So Bernie Ecclestone, the owner of Formula One, and the man who is so on top of what people want to watch, and how, he's not even looking at high definition for the series, has given his verdict. Rupert Murdoch, in conjunction with Carlos Slim, won't be able to buy Formula One because its audience wants to see it on free TV. He also said it wasn't for sale.
I think that's that, then.
Now we just have to wonder when Messrs Murdoch and Slim will actually pony up the cash for the series. They might have to haggle over the price a bit. That could take all of a few minutes.
Frankly, while I'm not a fan of Rupert Murdoch, we have the satellite plan we do so I can watch the Speed Channel. Mr Murdoch might have some issues with "honest journalism", but he knows when a good idea is being under-exploited. I don't see the whole "free TV" thing being anything but a bump in the road to his buying Formula One.
Oh, there's another reason, too. TO not put too fine a point on it, Mr Ecclestone is getting old. He started in chariots for the Romans! His bankers are probably salivating at the thought of all that commission money they could make by selling Formula One to someone "younger".
I think we can conclude that Formula One's declining audience is well and truly understood by Bernie. It wants the opposite of what he thinks.
Carolyn Ann
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Oh, that's sodding marvelous...
I'm developing a website, in Drupal, for someone and needed to test it. In the middle of all that, OS X lost any idea that I was logged in as an admin to the site. "Not a problem..." thought I.
Except it seems I mistyped the damn password. Or something. Jeez. Now I get to start all over again. sodding marvelous.
Oh well. At least I wasn't near completion!
Except it seems I mistyped the damn password. Or something. Jeez. Now I get to start all over again. sodding marvelous.
Oh well. At least I wasn't near completion!
Added: Not to worry. (I know you weren't... :-) ) I figured out the misspelling. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Fetlife folks...
Hey, you folks at Fetlife: I'd really like to know what you're discussing. :-)
Not for any particular reason, but you keep appearing in the statistics, and I've love to know you're saying. Perhaps you could see fit to allow the originator of the discussion a chance to respond to whatever it is you're saying? No? Oh well.
For everyone else: it seems that my post about transgender pornography being the absolute objectification of women has received a lot of attention from the members of a fetish-oriented forum. (Another post, the one about the idiotic claim that the penis is a vagina if its owner says it is (yeah, well, I don't make this stuff up - really, I don't!) has started popping up on the stats, and the links are coming from Fetlife.) t
Join? Not a chance. I'm really not into fetishism, and I really don't need to be a part of any overall discussion about it, either.
One thing I've noticed: no one has bothered to leave a comment on the blog about either post. I think I'll place a quick note on both posts. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Not for any particular reason, but you keep appearing in the statistics, and I've love to know you're saying. Perhaps you could see fit to allow the originator of the discussion a chance to respond to whatever it is you're saying? No? Oh well.
For everyone else: it seems that my post about transgender pornography being the absolute objectification of women has received a lot of attention from the members of a fetish-oriented forum. (Another post, the one about the idiotic claim that the penis is a vagina if its owner says it is (yeah, well, I don't make this stuff up - really, I don't!) has started popping up on the stats, and the links are coming from Fetlife.) t
Join? Not a chance. I'm really not into fetishism, and I really don't need to be a part of any overall discussion about it, either.
One thing I've noticed: no one has bothered to leave a comment on the blog about either post. I think I'll place a quick note on both posts. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Note to self...
Don't squash a bug on the computer screen. It leaves a nasty smear, that, depending on the type of bug, can be rather difficult to remove.
Oh well. I should have asked the bug for its birth certificate. To prove it was an American bug, or something.
Carolyn Ann
Oh well. I should have asked the bug for its birth certificate. To prove it was an American bug, or something.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
OMG! Obama *is* American!
So it turns out that Mr Obama actually is American! Can you imagine? I mean, I know he's President and all, but The Donald made a point of telling us he wasn't, and he was also a terrible student! My goodness!
There are idiots and then there are "Birthers".
Here's guessing they won't be satisfied.
There are idiots and then there are "Birthers".
Here's guessing they won't be satisfied.
Wow! Letter of the month! :-D
Remember that ticked off email I sent to .net magazine? (No? Oh... :-( ... :-) ) They published it as their Letter of the Month! :-D
Wow!
The Mrs and I were sitting in Borders bookstore, having an iced tea and escaping a power outage in this horrible weather. I opened up the latest .net magazine (it's a predominantly pink cover, this month) and thought "that's familiar"; I'd read the quote (there's a name for it, but I forget what it is): "Only the antique insist on 'Miss' or 'Mrs'!" And then I read the name at the top of the letter! I almost fainted! :-) (Seriously, I almost did!) I showed it to the Mrs. :-)
Wow!
And the NY Times changed their front page code to respond as I asked them to! So now it works as it should.
Good grief. I think I need to go lie down. It's bedtime. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Wow!
The Mrs and I were sitting in Borders bookstore, having an iced tea and escaping a power outage in this horrible weather. I opened up the latest .net magazine (it's a predominantly pink cover, this month) and thought "that's familiar"; I'd read the quote (there's a name for it, but I forget what it is): "Only the antique insist on 'Miss' or 'Mrs'!" And then I read the name at the top of the letter! I almost fainted! :-) (Seriously, I almost did!) I showed it to the Mrs. :-)
Wow!
And the NY Times changed their front page code to respond as I asked them to! So now it works as it should.
Good grief. I think I need to go lie down. It's bedtime. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Turn it down a notch!
We're baking, here! It's almost 90°F. In April.
This is ridiculous. I'm roasting here! (No central air, and I've not put the A/C in the window.)
Carolyn ann
This is ridiculous. I'm roasting here! (No central air, and I've not put the A/C in the window.)
