As character assassinations go, I have to say Jon Stewart's critique of Bill Sammon has to be one of the best on record. It was up there with JFK's pictures of Richard Nixon with a heavy 5 o'clock shadow. It reminded me of the moment I read about the Republican contenders for the 1996 election - all destroyed in a well written, well researched article.
Last week, Mr Stewart had Bret Baier on. Mr Baier proclaimed that Fox News was right leaning, but had objective news shows - he should know, he hosted one. Jon Stewart broadcasted his boss, Bill Sammon, disparaging the President as a Marxist. He then played clips of Mr Sammon passing judgment on the NPR folks who, too hastily as it turned out, resigned over less-than-complimentary remarks about the Tea Party.
As the Mrs says, Jon Stewart can be "rather pointed" at times. The journalistic equivalent of a Howitzer (a really big cannon), aimed with impeccable precision? From the man many would say is the most trusted man in news? Yeah, pointed is a good word.
I was awestruck. Bret Baier now has an impossible task: maintaining his personal credibility, and Bill Sammon just lost any hope of retaining his own.
Character assassination? How about the man drew the rope that hung him? Mr Stewart merely pointed out that he'd done so.
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Hypocrisy - thy name is transsexual
(Added: Stace points out that I generalize in this post. She's right, and I apologize. I'm not going to alter the post to make me look better; it is what it is. I have, where I think it appropriate, made my comments clearer; otherwise, I'm leaving it as it is. The clarifications should be easy to spot: they're in square brackets. Thanks, Stace, for pointing out that I'm as guilty of generalization as those I seek to criticize! Live and learn, that's my motto.)
More than a few transsexuals hate the transgendered; that much has been known for a long time. Angel, in a comment on Anne's blog, says:
I really don't have a problem with TG folks in general, and I'm fine with guys wanting to wear dresses and pretending to be women, but it scares me when I think about how much ground transsexuals might lose due to the backlash caused by the actions of the out and loud TG activists.(Just as an aside, Anne has a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with her. More on that in a minute.)
The problem here is that the transsexuals set themselves up as women and then condescend those who either don't want to take that path in life. I can think of a couple of women who might disagree with their basic premise: Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel.
It doesn't matter to me what you call yourself or how you see yourself. But when you see yourself as superior to others, that does interest me. I am continually astounded by how we differentiate ourselves based on subtleties; it matters not to the world whether you're a man in a dress or woman who used to be a man - you're subject to the same discrimination, the same insults and the same misogyny. If you're fortunate enough to "pass" (in this context, it's an horrible word!) bully for you. On the other hand, for all those for whom nature saw fit to endow with physical features that perhaps aren't as feminine as desired, you are to be pitied by the transsexual, such as Anne or Angel. I assume they "pass" with nary a concern. For those for whom wearing a dress is a momentary concern and not a life-long avocation, you're totally screwed. You'll get the benevolent tolerance of your betters - those who have made that change, and clearly superior to y'all.
Fucking pricks.
Carolyn Ann
Edit: I wasn't happy with "superiors" appearing twice in the same sentence.
The CIA is on the ground. In Libya. We hope?
So the CIA is on the ground in Libya. I can only wonder if this is a good thing...
Seriously, we have a major Libyan defector, British Intelligence and the CIA all in the news. People are wondering if it's a good idea to arm the rebels (why wouldn't it be?), and the right is going bananas over the fact that we're not only helping the rebels, we're arming them as well.
I'm not sure where the right gets it moral standing from; they believe in freedom, right [sic...]? But Col. Gaddafi at least ensured stability. Unlike, say, Saddam Hussein. Or George Bush. Oh, how did that name get in there? You know the problem with the right? They're mad because Mr Obama is doing what they would do, but more intelligently. They'd do it like Afghanistan or Iraq - dash in, both guns blazing and then ask "Who's the enemy and where are they?" Or try to provide the rebels with promises of arms, but being cheapskates and generally incompetent, they'd deliver the weapon (a gun, perhaps, or an antique anti-aircraft missile, or a bow and one arrow) to Gaddafi's forces. Let me see: where were those weapons of mass destruction, again? Oh, that's right. Nowhere, because they didn't actually exist.
Oh well. I'm sure the next few days will bring new hysteria to the American right. They seem to look forward to being hysterical.
Carolyn Ann
Seriously, we have a major Libyan defector, British Intelligence and the CIA all in the news. People are wondering if it's a good idea to arm the rebels (why wouldn't it be?), and the right is going bananas over the fact that we're not only helping the rebels, we're arming them as well.
I'm not sure where the right gets it moral standing from; they believe in freedom, right [sic...]? But Col. Gaddafi at least ensured stability. Unlike, say, Saddam Hussein. Or George Bush. Oh, how did that name get in there? You know the problem with the right? They're mad because Mr Obama is doing what they would do, but more intelligently. They'd do it like Afghanistan or Iraq - dash in, both guns blazing and then ask "Who's the enemy and where are they?" Or try to provide the rebels with promises of arms, but being cheapskates and generally incompetent, they'd deliver the weapon (a gun, perhaps, or an antique anti-aircraft missile, or a bow and one arrow) to Gaddafi's forces. Let me see: where were those weapons of mass destruction, again? Oh, that's right. Nowhere, because they didn't actually exist.
Oh well. I'm sure the next few days will bring new hysteria to the American right. They seem to look forward to being hysterical.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Changing tires
I rebuilt the Vespa, today. That was quite a job, let me tell you! (Please? Let me tell you? :-) ) The new tire looks great, and it's at the right pressure. It's even put on the right way; being a directional tire, this is quite important. No matter what the tire guy told me! (It has arrows on the sidewall, indicating which way it should go on, so I'm guessing it's actually very important.)
I took advantage of the whole process to do some "spring cleaning". I didn't strip it to bare bones, but I came awful close! The one nut I couldn't do up (left side of the exhaust port) in my rebuild, I finally figured out how to do. When I was in the car, zipping along to an appointment. As I hadn't brought the Vespa with me, I couldn't do too much with the information. Tomorrow... As long as it's not raining.
One of the more intractable problems was the ignition switch. It just wouldn't operate. Liberal doses of WD-40 and 3-in-1 oil, a lot (and I mean a lot!) of time and ... It Worked! Yippee! In contrast, getting the bodywork back was a labor of love. It was either that or a hell [sic?] of a lot of cursing. Come to think of it, I believe it was more the latter than the former.
I'm rather glad its back, well, almost back, on the road. I love riding the beast-ette. When all around are rolling on Harley's, it seems almost counter-culture to be riding a Vespa! :-) Besides, it's an incredibly fun machine to ride. Riding a bike is about the experience, not the ultimate performance of the bike. For some, it's all about going as fast as possible; for me, it's all about the individual experience of that ride, on that bike. Each bike offers something different, and the Vespa offers a taste of style (you feel good riding it!) with some charming characteristics.
Here's to some springtime riding! (Assuming springtime shows up, that is.)
Carolyn Ann
I took advantage of the whole process to do some "spring cleaning". I didn't strip it to bare bones, but I came awful close! The one nut I couldn't do up (left side of the exhaust port) in my rebuild, I finally figured out how to do. When I was in the car, zipping along to an appointment. As I hadn't brought the Vespa with me, I couldn't do too much with the information. Tomorrow... As long as it's not raining.
One of the more intractable problems was the ignition switch. It just wouldn't operate. Liberal doses of WD-40 and 3-in-1 oil, a lot (and I mean a lot!) of time and ... It Worked! Yippee! In contrast, getting the bodywork back was a labor of love. It was either that or a hell [sic?] of a lot of cursing. Come to think of it, I believe it was more the latter than the former.
I'm rather glad its back, well, almost back, on the road. I love riding the beast-ette. When all around are rolling on Harley's, it seems almost counter-culture to be riding a Vespa! :-) Besides, it's an incredibly fun machine to ride. Riding a bike is about the experience, not the ultimate performance of the bike. For some, it's all about going as fast as possible; for me, it's all about the individual experience of that ride, on that bike. Each bike offers something different, and the Vespa offers a taste of style (you feel good riding it!) with some charming characteristics.
Here's to some springtime riding! (Assuming springtime shows up, that is.)
Carolyn Ann
I love this new spam filter!
I love Google's new spam filter. It catches DM (David Wotsiname - that loser in Canada who keeps spouting crap) without me having to anything but say "yeah, delete the moron". :-)
Just think: he wastes his time and no one notices. (I'd say he wastes his intellect, but he doesn't have one of those.) He might find it more interesting to rant at a brick wall. (He's probably tried that and found it intellectually too challenging.)
Carolyn Ann
Just think: he wastes his time and no one notices. (I'd say he wastes his intellect, but he doesn't have one of those.) He might find it more interesting to rant at a brick wall. (He's probably tried that and found it intellectually too challenging.)
Carolyn Ann
Welcome to womanhood (now sod off!)
Cate J writes what can only be described as a churlish, ungracious bit of whining over on Questioning Transphobia. I don't know who Cate J is - she prefers to hide in her anonymity, all the while casting aspersions on those who wish her well or are merely sardonic.
The gist of her post is: she's fed up of people (women, no man would say it) saying "Welcome to womanhood!" A measure of support, no doubt. Which Cate J churlishly takes to be a judgement. Apparently only she can determine her womanhood.
Sometimes in life you just have to accept that the expressions go on for a bit, and they are the same. Like the waiter who's heard the same joke ten times that evening and the hundredth time that week, and knows the wheels of grace are lubricated by his or her politely laughing like it's the first time they've ever heard that joke.
The alternative is worse, in other words. The one course Cate J wants, the quiet acceptance of her as a woman, will probably come in time. Meanwhile, a mean-spirited rant on a blog read by an acolyte few is probably not the best way of "educating" the masses. Grace gets you through life. Grumpy rants, not so much. Accepting that the words "welcome to womanhood" are as much sardonic as they are rueful, and perhaps even admiring, will go a long way to dispelling any insecure doubts about judgment.
But what do I know, I'm a mere man in a dress.
Carolyn Ann
The gist of her post is: she's fed up of people (women, no man would say it) saying "Welcome to womanhood!" A measure of support, no doubt. Which Cate J churlishly takes to be a judgement. Apparently only she can determine her womanhood.
Sometimes in life you just have to accept that the expressions go on for a bit, and they are the same. Like the waiter who's heard the same joke ten times that evening and the hundredth time that week, and knows the wheels of grace are lubricated by his or her politely laughing like it's the first time they've ever heard that joke.
The alternative is worse, in other words. The one course Cate J wants, the quiet acceptance of her as a woman, will probably come in time. Meanwhile, a mean-spirited rant on a blog read by an acolyte few is probably not the best way of "educating" the masses. Grace gets you through life. Grumpy rants, not so much. Accepting that the words "welcome to womanhood" are as much sardonic as they are rueful, and perhaps even admiring, will go a long way to dispelling any insecure doubts about judgment.
But what do I know, I'm a mere man in a dress.
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The Skwrimish in Libya
I haven't seen Mr Obama's speech; I was a trifle busy, last night and today was one thing after another. I did see the report filed by The Most Trusted Man In News (and probably the most trusted man in America!): Jon Stewart. Quite a tale to tell. Even Mr Stewart couldn't fault the logic; I understand the Republicans are fit to be tied. Because he did what they said he should do, but forgot to ask them for permission before he did it. I'm kinda [..?] looking forward to reading the news, tomorrow. :-)
My take on it all is: we're bombing the hell out of the local dictator. And the Republicans are complaining because we're bombing the hell out of the local dictator. Let me see... Wasn't he responsible for PanAm 103? Oh, yeah. He was.
Good riddance to the man.
Carolyn Ann
My take on it all is: we're bombing the hell out of the local dictator. And the Republicans are complaining because we're bombing the hell out of the local dictator. Let me see... Wasn't he responsible for PanAm 103? Oh, yeah. He was.
Good riddance to the man.
Carolyn Ann
PS The indefatigable Mrs Palin asked if we were involved in a mere skwirsmish in Libya... :-)
Duh box wuz down...
After going to all that trouble (?) of installing a new wifi network, our internet connection was like a yoyo. A brief look at the internet (it was about all that the box allowed), and I concluded that Verizon (one of the only ISP's in the nation, but hey, they have competition. Somewhere...) would replace the box only if it went to Aruba on vacation and didn't return. For about as long as we've been in Afghanistan.
A quick trip to Best Buy netted a DSL modem (I'm not sure why it's called a modem... My knowledge of DSL wouldn't cover a postage stamp!). A short time and one "oops I didn't mean to do that" later, and we have what appears to be a stable internet connection. Not bad for a 21st century American residence.
Next thing you know, we'll be demanding things like competition and better service for a decent price. And we can't have that, can we? :-)
Carolyn Ann
A quick trip to Best Buy netted a DSL modem (I'm not sure why it's called a modem... My knowledge of DSL wouldn't cover a postage stamp!). A short time and one "oops I didn't mean to do that" later, and we have what appears to be a stable internet connection. Not bad for a 21st century American residence.
Next thing you know, we'll be demanding things like competition and better service for a decent price. And we can't have that, can we? :-)
Carolyn Ann
Monday, March 28, 2011
Rewired!
So I finished rewiring the network. :-)
We now have access to the iPhoto library from any computer (not just mine); my backups are done over the network - it was easy setting that up! (Plug disk in, go to Time Machine and tell it "I want to use this disk on the airport router for backups", and it's backing up...) The Internet is much faster, for both of us. The wife is now on 100MB/s ethernet, and I'm on the 5GHz wifi. The iBook is still using the 2.4GHz network.
And to think - I once had to be an expert in this sort of stuff. :-)
(The only thing left is to try and persuade the machine to "see" the trackpad that's sitting right next to it.)
