guide us through the forthcoming morass; the quickly offended will merely fuel the flames of the endless and prophetic conspiracies that will pave our glorious "freedom".
When you have ideas such as cultural identity can preclude and prevent expression from happening, you end up not with free speech, or a cruel bazaar. You end up with a banal bazaar where the only currency is your inability to offend, based on your inability to think.
The right and the left both seek the same bazaar. The only difference are the goods they mandate can be displayed.
Carolyn Ann
It's popular to natter on about the marketplace of ideas; the Tea Party hate such treason (in the name of freedom, of course), and Noam Chomsky... Well, regular readers of this blog will know the disdain I hold for Mr Chomsky's particular vision of "free speech". It includes the clause "for historical reasons, you can not offend me". Not in the sense of "I have a tough skin, so try your damnedest and all you'll do is waste your breathe", but in the sense of "you cannot utter that particular expression because it offends me".
It's all about "me", in other words.
Except when it isn't.
I, for one, argue that the odious are shown to be so only by shining a light on them. If you hide what they do, what they argue, you abide them and their ideas. Show the roots of their arguments, take their arguments to their logical conclusions, and so on. Show how odious, hideous or incredulous their ideas are. The modern bazaar has a nasty habit of both highlighting the hideous, and generating interest in it. Modern conspiracy theories, from Mr Bush's involvement in 9/11 to Mr Obama's mysterious "foreign" birth, require the Internet. Without that, they would collapse of their idiocy.
Of course, Mahatma Gandhi would have a hard time surviving the modern bazaar. His alleged ride on a Nazi submarine would be enough to doom him to a historical foot note. We assume that allegation is truth, and we neglect truth in our allegations. (I don't, of course... :-) You know, I have a part interest in a really nice, exceptionally well-maintained East River bridge I need to sell.)
What will happen in this modern bazaar is not that the truth will set us all free. Nothing could be further from the truth. (So to speak... :-| ) We will fall into a multitude of factions; there will be a faction for those who believe Mr Bush was the instigator of 9/11; another for Mr Obama having been born in Kenya, another for those who think Mr Bush was blindsided, but that dark forces were responsible, and another for those who argue that a Hawaiian birth in 1961 shouldn't be recognized because Hawaii wasn't a state until 1959. Heck, in the future I expect to see people arguing, inanely, that the designers of the World Trade Center, London buses and Madrid trains were in cahoots with Islamic forces because there's no other way the facetiously murdered could have died. People always confuse the now with the past.
The erudite will guide us through the forthcoming morass; the quickly offended will merely fuel the flames of the endless and prophetic conspiracies that will pave our glorious "freedom".
When you have ideas such as cultural identity can preclude and prevent expression from happening, you end up not with free speech, or a cruel bazaar. You end up with a banal bazaar where the only currency is your inability to offend, based on your inability to think.
The right and the left both seek the same bazaar. The only difference are the goods they mandate can be displayed.
Carolyn Ann
Kinsey Hope hates free speech
Wow. That's a provocative title. I could have written "Queen Emily hates free speech" or "Lisa Harney dislikes it quite intensely", but that would be like alleging water is wet.
Ms Hope decidedly dislikes free speech. There's no other way to put it. She wants to ban particular expressions because they infringe upon the cultural beliefs of certain peoples. She equates those cultural beliefs with their economic plight. And in doing so alleges that certain beliefs should be out of bounds.
She's probably in absolute accord with the Chinese government when it says that awarding Liu Xiabobo the Nobel Peace Prize is "provocative". After all, Mr Liu argued about such things as universal rights (something the otherwise opaque Chinese constitution promotes). He goes against that which is sacred within his own nation: the ability of the ruling government to subjugate its citizens.
Because that's essentially what Ms Hope is arguing for: the subjugation of people.
Undoubtedly, Ms Hope will argue that she stands for free speech. The sort of free speech that Pakistan's government argued for: the sort that makes it possible to behead the heretical.
In arguing that certain symbols and beliefs are beyond "appropriation", Ms Hope is arguing that "those who know" can decide what is appropriate to include in a discussion and what is not. They also get to decide what a discussion is. All in the interests of all concerned, of course.
Free speech is free speech. It comes with some practical limitations. You can't shout "Fire!" in the middle of a crowded theater when just for a laugh. You can't promote the death of the President of the United States (experience, I guess, has shown that such natter leads to idiots attempting such idiocies). You can call the President every name under the sun, and then some. You can use the stage to advocate for a change of official policy. You can do pretty much anything that does not include physical harm to others and damage to property. (I have never understood why anarchists insist on breaking the windows of small business owners and large conglomerates alike. Perhaps that's why Walmart doesn't have windows? Oh, no. It's because they interfere with selling space, and might make their stores look like what they are: cattle markets where it's difficult to decipher whom, or (more despairingly) what is the cattle.) What you can't do is advocate violence; experience has proven that often leads to it.
The unfortunate thing about free speech is that allows people to say the darndest things. It allows Glen Beck to spout his idiocy. It allows a racist to racist. It allows an Evangelical Christian to condemn any and all. It allows me to criticize those who attempt to mock me; and it allows them to mock me. Although it's a sign of their maturity if they resist the childish urge to do so, condemn those who do, as I condemn all those efforts to mock Ms Hope - oh, sorry, there haven't been any. What free speech does not do is protect Ms Hope's ideas from that astonishingly cruel bazaar of ideas.
Carolyn Ann
Ms Hope decidedly dislikes free speech. There's no other way to put it. She wants to ban particular expressions because they infringe upon the cultural beliefs of certain peoples. She equates those cultural beliefs with their economic plight. And in doing so alleges that certain beliefs should be out of bounds.
She's probably in absolute accord with the Chinese government when it says that awarding Liu Xiabobo the Nobel Peace Prize is "provocative". After all, Mr Liu argued about such things as universal rights (something the otherwise opaque Chinese constitution promotes). He goes against that which is sacred within his own nation: the ability of the ruling government to subjugate its citizens.