Carolyn ann
Monday, April 25, 2011
Diet 2.0 update
Being successful in a diet requires, really, one thing. It's really crucial, this thing. Without it, no diet will ever work and no dieter will ever succeed. That thing is "participation". You have to participate in your own diet. :-)
That's not something I've been doing. :-(
Due to various factors, some within my control and some not (yeah, well), I haven't been as diligent as I should have been. As a result, I weigh the same as when I started this little adventure.
Damn it!
Carolyn Ann
That's not something I've been doing. :-(
Due to various factors, some within my control and some not (yeah, well), I haven't been as diligent as I should have been. As a result, I weigh the same as when I started this little adventure.
Damn it!
Carolyn Ann
Well, duh...
US "government officials" are reported to have said that the publication, by the Guardian and the NY Times, of the Kafka-esque Guantanamo Bay prison "unfortunate". Well, yeah. I guess it is unfortunate that this prison, contrived in illegality, fear, and is the result of a cynical and concerted effort to deny prisoners any rights whatsoever, has had its secrets revealed. Heck, between them, the Obama and Bush administrations have done their level best to prevent any information emerging from Gitmo.
Fortunately, the Pentagon seems to be taking a realist approach to it all: "Naturally we would prefer that no legitimately classified information be released into the public domain, as by definition it can be expected to cause damage to US national security. The situation with the Guantánamo detention facility is exceptionally complex and releasing any records will further complicate ongoing actions."
The Times and Guardian reporters covering the Pentagon have probably been assigned new offices. On Mars. (If Dick Cheney were still in charge, their new offices would, undoubtedly, be in a Gitmo cell block. I guess we should be thankful for small mercies?)
The leaks reveal torture was commonplace. No wonder Dick wanted to ensure his office was extra-Constitutional. If the torture could be traced back to him, he'd need all the legal protection he could get. You know: the very things the Bush Administration (and the Obama Administration) seek to deny those held at Gitmo. I actually have little doubt he's the man behind the torture; he might not have poured the water onto the prisoners, but I consider him the man who created the conditions for the US to even entertain the idea of torturing its prisoners, never mind actually doing so! The net result has been tainted evidence; as I understand it, the US is holding people it could easily try and jail - but they can't because Congress and Mayor Bloomberg, among others, are cowardly weasels when it comes to Gitmo prisoners and the evidence against the person was obtained by torture. You can't, in America, use evidence obtained coercively. That, by definition, includes torture.
Anyway, Gitmo remains a national embarrassment. Its very existence lowers the moral standing of the US. (How do you argue that China, or Syria, needs to respect human rights when you have a prison like Gitmo?) It's an inhuman construction, intended to circumvent the protections the Constitution provides to all on US soil, and it houses people who simply can't be released. But thanks to the enthusiastic discarding of the Constitution and the very principles the US stands for, by the Bush Administration, they can't be sent to trial, either. The only people who love the place are right wing politicians and demagogues. Precisely because it is supposed to be extra-Constitutional. Mai Lai, anyone?
Gitmo is a problem with no solution; if, and it's a big if - in neon letters, if [...] you will - the Bush Administration hadn't set out to try and ensure it was extra-Constitutional, it wouldn't be a problem. It would be an example. But those frightened neocons decided they needed a place where the Constitution didn't apply, where it wouldn't apply. (I'm not sure how they got past "it's a place outside of the Constitution, but it is created and controlled by a branch created in the Constitution". Which bit of "the Constitution applies" did they not understand?) They sought interrogation techniques that were, frankly, more effective and only slightly less barbaric than those used by villains throughout the ages. They did all this without any thought to the consequences and repercussions. All of this has made Gitmo the problem that will never go away.
There's a demonstrated need for a high-security facility that is neither civilian nor military. There's an undeniable need to interrogate and question prisoners of war. There's no demand for torture. Because of decisions taken early in the "War on Terror", we now have entered a moral twilight where the US is holding people who cannot be released because of the propensity to kill innocents, but can't be properly tried. And they need to be housed in a facility that is, almost by definition, supra-Constitutional. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but it is a protection against the draconian fear of the Executive Branch.
So when the Pentagon says "The situation with the Guantánamo detention facility is exceptionally complex...", they're only stating a fact. Gitmo really is a problem with no solution - but it's that way because some frightened but powerful people wanted to prove how powerful they really were. Thanks to fearful leaders, America is left with the complexity of Gitmo.
Carolyn Ann
Fortunately, the Pentagon seems to be taking a realist approach to it all: "Naturally we would prefer that no legitimately classified information be released into the public domain, as by definition it can be expected to cause damage to US national security. The situation with the Guantánamo detention facility is exceptionally complex and releasing any records will further complicate ongoing actions."
The Times and Guardian reporters covering the Pentagon have probably been assigned new offices. On Mars. (If Dick Cheney were still in charge, their new offices would, undoubtedly, be in a Gitmo cell block. I guess we should be thankful for small mercies?)
The leaks reveal torture was commonplace. No wonder Dick wanted to ensure his office was extra-Constitutional. If the torture could be traced back to him, he'd need all the legal protection he could get. You know: the very things the Bush Administration (and the Obama Administration) seek to deny those held at Gitmo. I actually have little doubt he's the man behind the torture; he might not have poured the water onto the prisoners, but I consider him the man who created the conditions for the US to even entertain the idea of torturing its prisoners, never mind actually doing so! The net result has been tainted evidence; as I understand it, the US is holding people it could easily try and jail - but they can't because Congress and Mayor Bloomberg, among others, are cowardly weasels when it comes to Gitmo prisoners and the evidence against the person was obtained by torture. You can't, in America, use evidence obtained coercively. That, by definition, includes torture.
Anyway, Gitmo remains a national embarrassment. Its very existence lowers the moral standing of the US. (How do you argue that China, or Syria, needs to respect human rights when you have a prison like Gitmo?) It's an inhuman construction, intended to circumvent the protections the Constitution provides to all on US soil, and it houses people who simply can't be released. But thanks to the enthusiastic discarding of the Constitution and the very principles the US stands for, by the Bush Administration, they can't be sent to trial, either. The only people who love the place are right wing politicians and demagogues. Precisely because it is supposed to be extra-Constitutional. Mai Lai, anyone?