Carolyn Ann
We now have access to the iPhoto library from any computer (not just mine); my backups are done over the network - it was easy setting that up! (Plug disk in, go to Time Machine and tell it "I want to use this disk on the airport router for backups", and it's backing up...) The Internet is much faster, for both of us. The wife is now on 100MB/s ethernet, and I'm on the 5GHz wifi. The iBook is still using the 2.4GHz network.
And to think - I once had to be an expert in this sort of stuff. :-)
(The only thing left is to try and persuade the machine to "see" the trackpad that's sitting right next to it.)
Carolyn Ann
May 21st - The End of the World?
It'l be the end of the world as we know it... :-) (With apologies to, er, who sang that song?)
While driving around Philadelphia, yesterday, we couldn't help but notice some billboards: the world will end on May 21st. That's in a few weeks. :-)
Some Christian group (why are some Christians obsessed with the apocalypse? They need therapy, and we need a break from their rantings) has decided the world will end this year. On May 21st, or perhaps a wee while later. I wonder how they got to be so specific? (I should go check their website. I wonder if they took out the special? "Sign up for a year and get the reduced rate!" I also wonder if the billboard owners demanded payment up front? Or did they invoice the group, payment due on May 22nd?
Perhaps they're being metaphorical? The world will end, but only in a metaphorical sense, on May 21st. Which would be quite embarrassing for them.
Oh well. The world will end, one day. But can it wait until the end of baseball season? I want to see how the Yankees do. :-)
Carolyn Ann
While driving around Philadelphia, yesterday, we couldn't help but notice some billboards: the world will end on May 21st. That's in a few weeks. :-)
Some Christian group (why are some Christians obsessed with the apocalypse? They need therapy, and we need a break from their rantings) has decided the world will end this year. On May 21st, or perhaps a wee while later. I wonder how they got to be so specific? (I should go check their website. I wonder if they took out the special? "Sign up for a year and get the reduced rate!" I also wonder if the billboard owners demanded payment up front? Or did they invoice the group, payment due on May 22nd?
Perhaps they're being metaphorical? The world will end, but only in a metaphorical sense, on May 21st. Which would be quite embarrassing for them.
Oh well. The world will end, one day. But can it wait until the end of baseball season? I want to see how the Yankees do. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Lemon? Lemonade!
One of the problems, I've often found, with new technology is that while it's supposed to work with the stuff you already have - it doesn't.
For instance, our wifi network. It sort of worked before; but with the new computer, it's not working as well as it should be. The connection to the wifi hub is often lost, but only for a few minutes. Then it comes back. With the old computer, this would require two reboots. So I'm taking advantage of the situation and redoing our home network to reflect new requirements. :-)
Lemon, lemonade. :-)
I just have to run a couple of wires and install the new Apple Airport Extreme (what does it think it is, Hong Kong airport? :-) ), and we'll have a new network! Shouldn't take more than a few hours. Which means it'll be finished sometime next decade... (Later today, to be honest!)
The project plan is:
More coffee
Run wires
Connect wires
Plug in new wifi box
Enjoy super fast wifi and really slow broadband
More coffee
:-)
Carolyn Ann
(I'm still getting used to this new keyboard. The keys are just slightly off from where my fingers expect them to be!)
For instance, our wifi network. It sort of worked before; but with the new computer, it's not working as well as it should be. The connection to the wifi hub is often lost, but only for a few minutes. Then it comes back. With the old computer, this would require two reboots. So I'm taking advantage of the situation and redoing our home network to reflect new requirements. :-)
Lemon, lemonade. :-)
I just have to run a couple of wires and install the new Apple Airport Extreme (what does it think it is, Hong Kong airport? :-) ), and we'll have a new network! Shouldn't take more than a few hours. Which means it'll be finished sometime next decade... (Later today, to be honest!)
The project plan is:
More coffee
Run wires
Connect wires
Plug in new wifi box
Enjoy super fast wifi and really slow broadband
More coffee
:-)
Carolyn Ann
(I'm still getting used to this new keyboard. The keys are just slightly off from where my fingers expect them to be!)
Sunday, March 27, 2011
A reply to Anne
Anne was (is?) rather negative. And a little dichotomous. (To be polite). :-)
So I thought I'd provide some real negativity. Rather than an ensemble of unrelated quotes. :-)
Here are The Witches from MacBeth:
1 WITCH. Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
2 WITCH. Thrice and once, the hedge-pig whin'd.
3 WITCH. Harpier cries:—'tis time! 'tis time!
1 WITCH. Round about the caldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.—
Toad, that under cold stone,
Days and nights has thirty-one;
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot!
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
2 WITCH. Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing,—
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
3 WITCH. Scale of dragon; tooth of wolf;
Witches' mummy; maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark;
Root of hemlock digg'd i the dark;
Liver of blaspheming Jew;
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Sliver'd in the moon's eclipse;
Nose of Turk, and Tartar's lips;
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,—
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingrediants of our caldron.
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
2 WITCH. Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
Sounds like an erudite Glenn Beck commercial. (Sans the hawking of gold.)
Carolyn Ann
So I thought I'd provide some real negativity. Rather than an ensemble of unrelated quotes. :-)
Here are The Witches from MacBeth:
1 WITCH. Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
2 WITCH. Thrice and once, the hedge-pig whin'd.
3 WITCH. Harpier cries:—'tis time! 'tis time!
1 WITCH. Round about the caldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.—
Toad, that under cold stone,
Days and nights has thirty-one;
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot!
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
2 WITCH. Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing,—
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
3 WITCH. Scale of dragon; tooth of wolf;
Witches' mummy; maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark;
Root of hemlock digg'd i the dark;
Liver of blaspheming Jew;
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Sliver'd in the moon's eclipse;
Nose of Turk, and Tartar's lips;
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,—
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingrediants of our caldron.
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
2 WITCH. Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
Sounds like an erudite Glenn Beck commercial. (Sans the hawking of gold.)
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Ch Ch Changes...
My beloved MacBook Pro died. :-(
It laid there, its little rubber feet sticking up in the air. Sometimes it would revive itself, for a last hurrah, and then it would slope off again, to quietly die (again) in some obscure (?) corner of the desk. It would start, only to stay on the "white screen of death". (Windows has its blue screen of death, the Mac has a less popular white screen*...)
I need a machine. A dead one is not particularly useful.
So, this morning, we did the Apple Last Rites: we went to the Apple Store and bought a new machine.
All I can say is: Wow! :-)
The screen has amazing clarity, the details are astonishing, the colors are so vivid, the blacks so black and the whites so white! (The oranges so orange, the pinks so pink, etc... :-) ) The speed of the machine is amazing - it's a 64-bit machine, meaning absolutely nothing to most, with two CPU cores, which means even less to more of us and it has more memory than the old one, and while the screen is smaller, it packs in as much as the 15" screen of the old one, and because it's probably higher resolution, probably more. :-)
What's really important, to me, is that it works. :-D
(The keyboard is taking some getting used to.)
Carolyn Ann
It laid there, its little rubber feet sticking up in the air. Sometimes it would revive itself, for a last hurrah, and then it would slope off again, to quietly die (again) in some obscure (?) corner of the desk. It would start, only to stay on the "white screen of death". (Windows has its blue screen of death, the Mac has a less popular white screen*...)
I need a machine. A dead one is not particularly useful.
So, this morning, we did the Apple Last Rites: we went to the Apple Store and bought a new machine.
All I can say is: Wow! :-)
The screen has amazing clarity, the details are astonishing, the colors are so vivid, the blacks so black and the whites so white! (The oranges so orange, the pinks so pink, etc... :-) ) The speed of the machine is amazing - it's a 64-bit machine, meaning absolutely nothing to most, with two CPU cores, which means even less to more of us and it has more memory than the old one, and while the screen is smaller, it packs in as much as the 15" screen of the old one, and because it's probably higher resolution, probably more. :-)
What's really important, to me, is that it works. :-D
(The keyboard is taking some getting used to.)
Carolyn Ann
Friday, March 25, 2011
Sarah finally figures it out... (And we do, too...)
Apparently, Sarah Palin has decided she's "over" whining about the "liberal" media. She said:
Whatever. I mean, like, seriously, whatever. Like.
Excuse me for invoking the late Mr Zappa. (YouTube, 7 mins, a documentary/news thing.)
Has Sarah finally figured it out? When the most prominent, most popular news outlet in the nation is Fox News, you can't really claim "liberal bias" with any plausibility. Especially when you work for that news channel!
...
... , ... , , , ...
Nah.
She recently hired a new Chief of Staff. ... Did I miss something? Since when did a pundit, an ex-governer, need a chief of staff? Tell you what, I've noticed she's toned down the anger and rhetoric since Todd had to step to the side. But a chief of staff? Who does she think she is? The Presiden...t.... Oh.
Oh. Oh dear.
Run for the hills, folks.
Carolyn Ann
I'm through whining about a liberal press that holds conservative women to a different standard, because it doesn't do any good to whine about it," Palin said. "When a shot is taken at me, it is water off a duck's back because I know the important things we need to concentrate on in life — especially the national and international issues that are so important in our country.Whoop. Dee. Doo.
Whatever. I mean, like, seriously, whatever. Like.
Excuse me for invoking the late Mr Zappa. (YouTube, 7 mins, a documentary/news thing.)
Has Sarah finally figured it out? When the most prominent, most popular news outlet in the nation is Fox News, you can't really claim "liberal bias" with any plausibility. Especially when you work for that news channel!
...
... , ... , , , ...
Nah.
She recently hired a new Chief of Staff. ... Did I miss something? Since when did a pundit, an ex-governer, need a chief of staff? Tell you what, I've noticed she's toned down the anger and rhetoric since Todd had to step to the side. But a chief of staff? Who does she think she is? The Presiden...t.... Oh.
Oh. Oh dear.
Run for the hills, folks.
Carolyn Ann
The Times' new paywall
I've got Nate Silver's take on it all up on another tab; I've not read it, yet.
Here's my take: we take too much for granted.
I've got about 5 years of blog posts in this 'ere blog. I read the NY Times, the Guardian and whatever else I want to - for free. No charge. Nada. Nothing. Not a dime more, and not even a dime! (There must be a street hawker in my ancestry... :-) )
So the Times want to charge me twenty bucks to read their lousy reporting, huh? Theyse want a deuce up front do they? The lousy rats! (It sounds even worse if you try a Cagney-esque voice... :-) )
Good news reporting costs money. Ask Rupert Murdoch - he'll be glad to tell you that shoddy news reporting costs money! Reporters don't work for free. Bloggers work for free. Reporters don't. Glenn Beck doesn't work for free - his reputed fee is about $2M a year. (What everyman earns two mill a year?) Anderson Cooper doesn't work for free. I have no idea how much he makes, but it isn't enough.
But everyone has become conditioned to reading the news for free. And that's bad.
One of the things we're continually told is that we have to chase readers. Some do, I don't. (Charge for this drivel? I'd end up paying you to read it!) Chase readers, get the eyeballs and ... you can figure out how to "monetize" them, then. Sorry, business doesn't work that way - ask any dotcom era CEO, and they'll tell you they were within hours of getting a single viewer (their Mom, usually). In the electronic world, readers equals servers equals disk space equals electricity and so on. Someone has to pay to keep the servers running (the electric company hasn't quite got that "information wants to be free" memo); someone, usually the same person, has to pay the server company for the server. After all, no one digs the raw materials from the ground that make the server for free. No one turns them into a server for free.
After that, we have the reporter or columnist. Let's pick the columnist. They get paid to provide their opinions. Someone thinks so highly of their analytical skills and their grasp of the English language they're willing to pay them for their words and opinions. The columnist, or cub reporter, has to have a place to live. They need a travel budget, they need to pay for things like clothes and shoes and iPads. The cub reporter needs a cubicle. (We're living in the real world, here.) They need a way of reporting what they know - that means they need a computer. Which needs electricity and a network connection. That means network devices. Like the columnist, they need a way of getting to the story. That requires transport. That mean steel works, plastic fabrication plants, designers, regulators, transport systems and so on. Heck, someone has to grow the cotton that is in their durned underwear! I hope they washed it! Which means manufacturers of cleansing products, which could be anything from washing machine manufacturers to chemical plants producing "fresh smelling" detergent.
All of this has one end goal: your reading of story.
That end product, that article you want for free? That article you've been told wants to be free, despite the fact that information is not sentient and can't want anything? That article, comprised of magnetic patterns on a glass disk and that requires arcane sub-atomic behaviors, understood by only an incarnated few, you want for free? Because someone told you it wants to be free? It ain't free.
Do you work for free? Do you provide your services to a private, or even a government, entity gratis? No payment needed, thanks? No? I didn't think so. Newspapers have to pay salaries. They have to pay printers; if it's electronic, they have storage, network and server vendors demanding a fair sliver of silver.
Once upon a time, a fairly typical morning ritual had you handing money, filthy lucre, over to a newsagent or newsstand owner. You paid for your newspaper. It came in a physical form, and you read it on the train, or while having a cup of tea in your morning break. Once upon a time, you had to ask your boss if it was okay if you could run across the road to the newsagent to get the afternoon paper, so you could find out what was going on with the Falklands War. He, having served in WW2, was eager to know, as well, so he consented. Even gave you the money, so he'd have first dibs on the paper.
Nowadays there's no ritual like that. For some, but it's a dwindling number. Why buy a paper, when you can look it up on your iPhone, or computer at work? By the way, the pay rises will be late this year. See the issue?
Information doesn't want to be free. People say it does, but have you noticed how they all seem to have safe jobs working in academia? Ever notice how they confuse the medium (paper) with the reporter? Ever wonder how Richard Stallman pays his mortgage?
The price of a can of peas will always, but always, guarantee the future of capitalism. And ensure that you need to pay for the services you accept. How you pay is a different topic, but payment is always demanded.