Because that's essentially what Ms Hope is arguing for: the subjugation of people.
Undoubtedly, Ms Hope will argue that she stands for free speech. The sort of free speech that Pakistan's government argued for: the sort that makes it possible to behead the heretical.
In arguing that certain symbols and beliefs are beyond "appropriation", Ms Hope is arguing that "those who know" can decide what is appropriate to include in a discussion and what is not. They also get to decide what a discussion is. All in the interests of all concerned, of course.
Free speech is free speech. It comes with some practical limitations. You can't shout "Fire!" in the middle of a crowded theater when just for a laugh. You can't promote the death of the President of the United States (experience, I guess, has shown that such natter leads to idiots attempting such idiocies). You can call the President every name under the sun, and then some. You can use the stage to advocate for a change of official policy. You can do pretty much anything that does not include physical harm to others and damage to property. (I have never understood why anarchists insist on breaking the windows of small business owners and large conglomerates alike. Perhaps that's why Walmart doesn't have windows? Oh, no. It's because they interfere with selling space, and might make their stores look like what they are: cattle markets where it's difficult to decipher whom, or (more despairingly) what is the cattle.) What you can't do is advocate violence; experience has proven that often leads to it.
The unfortunate thing about free speech is that allows people to say the darndest things. It allows Glen Beck to spout his idiocy. It allows a racist to racist. It allows an Evangelical Christian to condemn any and all. It allows me to criticize those who attempt to mock me; and it allows them to mock me. Although it's a sign of their maturity if they resist the childish urge to do so, condemn those who do, as I condemn all those efforts to mock Ms Hope - oh, sorry, there haven't been any. What free speech does not do is protect Ms Hope's ideas from that astonishingly cruel bazaar of ideas.
Carolyn Ann
Noo York! Noo York! :-)
We popped up to New York City, yesterday. :-)
We both like to see the windows at Bergdorf Goodman's, have a wander around the store - those dresses! Those skirts! Those shoes! Oh My! :-) - and see the city a little. So we did. (We also popped into a see a friend in hospital, which was a nice surprise for her.) The city was hopping; we didn't make it Katz's Deli, which was a bit of a disappointment. The Wife was looking forward to making it there.
Anyway, Bergdorf's windows were wonderful! They also had a small exhibition of previous windows on the 3rd floor. Popping up there was a treat. :-) And then we went to the 7th (that's where the restrooms are). Some amazingly beautiful home-wares up there; along with a bar and restaurant that would be divine to have a snack in. (Alas, our wallets weren't up to that.)
Wandering down to Saks Fifth Ave, we marveled at the new hot dog/pretzel carts. They're quite over the top. Not attractively so, either. Saks' windows weren't as nice; they were, quite frankly, a bit of a disappointment. The crowds weren't as "thrilling" as last year; probably because the windows weren't as good. We then caught the 5th Ave bus, passing Lord & Taylor's windows. One word: boring. (We ignored Macy's windows, this year.) Getting out by the Flat Iron building is always a treat; MetLife's ridiculous rendition of the Venetian Campanile in St Mark's Square was lit up. It almost looked attractive. Popping into a new place, the "Eataly" (do a Google search for it!). Wow! What splendor! What packaging! Makes a trip to supermarket really tedious. What prices! $9.50 for a small jar of jam. I'm sure it's wonderful, and if I had the money, the owners of the store would have it. One day...
Dinner was at Tutta Pasta in Park Slope; they make a wonderful Gnocchi Bolognese (it's not on the menu). Not as good as the one I had in Florence, in that little place just by Il Duomo, there. But pretty good, and quite evocative of that amazing culinary experience. The prices aren't too bad, either.
I took lots of pictures; I used 4 sets of batteries! Parking wasn't as easy as we thought it should be; fortunately we got a really good spot in Park Slope, Brooklyn. It was a short block away from the train, so getting about was quite a simple affair indeed! The trains and buses were really convenient, quick and we didn't have to wait very long for any of them. The fair structure has become very confusing, however. But we bought a single card for $13.50; it sufficed for all our travel, and we didn't have to spend $17 on two all-day passes. One more trip or a missed transfer would have penalized us, so we were careful about that.
Heading home, we took in Dyker Heights. Other places have single homes with magnificent light displays. Brooklyn has Dyker Heights - a few blocks of absolutely over the top displays. One of these days, I'll have to get a camera and a setup that can cope with the night-time lighting, along with the bright lighting!
There are things I miss about New York. There are things I don't miss. Getting home in the wee hours of the morning, seeing the stars and hearing the sounds of the night time woodland? I was continually reminded that New York City is the only city I've been in where I had to use off-road motorcycling techniques while on the road. Good job the wife has a very capable car!
New York, New York! What a wonderful town!!! :-D
Carolyn Ann
We both like to see the windows at Bergdorf Goodman's, have a wander around the store - those dresses! Those skirts! Those shoes! Oh My! :-) - and see the city a little. So we did. (We also popped into a see a friend in hospital, which was a nice surprise for her.) The city was hopping; we didn't make it Katz's Deli, which was a bit of a disappointment. The Wife was looking forward to making it there.
Anyway, Bergdorf's windows were wonderful! They also had a small exhibition of previous windows on the 3rd floor. Popping up there was a treat. :-) And then we went to the 7th (that's where the restrooms are). Some amazingly beautiful home-wares up there; along with a bar and restaurant that would be divine to have a snack in. (Alas, our wallets weren't up to that.)
Wandering down to Saks Fifth Ave, we marveled at the new hot dog/pretzel carts. They're quite over the top. Not attractively so, either. Saks' windows weren't as nice; they were, quite frankly, a bit of a disappointment. The crowds weren't as "thrilling" as last year; probably because the windows weren't as good. We then caught the 5th Ave bus, passing Lord & Taylor's windows. One word: boring. (We ignored Macy's windows, this year.) Getting out by the Flat Iron building is always a treat; MetLife's ridiculous rendition of the Venetian Campanile in St Mark's Square was lit up. It almost looked attractive. Popping into a new place, the "Eataly" (do a Google search for it!). Wow! What splendor! What packaging! Makes a trip to supermarket really tedious. What prices! $9.50 for a small jar of jam. I'm sure it's wonderful, and if I had the money, the owners of the store would have it. One day...