Gitmo is a problem with no solution; if, and it's a big if - in neon letters, if [...] you will - the Bush Administration hadn't set out to try and ensure it was extra-Constitutional, it wouldn't be a problem. It would be an example. But those frightened neocons decided they needed a place where the Constitution didn't apply, where it wouldn't apply. (I'm not sure how they got past "it's a place outside of the Constitution, but it is created and controlled by a branch created in the Constitution". Which bit of "the Constitution applies" did they not understand?) They sought interrogation techniques that were, frankly, more effective and only slightly less barbaric than those used by villains throughout the ages. They did all this without any thought to the consequences and repercussions. All of this has made Gitmo the problem that will never go away.
There's a demonstrated need for a high-security facility that is neither civilian nor military. There's an undeniable need to interrogate and question prisoners of war. There's no demand for torture. Because of decisions taken early in the "War on Terror", we now have entered a moral twilight where the US is holding people who cannot be released because of the propensity to kill innocents, but can't be properly tried. And they need to be housed in a facility that is, almost by definition, supra-Constitutional. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but it is a protection against the draconian fear of the Executive Branch.
So when the Pentagon says "The situation with the Guantánamo detention facility is exceptionally complex...", they're only stating a fact. Gitmo really is a problem with no solution - but it's that way because some frightened but powerful people wanted to prove how powerful they really were. Thanks to fearful leaders, America is left with the complexity of Gitmo.
Carolyn Ann
Weasel words...
I keep reading atheist blogs (oh no!), and I keep coming across the same definition of "my atheism". It always goes like this:
Personally, I blame Christopher Hitchens. In "God is not Great" (I think), he asserted something along the same lines. He had a scale; 1 was "absolute belief in a god or gods" to 7, "an absolute belief there are no gods". He claimed to be a 6. Which is the same as my little quote. (By the way, that didn't come from any blog; I'm paraphrasing.) I think I once wrote about this 1 to 7 scale; if memory serves, I said I was about a 10 or 11 on it.
It's transforming atheism from a lack of belief into a belief system; the only question is which belief do you have, today?
I don't reject all gods. I discard the very idea of a deity; no deity, no rejection. How do you reject that which does not exist? If someone tried to prove a god exists, they have to get past not just my skepticism, but my rephrasing of their idiotic proposal. In other words, it's a mistake to consider that I don't "believe" there are no gods. How can I believe something doesn't exist when it doesn't exist? Unicorns don't exist; I don't have a belief they don't, I simply know it as a fact. Gods don't exist; I don't have a belief they don't - I simply know they don't. (Don't ask me to prove the negative, either. That's a favored tactic of the more easily offended.)
"God exists because the Bible says so!" becomes "You think in circles. The Bible exists because God exists, and God exists because the Bible exists. That's just not sensible. Circular arguments have one hole in them: it's in the middle and it's usually very large. "God gives us meaning!" (or, in Ross Douthat's mind, hell gives us meaning. Either way, it's stupid.) If you need a deity to provide meaning to your life, go with it. Don't make it about me, though: I get meaning for my life from my own actions, deeds and decisions. I don't need a supernatural critter to make me feel my life is meaningful. And so on.
When we weasel out of a total commitment, we're not proving how open-minded we are. We're simply proving that we're flexible in our commitments. You might as well say "I don't believe there's a god, but if you prove to me there is, I'll get on my knees like every other sap." You're simply proving the common Christian belief that atheists don't "not" believe in god, they just need to be shown the damn critter exists. How do you prove such a beast exists? If you're simple, you use circular logic. If you're stupid, you use happenstance. If you're an idiot, you try to prove it using the atheist's words.
(Just in case you've not figured it out, I despise religion.)
Let's say I keel over, kick the mortal coil and so on. And I look up and see the Pearly Gates. Does that prove God exists? No. It proves that our definition of life is a little wanting. The gates open, and out pops a bearded chap. He tells me he's god. Now, he could go on to prove this by performing some astonishing magic tricks - but that's all they are. Because I probably (!) wouldn't understand how this bearded chap did what he did, I now get to say "It's true, he's God"? Hardly. Because if there's one god, there's no reason there can't be more like him. And if he's really a god - he wouldn't need to prove it. But this mythical critter has to prove it. How about 72 virgins? That proves nothing but that god is a patriarchal sod who loves a good time. Which places me in an awkward position - not least because I don't know if the virgins are lesbians... What gender would I be in that heaven? Would it matter? (If it didn't, why is it so important down here on planet Earth?) (Etc. Those are arguments about the nature of heaven and such; they're unimportant. Who cares what shape the pin is if the pin doesn't exist?)
The thing about all of this is that entropy always happens. Nothing is eternal. God doesn't exist, and I can't reject that which doesn't exist. No amount of proof is needed to prove that god is god; as Arthur C. Clarke said: "To the primitive mind, any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic" All things considered, any soul arriving in heaven would be, almost by definition, be a primitive mind. That doesn't make the magician a god. All it does is prove how ignorant we are.
And believe me, there's nothing like proving your ignorance by giving yourself an out on such an important topic.
Carolyn Ann
PS If I have readers left: Hi! :-)
I'm an atheist. I reject all gods. However, if a deity proved its existence to me, I'd rethink my position.What a load of tripe.
Personally, I blame Christopher Hitchens. In "God is not Great" (I think), he asserted something along the same lines. He had a scale; 1 was "absolute belief in a god or gods" to 7, "an absolute belief there are no gods". He claimed to be a 6. Which is the same as my little quote. (By the way, that didn't come from any blog; I'm paraphrasing.) I think I once wrote about this 1 to 7 scale; if memory serves, I said I was about a 10 or 11 on it.