Carolyn Ann
Here's my take: we take too much for granted.
I've got about 5 years of blog posts in this 'ere blog. I read the NY Times, the Guardian and whatever else I want to - for free. No charge. Nada. Nothing. Not a dime more, and not even a dime! (There must be a street hawker in my ancestry... :-) )
So the Times want to charge me twenty bucks to read their lousy reporting, huh? Theyse want a deuce up front do they? The lousy rats! (It sounds even worse if you try a Cagney-esque voice... :-) )
Good news reporting costs money. Ask Rupert Murdoch - he'll be glad to tell you that shoddy news reporting costs money! Reporters don't work for free. Bloggers work for free. Reporters don't. Glenn Beck doesn't work for free - his reputed fee is about $2M a year. (What everyman earns two mill a year?) Anderson Cooper doesn't work for free. I have no idea how much he makes, but it isn't enough.
But everyone has become conditioned to reading the news for free. And that's bad.
One of the things we're continually told is that we have to chase readers. Some do, I don't. (Charge for this drivel? I'd end up paying you to read it!) Chase readers, get the eyeballs and ... you can figure out how to "monetize" them, then. Sorry, business doesn't work that way - ask any dotcom era CEO, and they'll tell you they were within hours of getting a single viewer (their Mom, usually). In the electronic world, readers equals servers equals disk space equals electricity and so on. Someone has to pay to keep the servers running (the electric company hasn't quite got that "information wants to be free" memo); someone, usually the same person, has to pay the server company for the server. After all, no one digs the raw materials from the ground that make the server for free. No one turns them into a server for free.
After that, we have the reporter or columnist. Let's pick the columnist. They get paid to provide their opinions. Someone thinks so highly of their analytical skills and their grasp of the English language they're willing to pay them for their words and opinions. The columnist, or cub reporter, has to have a place to live. They need a travel budget, they need to pay for things like clothes and shoes and iPads. The cub reporter needs a cubicle. (We're living in the real world, here.) They need a way of reporting what they know - that means they need a computer. Which needs electricity and a network connection. That means network devices. Like the columnist, they need a way of getting to the story. That requires transport. That mean steel works, plastic fabrication plants, designers, regulators, transport systems and so on. Heck, someone has to grow the cotton that is in their durned underwear! I hope they washed it! Which means manufacturers of cleansing products, which could be anything from washing machine manufacturers to chemical plants producing "fresh smelling" detergent.
All of this has one end goal: your reading of story.
That end product, that article you want for free? That article you've been told wants to be free, despite the fact that information is not sentient and can't want anything? That article, comprised of magnetic patterns on a glass disk and that requires arcane sub-atomic behaviors, understood by only an incarnated few, you want for free? Because someone told you it wants to be free? It ain't free.
Do you work for free? Do you provide your services to a private, or even a government, entity gratis? No payment needed, thanks? No? I didn't think so. Newspapers have to pay salaries. They have to pay printers; if it's electronic, they have storage, network and server vendors demanding a fair sliver of silver.
Once upon a time, a fairly typical morning ritual had you handing money, filthy lucre, over to a newsagent or newsstand owner. You paid for your newspaper. It came in a physical form, and you read it on the train, or while having a cup of tea in your morning break. Once upon a time, you had to ask your boss if it was okay if you could run across the road to the newsagent to get the afternoon paper, so you could find out what was going on with the Falklands War. He, having served in WW2, was eager to know, as well, so he consented. Even gave you the money, so he'd have first dibs on the paper.
Nowadays there's no ritual like that. For some, but it's a dwindling number. Why buy a paper, when you can look it up on your iPhone, or computer at work? By the way, the pay rises will be late this year. See the issue?
Information doesn't want to be free. People say it does, but have you noticed how they all seem to have safe jobs working in academia? Ever notice how they confuse the medium (paper) with the reporter? Ever wonder how Richard Stallman pays his mortgage?
The price of a can of peas will always, but always, guarantee the future of capitalism. And ensure that you need to pay for the services you accept. How you pay is a different topic, but payment is always demanded.
Carolyn Ann
In the "you're kidding...? Aren't you?" dept
I used to play computer games; these days, not so much. I can't recall if I ever bought an Electronic Arts game. Which might not seem important, but was to the market: their stock went up by almost 3% when they announced they were doing away with paper manuals. ... .... There's something wrong with this picture. Paper manuals? In two-thousand and eleven?
This just in... Electronic Arts management just realized they were in the second decade of the twenty first century. In a related story, investors in Electronic Arts suddenly realized that 1995 had passed them by.
Carolyn Ann
This just in... Electronic Arts management just realized they were in the second decade of the twenty first century. In a related story, investors in Electronic Arts suddenly realized that 1995 had passed them by.
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Not quite a Magic Bus
Imagine a bus, on a rainy day. To get its passengers, it has to have a bus stop, and at that stop there are lots of gay guys, lesbians and the occasional bisexual individual. Being a rainy day, there are lots of people wanting to catch the bus. There aren't any transgendered folk, and no transsexual people, at the bus stop because they were told it was 1/2 a mile down a different street. Just before the bus comes, they see the bus whizzing by on the next street over. The transgendered and transsexual passengers hurry along to the next stop.
Because everyone wants to know where the bus is going, there's a big crowd at the front of the bus. As there's no room at the front, the transgender and transsexual communities, at the back, start arguing among themselves about the seating. The transsexual people yell that they're not transgendered, so they won't sit with them at the back of the bus; they want the middle of the bus. The transgendered wonder what they did wrong, and yell back at the transsexuals. What they yell is a little incoherent and poorly understood because no one thought to put windows in the back of the bus, and the rain is coming in. The transgendered then notice that they are all at the back of the bus. And aren't happy about that. They send an emissary up to the front. Treated, because it's a man in a dress, to being kicked and scratched and cold disdain in equal measure, she's reassured that there are seats at the front.
Getting back, the transgendered emissary informs the gathered crowd that there are seats at the front. The transsexuals, hearing this, dash to the front - to get there before anyone else. There, they get into an argument with the lesbians, who are seated behind the gay guys, about the definition of "woman". It's quite noisy in the middle of this bus.
The gay community start telling the transsexual community that they've reached their stop. The transsexuals notice the bus hasn't stopped, so they tell the transgendered community that they'll treat them as ladies, and let them go first. The transgendered are so flattered they fail to notice the bus hasn't stopped. Seeing this, they refuse to get off, the transsexual community decides to do something about it. Not wanting to be associated with the transgendered, they decide to push the transgendered off; they push like crazy. With all the cat-fighting, it's little wonder the gay and lesbian communities get involved. Everyone is pushing the transgendered, but the transsexuals don't notice whom the gays and lesbians are pushing. Eventually the transgendered are pushed off. And the transsexuals suddenly realize they're going with them. They all land in a nasty and deep puddle. Picking themselves up off the transgendered, they're all standing there, sodden and miserable. The transsexuals start arguing with the transgendered; if only the transgendered had gotten off the bus when they were told to!
That's when the bus driver turns the bus around and runs over the entire group.
Carolyn Ann
(The non-gendered folk wander along a bit later and, from behind the nearest wall, start throwing spitballs, rocks and insults at the assembled and run-over crowd.)
Because everyone wants to know where the bus is going, there's a big crowd at the front of the bus. As there's no room at the front, the transgender and transsexual communities, at the back, start arguing among themselves about the seating. The transsexual people yell that they're not transgendered, so they won't sit with them at the back of the bus; they want the middle of the bus. The transgendered wonder what they did wrong, and yell back at the transsexuals. What they yell is a little incoherent and poorly understood because no one thought to put windows in the back of the bus, and the rain is coming in. The transgendered then notice that they are all at the back of the bus. And aren't happy about that. They send an emissary up to the front. Treated, because it's a man in a dress, to being kicked and scratched and cold disdain in equal measure, she's reassured that there are seats at the front.
Getting back, the transgendered emissary informs the gathered crowd that there are seats at the front. The transsexuals, hearing this, dash to the front - to get there before anyone else. There, they get into an argument with the lesbians, who are seated behind the gay guys, about the definition of "woman". It's quite noisy in the middle of this bus.
The gay community start telling the transsexual community that they've reached their stop. The transsexuals notice the bus hasn't stopped, so they tell the transgendered community that they'll treat them as ladies, and let them go first. The transgendered are so flattered they fail to notice the bus hasn't stopped. Seeing this, they refuse to get off, the transsexual community decides to do something about it. Not wanting to be associated with the transgendered, they decide to push the transgendered off; they push like crazy. With all the cat-fighting, it's little wonder the gay and lesbian communities get involved. Everyone is pushing the transgendered, but the transsexuals don't notice whom the gays and lesbians are pushing. Eventually the transgendered are pushed off. And the transsexuals suddenly realize they're going with them. They all land in a nasty and deep puddle. Picking themselves up off the transgendered, they're all standing there, sodden and miserable. The transsexuals start arguing with the transgendered; if only the transgendered had gotten off the bus when they were told to!
That's when the bus driver turns the bus around and runs over the entire group.
Carolyn Ann
(The non-gendered folk wander along a bit later and, from behind the nearest wall, start throwing spitballs, rocks and insults at the assembled and run-over crowd.)
Don't blame if the sky falls on your head...
Well, you can lay some of the blame on me. :-)
I actually agreed with Anne. On a single point. But, still. The sky will, most assuredly, fall in. (I'm carrying an umbrella, just in case...)
Here's the thing, after I misread Teagan's post, Anne pointed me in the direction of a particular blog post about Equality Maryland. Naturally, I read it. Quite interesting, indeed. Although there wasn't anything particularly astounding in it: the gay community discarded the transgender community faster than you can actually say that.
I've been saying for years that the gay and the transgender communities have little in common. I've never particularly liked the whole "LGBT" thing; the B is unnecessary and the T is an appendage someone added on. More on that in a mo'.
I just wanted to duck any real blame if the sky should happen to land upon your noggin'. At least, if it does, you'll have some idea why. :-)
(Thank you. I'm glad to be of service.)
Carolyn Ann
I actually agreed with Anne. On a single point. But, still. The sky will, most assuredly, fall in. (I'm carrying an umbrella, just in case...)
Here's the thing, after I misread Teagan's post, Anne pointed me in the direction of a particular blog post about Equality Maryland. Naturally, I read it. Quite interesting, indeed. Although there wasn't anything particularly astounding in it: the gay community discarded the transgender community faster than you can actually say that.
I've been saying for years that the gay and the transgender communities have little in common. I've never particularly liked the whole "LGBT" thing; the B is unnecessary and the T is an appendage someone added on. More on that in a mo'.
I just wanted to duck any real blame if the sky should happen to land upon your noggin'. At least, if it does, you'll have some idea why. :-)
(Thank you. I'm glad to be of service.)
Carolyn Ann
Google knows me all too well...
I was just listening to The Who's "Behind Blue Eyes" (I tried Limp Bizkit's version. It was a bit, er, limp...) Anyway, I was thinking about procrastinating a little more, when I noticed what Google had put in the "Suggestions" column:
How to do Smokey Royal Blue eyes, huh?
I'll have to watch that. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
I got that one (really) wrong.
I didn't read Teagan's post with the care I should have. As a result I misinterpreted her argument.
Sorry.
Carolyn Ann
Oops...
What can be said? "Oops?"
I guess a Japanese nuclear power utility needs something called a 'calendar'. Or perhaps a piece of paper and a pen. To write down what's supposed to happen, and when.
Why do I think that the cozy relationship between the Japanese nuclear regulatory commission and those they regulate and supervise will survive this "little" incident, intact? Oh, how about "history"?
I guess a Japanese nuclear power utility needs something called a 'calendar'. Or perhaps a piece of paper and a pen. To write down what's supposed to happen, and when.
Why do I think that the cozy relationship between the Japanese nuclear regulatory commission and those they regulate and supervise will survive this "little" incident, intact? Oh, how about "history"?
Carolyn Ann
There's idiocy, and then there's Bernie Ecclestone
Bernie Ecclestone, primo(a) donna of Formula One, must have had a revelation when his lawn was watered. His thought process must have been thus: "Ah, the grass is getting watered. The sprinklers came on! This modern technology is so marvelous; why, in my day we had to imagine television! Oh... You know, racing in the rain is exciting to watch! But we don't when it's going to rain... Oh, I'm onto something, here! If, let me see, if we install sprinklers - they'd have to be powerful sprinklers! - and switched them on at random times, we could make Formula One a magnificent crash-fest! I mean race!"
Hmm. Let me see. The man hasn't discovered high-definition television. The rest of the sports world has. He hasn't. He came up with a hair-brained scoring system that would have meant handing out the crown mid-season and now he thinks track-side sprinklers might be a good idea. He says there is growing support for the idea. Right... I don't think the support is growing for that idea. I think it might be the other one: that Bernie needs to go spend more time at home. Or thinking what he says before he opens his mouth.
Not that that has ever stopped him.
Carolyn Ann
Hmm. Let me see. The man hasn't discovered high-definition television. The rest of the sports world has. He hasn't. He came up with a hair-brained scoring system that would have meant handing out the crown mid-season and now he thinks track-side sprinklers might be a good idea. He says there is growing support for the idea. Right... I don't think the support is growing for that idea. I think it might be the other one: that Bernie needs to go spend more time at home. Or thinking what he says before he opens his mouth.
Not that that has ever stopped him.
Carolyn Ann
Plan? What plan?
The NY Times' "Room for Debate" topic is the plan for Libya. These pundits must have the current President confused with the last one. He told us he had a plan - and didn't. The current one doesn't have a plan, and is wise enough to not admit it. :-)
(I can see it now: the National Security staff wandering about, muttering to themselves "No one told us we needed a plan!")