Dinner was at Tutta Pasta in Park Slope; they make a wonderful Gnocchi Bolognese (it's not on the menu). Not as good as the one I had in Florence, in that little place just by Il Duomo, there. But pretty good, and quite evocative of that amazing culinary experience. The prices aren't too bad, either.
I took lots of pictures; I used 4 sets of batteries! Parking wasn't as easy as we thought it should be; fortunately we got a really good spot in Park Slope, Brooklyn. It was a short block away from the train, so getting about was quite a simple affair indeed! The trains and buses were really convenient, quick and we didn't have to wait very long for any of them. The fair structure has become very confusing, however. But we bought a single card for $13.50; it sufficed for all our travel, and we didn't have to spend $17 on two all-day passes. One more trip or a missed transfer would have penalized us, so we were careful about that.
Heading home, we took in Dyker Heights. Other places have single homes with magnificent light displays. Brooklyn has Dyker Heights - a few blocks of absolutely over the top displays. One of these days, I'll have to get a camera and a setup that can cope with the night-time lighting, along with the bright lighting!
There are things I miss about New York. There are things I don't miss. Getting home in the wee hours of the morning, seeing the stars and hearing the sounds of the night time woodland? I was continually reminded that New York City is the only city I've been in where I had to use off-road motorcycling techniques while on the road. Good job the wife has a very capable car!
New York, New York! What a wonderful town!!! :-D
Carolyn Ann
Friday, December 17, 2010
Payday!
Hurrah! Finally! We were beginning to think it would never arrive.
I'd like to write "payday and we're back to solvency!" But solvent, actually solvent, is aways off.
My (ulp...) metaphorical trains have stopped; they're not backing up. They're just sitting there, menacingly. Spouting steam and smoke and lots bellowing noises, looking quite frightful indeed. The next few days will provide their new direction. Obviously I'd like them to go backwards, but I don't think they're very good at that sort of thing.
There aren't too many more places to go. I think the ground is splintering, so if the worst does happen, it's not going to be nice.
Stress? Oh, just a little.
Carolyn Ann
I'd like to write "payday and we're back to solvency!" But solvent, actually solvent, is aways off.
My (ulp...) metaphorical trains have stopped; they're not backing up. They're just sitting there, menacingly. Spouting steam and smoke and lots bellowing noises, looking quite frightful indeed. The next few days will provide their new direction. Obviously I'd like them to go backwards, but I don't think they're very good at that sort of thing.
There aren't too many more places to go. I think the ground is splintering, so if the worst does happen, it's not going to be nice.
Stress? Oh, just a little.
Carolyn Ann
Vive la révolution le/la chat(s)!
The cats are pretty annoyed. We've run out of dry food, and didn't immediately drop everything to go fetch some. Considering that it's pay day (yahooo! yippeeeee!), that's exactly what we should have done. Meanwhile, the Mrs and I had croissants for breakfast.
I think the feline population will start meowing in French (méow?) and march upon the living room door, demanding dry food. "Let them eat croissants!" won't help. We ate the last of them.
The révolution will start immediately after their mid-morning nap.
Carolyn Ann
I think the feline population will start meowing in French (méow?) and march upon the living room door, demanding dry food. "Let them eat croissants!" won't help. We ate the last of them.
The révolution will start immediately after their mid-morning nap.
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, December 16, 2010
After yesterday...
With the intensity of yesterday behind me, my spirit is willing. My body isn't quite so eager. Zzzz...
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Aspiring to...
When I am in the position of having more money than is required to keep body and soul vaguely associated (usually that would be overly dramatic; this week, it's fairly accurate!), I'm going to seek some cute tops. That go with my skirts and pants!
I've just tried putting together a warm but cute outfit. (I'm just getting dressed at two in the afternoon? Yeah, and? :-) ) I have a nice brown "peasant" skirt; it's cotton, but with the appropriate underpinnings (so to speak)is warm enough no it isn't... A pair of really cute brown flats that match the skirt perfectly, and absolutely nothing that works for the top.
Oh well. Something to aspire to, I guess. :-)
Carolyn Ann
I've just tried putting together a warm but cute outfit. (I'm just getting dressed at two in the afternoon? Yeah, and? :-) ) I have a nice brown "peasant" skirt; it's cotton, but with the appropriate underpinnings (so to speak)
Oh well. Something to aspire to, I guess. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Paying for a worthless cause
It seems some of the Birthers are disappointed with Lt Col Terrence Lakin's court martial. He infamously decided not to obey deployment orders, using the now ancient excuse that President Obama isn't the legitimate Commander in Chief. Because he hasn't produced his birth certificate, even though his campaign did and Hawaii also says he was born there.
So now, facing 3½ years in a military jail, being stripped of his pension and dishonorably discharged - he's pleading for clemency. The Birthers are annoyed that the judge didn't allow them to present "evidence" that Mr Obama is not the rightful president. (What is this? A hollowed out, surreal version of Richard III, with a variety of idiots vying to be Richard?)
I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the man is guilty and will end up being punished. The army really doesn't like its troops to disobey orders. It's irrelevant what the Birthers think of Mr Obama; the simple fact is this man was given an order, and he disobeyed it. Not only that, he did it with publicity. Yeah, that's going to get some sympathy from the army. There are those who support him; no doubt there were a few who urged him along - but he's the one who stands to lose. He should have thought of that before disobeying orders.
Oh well. He's not the first man to go down for a worthless cause; I have absolutely no doubt he'll be the last.
Carolyn Ann
Cry me a river...
It seems the GOP has a new debating strategy: crying.