It's transforming atheism from a lack of belief into a belief system; the only question is which belief do you have, today?
I don't reject all gods. I discard the very idea of a deity; no deity, no rejection. How do you reject that which does not exist? If someone tried to prove a god exists, they have to get past not just my skepticism, but my rephrasing of their idiotic proposal. In other words, it's a mistake to consider that I don't "believe" there are no gods. How can I believe something doesn't exist when it doesn't exist? Unicorns don't exist; I don't have a belief they don't, I simply know it as a fact. Gods don't exist; I don't have a belief they don't - I simply know they don't. (Don't ask me to prove the negative, either. That's a favored tactic of the more easily offended.)
"God exists because the Bible says so!" becomes "You think in circles. The Bible exists because God exists, and God exists because the Bible exists. That's just not sensible. Circular arguments have one hole in them: it's in the middle and it's usually very large. "God gives us meaning!" (or, in Ross Douthat's mind, hell gives us meaning. Either way, it's stupid.) If you need a deity to provide meaning to your life, go with it. Don't make it about me, though: I get meaning for my life from my own actions, deeds and decisions. I don't need a supernatural critter to make me feel my life is meaningful. And so on.
When we weasel out of a total commitment, we're not proving how open-minded we are. We're simply proving that we're flexible in our commitments. You might as well say "I don't believe there's a god, but if you prove to me there is, I'll get on my knees like every other sap." You're simply proving the common Christian belief that atheists don't "not" believe in god, they just need to be shown the damn critter exists. How do you prove such a beast exists? If you're simple, you use circular logic. If you're stupid, you use happenstance. If you're an idiot, you try to prove it using the atheist's words.
(Just in case you've not figured it out, I despise religion.)
Let's say I keel over, kick the mortal coil and so on. And I look up and see the Pearly Gates. Does that prove God exists? No. It proves that our definition of life is a little wanting. The gates open, and out pops a bearded chap. He tells me he's god. Now, he could go on to prove this by performing some astonishing magic tricks - but that's all they are. Because I probably (!) wouldn't understand how this bearded chap did what he did, I now get to say "It's true, he's God"? Hardly. Because if there's one god, there's no reason there can't be more like him. And if he's really a god - he wouldn't need to prove it. But this mythical critter has to prove it. How about 72 virgins? That proves nothing but that god is a patriarchal sod who loves a good time. Which places me in an awkward position - not least because I don't know if the virgins are lesbians... What gender would I be in that heaven? Would it matter? (If it didn't, why is it so important down here on planet Earth?) (Etc. Those are arguments about the nature of heaven and such; they're unimportant. Who cares what shape the pin is if the pin doesn't exist?)
The thing about all of this is that entropy always happens. Nothing is eternal. God doesn't exist, and I can't reject that which doesn't exist. No amount of proof is needed to prove that god is god; as Arthur C. Clarke said: "To the primitive mind, any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic" All things considered, any soul arriving in heaven would be, almost by definition, be a primitive mind. That doesn't make the magician a god. All it does is prove how ignorant we are.
And believe me, there's nothing like proving your ignorance by giving yourself an out on such an important topic.
Carolyn Ann
PS If I have readers left: Hi! :-)
A bit of a nasty night out there...
A quote or two from the weather service:
Oh joy. Cloud to ground lightning. (It's actually the other way around, but if you're struck by it, you're not going to be favorably inclined toward the pedant.) My favorite type of lightning - when I'm not riding a motorcycle! In it...
I've ridden in that type of thunderstorm more than once - let me tell you: it's scary! In a car, you have a car body around you. It protects you. On a motorcycle, you're basically a rolling lightning rod. And you really do not want to take shelter under trees! I've seen what lightning can do to trees. (It's something you see a lot, around here!) The worst place for that sort of thing is, I think, the plains from Oklahoma into the Texas panhandle. Although South Dakota gets some serious storms, too. I've experienced one or two out that way. Still there's something about camping - in a good tent - in a storm. The rain beating down, me reading a good book or writing in my diary. The problem comes when I want a cup of tea...
Anyway, it's as muggy as mid-summer, with temperatures to match. And it's only April. I can't help but think this summer is going to be a yo-yo: cooler than average temperatures followed by periods of hotter than average temperatures.
Oh joy...
Carolyn Ann
...THUNDERSTORMS WITH DANGEROUS CLOUD TO GROUND LIGHTNING WILL AFFECT PARTS OF [list of NJ and Delaware counties]
AT 1033 PM EDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED THUNDERSTORMS...SOME WITH FREQUENT AND DANGEROUS CLOUD TO GROUND LIGHTNING...SCATTERED ALONG A LINE EXTENDING FROM NEAR AND EAST OF TOMS RIVER TO ABOUT 60 MILES SOUTHWEST OF BALTIMORE...MOVING EAST AT 40 MPH. THE THUNDERSTORMS WILL CROSS SOUTHERN AND EASTERN NEW JERSEY...MUCH OF THE MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE AND MUCH OF DELAWARE THROUGH 130 AM EDT. SOME OF THE LIGHTNING FROM THESE STORMS WAS INTENSE. IF YOU ARE OUTDOORS...MOVE INDOORS IMMEDIATELY. DO NOT SEEK SHELTER UNDER TREES WHEN LIGHTNING THREATENS.
Oh joy. Cloud to ground lightning. (It's actually the other way around, but if you're struck by it, you're not going to be favorably inclined toward the pedant.) My favorite type of lightning - when I'm not riding a motorcycle! In it...
I've ridden in that type of thunderstorm more than once - let me tell you: it's scary! In a car, you have a car body around you. It protects you. On a motorcycle, you're basically a rolling lightning rod. And you really do not want to take shelter under trees! I've seen what lightning can do to trees. (It's something you see a lot, around here!) The worst place for that sort of thing is, I think, the plains from Oklahoma into the Texas panhandle. Although South Dakota gets some serious storms, too. I've experienced one or two out that way. Still there's something about camping - in a good tent - in a storm. The rain beating down, me reading a good book or writing in my diary. The problem comes when I want a cup of tea...