While I fully support the no-fly zone, I think it would behoove Mr Obama to have a plan for what comes next. (What? Pie in the sky? Yeah, well. How do you plan for a situation no one has ever come across in the entire history of humanity?)
(Actually, Maureen Dowd nails it.)
Carolyn Ann
(I can see it now: the National Security staff wandering about, muttering to themselves "No one told us we needed a plan!")
While I fully support the no-fly zone, I think it would behoove Mr Obama to have a plan for what comes next. (What? Pie in the sky? Yeah, well. How do you plan for a situation no one has ever come across in the entire history of humanity?)
(Actually, Maureen Dowd nails it.)
Carolyn Ann
Wow.
I still use T-Central, even if I don't want to be listed, myself. (I was telling the Mrs about some of the blogs on that list; she said "I'm glad you're not a part of that list!") So I was surprised to see that Teagan was annoyed; I noticed because Anne, the fair and lovely (sic) Anne, posted the same damn picture and said "Need I say more?" Anne, you need not say a thing. We know you've got a personal thing about decency, reasonable thought and clarity. We know you despise such things. :-)
I don't know who owns the picture (Teagan didn't provide a credit); as such, I won't repost it. Added: I missed something rather important! Oops. Sorry.
The picture is of a chap in a beard, wearing a shirt and tie and a skirt, holding a sign saying "Equality Now" (He has a small, but unnecessary, "Ally" on his sign as well.)The annoyance is that he's clearly a "cis" man, and as such what is he doing expressing support for the transgender community?
Sorry, ladies. I think the chap rather brave and the picture rather important. If we can't wear what we want, how can we express ourselves? It is through our attire that we express our true nature, is it not? You know, I recently asked a friend if wanting to look pretty was shallow; she replied that if it was, we were all shallow. This chap clearly doesn't care about such things; why should we, as a community? We don't know who he is, all we know is that he supports equality.
You know (sorry...), I yelled at Penny Red for being an ersatz socialist; I got quite steamed at Queen Emily saying she was a socialist (how the hell can you be a socialist with a name like "Queen Emily"?). I didn't begrudge the support for socialism, I begrudged the fact that they were play acting their roles. They are also, need it be mentioned, the playwrights for their roles. The chap in this picture isn't doing that - he's expressing a measure of support. And he's doing it with a smile.
That, apparently, isn't welcome. I think that is unfair.Take support where you can get it <-- That is so wrong. Sorry! . Take honest support at its face value. <-- That was a stupid thing to say. And for gods sake, always remember that if you annoy your supporters you can view your cause in those telescopes they have on the Hubble Telescope. (Oh, they shut that down? Pity.)
Just for the record, here's what I said:
Carolyn Ann
The picture is of a chap in a beard, wearing a shirt and tie and a skirt, holding a sign saying "Equality Now" (He has a small, but unnecessary, "Ally" on his sign as well.)
Sorry, ladies. I think the chap rather brave and the picture rather important. If we can't wear what we want, how can we express ourselves? It is through our attire that we express our true nature, is it not? You know, I recently asked a friend if wanting to look pretty was shallow; she replied that if it was, we were all shallow. This chap clearly doesn't care about such things; why should we, as a community? We don't know who he is, all we know is that he supports equality.
You know (sorry...), I yelled at Penny Red for being an ersatz socialist; I got quite steamed at Queen Emily saying she was a socialist (how the hell can you be a socialist with a name like "Queen Emily"?). I didn't begrudge the support for socialism, I begrudged the fact that they were play acting their roles. They are also, need it be mentioned, the playwrights for their roles. The chap in this picture isn't doing that - he's expressing a measure of support. And he's doing it with a smile.
That, apparently, isn't welcome. I think that is unfair.
Just for the record, here's what I said:
I think you're being a little unfair, ladies. Really.
Here's this chap, it's probably taken him some amount of courage to don a skirt, have his photo taken and wave sign saying "Equality Now". He's supporting equality with a smile - isn't that worth something?
Does anyone know if he's gay? Does it matter? What does his sexuality have to do with any of his ideas, his expression, anyway? Isn't criticizing him a little mean? So what if the protest isn't quite what you'd want - it's a sentiment expressed; quite a noble sentiment, actually. (Are you going to argue against it because of how it's delivered? No? I didn't think so.) What - are you going to reject equality, or the man's support, because he has a beard and is wearing a skirt? It's not a caricature, it's an expression of support.
Don't shoot the messenger, ladies (you have Anne to do that). Embrace them in their efforts, and perhaps guide them. But please don't shoot the chap supporting equality. He has enough bulls eyes on him without those he clearly seeks to support painting their own targets on his chest.
Run the Field of Cats, Wife! :-)
The Mrs abandoned me to the (task of making the) bed! She went to wash her teeth and clean her face, while I had the arduous duty of throwing a sheet at the bed and calling it made! (Oh! The agony of manual labor! :-) ) Anyway, I was halfway through making the bed - trying to get it done before the Mrs came upstairs, as a little treat for her - when I noticed the hallway was full of cats. Literally. I counted nine of them. Nine! Count 'em: Oscar, Jeremy, Hamchop, Spot, Oliver, Checkers, and Max. Okay, that's only eight. Max counts as two. She's a force of nature, that girl.
Where was I? Oh yeah. "Because, BECAUSE!, you abandoned me to a lifetime of making the bed, you have to accept the challenge, and Run (capital R) the Field of Cats! (Capitals F and C.)" (I didn't say the "capitals" bits. I'm adding them for emphasis. :-) ) Accepting the challenge, the Mrs said "Okay, everyone! Treat time!" And they all ran into the bedroom, awaiting their treats. Which the Mrs duly handed out. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Where was I? Oh yeah. "Because, BECAUSE!, you abandoned me to a lifetime of making the bed, you have to accept the challenge, and Run (capital R) the Field of Cats! (Capitals F and C.)" (I didn't say the "capitals" bits. I'm adding them for emphasis. :-) ) Accepting the challenge, the Mrs said "Okay, everyone! Treat time!" And they all ran into the bedroom, awaiting their treats. Which the Mrs duly handed out. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
A handsome man...
He is one of the world's most handsome men. Debonair, brave (?), and quite the gourmet - he's willing to discuss his every meal (?!?) (before he has it...), this man attracts like the ladies like none other I've ever seen. (Well, with the exception of a chap I used to work with. A bunch of us and our wives went to dinner one evening; we had to remind our wives we were still there...) Seriously, this chap has girlfriends. He reclines, he snoozes with elegance, he... Doesn't do much else, to be honest. (Nice work if you can get it!)
Anyway, Negro Modelo has the Most Interesting Man In The World. I present, to you, The Handsomest Man In The World. :-D
Jeremy. Even when he's a bit dusty, he's still handsome. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Fantasy Statistics (are contagious)
As a rule, I tend to ignore stupid statistics. For instance, Zoe recently published a set of numbers that were - at best - cherry picked. (They come straight from another blog.) Zoe's post is a bit confused; mostly because the numbers and the text don't really match. For awhile I tried to find the flaw in the numbers; if I know Zoe and numbers, I know that the key to her point is in the numbers. I couldn't find fault - because the numbers are meaningless. Zoe's use of theblogprof's numbers is a bit strange; theblogprof is trying to prove the rich pay too much tax, and Zoe is arguing, well, I'm not actually sure what Zoe was arguing.
If you're arguing for a flat tax system, theblogprof's numbers make (some) sense. If you're arguing, as theblogprof does, that the super rich pay a disproportionate amount of tax - the numbers don't make any sense whatsoever. Mostly because the super rich can afford lawyers and accountants who can reduce their tax bill. The career goal for such individuals is surely "if I save so-and-so more than my salary or fee, I'll stay employed". Unfortunately, the whole argument is a smoke-and-mirrors sort of a thing; if you count the actual dollars, you can prove that those who have 80 times the wealth of others simply do pay more in taxes. The super-rich fan club has, as far as I know, failed to provide a point where their contributions to society are the same as everyone else's. (I'd be mighty surprised if anyone did such an analysis; that would come to be their basic tax rate - and the hedge fund managers would hate it to be 28%. Which I suspect it is. (Hedge fund managers are currently taxed, in the US, at about 15% (on hundreds of millions). A teacher is taxed at about 36% (on tens of thousands). Tell me, which tax rate is more equitable?)
Anne, my favorite Glenn Beck acolyte, has taken fantasy statistics to, well, Glenn Beck-ian levels. In a recent post, Anne seems to think that stating what the cost of Japan's destruction in terms of how much it would cost the US taxpayer tells us something. It tells us Anne is a bit of a twit, but not much else. (Anne then goes on a rant about a whole load of things that have nothing to do with either Japan or her comparison.) In her preceding post, Anne wonders what she's missing. She tells us something no one actually knows: the total US debt to the penny! I've seen people try to do that before. It's usually an indicator they're fooling either you or themselves. (I'll note Anne also does her favorite tactic: quotes herself. As some sort of expert. Go figure.)
Being market-driven, US government debt can't actually be quantified to the penny. If you get within a thousand dollars you're doing better than probably anyone else. (And could make a killing on trading in US debt.) The simple fact is: no one actually cares; the level of accuracy is reasonable if it's within a few million.
As Benjamin Disraeli allegedly said: there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The thing about statistics is their malleability. They can be presented as concrete, and are about as plastic as you can get. Let's take a stupid statistic of Anne's, for instance: the Japanese earthquake and tsunami will cost the equivalent of $125,000 per person. Or $45,000 per person if you're not a taxpayer (the differentiation, I need to state, is as meaningless as the number). (Anne seems to think that only US citizens pay taxes.) Let's take the $125k per. Over how long a period is that? How much of my annual tax bill does that represent? What do I get for that investment? If I word the question a particular way, the problem becomes quite clear, doesn't it? :-)
Zoe's numbers also find themselves wanting: theblogprof states "No other major country is so dependent on so few taxpayers". He (duh...) quotes himself on that one. What is it about right wing "economists" - can't they find anyone else to quote except themselves? How about Britain? Has theblogprof examined its tax base? Or France? How about Germany, or Japan? Australia? Singapore? What are the numbers? How about the context: what is the proportion of really rich people in other countries? How much do they contribute to the national treasury? What proportion of their income is taxed, compared to the US? (theblogprof does not provide comparative tables. I wonder why?)
Fantasy statistics are quite popular, right now. Oh, they always are - but right now, they seem to be very popular. You can use statistics to make a point, but you do need to know what your point is. Zoe has no excuse for that post; well, to be fair, she has one: uncertainty about her political inclinations. Anne, well, Anne has every excuse.
Carolyn Ann
If you're arguing for a flat tax system, theblogprof's numbers make (some) sense. If you're arguing, as theblogprof does, that the super rich pay a disproportionate amount of tax - the numbers don't make any sense whatsoever. Mostly because the super rich can afford lawyers and accountants who can reduce their tax bill. The career goal for such individuals is surely "if I save so-and-so more than my salary or fee, I'll stay employed". Unfortunately, the whole argument is a smoke-and-mirrors sort of a thing; if you count the actual dollars, you can prove that those who have 80 times the wealth of others simply do pay more in taxes. The super-rich fan club has, as far as I know, failed to provide a point where their contributions to society are the same as everyone else's. (I'd be mighty surprised if anyone did such an analysis; that would come to be their basic tax rate - and the hedge fund managers would hate it to be 28%. Which I suspect it is. (Hedge fund managers are currently taxed, in the US, at about 15% (on hundreds of millions). A teacher is taxed at about 36% (on tens of thousands). Tell me, which tax rate is more equitable?)
Anne, my favorite Glenn Beck acolyte, has taken fantasy statistics to, well, Glenn Beck-ian levels. In a recent post, Anne seems to think that stating what the cost of Japan's destruction in terms of how much it would cost the US taxpayer tells us something. It tells us Anne is a bit of a twit, but not much else. (Anne then goes on a rant about a whole load of things that have nothing to do with either Japan or her comparison.) In her preceding post, Anne wonders what she's missing. She tells us something no one actually knows: the total US debt to the penny! I've seen people try to do that before. It's usually an indicator they're fooling either you or themselves. (I'll note Anne also does her favorite tactic: quotes herself. As some sort of expert. Go figure.)
Being market-driven, US government debt can't actually be quantified to the penny. If you get within a thousand dollars you're doing better than probably anyone else. (And could make a killing on trading in US debt.) The simple fact is: no one actually cares; the level of accuracy is reasonable if it's within a few million.
As Benjamin Disraeli allegedly said: there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The thing about statistics is their malleability. They can be presented as concrete, and are about as plastic as you can get. Let's take a stupid statistic of Anne's, for instance: the Japanese earthquake and tsunami will cost the equivalent of $125,000 per person. Or $45,000 per person if you're not a taxpayer (the differentiation, I need to state, is as meaningless as the number). (Anne seems to think that only US citizens pay taxes.) Let's take the $125k per. Over how long a period is that? How much of my annual tax bill does that represent? What do I get for that investment? If I word the question a particular way, the problem becomes quite clear, doesn't it? :-)
Zoe's numbers also find themselves wanting: theblogprof states "No other major country is so dependent on so few taxpayers". He (duh...) quotes himself on that one. What is it about right wing "economists" - can't they find anyone else to quote except themselves? How about Britain? Has theblogprof examined its tax base? Or France? How about Germany, or Japan? Australia? Singapore? What are the numbers? How about the context: what is the proportion of really rich people in other countries? How much do they contribute to the national treasury? What proportion of their income is taxed, compared to the US? (theblogprof does not provide comparative tables. I wonder why?)
Fantasy statistics are quite popular, right now. Oh, they always are - but right now, they seem to be very popular. You can use statistics to make a point, but you do need to know what your point is. Zoe has no excuse for that post; well, to be fair, she has one: uncertainty about her political inclinations. Anne, well, Anne has every excuse.