John Boehner re-enacts Noah's flood at every opportunity he gets. And now Mitch McConnell has tapped his inner infant, and is doing the same. Considering that Glenn Beck is an "emotional" chap, I can only conclude that in the next two years, we'll see Congressional Republicans and right wing pundits sobbing up a storm every time something doesn't go their way, or if anyone raises an objection to their fallacious arguments.
They don't have a monopoly on this tactic; I can think of a few transgender "activists" who employ the same tactic.
All in all, political debate returns to its roots. The petulant and infantile trying to persuade the adults that their selfishness is worthy not only of attention, but praise as well.
Carolyn Ann
John Boehner re-enacts Noah's flood at every opportunity he gets. And now Mitch McConnell has tapped his inner infant, and is doing the same. Considering that Glenn Beck is an "emotional" chap, I can only conclude that in the next two years, we'll see Congressional Republicans and right wing pundits sobbing up a storm every time something doesn't go their way, or if anyone raises an objection to their fallacious arguments.
They don't have a monopoly on this tactic; I can think of a few transgender "activists" who employ the same tactic.
All in all, political debate returns to its roots. The petulant and infantile trying to persuade the adults that their selfishness is worthy not only of attention, but praise as well.
Carolyn Ann
We are resolute! (Except where it might help me get re-elected)
The Senate GOP caucus, and some of the more gullible Democrats, are imposing a strict standard upon themselves: no more earmarks. Unless, of course, they're important earmarks.
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Mr Kafka and his infamous anecdote
With their efforts to persecute, sorry: prosecute Julian Assange, it struck me that perhaps Eric Holder is trying to introduce us all to Josef K., the hero, such as he is, in Franz Kafka's "The Trial".
If so, he shouldn't bother. We've been introduced. Mr Bush's administration ably demonstrated their affection for, and understanding of, the novel. The Tea Party, along with their more reactionary conservative bandwagoneers and blowhards, while never bothering to read the mutterings of an avowed communist/socialist/European, certainly comprehend the finer, albeit more despondent, points of Mr Kafka's infamous anecdote.
Carolyn Ann
If so, he shouldn't bother. We've been introduced. Mr Bush's administration ably demonstrated their affection for, and understanding of, the novel. The Tea Party, along with their more reactionary conservative bandwagoneers and blowhards, while never bothering to read the mutterings of an avowed communist/socialist/European, certainly comprehend the finer, albeit more despondent, points of Mr Kafka's infamous anecdote.
Mr Assange should take heart in the words of another, previous, cynic: Dr Pangloss. It's the best of all possible worlds. Of course, he's probably hoping his role is more that of Candide's than Josef K's. For all his idiocy, I have to admit I hope it is, too.
Carolyn Ann
Ah, all becomes clear, now...
Why do I think I see the underhanded work of diplomacy at hand? Apparently the Justice Dept is really trying to figure out what they can get Mr Assange on. Jurisdiction? Wozzat? It's whatever they say it is.
No wonder the British government is loath to let the man go. America is probably quietly requesting his continued incarceration. After all, it's a damn sight harder to question him once he's gained his freedom. Such as it would be. Whatever case they have to build will have to be watertight. And constitutional! After all, he didn't commit his idiocy on American soil.
All of this will be very, very difficult. Get John Woo on the case - he's good at justifying the unjustifiable.
Interestingly, whatever case they build should get those baying for Mr Assange's neck to stop and think. It won't, of course, but it should.
Mr Assange has discovered the plight of those who tick off the powerful. Perhaps he never saw The Man In The Iron Mask? Although he might be thinking Hamlet more appropriate.
Carolyn Ann
No wonder the British government is loath to let the man go. America is probably quietly requesting his continued incarceration. After all, it's a damn sight harder to question him once he's gained his freedom. Such as it would be. Whatever case they have to build will have to be watertight. And constitutional! After all, he didn't commit his idiocy on American soil.
All of this will be very, very difficult. Get John Woo on the case - he's good at justifying the unjustifiable.
Interestingly, whatever case they build should get those baying for Mr Assange's neck to stop and think. It won't, of course, but it should.
Mr Assange has discovered the plight of those who tick off the powerful. Perhaps he never saw The Man In The Iron Mask? Although he might be thinking Hamlet more appropriate.
Carolyn Ann
*That* was a day and a half...
What a hectic, frustrating day that was. I ended up mopping the floors, just for something to do! They're really, really clean, now... :-\
And then I went to a "Christmas/Holiday" party. The most potent thing on the menu was coffee. The cherry cheesecake was good, though. After that, I soaked in a nice hot tub with a bottle of Pinot Grigio we've had lying around in the fridge for awhile. I think it's a cheap Argentinian and it's not too bad. I tried to read Brad Thor's latest, "The Athena Project"; what a waste of time that was. I wanted mindless and distracting; it's certainly mindless.
I'm off to bed in a mo'. Jeez, these days are fraught.
Carolyn Ann
(No, I did not wear a maid's costume.)
And then I went to a "Christmas/Holiday" party. The most potent thing on the menu was coffee. The cherry cheesecake was good, though. After that, I soaked in a nice hot tub with a bottle of Pinot Grigio we've had lying around in the fridge for awhile. I think it's a cheap Argentinian and it's not too bad. I tried to read Brad Thor's latest, "The Athena Project"; what a waste of time that was. I wanted mindless and distracting; it's certainly mindless.
I'm off to bed in a mo'. Jeez, these days are fraught.
Carolyn Ann
Scream...
You know Edvard Munch's "The Scream"?
That's how I feel, right now.
At some point the craziness will stop - I sincerely thought it had, but I was wrong - and life can get back to some sort of normalcy. Two phone calls sent me into a tizzy of new preparation; so much so it seems I'm back on Wall St, fixing networks because a deal has to be completed tomorrow. Well, my tomorrow is today... Literally!
Back to the grind, I guess. At least there's a point to all this.
Carolyn Ann
That's how I feel, right now.
At some point the craziness will stop - I sincerely thought it had, but I was wrong - and life can get back to some sort of normalcy. Two phone calls sent me into a tizzy of new preparation; so much so it seems I'm back on Wall St, fixing networks because a deal has to be completed tomorrow. Well, my tomorrow is today... Literally!