Anyway, it's as muggy as mid-summer, with temperatures to match. And it's only April. I can't help but think this summer is going to be a yo-yo: cooler than average temperatures followed by periods of hotter than average temperatures.
Oh joy...
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, April 24, 2011
"I'm not in the least bit surprised", he said...
I was going to call this "One for Helen", but I see she's already noticed Martin Amis, writing in the Guardian, about his friend Christopher Hitchens. :-)
Mr Hitchens has to be one of the most brilliant men of all time; his intelligence and ability to see through arguments is way beyond preternatural! His reasoning is quick, lithe and obvious - once he's taken the time to point it out. He could say he's not surprised not many of us do get his arguments; he's not one to produce cheap and cheerful argument just because it is cheap, or cheerful. (He will, however, eagerly use such if he thinks that will vanquish the point he's in the middle of gutting.)
Personally, I love reading his books. His use of the language is wonderful, his classical references spot on and his ability to dissect a point simply astonishing.
Anyway, one for Helen. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Mr Hitchens has to be one of the most brilliant men of all time; his intelligence and ability to see through arguments is way beyond preternatural! His reasoning is quick, lithe and obvious - once he's taken the time to point it out. He could say he's not surprised not many of us do get his arguments; he's not one to produce cheap and cheerful argument just because it is cheap, or cheerful. (He will, however, eagerly use such if he thinks that will vanquish the point he's in the middle of gutting.)
Personally, I love reading his books. His use of the language is wonderful, his classical references spot on and his ability to dissect a point simply astonishing.
Anyway, one for Helen. :-)
Carolyn Ann
That's awkward...
Apparently the Memphis Police Dept arrested one of their officers for a burglary. Mostly because his fingerprints were at a burglary. Turns out, he didn't do the deed; he was the first to a crime scene, and that's why his 'prints were there. Charges were dropped...
That's beyond awkward. Astonishingly stupid, too.
Carolyn Ann
That's beyond awkward. Astonishingly stupid, too.
Carolyn Ann
The video-taking kid got fired.
So the kid who took that awful video of Chrissy Lee Polis being beaten in a Baltimore McDonald's has, apparently, been fired. That's a decent first step.
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Defining a Christian pin
It seems that Evangelical Christianity has moved, ever so slightly, from debating the nature of your sins to debating the nature of heaven. In other words, instead of wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, they're arguing about the shape of the pin.
It seems that a popular evangelical minister has decided that the pin is a thumbtack. The usual nonsense is touted (to quote: “Gandhi’s in hell? He is?”), and the usual objections are brought to the fore (“Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18)"). Basically, most of humanity is condemned and the rest get to spend eternity telling God he's a wonderful chap. Sounds rather dreadful, really. What's missing from any of this is a dose of common sense.
I hate to break the news, folks (well, I don't, I rather relish it! :-) ) there ain't no heaven. No heaven, no hell, no purgatory, no nothing. Here's why: it's too complicated. You know how I like simple ideas? That complicated ones give me headaches? Well, when you think about heaven, you're not dealing with a complex idea. You're actually dealing with a plethora of often mutually incompatible and always very complex ideas!
The idea of "god", for instance. It's complex. A critter with no beginning and no end? Eternity? How does that work? Oh, that's right: you have to take it on faith that it does. Evidence isn't needed, because faith is all the evidence you need.
Poppycock.
I don't think I've ever come across a more ridiculous argument. It's a stupid argument, basically. Something is this way because a sacred text says it is? I can't prove God isn't eternal, because I can't prove God doesn't exist? You can't prove a negative, therefore it must true? At this point I could put forth the "scientific process" argument. But that's a different language to faith. Besides, some of the faithful try to throw that back at the more realistic. It's a stupid tactic, but since when has not having the slightest clue stopped people from arguing against something they're convinced is wrong? People love to prove science wrong; usually with a withering glance and a final conviction that's not thought through but is accepted, by them, at face value. Like I said, a different language.
The simplest argument I can think of is "if faith is your evidence, you don't have any evidence". But I don't think that's enough. It needs to be simpler. I'm sorely tempted to reduce it to "heaven needs a god", but even that's too complicated. A lot of faithful, at this point, will demand that I concede the point: I can't prove heaven doesn't exist, therefore it must. Which is a bit like saying I can't definitively prove unicorns don't exist, so they must! (No one has ever seen a unicorn or the bones of one, so there's strong evidence they don't exist.) Arguing that because you can't prove a negative you proved the opposite is basically irrational. Ultimately, I think the simplest argument is that heaven doesn't exist because it's too complicated.
As this current debate about the shape, size and population of the Christian pin shows rather too well.
Carolyn Ann
It seems that a popular evangelical minister has decided that the pin is a thumbtack. The usual nonsense is touted (to quote: “Gandhi’s in hell? He is?”), and the usual objections are brought to the fore (“Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18)"). Basically, most of humanity is condemned and the rest get to spend eternity telling God he's a wonderful chap. Sounds rather dreadful, really. What's missing from any of this is a dose of common sense.
I hate to break the news, folks (well, I don't, I rather relish it! :-) ) there ain't no heaven. No heaven, no hell, no purgatory, no nothing. Here's why: it's too complicated. You know how I like simple ideas? That complicated ones give me headaches? Well, when you think about heaven, you're not dealing with a complex idea. You're actually dealing with a plethora of often mutually incompatible and always very complex ideas!
The idea of "god", for instance. It's complex. A critter with no beginning and no end? Eternity? How does that work? Oh, that's right: you have to take it on faith that it does. Evidence isn't needed, because faith is all the evidence you need.
Poppycock.