Carolyn Ann
Defining the possible
The more I learn about President Obama's efforts to get a no-fly zone over Libya, the more impressed I am. :-)
Congress is annoyed at him, for instance. You can expect the Republicans to be cross - they need to find fault with him. If the man sneezed, they'd find something to criticize about the sneeze. Some of the Dems are a trifle peeved, too. Apparently they're reluctant to wander into any sort of war. "We stand for freedom! Except when it's a bit dodgy..." (The Republican version: "We stand for freedom! Freedom from you...")
The dynamics are fascinating. Clearly the President kept Congress informed. It's just that he managed to keep the whole thing secret! If John Boehner, for example, didn't approve of the action, he'd find a way of leaking the plans - and that would end them. It's a typical political thing; heck, if The Anointed One wanted to garner favor, he could tell the wrong person the plans - and he'd get credit for trying something, and no real blame "if" it couldn't be accomplished. Politics as blood sport? Bismarck would probably agree. (von Clausewitz certainly would!)
Overall, it was a stupendous piece of diplomacy. Now, let's talk about William Hague. Or, as he's increasingly known around Whitehall: Hague the Vague. Because he'd have to be damn senile to have approved that monument to idiocy, never mind diplomatic idiocy.
Politics: the art of the possible. Only the vague think it's actually about defining what is possible.
Carolyn Ann
Congress is annoyed at him, for instance. You can expect the Republicans to be cross - they need to find fault with him. If the man sneezed, they'd find something to criticize about the sneeze. Some of the Dems are a trifle peeved, too. Apparently they're reluctant to wander into any sort of war. "We stand for freedom! Except when it's a bit dodgy..." (The Republican version: "We stand for freedom! Freedom from you...")
The dynamics are fascinating. Clearly the President kept Congress informed. It's just that he managed to keep the whole thing secret! If John Boehner, for example, didn't approve of the action, he'd find a way of leaking the plans - and that would end them. It's a typical political thing; heck, if The Anointed One wanted to garner favor, he could tell the wrong person the plans - and he'd get credit for trying something, and no real blame "if" it couldn't be accomplished. Politics as blood sport? Bismarck would probably agree. (von Clausewitz certainly would!)
Overall, it was a stupendous piece of diplomacy. Now, let's talk about William Hague. Or, as he's increasingly known around Whitehall: Hague the Vague. Because he'd have to be damn senile to have approved that monument to idiocy, never mind diplomatic idiocy.
Politics: the art of the possible. Only the vague think it's actually about defining what is possible.
Carolyn Ann
Monday, March 21, 2011
Less government = Unsafe vehicles
I'd heard that the NJ vehicle inspection had gone to "emissions only", but I didn't quite know what that meant. A quick check of the NJ DOT website and:
I have to admit I've noticed a slight change in the vehicles and driving out there. Nothing I could put my finger on, but often little things like that can make a difference in living or dying when you're on a motorcycle. It just seemed that there were more dangerous vehicles on the road. Like I said, nothing I could prove, just that small, niggling feeling I have learned to trust. Now I know why!
Oh well. At least the government is smaller. Thanks, Chris Christie, for making New Jersey's roads that bit more dangerous for us all.
Carolyn Ann
Does my vehicle need to be inspected?In short: are you kidding? Don't you have more important things to do, like running over busloads of kids because your brakes are non-existent? Or aquaplaning because no one told you to change your tires to ones that have a tread?
Effective August 1, 2010, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission made changes to the New Jersey Vehicle Inspection Program eliminating the mechanical defects (safety) portion of the inspection process for passenger vehicles. Most passenger vehicles will be required to be inspected biennially (every two years) for emissions only. Commercial vehicles and buses will be required to be inspected annually (every year) for safety and the appropriate emissions test. Motorcycles are now exempt from inspection. [My emphasis. Link to original PDF]
I have to admit I've noticed a slight change in the vehicles and driving out there. Nothing I could put my finger on, but often little things like that can make a difference in living or dying when you're on a motorcycle. It just seemed that there were more dangerous vehicles on the road. Like I said, nothing I could prove, just that small, niggling feeling I have learned to trust. Now I know why!
Oh well. At least the government is smaller. Thanks, Chris Christie, for making New Jersey's roads that bit more dangerous for us all.
Carolyn Ann
North Korea is feeling a bit touchy
What with all that's going on in Japan, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and so many other places, the North Koreans is, apparently, feeling a bit ignored. In a protest to South Korea, it complained they had let "U.S. imperialist aggressor troops" throw liquor bottles at them. This, it seems, is a "grave military provocation".
Just think - a national leadership that says it's willing to go to war, probably nuclear, over a few empty bottles.
There's lunacy and then there's North Korea. Can someone please find their pacifier?
Carolyn Ann
Just think - a national leadership that says it's willing to go to war, probably nuclear, over a few empty bottles.
There's lunacy and then there's North Korea. Can someone please find their pacifier?
Carolyn Ann
Libya
I see the no-fly zone is having an affect - the Libyan rebels are regrouping. It helps if you have the world's most powerful navy on your side, I guess! I liked the headline in the Times: "Tripoli hit, but US says it isn't trying to kill leader". I can just see them all in the Situation Room and the various control rooms across the globe: "Nah! We're not trying to kill him, but who's going to complain if a cruise missile lands in his tent? Him?!?"
I still think it was a stunning piece of diplomacy. That no-fly zone wouldn't have gone through without America's blessing. And yet America hemmed and hawed. What was particularly masterful was getting Bahrain to commit to sending planes! So while the Bahraini military is killing freedom-wanting Bahraini's in Bahrain, it's defending a freedom movement in Libya. You couldn't put that in fiction! You'd never get away with it.
And there's no bombastic nonsense about "coalitions of the willing". What a load of tripe that was. All walked a fine line - President Sarkozy managed to keep himself in check long enough to get the no-fly zone and the Arab League figured it had more to gain by endorsing the no-fly zone than not. Can you imagine the diplomacy and chit-chat that must have taken? Especially as everyone concerned probably had Wikileaks on their speed-dial. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.) I expect Mr Assange will publish the details in short order.
China and Russia didn't support the no-fly zone; they're probably worried they're not providing enough support to the remaining dictatorships. If I were Col. Gaddafi's mercenaries, I'd suddenly remember an urgent dentist's appointment back home. Overall, it's about time that the no-fly zone was implemented. It's certainly about time the world's democracies provided some much-needed support to the Libyan rebels.
Carolyn Ann
I still think it was a stunning piece of diplomacy. That no-fly zone wouldn't have gone through without America's blessing. And yet America hemmed and hawed. What was particularly masterful was getting Bahrain to commit to sending planes! So while the Bahraini military is killing freedom-wanting Bahraini's in Bahrain, it's defending a freedom movement in Libya. You couldn't put that in fiction! You'd never get away with it.
And there's no bombastic nonsense about "coalitions of the willing". What a load of tripe that was. All walked a fine line - President Sarkozy managed to keep himself in check long enough to get the no-fly zone and the Arab League figured it had more to gain by endorsing the no-fly zone than not. Can you imagine the diplomacy and chit-chat that must have taken? Especially as everyone concerned probably had Wikileaks on their speed-dial. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.) I expect Mr Assange will publish the details in short order.
China and Russia didn't support the no-fly zone; they're probably worried they're not providing enough support to the remaining dictatorships. If I were Col. Gaddafi's mercenaries, I'd suddenly remember an urgent dentist's appointment back home. Overall, it's about time that the no-fly zone was implemented. It's certainly about time the world's democracies provided some much-needed support to the Libyan rebels.
Carolyn Ann
That was a (quiet) weekend...
I guess it's difficult to have a noisy one when you spend most of a weekend underneath a truck, fixing its brakes. Again. Going is good. At times, stopping has some distinct advantages.
It has to go for inspection tomorrow; that should be fun. At least that awful burning smell has gone. Whatever it was has either burned away or adjusted somehow. (I think that's a poor euphemism for "burned away"... :-) ) The rest of it will pass; as long as no one demands the drivers' window works; something went "bang!" awhile back and I've not gotten around fixing whatever it was.
Getting the truck on and off the jacks was an interesting exercise; I couldn't find my large jack, so I used the small one. It's supposed to handle 2¼ tons; I wasn't so sure - it seemed to have trouble with the front of the truck. The back isn't a big deal - it's a large differential and some sheet steel. (That's why pickup trucks, even 4-wheel drive ones, are so bad in the snow - all the weight is up front.) Considering how nervous the small jack made me, it took some juggling to get it all worked out!
This evening we went for a spin in it; it's been awhile since the Mrs was in the truck. Sticking to country roads, we wended a path through the farmland and into marshland not too far from home. The brakes are working (whew..?), and that engine pulls so magnificently. Press the pedal and off she goes! She's an American dream, that truck. I still love driving her!
Carolyn Ann
It has to go for inspection tomorrow; that should be fun. At least that awful burning smell has gone. Whatever it was has either burned away or adjusted somehow. (I think that's a poor euphemism for "burned away"... :-) ) The rest of it will pass; as long as no one demands the drivers' window works; something went "bang!" awhile back and I've not gotten around fixing whatever it was.
Getting the truck on and off the jacks was an interesting exercise; I couldn't find my large jack, so I used the small one. It's supposed to handle 2¼ tons; I wasn't so sure - it seemed to have trouble with the front of the truck. The back isn't a big deal - it's a large differential and some sheet steel. (That's why pickup trucks, even 4-wheel drive ones, are so bad in the snow - all the weight is up front.) Considering how nervous the small jack made me, it took some juggling to get it all worked out!
This evening we went for a spin in it; it's been awhile since the Mrs was in the truck. Sticking to country roads, we wended a path through the farmland and into marshland not too far from home. The brakes are working (whew..?), and that engine pulls so magnificently. Press the pedal and off she goes! She's an American dream, that truck. I still love driving her!
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Pornographic idiots
In most places, there's a standard for newsagents and newsstands: the smut goes on the top shelf. In some places, Brooklyn for example, the covers of certain magazines (Elle, InStyle, etc) are covered - because the clientele doesn't wish to see semi-naked lasses displaying how beautiful they are. Those magazines are at the right height for any interested to grab a copy and take a peek. (But, oddly, they are unavailable for the guy who's standing there while his Mrs is on a safari in some part of the store fetching a bottle of something forgotten. All we were left with were tabloids telling us Martians had met with Bill. ... You know, I never saw a supermarket tabloid say that Martians had met with George. ... Is that because..? No! Can't be! I don't believe it! My God! You don't say! Etc... :-) )
So the Internet now has its equivalent top shelf, covered magazine rack, "adult entertainment" store, and so on. ICANN has pronounced that the ".xxx" domain shall be available.
Whoopdefrickindoo.
Doo.
Some idiots note that creating such a domain will "provide reassurance to those visiting pornography websites that they are protected from the risk of viruses, identity theft, credit card fraud and inadvertent exposure to child abuse images."
Cows will jump over the moon, pigs will fly, conservatives will become compassionate, certain East River bridges will become available at good prices and London Bridge will fall down. Into that gully it spans in Arizona.
I don't really care that a triple-x domain was created; ultimately, it was inevitable. The porn industry created the triple-x; no one else did. Now there are some who argue it will stigmatize the industry? It's the second oldest business in the world. It's the oldest example of fiction we have (what? teenage Neanderthals and caveyouths didn't boast of their prowess?). And some people worry that it will stigmatize the business? Lead to censorship and the end of the world as we know it?
Porn is a dying business. It's got competition - apparently there are lots and lots and lots of "something pornographic Tube" video sites. Free porn will trump paid-for porn. Every time. It's human nature: if you're into porn, chances are you aren't that concerned about paying for it. Those will be the sites that grab the ".xxx" domains. (If they've figured out a business model, they haven't told anyone, either. Which leads me to think they haven't figured out a business model. Except lots of churn in the free porn business.)
There are idiots. And then there is the porn industry.
Conservatives everywhere: unite! Your pornography is about to become a hell of a lot more accessible. Probably cheaper, too. :-)
Carolyn Ann
So the Internet now has its equivalent top shelf, covered magazine rack, "adult entertainment" store, and so on. ICANN has pronounced that the ".xxx" domain shall be available.
Whoopdefrickindoo.
Doo.
Some idiots note that creating such a domain will "provide reassurance to those visiting pornography websites that they are protected from the risk of viruses, identity theft, credit card fraud and inadvertent exposure to child abuse images."
Cows will jump over the moon, pigs will fly, conservatives will become compassionate, certain East River bridges will become available at good prices and London Bridge will fall down. Into that gully it spans in Arizona.
I don't really care that a triple-x domain was created; ultimately, it was inevitable. The porn industry created the triple-x; no one else did. Now there are some who argue it will stigmatize the industry? It's the second oldest business in the world. It's the oldest example of fiction we have (what? teenage Neanderthals and caveyouths didn't boast of their prowess?). And some people worry that it will stigmatize the business? Lead to censorship and the end of the world as we know it?
Porn is a dying business. It's got competition - apparently there are lots and lots and lots of "something pornographic Tube" video sites. Free porn will trump paid-for porn. Every time. It's human nature: if you're into porn, chances are you aren't that concerned about paying for it. Those will be the sites that grab the ".xxx" domains. (If they've figured out a business model, they haven't told anyone, either. Which leads me to think they haven't figured out a business model. Except lots of churn in the free porn business.)
There are idiots. And then there is the porn industry.
Conservatives everywhere: unite! Your pornography is about to become a hell of a lot more accessible. Probably cheaper, too. :-)
Carolyn Ann
A feat of (reluctant?) diplomacy
That was some diplomacy.