Back to the grind, I guess. At least there's a point to all this.
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Fair use
As a pure intellectual exercise, I wondered what might happen to Calie's T-Tunes blog in light of recent music blog "events".
I'll admit it's not a blog I go to often; I enjoy music, but never have much time to enjoy it as I used to. And the thing about it is that Calie republishes content from YouTube; there's no direct sourcing of content. That might be the difference.
Publishing the lyrics is a bit of a no-no; the copyright holder still holds the rights to those. But that's easily rectified - just delete them where they're on the blog. A link to a lyric site is probably wiser. The law around such things can be quite confusing; well, it isn't, it should be well known that there's more than contretemps between the Internet habit of purloining content and copyright law. My general standard is "if you didn't write it, you don't own it. If you don't own it, you need permission to publish it." Fair use is okay; quoting one or two lines in the context of reviewing the song or artist is perfectly reasonable. Quoting an entire song clearly isn't. Of course, the rules of plagiarism and general fairness imply that if you do quote someone, that you acknowledge where you got the idea, or the words. On a blog, a link is usually sufficient.
Tumblr has a system that seems to permit only reposting; this is called "reblogging" and is quite accepted on that platform. It's taken as a compliment, in fact. I don't like this practice, but it seems to be quite popular. It's a lazy approach to intellectual property and ownership, but since when has such things deterred those inclined to repost the words of others and advance arguments that rely more on faux outrage than anything like logic?
Overall, when it comes to intellectual property, I think it's better to err on the side of caution. The ease with which it can be done is outweighed by the ease with the injured party can both prove your infraction and collect much of your income. Heck, there's a Las Vegas newspaper that's following a "sue first ask questions later" policy toward "reblogging". I doubt it will be too long before some other publishers follow suit. Considering how the legal precedents are going, any claims to "fair use" that include entire pieces are going to fall down a very deep legal well. There'll be a splash, but you won't notice or care.
Carolyn Ann
I'll admit it's not a blog I go to often; I enjoy music, but never have much time to enjoy it as I used to. And the thing about it is that Calie republishes content from YouTube; there's no direct sourcing of content. That might be the difference.
Publishing the lyrics is a bit of a no-no; the copyright holder still holds the rights to those. But that's easily rectified - just delete them where they're on the blog. A link to a lyric site is probably wiser. The law around such things can be quite confusing; well, it isn't, it should be well known that there's more than contretemps between the Internet habit of purloining content and copyright law. My general standard is "if you didn't write it, you don't own it. If you don't own it, you need permission to publish it." Fair use is okay; quoting one or two lines in the context of reviewing the song or artist is perfectly reasonable. Quoting an entire song clearly isn't. Of course, the rules of plagiarism and general fairness imply that if you do quote someone, that you acknowledge where you got the idea, or the words. On a blog, a link is usually sufficient.
Tumblr has a system that seems to permit only reposting; this is called "reblogging" and is quite accepted on that platform. It's taken as a compliment, in fact. I don't like this practice, but it seems to be quite popular. It's a lazy approach to intellectual property and ownership, but since when has such things deterred those inclined to repost the words of others and advance arguments that rely more on faux outrage than anything like logic?
Overall, when it comes to intellectual property, I think it's better to err on the side of caution. The ease with which it can be done is outweighed by the ease with the injured party can both prove your infraction and collect much of your income. Heck, there's a Las Vegas newspaper that's following a "sue first ask questions later" policy toward "reblogging". I doubt it will be too long before some other publishers follow suit. Considering how the legal precedents are going, any claims to "fair use" that include entire pieces are going to fall down a very deep legal well. There'll be a splash, but you won't notice or care.
Carolyn Ann
Vindictiveness toward Mr Assange
What, exactly, is so important, so imperative, about Mr Assange that the British government seeks to keep the man locked up?
As far as anyone can tell, he's committed no crime. Irritated a lot of people, embarrassed a few and annoyed one or two for sure. What he did, and is doing, is unarguably irresponsible, and it's beyond debate that he's a bit of a twit. But a criminal? In desperate need of being locked up? Not even the Swedes want him on a charge - they want to interview him about possible crimes. The Swedish investigators could ask the British cops to question him; they've done that for other nations. Heck, they could get seek permission to fly an investigator in to question him. He's provided an address, the cops have imposed what are, quite frankly, draconian requirements for a man who's not committed a crime, and they have his passport. So there's no reason to lock the man up. And yet the prosecution seeks to keep him incarcerated. What are they prosecuting him for?
This isn't about "innocent until proven guilty", or "he needs to be charged before you can lock him up". This isn't about extradition to Sweden. (Swedish claims that they aren't being political, or responding to political or American pressure are starting to ring very hollow.) This is starting to appear to be official vengeance.
Don't tick off the government. They've got jails and all you have are words. But take solace: you can at least get some of those words out when you're in jail. We're a civilized people, apparently.
Carolyn Ann
As far as anyone can tell, he's committed no crime. Irritated a lot of people, embarrassed a few and annoyed one or two for sure. What he did, and is doing, is unarguably irresponsible, and it's beyond debate that he's a bit of a twit. But a criminal? In desperate need of being locked up? Not even the Swedes want him on a charge - they want to interview him about possible crimes. The Swedish investigators could ask the British cops to question him; they've done that for other nations. Heck, they could get seek permission to fly an investigator in to question him. He's provided an address, the cops have imposed what are, quite frankly, draconian requirements for a man who's not committed a crime, and they have his passport. So there's no reason to lock the man up. And yet the prosecution seeks to keep him incarcerated. What are they prosecuting him for?
This isn't about "innocent until proven guilty", or "he needs to be charged before you can lock him up". This isn't about extradition to Sweden. (Swedish claims that they aren't being political, or responding to political or American pressure are starting to ring very hollow.) This is starting to appear to be official vengeance.