I don't think I've ever come across a more ridiculous argument. It's a stupid argument, basically. Something is this way because a sacred text says it is? I can't prove God isn't eternal, because I can't prove God doesn't exist? You can't prove a negative, therefore it must true? At this point I could put forth the "scientific process" argument. But that's a different language to faith. Besides, some of the faithful try to throw that back at the more realistic. It's a stupid tactic, but since when has not having the slightest clue stopped people from arguing against something they're convinced is wrong? People love to prove science wrong; usually with a withering glance and a final conviction that's not thought through but is accepted, by them, at face value. Like I said, a different language.
The simplest argument I can think of is "if faith is your evidence, you don't have any evidence". But I don't think that's enough. It needs to be simpler. I'm sorely tempted to reduce it to "heaven needs a god", but even that's too complicated. A lot of faithful, at this point, will demand that I concede the point: I can't prove heaven doesn't exist, therefore it must. Which is a bit like saying I can't definitively prove unicorns don't exist, so they must! (No one has ever seen a unicorn or the bones of one, so there's strong evidence they don't exist.) Arguing that because you can't prove a negative you proved the opposite is basically irrational. Ultimately, I think the simplest argument is that heaven doesn't exist because it's too complicated.
As this current debate about the shape, size and population of the Christian pin shows rather too well.
Carolyn Ann
Hate as a family value
There's a lot going on around that transgendered lass being beaten in a Baltimore McDonald's. The nutshell of it all is that a lot of people think the employees should be fired, and charged with accessory to attempted murder and so on. I think they should be fired, but being charged with accessory to attempted murder? I'm sorry - I'm not convinced.
For one thing, the case is too flimsy - they didn't do anything to stop the crime, granted, but they didn't facilitate it, either. The problem is that most of them stood and laughed; kids do that. The man who took the video said the transgender woman got "lippy"; in many places, that's enough to get a beating. They can berate you, but you can't return the favor. These people are all about "respect" and power; they are not about understanding or empathy. Nor, I should say, are they that concerned about how you identify yourself. The hatred the girl and the woman doing the beating have is visceral and tangible; they're not concerned with anything but delivering a severe beating to that poor lass. The man taking the video is reprehensible; he's not concerned about the woman's well being. He's having a good time filming that beating. The whole thing is despicable and disturbing; all she wanted to do was use the bathroom - and she gets beaten for it? And to think: Maryland just dropped any protection for the transgendered. Because such protections might offend family values! Family values the right no doubt approves of, such as beating the transgendered into wearing the clothes they deem appropriate?
Apparently, the authorities are thinking of elevating it to a hate crime; if there was a ever a case for it, this is surely that case! Like I said, the hatred is all too real in that video. The disdain is, too.
All in all, it's a dangerous world out there. If you don't conform, it's even more dangerous. Let's hope those two thugs get charged with a hate crime, and let's hope that the Maryland legislature realizes that protecting people from the transgendered isn't as important as protecting those who are transgendered. I'm hopefully on the first thing, and despair the latter will ever be understood.
Carolyn Ann
For one thing, the case is too flimsy - they didn't do anything to stop the crime, granted, but they didn't facilitate it, either. The problem is that most of them stood and laughed; kids do that. The man who took the video said the transgender woman got "lippy"; in many places, that's enough to get a beating. They can berate you, but you can't return the favor. These people are all about "respect" and power; they are not about understanding or empathy. Nor, I should say, are they that concerned about how you identify yourself. The hatred the girl and the woman doing the beating have is visceral and tangible; they're not concerned with anything but delivering a severe beating to that poor lass. The man taking the video is reprehensible; he's not concerned about the woman's well being. He's having a good time filming that beating. The whole thing is despicable and disturbing; all she wanted to do was use the bathroom - and she gets beaten for it? And to think: Maryland just dropped any protection for the transgendered. Because such protections might offend family values! Family values the right no doubt approves of, such as beating the transgendered into wearing the clothes they deem appropriate?
Apparently, the authorities are thinking of elevating it to a hate crime; if there was a ever a case for it, this is surely that case! Like I said, the hatred is all too real in that video. The disdain is, too.
All in all, it's a dangerous world out there. If you don't conform, it's even more dangerous. Let's hope those two thugs get charged with a hate crime, and let's hope that the Maryland legislature realizes that protecting people from the transgendered isn't as important as protecting those who are transgendered. I'm hopefully on the first thing, and despair the latter will ever be understood.
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Beaten over a bathroom?
A transgendered woman was beaten in Maryland. The video has gone viral.
Someone, allegedly a McDonald's employee, took out their phone and recorded the beating of another person. Obviously the videographer didn't do anything to stop the beating - otherwise, we'd have no record of a 14 year old girl and someone the cops say is 18 beating a someone. Perhaps the men in the background feel more manly, for having witnessed and applauded the beating of someone? Perhaps they feel macho because the victim was a transgendered woman?
Perhaps they should feel like heels for not stepping in and doing the right thing?
It's dangerous out there.
And then we have pissant idiots like Anne and her fucked up cohorts. Is the violence against the transgendered not enough? The bickering, the linguistic fuckups, the whole "I am holier than thou" fuckup? Isn't it enough that Anne's favorite taunt, a "penis packing wyMAN" can be assaulted for simply wanting to visit the frickin' loo? Fuck Anne and all who support that clod.
Someone tries to use a bathroom, and their beating gets videotaped. Guys laugh - because I guess it's funny when someone gets beaten. Some have decency. But not enough. Between the political bullshit of the right and the physical beatings of thugs and bullies, is it any wonder the transgendered are defensive? (Anne, you can count yourself as part of the political bullshit of the right.) Those feeble boys weren't men. They were pissants, cowards. They laughed when they should, if they were men, be defending someone. They should have manned up and said "you know, we're all different". But no: they decided it funny beating on the girl, because she - as Anne so frequently says - "packed a penis".
Fuck you, Anne. You enable this sort of violence. You give it legitimacy. It's not enough that those penis packing' gals have to put up with the physical violence, you just have to fuckin' jump in with your hate-filled words. Don't you? You fucking clod.