Hillary changed her mind, and took The One* with her. America will help defend the Libyan rebels. Some of whom will praise Allah and a certain half-baked madman, Osama bin Laden.
(I detect the hand of Bill...)
Which will, undoubtedly, annoy one Glenn Beck. And a few of his cronies (Rush, Sarah, Sean, etc). They'll be in the awkward position of explaining why Mr Obama didn't serve American interests by defending some people who are fighting to be free. Either that or they'll ignore it all. (Except Mr Beck; he'll probably claim that it's proof that Europe is a caliphate. And the Tea Partiers. They'll claim it's proof Mr Obama was born in Kenya.)
When I heard that the UN had approved quite a far-reaching statement, I wondered at the diplomacy behind it. America had to approve, probably with an ally writing the actual text. Let me put it this way: Russia objected, and no one cared. China, ambivalent as ever, wondered how this will affect their efforts to keep democracy from reaching their borders. And the world turned upside down and inside out when the Arab League said "Okay!"
The world is an astonishingly complex place right now. May we live in interesting times? They're downright fascinating. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Holy Mackerel!
Peacekeepers in Liberia Demonstrate Martial Arts Techniques a photo by United Nations Photo on Flickr.
That's quite an impressive display of raw fighting skill.
I hope they're on our side!
Carolyn Ann
Rev Phelps son speaks out against him
A brave man, Nate Phelps. He is speaking out against his father, Pastor Phelps of the Westboro' Baptist Church. He accuses his father of abuse! His family calls it "discipline". Since when did beating a kid with a 4 foot long piece of wood count as "discipline"?
The logical link between demonstrating at a soldier's funeral and gay rights is tenuous at best; Mr Phelps, jr, explains it quite succinctly: publicity. I think it takes a really twisted mind to make those connections, but the Rev Phelps and his coterie of Christian charlatans make the conceptual leaps with ease.
All of it proves that it's easy to hate.
Carolyn Ann
The logical link between demonstrating at a soldier's funeral and gay rights is tenuous at best; Mr Phelps, jr, explains it quite succinctly: publicity. I think it takes a really twisted mind to make those connections, but the Rev Phelps and his coterie of Christian charlatans make the conceptual leaps with ease.
All of it proves that it's easy to hate.
Carolyn Ann
Steve Jobs, Visionary and Executioner
Apple fanboi's are upset with Jon Bon Jovi. He said some nasty things about Steve Jobs. Things like "Steve Jobs is personally responsible for killing the music business."
How could he? Surely Jon knows that Steve saved the world, single-handed, and defeated that evil Microsoft at the same time? Oh, darn. Facts get in the way. Darn facts.
The simple fact is: Steve Jobs facilitated the death of the music business. He didn't pull the trigger - I disagree with Mr Bon Jovi on that - but he sure as heck realized that he didn't even need to get rid of the body. It would get up and walk away... (Sorry. And my apologies to any Who fans out there. :-) ) What Steve did kill was the album; that collection of music, arranged in a particular order to provide a particular experience to the listener. You don't get Genesis' "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" on iTunes; you don't get The White Album, or Sergeant Pepper. You can't have Mahler, or Brahms or Debussy or Dvorak. Holst? Forget about him. Pink Floyd? Not a chance. Quadraphenia, Tommy? Who're trying to kid? Fanfare for the common man? 99c a tune, thanks.
You can have this tune, or that one. Your iPod will arrange them into an incoherent whole for you, if you wish. You see, it's not about the experience of the music, the artistic vision that puts together 2012 (Rush). It's about Apple maximizing its profits and sod the customer and the artist. The artist bends to the whim of Apple to make money; the customer, these days, doesn't even know such grand works exist. Steve Jobs would sell opera by the song; forget about trying to arrange it into a meaningful narrative. The way Apple sells music is like a blog: a short snippet, a song. With iTunes, you simply can't do a narrative that spams even two songs! Never mind "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway"; that's a complex narrative, spread over 28 songs.
Steve Jobs didn't kill the music business. But his fans might want to think a little more about Jon Bon Jovi's main point: Mr Jobs has not been supportive of music, or of the artists. When was the last time you saw "This concert sponsored by Apple, get it on iTunes (in the order the songs were played)"?
No, Mr Jobs didn't kill the music business. But he made sure the ambitious visionary artists couldn't be ambitious, or visionary. He's the visionary, you see.
Carolyn Ann
How could he? Surely Jon knows that Steve saved the world, single-handed, and defeated that evil Microsoft at the same time? Oh, darn. Facts get in the way. Darn facts.
The simple fact is: Steve Jobs facilitated the death of the music business. He didn't pull the trigger - I disagree with Mr Bon Jovi on that - but he sure as heck realized that he didn't even need to get rid of the body. It would get up and walk away... (Sorry. And my apologies to any Who fans out there. :-) ) What Steve did kill was the album; that collection of music, arranged in a particular order to provide a particular experience to the listener. You don't get Genesis' "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" on iTunes; you don't get The White Album, or Sergeant Pepper. You can't have Mahler, or Brahms or Debussy or Dvorak. Holst? Forget about him. Pink Floyd? Not a chance. Quadraphenia, Tommy? Who're trying to kid? Fanfare for the common man? 99c a tune, thanks.
You can have this tune, or that one. Your iPod will arrange them into an incoherent whole for you, if you wish. You see, it's not about the experience of the music, the artistic vision that puts together 2012 (Rush). It's about Apple maximizing its profits and sod the customer and the artist. The artist bends to the whim of Apple to make money; the customer, these days, doesn't even know such grand works exist. Steve Jobs would sell opera by the song; forget about trying to arrange it into a meaningful narrative. The way Apple sells music is like a blog: a short snippet, a song. With iTunes, you simply can't do a narrative that spams even two songs! Never mind "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway"; that's a complex narrative, spread over 28 songs.
Steve Jobs didn't kill the music business. But his fans might want to think a little more about Jon Bon Jovi's main point: Mr Jobs has not been supportive of music, or of the artists. When was the last time you saw "This concert sponsored by Apple, get it on iTunes (in the order the songs were played)"?
No, Mr Jobs didn't kill the music business. But he made sure the ambitious visionary artists couldn't be ambitious, or visionary. He's the visionary, you see.
Carolyn Ann
Ending up inside the tiger...
The NY Times has an interesting take on John Boehner's job. It can be summarized as "not one I'd like to have". He has to keep the Tea Party Bayers at bay, not shut down the government and work with the President and the Democratic-controlled Senate. His biggest headache, the Tea Party Napkin-Folders Association, gets confused - they think that because they were elected, the American People (that big, mysterious, amorphous group) wants to shut down the government and to do so their elected representatives must, absolutely must, throw a hissy fit. So while they complain that their doilies aren't perfectly arranged, they throw temper tantrums that prevent anyone from actually stacking their pretty lace plates in anything like a reasonable order.
They have failed to notice that the American People don't like them more than they don't like the Democrats. So if they have their über-hissy fit, the Democrats won't get blamed. Mostly because they're trying to keep the government open and doing what it's supposed to do, and the Tea Party are trying to get the government closed down. They keeps saying they hate government, so persuading everyone that they are responsible for people not getting their social security checks isn't going to be that hard. Downright easy, I'd say. (Of course, we are discussing the Democrats who can wangle themselves into taking the blame for everything from the Big Bang to that obnoxious pizza delivery guy. Oh, sorry. The obnoxious pizza guy has a name: David Cameron.)
Anyway, Steny Hoyer (D, MD), compared Mr Boehner to the lad who had the tiger by the tail. He helpfully added that the lad often ends up inside the tiger. (Burp.)
That thought should give Mr Boehner something to cry about.
Carolyn Ann
They have failed to notice that the American People don't like them more than they don't like the Democrats. So if they have their über-hissy fit, the Democrats won't get blamed. Mostly because they're trying to keep the government open and doing what it's supposed to do, and the Tea Party are trying to get the government closed down. They keeps saying they hate government, so persuading everyone that they are responsible for people not getting their social security checks isn't going to be that hard. Downright easy, I'd say. (Of course, we are discussing the Democrats who can wangle themselves into taking the blame for everything from the Big Bang to that obnoxious pizza delivery guy. Oh, sorry. The obnoxious pizza guy has a name: David Cameron.)
Anyway, Steny Hoyer (D, MD), compared Mr Boehner to the lad who had the tiger by the tail. He helpfully added that the lad often ends up inside the tiger. (Burp.)
That thought should give Mr Boehner something to cry about.
Carolyn Ann
T-Central Statistics
Out of curiosity, I took a peek at the traffic statistics from T-Central.
From March 7th to last night, T-Central sent 117 visitors my way. (Thanks!) I don't know what percentage were unique, so it's impossible to say if it was 117 unique visitors, or some number revisited the blog.
During that time, I had 609 visitors; again, I have no idea how many made return visits and how many read the blog once and ran screaming "Never again!" (Hopefully, not too many... :-) ) So I had (how many fingers and toes do I need? Hmm... I'd better fetch a cat or two - I'll need their paws for this one...) 492 visitors from other sources.
That means T-Central was the source for (erm... hang on...) 19% of my traffic. That's quite a lot! :-) I didn't really think about writing for T-Central until late in the day, so to speak. If I'd given it some more time, and used the journalistic technique of a leading first sentence, I might have been able to build on that. Almost 1/5 of my overall traffic with no effort? What's not to like?
Well, if you're me - a lot. I hate overt influences in my mutterings; and I could foresee the time when the challenge of learning to write compelling leaders would give way to habit. (Hint: your first two sentences have to be compelling.) Actually, good writing always brings you into it; if your writing is grammatically perfect and utterly boring, you might as well not have bothered. (That's not to say that grammar can be ignored!)
The other way of looking at this is that 4/5 of my readers came from sources other than T-Central. Which should still leave the T-Central folk feeling pleased - if all of their listed blogs get 1/5 of their readers from that service, that's a very respectable percentage! (CNN and Fox News would love those percentages.) For a blog they announce, I would imagine the initial "hit" would be much higher. Of course, the trick is to maintain as much of that readership as you can!
For the record, the Atheist Blogroll, in the same period, sent 4 readers my way. Jamie's silverhalidedreams (aka PlayGirl) blog sent me 18 readers. Controversy works? Not really; that's only 3%; GenderBitch, in the form of that never-ending controversy about the sacred being sacred sent me 4 readers. That's 0.6% of the total. Sacrificing sacred cows works if you're looking for a "quick hit" and confuse that with actual popularity. (It's still on my "most popular" list. That list is generated by Google.)
Am I going to lose sleep over the 117 readers who might not return? No. As I've often said, I don't write for an audience. ... Who am I kidding? Of course I write for an audience - I just don't see it as my job to write to my audience. As my wife has often observed, tact is not one of my strengths. (I try. Sometimes. More often than not, I forget.)
If you've got a commercial blog, you need to cater to an audience. If you're one of the wiser businessfolk out there, you know who your audience is, and you tailor your online offering to them. For instance, you'd have to be an idiot to write glowingly of John Boehner on the Daily Kos, personal honesty and moral integrity isn't appreciated on Andrew Breitbart's blog, rationality isn't a strong seller for Glenn Beck, and so on. But someone like me doesn't have those concerns. I write what I want, when I want and how I want. Oh don't get me wrong, I love the English language (not that you could tell; I think it's going to bring me up on assault and battery charges next week...); I appreciate - and look forward to - comments. Speaking of which, I've noticed a distinct downturn in comments since I stopped anonymous commentary. I probably won't re-instate them; the spam is a bit too time-consuming.
Where was I, before I distracted myself? (Or, as the occasionally bamboozled idiot puts it: I derailed myself...) Oh yes. Traffic statistics.
Overall, I probably gained a few occasional readers from my brief sojourn on T-Central. But if you're a serious transgender blogger, not being onto T-Central is "not good". Mind you, they also include a blog by someone who dreams of crossdressing. "Crossdreaming" it's called. Yeah, I'm a bit leery of it, too. Overall, it seems that for many, getting onto T-Central is easy, and getting off it difficult. On the other hand, it took them awhile to notice I wasn't on it, and a simple request to be removed. So don't read anything into that; in fact, it would probably be better if you didn't (hadn't?) read that at all. :-)
But don't let that stop you from reading my amazingly insightful posts where I state the utterly obvious in language you need a dictionary to figure out. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Added: I forgot to mention that I didn't track time-on-site. I forgot about it... :-|
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
DropCopy
I don't do product reviews very often; basically, whatever it is has to be astoundingly good for me to mention it. Well... DropCopy, by 10base-T Interactive, for OS X is one such product. :-) I first heard of the app in a MacWorld review; it was favorable, and I decided to test the app. Now, this is important for me. I used to try every product I fancied, but after having to deal with an ever decreasing amount of free disk space, the issues and problems that come when software leaves a lot of cruft behind when it's uninstalled and so on, I've decided to limit my testing only to those products that I either intend to buy (if they pass muster), or solve a real problem for me. It seemed that DropCopy could solve a real, and immediate, problem for me.
The basic app, and it is basic, allows you to transfer files between computers. So, for instance, I can send some pictures of the cats to the Mrs simply by dropping the pictures onto a small circle on my computer. They then appear on hers. Neat!
When you have a small network (ours is 2 computers), and need to share some files, the usual approach is to enable sharing and do a copy; it takes time, is complicated and unnecessarily manual. DropCopy finds the other computer, and that's that. If I want to share something, I drop it in the circle, and that's that. And vice-versa. No need for "Public" or anything. I especially like that it works with iPhoto!
It's not a real-time sharing; for instance, if I have a Bento database on my machine, she can't access that. I have to drop the database file onto the circle, and she has to use that copy. But our real-time sharing needs are pretty low; it's not often we need to work on the same file. The one exception is our financial records database. I'd really like a way of having that available on both machines without having to copy it each and every time.