Don't tick off the government. They've got jails and all you have are words. But take solace: you can at least get some of those words out when you're in jail. We're a civilized people, apparently.
Carolyn Ann
Gender will always be important
As I was reading this article, in The Atlantic, about the end of demographics, I thought of one person and two things. I emailed the person, and the two things were: gender will always be important. And demographics haven't caught up with social media? Where are they based? Nebraska? I also had a passing thought that perhaps I shouldn't write "Nebraska", and one about "wow, those people at Facebook really are at the forefront of thinking about the individual".
But I'll concentrate on one important point: gender. No matter how often, or inanely, someone tries to redefine gender to render it meaningless in some context or other - it will always be important.
At the moment, the "it's all about me" view of gender holds sway. This argument tries to hold that gender is unimportant because this or that individual argues it is, for them. It can't help descend into such self-serving jewelry as the penis is feminine if its owner says it is. Gender might not be important to them, but that doesn't remove the singular point that gender is, ultimately, very important, indeed.
Even those who don't perceive gender as important still have biological needs.
While only one gender maintains the capacity to bear babies, gender will be important.
Carolyn Ann
PS I feel obliged to note that this doesn't affect political and moral arguments about equality. Nor does it prohibit anything. Also, it doesn't reflect the essential fact that some people are redefining parts of what "man" and "woman" (might) mean. I merely note that gender will always be important.
But I'll concentrate on one important point: gender. No matter how often, or inanely, someone tries to redefine gender to render it meaningless in some context or other - it will always be important.
At the moment, the "it's all about me" view of gender holds sway. This argument tries to hold that gender is unimportant because this or that individual argues it is, for them. It can't help descend into such self-serving jewelry as the penis is feminine if its owner says it is. Gender might not be important to them, but that doesn't remove the singular point that gender is, ultimately, very important, indeed.
Even those who don't perceive gender as important still have biological needs.
While only one gender maintains the capacity to bear babies, gender will be important.
Carolyn Ann
PS I feel obliged to note that this doesn't affect political and moral arguments about equality. Nor does it prohibit anything. Also, it doesn't reflect the essential fact that some people are redefining parts of what "man" and "woman" (might) mean. I merely note that gender will always be important.
Ron Paul comes in from the cold... And leaves the door open
Mr Paul must have traveled through southern New Jersey last night; it's below freezing out there!
Here's the thing about Mr Paul: his political, and especially his economic, philosophies are about as dim-witted as you can get. He keeps getting elected; that's fine, that's the price of democracy. What is curious is how his particular brand of navel-gazing political bombast has become such a significant part of the conservative "brand".
Mr Paul has some unique thoughts on matters American. He subscribes, for instance, to the idea that unless something is prescribed in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers proscribed it. But at the same time, he argues that privacy exists, but only when it's convenient for the government or his sect. I've rarely considered any of his arguments to be aware of The Federalist Papers; indeed, he often seems to ignore those and come up with some arcane, frequently illogical, argument that he claims is originalism. He often argues that the empty parking lot is a gross thicket. He then invites you to go cherry-picking with him.
So we now have a powerful vacuous nitpicking iconoclast in charge of the Fed's oversight committee.
I'd hate to be Ben Bernanke.
Carolyn Ann
Here's the thing about Mr Paul: his political, and especially his economic, philosophies are about as dim-witted as you can get. He keeps getting elected; that's fine, that's the price of democracy. What is curious is how his particular brand of navel-gazing political bombast has become such a significant part of the conservative "brand".
Mr Paul has some unique thoughts on matters American. He subscribes, for instance, to the idea that unless something is prescribed in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers proscribed it. But at the same time, he argues that privacy exists, but only when it's convenient for the government or his sect. I've rarely considered any of his arguments to be aware of The Federalist Papers; indeed, he often seems to ignore those and come up with some arcane, frequently illogical, argument that he claims is originalism. He often argues that the empty parking lot is a gross thicket. He then invites you to go cherry-picking with him.
So we now have a powerful vacuous nitpicking iconoclast in charge of the Fed's oversight committee.
I'd hate to be Ben Bernanke.
Carolyn Ann
Richard Holbrooke, 1941-2010
Mr Holbrooke died yesterday evening. A tour de force of international diplomacy, he was one of those genuinely irreplaceable men.
The world will be a poorer place without him adjudicating some of its diplomacy.
Carolyn Ann
The world will be a poorer place without him adjudicating some of its diplomacy.
Carolyn Ann
Kelo strikes again
Megan McArdle writes that the Supreme Court will not review Columbia University's "eminent domain" case, basically affirming it.
I have to wonder how the Tea Party views that little bit of conservative lure?
In Kelo, the City of New London, Connecticut, took property and turned it over to Pfizer. And now it seems that New York City has gotten into the act. New York didn't pass any laws banning such egregious and stupid violations of the 5th Amendment, you see. So, as Ms McArdle points out, the property Columbia is taking for itself, with the city acting on its behalf, goes from taxable to non-taxable.
NYU grabbed much of downtown, and Columbia is grabbing a lot of uptown. In the middle we'll see wealthy universities doing a sad imitation of West Side Story... Guess who plays Tony in that version? Unfortunately there's no Maria in sight. Unless you count Mike Bloomberg, crying his crocodile tears of efficient management.
Carolyn Ann
I have to wonder how the Tea Party views that little bit of conservative lure?
In Kelo, the City of New London, Connecticut, took property and turned it over to Pfizer. And now it seems that New York City has gotten into the act. New York didn't pass any laws banning such egregious and stupid violations of the 5th Amendment, you see. So, as Ms McArdle points out, the property Columbia is taking for itself, with the city acting on its behalf, goes from taxable to non-taxable.
NYU grabbed much of downtown, and Columbia is grabbing a lot of uptown. In the middle we'll see wealthy universities doing a sad imitation of West Side Story... Guess who plays Tony in that version? Unfortunately there's no Maria in sight. Unless you count Mike Bloomberg, crying his crocodile tears of efficient management.