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Someone, allegedly a McDonald's employee, took out their phone and recorded the beating of another person. Obviously the videographer didn't do anything to stop the beating - otherwise, we'd have no record of a 14 year old girl and someone the cops say is 18 beating a someone. Perhaps the men in the background feel more manly, for having witnessed and applauded the beating of someone? Perhaps they feel macho because the victim was a transgendered woman?
Perhaps they should feel like heels for not stepping in and doing the right thing?
It's dangerous out there.
And then we have pissant idiots like Anne and her fucked up cohorts. Is the violence against the transgendered not enough? The bickering, the linguistic fuckups, the whole "I am holier than thou" fuckup? Isn't it enough that Anne's favorite taunt, a "penis packing wyMAN" can be assaulted for simply wanting to visit the frickin' loo? Fuck Anne and all who support that clod.
Someone tries to use a bathroom, and their beating gets videotaped. Guys laugh - because I guess it's funny when someone gets beaten. Some have decency. But not enough. Between the political bullshit of the right and the physical beatings of thugs and bullies, is it any wonder the transgendered are defensive? (Anne, you can count yourself as part of the political bullshit of the right.) Those feeble boys weren't men. They were pissants, cowards. They laughed when they should, if they were men, be defending someone. They should have manned up and said "you know, we're all different". But no: they decided it funny beating on the girl, because she - as Anne so frequently says - "packed a penis".
Fuck you, Anne. You enable this sort of violence. You give it legitimacy. It's not enough that those penis packing' gals have to put up with the physical violence, you just have to fuckin' jump in with your hate-filled words. Don't you? You fucking clod.
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Friday, April 22, 2011
Anne: Get over yourself. Tantrums are so childish.
Wow. Anne is really upset that T-Central delisted her blog. You'd think T-Central was in the mind control business, or Fascists or something. Oh, apparently they are.
Apparently the gals of T-Central are "cowardly" and engaging in "BLATANT CENSORSHIP". So I'm guessing that when Anne deletes my comments, she's not being censorious? Oh well. What's really funny is how angry Anne is getting about a private blog listing refusing to provide her with a venue. That's all it is. No one in T-Central is stopping her from voicing her bigoted and poorly written words. They're just denying her a venue: the venue they own.
Mind you, Anne freely admits that when the going gets tough, she blames everyone else. She sometimes quits, as well. (She has something else in common with Sarah Palin, besides unthinking, knee-jerk reactionary politics: Sarah's been known to quit when the going gets tough, too.) So when T-Central decided to delist her, I guessed it was going to be everyone's fault. Not Anne's bigoted and lazy words, oh no - they can't possibly be the cause. Because, you see, Anne is full of wisdom and honesty. Personally, I think it's called bullshit and hypocrisy, but Anne and I frequently differ on what her nonsense should be called.
So, to summarize: the gals of T-Central decide to delist her blog, for whatever reason. (No reason was provided, and while it, arguably, might be politically wise to provide one, none is actually required.) Anne throws herself into a hysterical fit, blathering on about fascism, the transgender mafia, this and that. Or to put it another way: someone says "We're not going to pay attention to you, anymore!" and Anne has a hysterical tantrum. The sort a two year would think twice about throwing.
A quick note to Anne: get over yourself.
Carolyn Ann
Apparently the gals of T-Central are "cowardly" and engaging in "BLATANT CENSORSHIP". So I'm guessing that when Anne deletes my comments, she's not being censorious? Oh well. What's really funny is how angry Anne is getting about a private blog listing refusing to provide her with a venue. That's all it is. No one in T-Central is stopping her from voicing her bigoted and poorly written words. They're just denying her a venue: the venue they own.
Mind you, Anne freely admits that when the going gets tough, she blames everyone else. She sometimes quits, as well. (She has something else in common with Sarah Palin, besides unthinking, knee-jerk reactionary politics: Sarah's been known to quit when the going gets tough, too.) So when T-Central decided to delist her, I guessed it was going to be everyone's fault. Not Anne's bigoted and lazy words, oh no - they can't possibly be the cause. Because, you see, Anne is full of wisdom and honesty. Personally, I think it's called bullshit and hypocrisy, but Anne and I frequently differ on what her nonsense should be called.
So, to summarize: the gals of T-Central decide to delist her blog, for whatever reason. (No reason was provided, and while it, arguably, might be politically wise to provide one, none is actually required.) Anne throws herself into a hysterical fit, blathering on about fascism, the transgender mafia, this and that. Or to put it another way: someone says "We're not going to pay attention to you, anymore!" and Anne has a hysterical tantrum. The sort a two year would think twice about throwing.
A quick note to Anne: get over yourself.
Carolyn Ann
Sovereign Governments, Hmm?
According to Scott Walker, a state is a sovereign government. Here:
Under the Articles of Confederation, the States could - perhaps - argue they were sovereign states. Under the Constitution of the United States? Nope. Not a chance. The States are states and the sovereign government of those United States is the Federal government.
It's the old "state's rights" mushiness, all dressed up for a prom. The 10th Amendment is her bouquet.
The simple fact is the states are not sovereign states. If I'm not mistaken, there was a bit of a tiff over that point: I think it was so tiffy it got a name: The Civil War.
When a governor of a state thinks that the his state is a sovereign nation, we're all in trouble. Mr Walker of Wisconsin isn't debating the point. He seriously believes it. What's his next move? Open an embassy in Illinois? Start issuing Wisconsin passports? After all, that's what sovereign nations do.
Yet again, we find Mr Walker on the unthinking side of a debate. Oklahoma: your turn.
Carolyn Ann
States are not merely “laboratories of democracy,” but also sovereign governments under our system of federalism.I'll bet that's the first the Founding Fathers would have heard of that idea. (Well, perhaps not...)