I do need to test copying links; OS X has two sorts: an alias, and a link. I'll update this review when I can set up a small test.
The only gripe I have about DropCopy is the "Preferences" box. It's small, and it's not exactly Mac-like. In fact it can be downright confusing. It would also be useful if the default "drop" location was somewhere other than the desktop! I keep a tidy desktop and having files plonked there is just irritating. I changed it, but it took me a few moments to figure out how to change that setting.
DropCopy is free for up to 3 computers; after that there's a fee. That's more than fair! I think it also uses the Sparkle update library, so even those are managed for you! If you need to share files between Mac's, DropCopy is perfect. The price is right, too! :-)
Carolyn Ann
The basic app, and it is basic, allows you to transfer files between computers. So, for instance, I can send some pictures of the cats to the Mrs simply by dropping the pictures onto a small circle on my computer. They then appear on hers. Neat!
When you have a small network (ours is 2 computers), and need to share some files, the usual approach is to enable sharing and do a copy; it takes time, is complicated and unnecessarily manual. DropCopy finds the other computer, and that's that. If I want to share something, I drop it in the circle, and that's that. And vice-versa. No need for "Public" or anything. I especially like that it works with iPhoto!
It's not a real-time sharing; for instance, if I have a Bento database on my machine, she can't access that. I have to drop the database file onto the circle, and she has to use that copy. But our real-time sharing needs are pretty low; it's not often we need to work on the same file. The one exception is our financial records database. I'd really like a way of having that available on both machines without having to copy it each and every time.
I do need to test copying links; OS X has two sorts: an alias, and a link. I'll update this review when I can set up a small test.
The only gripe I have about DropCopy is the "Preferences" box. It's small, and it's not exactly Mac-like. In fact it can be downright confusing. It would also be useful if the default "drop" location was somewhere other than the desktop! I keep a tidy desktop and having files plonked there is just irritating. I changed it, but it took me a few moments to figure out how to change that setting.
DropCopy is free for up to 3 computers; after that there's a fee. That's more than fair! I think it also uses the Sparkle update library, so even those are managed for you! If you need to share files between Mac's, DropCopy is perfect. The price is right, too! :-)
Carolyn Ann
And...
Gone.
CaroLINES has been removed from T-Central.
I'm not sure why it was there in the first place. Renee clearly has a problem with me; she thinks I pick arguments. I don't; but I don't shy from them, either. (Renee's problem was the rules of English; they disagreed with her. I volunteered to be the messenger.) And they list the two bigots, Anne and Jamie.
I'm really perplexed why Ariel thought I'd asked to be put on the list. I'll admit I entertained the idea for a short time, but I'd have to write about transgender subjects more than I do now. Heck, I'm on the Atheist Blogroll (I asked to be on that), and I rarely write about atheism.
I did learn something from being listed on T-Central. I learned that you have to have a powerful entry. The first sentence and a half has to "grab". So my habit of meandering without any real purpose except to savor the English language doesn't actually translate.
I asked the Mrs about my decision; she asked me if anyone else was a counter to Anne and Jamie. I can't say I've noticed anyone else countering them. I've noticed sycophancy, but not countering. They play the Glenn Beck game: their fans love 'em, and everyone else does their level best to ignore them. In my humble (?) opinion, only the bigoted could like their satiated drivel. Mind you, a translator is handy when you read Anne's particular form of English. It also helps if you subscribe to the alarmist school of arithmetic; 1+1="Democrats are ruining the nation!" It's not even original drivel. The source (Glenn, oh! Glenn!) isn't even original.
On the other hand, they are both on T-Central, so they have the "drive by" traffic. I can only assume it feeds their need for self-aggrandizement.
I really do not want to be associated with people like that. They chase readers. They chase off anything that might challenge their simplistic opinions. They hate those who point out the flaws in their arguments. They need to be victims. And so on. Simplistic bigots who chase readers like cheap whores chase johns.
Carolyn Ann
Bye, T-Central
Ariel: Please remove me from your listing.
I find it perplexing that you infer that I notified you that I wasn't on the list; I have done no such thing. I briefly thought about it, and wrote about it, but I never have never sought a listing on your service.
Carolyn Ann
The two main reasons I do not want listing on your service are Anne and Jamie. I am loathe to be tarnished with the same brush as them; your service lumps me in with their bigotry and futile hate. I do not want to be on the same billing as those two obvious bigots.
I find it perplexing that you infer that I notified you that I wasn't on the list; I have done no such thing. I briefly thought about it, and wrote about it, but I never have never sought a listing on your service.
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The NRA = Idiocy
The NRA: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Enforce existing gun laws more diligently!
President Obama: People who shouldn't have guns kill people. We need to enforce existing gun laws more diligently!
The NRA: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... (Oh, dear. What do we say, now?)
President Obama: People who shouldn't have guns kill people. We need to enforce existing gun laws more diligently!
The NRA: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... (Oh, dear. What do we say, now?)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
The NRA: Not so fast, buckaroo...
The NRA leadership: Why are you picking on gun owners? You need to enforce existing gun laws with more laxity!
Carolyn Ann
The NRA: Not so fast, buckaroo...
The NRA leadership: Why are you picking on gun owners? You need to enforce existing gun laws with more laxity!
Carolyn Ann
PS I wonder if the NRA realizes it was caught flat-footed, and now looks like it has no interest in preventing another Tucson?
Monday, March 14, 2011
The difference between Fox News & CNN
I saw this on Twitter (well, I saw it on Caprice's Twitter feed, on her blog, and then I saw it on Twitter. I've been trying to retweet it, but Twitter keeps saying "Not found", but not telling me what it can't find. C'est la Twitter... :-) )
Carolyn Ann
The diff news coverage on Japan. CNN: "Oh my God, so much devastation". Fox News: "Bunch of Chinese people died, now here's why Obama sucks"
The Whirling Dervishes of CapGemini
So there I am, trying to read an article about Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbuck's, and a CapGemini ad is doing a frantic dance in the corner of my eye.
Twirls are going this way and that, dervishes that way and this. The dancing ad is like a class of unruly 5 year olds - you can quieten them down, but it's going to take some work. Unlike the children, this ad insists on playing up until it runs out of steam. Which, being a steam-powered ad (hello, CapGemini, Geocities was uncool in the 1990's), takes awhile.
So I finally got through their endless questions, all of which must be answered before you can send them an email, and sent them a complaint:
I wonder if they realize that a response is appropriate, even though I wasn't aware I had specifically request one?
One thing is for sure, if I ever need the services of a company like CapGemini, they will not be on the list of firms I consider. Annoying me has that affect.
Carolyn Ann
Twirls are going this way and that, dervishes that way and this. The dancing ad is like a class of unruly 5 year olds - you can quieten them down, but it's going to take some work. Unlike the children, this ad insists on playing up until it runs out of steam. Which, being a steam-powered ad (hello, CapGemini, Geocities was uncool in the 1990's), takes awhile.
So I finally got through their endless questions, all of which must be answered before you can send them an email, and sent them a complaint:
Good grief, you guys sure demand a lot from someone who wants to email you.They said:
Here's the subject of my email: your ad in today's NY Times? It's irritating.
I'm trying to read about Howard Shultz and your ad is doing a frantic dance in the corner of my eye. It's not enticing, it's not endearing me to your company and it's not necessary. Well, you undoubtedly think it is, but that simply shows a lack of consideration for the venue and a disrespect for the audience. Please be more considerate of those in your audience who consider that whirling dervishes are best viewed in the right context. *My* newspaper is not that context.
Thank you
One thing is for sure, if I ever need the services of a company like CapGemini, they will not be on the list of firms I consider. Annoying me has that affect.
Carolyn Ann
Ignorant, fearful, thugs
It often seems that the rest of the world is moving ahead with the Internet. Faster speeds, better coverage, more interesting applications and so on. In the US, we seem to be heading into the surreal world of 1970's phone service.
We're being told it's progress.
Oh, it's also in support of the new definition of net-neutrality. If you wonder what that new definition is, you're clearly anti-American.
Increasingly, it seems that the powers that be, big business bosses, are ruining this nation in the name of avoiding responsibility and increasing their profits. Tea Partiers, the Republicans, conservatives, and a few Democrats, are not just aiding and abetting - they've bought the get-away car (with your money, I should add), and have installed themselves as the driver.
It brings to mind the old Pete Seeger song "Where have all the flowers gone?". Except the flowers aren't young men, but the America that existed before George W. Bush. You know: the one that was optimistic, forward looking, free in thought and suspicious of power grabs. An America that seems to be subjected to a thorough beating if it ever shows its face; the thugs are conservatives, Tea Partiers, idiot conspiracy theorists, religious bigots and a few people who should know better. This isn't the nation that put men on the moon - it's the one that feared such success, such grandness, such majesty.
This is, increasingly a land of euphemisms and avoidance of responsibility. When leaders tell us that America can't do something because the cost is too high, because it might raise taxes or do something for all, you can see their cynical manipulation, their poor regard for honesty. It's on display for all to see. Their "fiscal prudence" was late in its embrace and is condescending in its communication. It is a shoddy America these people seek; one that embraces the mediocre - because that way lies the most short term profit for a select few.
A fearful minority has somehow managed to make its voice the one most heard. Fox News blares and blathers about what America can't do. The religious yell about what you can't do, lest you offend them, not their God. The conservative populist screams about invisible damage to ideals they barely understand, and usually don't comprehend. Euphemism really has replaced understanding; the symbol has become more important than what that symbol stands for.
I love America. And I really don't like what these myopic, frightened, blatherskites are doing to it. America is an optimistic nation, not a people who are afraid of opening their curtains in case they spot a Muslim terrorist or a gay marriage. It often seems that the Tea Party, shrill bigots, and conservatives in general, are like the boy who kills his parents - and then pleads for sympathy because he's an orphan. These people seek to destroy some aspect of America, and thinking they have, point to it and accuse "liberals" of being the thugs who destroyed America. "Wag the Dog" is the playbook of these deceivers; cynicism their toolbox.
"Where have all the flowers gone?" They've been mowed under to make way for frightened, shrill bigots and the select few who benefit from their fear-mongering ways. They've been mowed under to make way for the fearful pastor and the parking lot of his church. They've been stomped by those who have decided to fear flowers. These people haven't figured out that America is those flowers.
We're being told it's progress.
Oh, it's also in support of the new definition of net-neutrality. If you wonder what that new definition is, you're clearly anti-American.
Increasingly, it seems that the powers that be, big business bosses, are ruining this nation in the name of avoiding responsibility and increasing their profits. Tea Partiers, the Republicans, conservatives, and a few Democrats, are not just aiding and abetting - they've bought the get-away car (with your money, I should add), and have installed themselves as the driver.
It brings to mind the old Pete Seeger song "Where have all the flowers gone?". Except the flowers aren't young men, but the America that existed before George W. Bush. You know: the one that was optimistic, forward looking, free in thought and suspicious of power grabs. An America that seems to be subjected to a thorough beating if it ever shows its face; the thugs are conservatives, Tea Partiers, idiot conspiracy theorists, religious bigots and a few people who should know better. This isn't the nation that put men on the moon - it's the one that feared such success, such grandness, such majesty.
This is, increasingly a land of euphemisms and avoidance of responsibility. When leaders tell us that America can't do something because the cost is too high, because it might raise taxes or do something for all, you can see their cynical manipulation, their poor regard for honesty. It's on display for all to see. Their "fiscal prudence" was late in its embrace and is condescending in its communication. It is a shoddy America these people seek; one that embraces the mediocre - because that way lies the most short term profit for a select few.
A fearful minority has somehow managed to make its voice the one most heard. Fox News blares and blathers about what America can't do. The religious yell about what you can't do, lest you offend them, not their God. The conservative populist screams about invisible damage to ideals they barely understand, and usually don't comprehend. Euphemism really has replaced understanding; the symbol has become more important than what that symbol stands for.
I love America. And I really don't like what these myopic, frightened, blatherskites are doing to it. America is an optimistic nation, not a people who are afraid of opening their curtains in case they spot a Muslim terrorist or a gay marriage. It often seems that the Tea Party, shrill bigots, and conservatives in general, are like the boy who kills his parents - and then pleads for sympathy because he's an orphan. These people seek to destroy some aspect of America, and thinking they have, point to it and accuse "liberals" of being the thugs who destroyed America. "Wag the Dog" is the playbook of these deceivers; cynicism their toolbox.
"Where have all the flowers gone?" They've been mowed under to make way for frightened, shrill bigots and the select few who benefit from their fear-mongering ways. They've been mowed under to make way for the fearful pastor and the parking lot of his church. They've been stomped by those who have decided to fear flowers. These people haven't figured out that America is those flowers.
Fortunately, there are many who go out and plant more flowers.
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
I'm allergic to that
Last night I stayed up, with a few bottles of Santa Fe Pale Ale, to watch Arnold in "Eraser". A stupid movie that hasn't aged well. (What's that old saying? "I've seen all the bad movies, and the good ones don't interest me"? :-) ) After that I watched a bit of that celebration of (almost) mindless macho men "Predator". If you're on estrogen tablets, I don't think it would be a good idea to watch that movie; the testosterone oozes from the screen in a raw form. (Did that other celebration of machismo, The Expendables, get released on DVD, yet?)
Anyway, by the time I went to bed, it was nigh on 2:30AM. And then Oscar decided to pick a fight with LC (Elsie); after he got told to stop that he decided to practice his opera singing. That was about 3:15-ish. To be fair, his night had just been disturbed by me going to bed so late. Early. Whatever.