Carolyn Ann
The Teflon Don
I see Silvio Berlusconi survived his no-confidence vote.
The man has somehow managed to turn Italian democracy into a self-serving arbiter of truth; he's also tried to legislate his way out of so many legal problems, I can only assume those who vote with him are as corrupt as he seems to be. I doubt he's ever been interested in Italy; his entire political career seems to be tailored to the interests and pocket books of himself and his various cronies. The Mafia are probably in the sidelines, taking notes. Vladimir Putin certainly is. His mentors appear to be Franco and Mussolini, his inspirations, Rupert Murdoch and Mexico's PRI.
A perfidious man who should have been ousted a long time ago.
Italy deserves someone actually interested in Italy, not their own power, promiscuity and ego as that man is.
Carolyn Ann
The man has somehow managed to turn Italian democracy into a self-serving arbiter of truth; he's also tried to legislate his way out of so many legal problems, I can only assume those who vote with him are as corrupt as he seems to be. I doubt he's ever been interested in Italy; his entire political career seems to be tailored to the interests and pocket books of himself and his various cronies. The Mafia are probably in the sidelines, taking notes. Vladimir Putin certainly is. His mentors appear to be Franco and Mussolini, his inspirations, Rupert Murdoch and Mexico's PRI.
A perfidious man who should have been ousted a long time ago.
Italy deserves someone actually interested in Italy, not their own power, promiscuity and ego as that man is.
Carolyn Ann
Busybodies, cackling and deciding how others should live
This is a comment I made on Kinsey's "Genderbitch" blog. Considering the childish bitch-fest Kinsey had on her Tumblr blog about me, I'm not so sure she'll publish it. (She's fine with publishing insults against me, it's when I return them her particular-ness and hypocrisy become apparent.)
Anyway, two people, Nome and Numol, decided they could tell me what was off-limits in my marriage. Considering that I've never met either of them, I'm not sure how they concluded they could do that.
===
As I told Kinsey, I keep a weather eye on old conversations. Especially when they're controversial.
Nome, and Numol: If you want to tell someone what they can and cannot say about their marriage, which bits of are off limits within that marriage and so on? Go right ahead. Be critical, interfering old biddies.
You're both so busy being cackling old blue hairs with nothing better to do than disdain me, you don't even stop to ask yourselves what kind of relationship I might have with my wife's family. You don't even stop to wonder if you should be critical of someone's marriage! You plow right in; just as you seem to do with your arguments. Stopping and thinking is not abhorrent; it's quite useful. Try it the next time you're tempted to criticize someone's marriage, or dictate what they can use from their life with their spouse.
When I want to know what's off-limits in my marriage, my wife will tell me. Until then, You don't get to tell me how my wife and I should run our marriage. And you certainly do not get to tell me what's off limits *within my own marriage*.
Got it? An apology would not be out of place, but I'm not holding my breath for one from either of you.
Carolyn Ann
Anyway, two people, Nome and Numol, decided they could tell me what was off-limits in my marriage. Considering that I've never met either of them, I'm not sure how they concluded they could do that.
===
As I told Kinsey, I keep a weather eye on old conversations. Especially when they're controversial.
Nome, and Numol: If you want to tell someone what they can and cannot say about their marriage, which bits of are off limits within that marriage and so on? Go right ahead. Be critical, interfering old biddies.
You're both so busy being cackling old blue hairs with nothing better to do than disdain me, you don't even stop to ask yourselves what kind of relationship I might have with my wife's family. You don't even stop to wonder if you should be critical of someone's marriage! You plow right in; just as you seem to do with your arguments. Stopping and thinking is not abhorrent; it's quite useful. Try it the next time you're tempted to criticize someone's marriage, or dictate what they can use from their life with their spouse.
When I want to know what's off-limits in my marriage, my wife will tell me. Until then, You don't get to tell me how my wife and I should run our marriage. And you certainly do not get to tell me what's off limits *within my own marriage*.
Got it? An apology would not be out of place, but I'm not holding my breath for one from either of you.
Carolyn Ann
Taxing credulity...
The right is, apparently, in quite the tizzy over taxes. It seems they're not investing in anything, in case their taxes go up.
Oh give me a break.
People aren't investing because they don't trust the future. If all it took was concern about taxes, Bill's Presidency wouldn't have been quite as successful as it was. Let me see, which is the greater danger? Taxes go up to pay for the deficit, or the nation is brought to its knees because of some fey concern about a small rise in taxes? That hits the wealthiest 2% of earners?
Give us strength if that's all it takes.
"Oh, I'd love to invest in the future, but Fox News has me all worried about taxes. I might end up having to pay some, you see..."
"Oh, I'd love to give you a job, but unfortunately that evil Mr Obama might raise my taxes!"
"I don't have a clue how the economy (or the government) works, but you don't get the job you need because I don't! Although I'm more than happy to shout that you need a job. Now go away you miserable little unemployed person!"
There are idiots and then there are fucking idiots.
Carolyn Ann
Oh give me a break.
People aren't investing because they don't trust the future. If all it took was concern about taxes, Bill's Presidency wouldn't have been quite as successful as it was. Let me see, which is the greater danger? Taxes go up to pay for the deficit, or the nation is brought to its knees because of some fey concern about a small rise in taxes? That hits the wealthiest 2% of earners?
Give us strength if that's all it takes.
"Oh, I'd love to invest in the future, but Fox News has me all worried about taxes. I might end up having to pay some, you see..."
"Oh, I'd love to give you a job, but unfortunately that evil Mr Obama might raise my taxes!"
"I don't have a clue how the economy (or the government) works, but you don't get the job you need because I don't! Although I'm more than happy to shout that you need a job. Now go away you miserable little unemployed person!"
There are idiots and then there are fucking idiots.
Carolyn Ann
Monday, December 13, 2010
Montage Magazine?
I've just started playing with this, but here's a Montage for "Transgender". :-)
(Bear with me; it seems that "Save" and "Publish" mean "Save" and "Ignore for now"...)
Carolyn Ann
(Bear with me; it seems that "Save" and "Publish" mean "Save" and "Ignore for now"...)
Carolyn Ann
Republicans put the fox in charge of hen house
Congressional Republicans have started their race to the bottom. First we have Ron Paul heading the domestic finance committee; they oversee the Fed. It's a bit like putting John Bolton in as your Ambassador to the UN. The only thing that's likely to happen is "not a lot". And now the GOP has put Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania in charge of the health committee. That means abortion is back as a GOP Value. Freedom of choice? Only if some bombastic nitwit agrees.
Mr Pitts is a man with a mission - he wants to impose his limited view of what's good for America upon America. Mr Paul is well known for advocating odd arguments. All in all, Congress is going to be one heck of a turbulent place in the next two years. The White House is betting the economy will recover; the Republicans are hoping it doesn't. With Mr Pitts and Mr Paul in charge of two important committees, they've pretty much ensured that what's good for America is bad for the GOP. And what's good for the GOP is bad, really bad, for America.
Can I suggest a slogan for the GOP? "We have to destroy America to save it!" Pity you're along for the ride.
Carolyn Ann
Mr Pitts is a man with a mission - he wants to impose his limited view of what's good for America upon America. Mr Paul is well known for advocating odd arguments. All in all, Congress is going to be one heck of a turbulent place in the next two years. The White House is betting the economy will recover; the Republicans are hoping it doesn't. With Mr Pitts and Mr Paul in charge of two important committees, they've pretty much ensured that what's good for America is bad for the GOP. And what's good for the GOP is bad, really bad, for America.
Can I suggest a slogan for the GOP? "We have to destroy America to save it!" Pity you're along for the ride.
Carolyn Ann
Well, that was an annoying weekend...
Friday was nice - we went up to see Wharton Esherick's house, now museum. Quite a building, and a thoroughly inspiring man. More on that at some other point. A lovely day out, made all the better by the snow flurry making the entire scene quite romantic, indeed. :-)
The little annoyance was spending two and a half inadvertent, and ultimately wasted, hours in a poorly stocked bookstore. The Mrs had a lunch to go to, so she dropped me off at a newly opened Barnes & Noble; to say it was poorly stocked would be to argue it had books. It did, I guess. I found an Eric Flintto read, but I could have been spending the time much more productively. It's supposed to be a college store; the attire was there, a small supermarket section was there. A large speaking space was there. Lots of tables and conversation nooks were there. The only thing missing was lots of books. And magazines. The coffee wasn't too bad.
Yesterday was annoying for a different reason. My intention was to stay in all day, working on some projects I've had to neglect. The only difficulty I anticipated was figuring out which skirt to wear. So how did I end up at a different B&N, looking up some information I needed? Oh well, I did and I did. Getting home, I worked on my project for a wee while, but decided some wine would be nice. So out we went again. At least picking the skirt wasn't a problem. :-)
(In case you're wondering, I went out in a skirt, etc, once. Experience has shown it's not usually a good idea to go someplace with lots of kids when you look like I do in a skirt.)
The big annoyance arrived this morning in the shape of the wife noticing we'd forgotten a bill. Which means we have much less money than we figured. Not enough to get through the week, in fact. A silly mistake that puts us in a stupid position. Oh well. I'm sure we'll figure something out. ... I hope we do, otherwise it's going to be a difficult week! C'est la vie, our own fault and all that.
Carolyn Ann
The little annoyance was spending two and a half inadvertent, and ultimately wasted, hours in a poorly stocked bookstore. The Mrs had a lunch to go to, so she dropped me off at a newly opened Barnes & Noble; to say it was poorly stocked would be to argue it had books. It did, I guess. I found an Eric Flintto read, but I could have been spending the time much more productively. It's supposed to be a college store; the attire was there, a small supermarket section was there. A large speaking space was there. Lots of tables and conversation nooks were there. The only thing missing was lots of books. And magazines. The coffee wasn't too bad.
Yesterday was annoying for a different reason. My intention was to stay in all day, working on some projects I've had to neglect. The only difficulty I anticipated was figuring out which skirt to wear. So how did I end up at a different B&N, looking up some information I needed? Oh well, I did and I did. Getting home, I worked on my project for a wee while, but decided some wine would be nice. So out we went again. At least picking the skirt wasn't a problem. :-)
(In case you're wondering, I went out in a skirt, etc, once. Experience has shown it's not usually a good idea to go someplace with lots of kids when you look like I do in a skirt.)
The big annoyance arrived this morning in the shape of the wife noticing we'd forgotten a bill. Which means we have much less money than we figured. Not enough to get through the week, in fact. A silly mistake that puts us in a stupid position. Oh well. I'm sure we'll figure something out. ... I hope we do, otherwise it's going to be a difficult week! C'est la vie, our own fault and all that.
Carolyn Ann
The Gender Diaspora
Remember Diaspora? The Facebook killer?
It's resurfaced.
Sarah Mei writes about gender. :-)
They're not going to advocate for the boring old male/female dichotomy. Gender? Wozzat?
A brave new frontier?
Carolyn Ann
(Hat tip to Bill. Thanks, Bill! :-) )
It's resurfaced.
Sarah Mei writes about gender. :-)
They're not going to advocate for the boring old male/female dichotomy. Gender? Wozzat?
A brave new frontier?
Carolyn Ann
(Hat tip to Bill. Thanks, Bill! :-) )
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Do you want some ice cream?
She sits
in her turquoise robe
the one with the yellow cat
on the back
asking me
if I want some ice cream
"yes", I said
a new flavor, milk and cookies
it tastes of cookies
twenty one years summed up
in a nutshell
"do you want some ice cream?"
yes, I reply
===
Carolyn Ann
in her turquoise robe
the one with the yellow cat
on the back
asking me
if I want some ice cream
"yes", I said
a new flavor, milk and cookies
it tastes of cookies
twenty one years summed up
in a nutshell
"do you want some ice cream?"
yes, I reply
===
Carolyn Ann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)