Two decades ago - personally, I think it's astonishing that I even have so many years a couple of decades doesn't translate to being a spry youngster! - I was having trouble doing what I just did. A few years prior to that, I could go to a nightclub until 2AM (that's when they closed; dinosaurs also roamed the streets; these days, those critters restrict themselves to Fox News...), get up at 6:30-ish, run (that's what I'll call it; your description might be different, and probably involves the word "stagger"...) for the train and almost get to work on time. A good breakfast of thoroughly bad-for-me food set up me for the day, and for a repeat performance that night. Two decades later, I pay the price when I stay up too many hours. No longer can I burn the candle at both ends; if it try, the candle does me over. It's a bit humiliating to know an inanimate object, made of wax no less, can do so much to you. ;-) (Accept responsibility? Why should I do that? Accepting responsibility for your own decisions is so yesterday, didn't you know, darling? :-) )
I am, as you might surmise, allergic to getting older.
I wonder if there's a magic pill for that? :-)
Carolyn Ann
Anyway, by the time I went to bed, it was nigh on 2:30AM. And then Oscar decided to pick a fight with LC (Elsie); after he got told to stop that he decided to practice his opera singing. That was about 3:15-ish. To be fair, his night had just been disturbed by me going to bed so late. Early. Whatever.
Two decades ago - personally, I think it's astonishing that I even have so many years a couple of decades doesn't translate to being a spry youngster! - I was having trouble doing what I just did. A few years prior to that, I could go to a nightclub until 2AM (that's when they closed; dinosaurs also roamed the streets; these days, those critters restrict themselves to Fox News...), get up at 6:30-ish, run (that's what I'll call it; your description might be different, and probably involves the word "stagger"...) for the train and almost get to work on time. A good breakfast of thoroughly bad-for-me food set up me for the day, and for a repeat performance that night. Two decades later, I pay the price when I stay up too many hours. No longer can I burn the candle at both ends; if it try, the candle does me over. It's a bit humiliating to know an inanimate object, made of wax no less, can do so much to you. ;-) (Accept responsibility? Why should I do that? Accepting responsibility for your own decisions is so yesterday, didn't you know, darling? :-) )
I am, as you might surmise, allergic to getting older.
I wonder if there's a magic pill for that? :-)
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, March 13, 2011
What bolt? Oh, that one?
Today I decided to address a rather important problem: the truck brakes.
They worked, but there were a few too many "ulp!" moments. So... The brakes need redoing. I've done them once before; fitting new pads on a Brooklyn street can be counted as one of the highlights of owning a Chevy truck. (I loved when the manual said a particular bolt needed something like a zillion foot-pounds of torque. I figured that if simply did pull-ups on the torque wrench, I'd get to the required tension. It worked! :-) )
I changed the brake fluid. That did nothing.
This afternoon, I dismantled the brake system. And put it back together.
So if you see a Chevy truck careening to a sudden end, it's likely it's me and I forgot to do up a bolt. Or I didn't do enough pull ups on some particular bolt. :-)
Sorry. :-)
Carolyn Ann
They worked, but there were a few too many "ulp!" moments. So... The brakes need redoing. I've done them once before; fitting new pads on a Brooklyn street can be counted as one of the highlights of owning a Chevy truck. (I loved when the manual said a particular bolt needed something like a zillion foot-pounds of torque. I figured that if simply did pull-ups on the torque wrench, I'd get to the required tension. It worked! :-) )
I changed the brake fluid. That did nothing.
This afternoon, I dismantled the brake system. And put it back together.
So if you see a Chevy truck careening to a sudden end, it's likely it's me and I forgot to do up a bolt. Or I didn't do enough pull ups on some particular bolt. :-)
Sorry. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Internecine idiocy aka "I am, you are not!"
When two reasonably cultured but generally stupid guys decide to indulge in some infantile combat, it's usually termed "mano-a-mano"; which, despite sounding like an Italian gay movie, means "man on man". Not knowing any Italian, I have to rely upon what someone told me, years ago, as I stood outside a fancy menswear store in Soho, NYC. The clothes were almost enough to make go straight... ;-)
Anyway, when a competition is man upon man, or woman upon woman, few care. But there's another sort of inter-group competition that is destructive: the one that's fueled by bigotry and prejudice. It involves members of the community, disparaging other members of the same community. The traducement of a few members of a community might not seem much; indeed, entire swathes of humanity are denigrated on a daily basis. But it is a Big Deal.
Within the transgender and transsexual community there has been a small, somewhat irritating, never-ending skirmish happening. One half-wit, Jamie, sees fit to announce that unless you fit into the "feminine" in all ways, you are worthy of denigration. To satisfy Jamie, you have to not only look like Sophia Loren, you have to the class of Meryl Streep and the ability to celebrate the coarseness of a World Wrestling "competition" (and the sexual enthusiasm of a hooker). Anne, on the other hand rails against those who decide that they don't want to undergo the whole surgery thing. As if they weren't genuine, or something. It's bigotry, pure and simple, to assume that you know how to define others. There are a few others, but I'm not inclined to go hunting for examples of anti-transgender bigotry within the overall community.
I've been accused, often as it happens (?!), of being somewhat bigoted. There's no getting around the accusations; I should answer them. I am very much "live and let live"; I'm also a bit of a cynic. I also pursue a truth; you might not like that truth, you might not agree it's pursuing, but I see it as worth the effort. I think it is important to think about the implications of leaving your wife at 50+ to become a woman; I think it is vitally important that the transgender and transsexual communities look at the differences between transfeminism and feminism. I disagree about the definition of what a "woman" is; I prefer to think in terms of who a woman is. I think there are substantial concerns and implications in redefining, or what I see as the redefining, of the gender and noun "woman". And so on. Some people have taken those concerns personally. So be it.
Most of the transsexual bigotry, and it is that, comes with the definition of 'woman'. "I am a woman, and you aren't", "I did the whole operation, therefore I am superior to you", and so on. While I've only been a member of this community for a short time, perhaps 30 years or slightly more, one thing I've noticed is the "superiority" of certain individuals. They know better, they are better, because they have gone through the whole surgery thing and you haven't. The underlying, and oft-stated, point is that if you've not had surgery, you're a mere crossdresser. A tranny, fer god's sake. And we know how reviled trannies are, don't we?
It's all a load of bull.
To get to transsexual you have, by necessity, be transgendered. There's no two ways about it: if you're a transsexual woman or man, you spent some time as a biological male or female. You had to make a decision: to continue, or change. A decision to change to change your gender, your physical sex, is not a license to be condescending to those who decide otherwise, decide not to decide, or simply don't know at that point in their life.
The worst are those who think that their life should be a guide to others. As I pointed out to Jamie, it's a bit like bitching about the person who is allergic to peanut because they won't enjoy a peanut butter sandwich with you.
Years ago I worked with a chap who was lactose intolerant. It seemed that all he had to do was get a whiff of milk and that was him gone. One evening, a group of us went to for dinner and a movie. The chef came out and apologized - apparently the food preparers hadn't kept milk products away from his dish. He was out for days. The way some transsexuals, and transgendered individuals such as Jamie, think, we would be perfectly in the right to make fun of that chap. Indeed, it would be our crude duty to do so.
More personally, I am one of the few Englishmen who has traversed America on a motorcycle. Within the small number of motorcyclists in America (comparatively speaking), a few make long distance trips. A smaller number go camping with a motorcycle. An even smaller number take off on a trip that has no discernible end. I am within that number. There are fewer still for whom this is a way of life; I'm not quite that bad. (..?!) Does my experience allow me, provide me, the right to denigrate those who ride their Harley's on a Sunday, or grab a few mile in the evening? Because that's the only time they have, and their priorities are different to mine? Does the fact that I have a Ducati, an exclusive motorcycle - so few are produced their production runs couldn't even be contemplated by the big firms, including Harley-Davidson! - allow me to lord it over motorcyclists who ride Honda's or Yamaha's? I'd have a permanently bloodied nose if I thought either of those things.
What I do on a bike is my business. I like to grab my tent and sleeping bag and go wandering. Others like to get on their sportsbike and ride a few miles. I like milk; my old coworker was physically allergic to the stuff. People are different. Our lives are different. Our experiences are different, our comfort level with life-changing decisions are different. I don't look down on people who refuse to climb down a hole in the ground; I love spelunking, and they prefer their knowledge of their surroundings. Am I superior? No. I have a different level of comfort with my surroundings; I'm okay with not knowing if I'm about to step into the unknown. Other people don't want to do that. It's their prerogative, and it's their life, so it really is their decision. Can I fault them for that? Not at all.
Transposing this into the transgender and transsexual communities, it's as if some within the community think that because they have accomplished something, they have the right to pass judgment upon the rest of the community. When you read their blog posts and comments, its almost as if you can hear their witches cackle: I am and you are not!
And that about sums up the entire debate. Sad, sorry and, ultimately, quite pathetic. The transgender and transsexual communities do not gain the rights they are due by being divisive and condescending. They can get those rights by being united and tolerant.
Carolyn Ann
Anyway, when a competition is man upon man, or woman upon woman, few care. But there's another sort of inter-group competition that is destructive: the one that's fueled by bigotry and prejudice. It involves members of the community, disparaging other members of the same community. The traducement of a few members of a community might not seem much; indeed, entire swathes of humanity are denigrated on a daily basis. But it is a Big Deal.
Within the transgender and transsexual community there has been a small, somewhat irritating, never-ending skirmish happening. One half-wit, Jamie, sees fit to announce that unless you fit into the "feminine" in all ways, you are worthy of denigration. To satisfy Jamie, you have to not only look like Sophia Loren, you have to the class of Meryl Streep and the ability to celebrate the coarseness of a World Wrestling "competition" (and the sexual enthusiasm of a hooker). Anne, on the other hand rails against those who decide that they don't want to undergo the whole surgery thing. As if they weren't genuine, or something. It's bigotry, pure and simple, to assume that you know how to define others. There are a few others, but I'm not inclined to go hunting for examples of anti-transgender bigotry within the overall community.
I've been accused, often as it happens (?!), of being somewhat bigoted. There's no getting around the accusations; I should answer them. I am very much "live and let live"; I'm also a bit of a cynic. I also pursue a truth; you might not like that truth, you might not agree it's pursuing, but I see it as worth the effort. I think it is important to think about the implications of leaving your wife at 50+ to become a woman; I think it is vitally important that the transgender and transsexual communities look at the differences between transfeminism and feminism. I disagree about the definition of what a "woman" is; I prefer to think in terms of who a woman is. I think there are substantial concerns and implications in redefining, or what I see as the redefining, of the gender and noun "woman". And so on. Some people have taken those concerns personally. So be it.
Most of the transsexual bigotry, and it is that, comes with the definition of 'woman'. "I am a woman, and you aren't", "I did the whole operation, therefore I am superior to you", and so on. While I've only been a member of this community for a short time, perhaps 30 years or slightly more, one thing I've noticed is the "superiority" of certain individuals. They know better, they are better, because they have gone through the whole surgery thing and you haven't. The underlying, and oft-stated, point is that if you've not had surgery, you're a mere crossdresser. A tranny, fer god's sake. And we know how reviled trannies are, don't we?
It's all a load of bull.
To get to transsexual you have, by necessity, be transgendered. There's no two ways about it: if you're a transsexual woman or man, you spent some time as a biological male or female. You had to make a decision: to continue, or change. A decision to change to change your gender, your physical sex, is not a license to be condescending to those who decide otherwise, decide not to decide, or simply don't know at that point in their life.
The worst are those who think that their life should be a guide to others. As I pointed out to Jamie, it's a bit like bitching about the person who is allergic to peanut because they won't enjoy a peanut butter sandwich with you.
Years ago I worked with a chap who was lactose intolerant. It seemed that all he had to do was get a whiff of milk and that was him gone. One evening, a group of us went to for dinner and a movie. The chef came out and apologized - apparently the food preparers hadn't kept milk products away from his dish. He was out for days. The way some transsexuals, and transgendered individuals such as Jamie, think, we would be perfectly in the right to make fun of that chap. Indeed, it would be our crude duty to do so.
More personally, I am one of the few Englishmen who has traversed America on a motorcycle. Within the small number of motorcyclists in America (comparatively speaking), a few make long distance trips. A smaller number go camping with a motorcycle. An even smaller number take off on a trip that has no discernible end. I am within that number. There are fewer still for whom this is a way of life; I'm not quite that bad. (..?!) Does my experience allow me, provide me, the right to denigrate those who ride their Harley's on a Sunday, or grab a few mile in the evening? Because that's the only time they have, and their priorities are different to mine? Does the fact that I have a Ducati, an exclusive motorcycle - so few are produced their production runs couldn't even be contemplated by the big firms, including Harley-Davidson! - allow me to lord it over motorcyclists who ride Honda's or Yamaha's? I'd have a permanently bloodied nose if I thought either of those things.
What I do on a bike is my business. I like to grab my tent and sleeping bag and go wandering. Others like to get on their sportsbike and ride a few miles. I like milk; my old coworker was physically allergic to the stuff. People are different. Our lives are different. Our experiences are different, our comfort level with life-changing decisions are different. I don't look down on people who refuse to climb down a hole in the ground; I love spelunking, and they prefer their knowledge of their surroundings. Am I superior? No. I have a different level of comfort with my surroundings; I'm okay with not knowing if I'm about to step into the unknown. Other people don't want to do that. It's their prerogative, and it's their life, so it really is their decision. Can I fault them for that? Not at all.
Transposing this into the transgender and transsexual communities, it's as if some within the community think that because they have accomplished something, they have the right to pass judgment upon the rest of the community. When you read their blog posts and comments, its almost as if you can hear their witches cackle: I am and you are not!
And that about sums up the entire debate. Sad, sorry and, ultimately, quite pathetic. The transgender and transsexual communities do not gain the rights they are due by being divisive and condescending. They can get those rights by being united and tolerant.
Carolyn Ann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)