Under the Articles of Confederation, the States could - perhaps - argue they were sovereign states. Under the Constitution of the United States? Nope. Not a chance. The States are states and the sovereign government of those United States is the Federal government.
It's the old "state's rights" mushiness, all dressed up for a prom. The 10th Amendment is her bouquet.
The simple fact is the states are not sovereign states. If I'm not mistaken, there was a bit of a tiff over that point: I think it was so tiffy it got a name: The Civil War.
When a governor of a state thinks that the his state is a sovereign nation, we're all in trouble. Mr Walker of Wisconsin isn't debating the point. He seriously believes it. What's his next move? Open an embassy in Illinois? Start issuing Wisconsin passports? After all, that's what sovereign nations do.
Yet again, we find Mr Walker on the unthinking side of a debate. Oklahoma: your turn.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Bradley Manning to be moved to... Where?
Bradley Manning, the suspected (and alleged) Wikileaks leaker, is being moved from Quantico in Virginia to ... Kansas?
Wouldn't they better off sending him to Gitmo? Provide him with a copy of Dylan Thomas' and Wilfred Owen's poems and tell the world he's an enemy combatant. ... Oh wait, we've moved on fromthe Cheney that administration.
So the man is to be held at Fort Leavenworth. I'm sure he's wondering if all of this was worth that (alleged) CD.
What I'd like to know is why The Guardian has a guide to camping in its "See Also" section:
Some things just can't be explained.
Carolyn Ann
Wouldn't they better off sending him to Gitmo? Provide him with a copy of Dylan Thomas' and Wilfred Owen's poems and tell the world he's an enemy combatant. ... Oh wait, we've moved on from
So the man is to be held at Fort Leavenworth. I'm sure he's wondering if all of this was worth that (alleged) CD.
What I'd like to know is why The Guardian has a guide to camping in its "See Also" section:
Some things just can't be explained.
Carolyn Ann
Fox News: meet your competition
Since the Huffington Post stopped being a self-sacrificing effort of Ariani Huffington's, it has become the Klaxon of the Left. The latest headline?
That's what you might call "balanced journalism".
You might call it that, but I don't. I call it "fair and balanced" in the same way Fox News is "fair and balanced". (Hint: it isn't either.)
To be fair, a headline is a headline. The story behind the headline? A report on the White House trying to negotiate with Eric Cantor. That's like your next steak trying to negotiate a better deal for itself. The only question, in this case, is does Eric realize he's the steak? (And would he like to be served with onions?)
Oh well. At least Eric gets to figure out he's simply a figurehead.
Carolyn Ann
That's what you might call "balanced journalism".
You might call it that, but I don't. I call it "fair and balanced" in the same way Fox News is "fair and balanced". (Hint: it isn't either.)
To be fair, a headline is a headline. The story behind the headline? A report on the White House trying to negotiate with Eric Cantor. That's like your next steak trying to negotiate a better deal for itself. The only question, in this case, is does Eric realize he's the steak? (And would he like to be served with onions?)
Oh well. At least Eric gets to figure out he's simply a figurehead.
Carolyn Ann
So many opinions, so little time...
I'll admit I chased the girls when I wasn't married. :-)
Anyway, I've been bookmarking articles I want to write about. Lots and lots and lots of articles on everything from economic policies to military actions; fashion and photography are included as well. I spent some time looking up how to emulate Ansel Adams (not that I could, but dreaming and wishful thinking are pretty good motivators). I've read lots of magazines; unfortunately, we're not in a position to pay for subscriptions. (Although the Mrs told me I should re-open my subscription to "Foreign Affairs". At $19.95 per year, it's a veritable bargain! And such a wonderful and informative magazine. In a confused, but pleased, daze, I actually bought the latest edition, it was $9.95. I realized later that I couldn't quite afford it. We're on a cash economy around here: if the money is not in your pocket, you don't have it spend.)
All in all, lots of things to write about. And absolutely no time to do so.
Not that the world would ever notice my contribution to the intellectual firmament. (C'est la vie, etc.) Still, I love politics and its close cousin, foreign affairs. (I think that gives me a leg up on David Cameron; it seems he intensely dislikes both.) Between the Kansas Fed (with its Economic Review), Foreign Affairs, The Economist, Anderson Cooper and The Guardian, with the occasional foray by the NY Times, I feel extremely well informed. Unfortunately, keeping pace with the world takes somewhat more time than we're allotted. And to think: once upon a time, a person wasn't exposed, in a year, to the information a single edition of the NY Times or Guardian contains. Never mind the Sunday Times - the flimsy Saturday edition will do for the comparison!
Whatever did George W. Bush fill his time with?
Carolyn Ann
Anyway, I've been bookmarking articles I want to write about. Lots and lots and lots of articles on everything from economic policies to military actions; fashion and photography are included as well. I spent some time looking up how to emulate Ansel Adams (not that I could, but dreaming and wishful thinking are pretty good motivators). I've read lots of magazines; unfortunately, we're not in a position to pay for subscriptions. (Although the Mrs told me I should re-open my subscription to "Foreign Affairs". At $19.95 per year, it's a veritable bargain! And such a wonderful and informative magazine. In a confused, but pleased, daze, I actually bought the latest edition, it was $9.95. I realized later that I couldn't quite afford it. We're on a cash economy around here: if the money is not in your pocket, you don't have it spend.)
All in all, lots of things to write about. And absolutely no time to do so.
Not that the world would ever notice my contribution to the intellectual firmament. (C'est la vie, etc.) Still, I love politics and its close cousin, foreign affairs. (I think that gives me a leg up on David Cameron; it seems he intensely dislikes both.) Between the Kansas Fed (with its Economic Review), Foreign Affairs, The Economist, Anderson Cooper and The Guardian, with the occasional foray by the NY Times, I feel extremely well informed. Unfortunately, keeping pace with the world takes somewhat more time than we're allotted. And to think: once upon a time, a person wasn't exposed, in a year, to the information a single edition of the NY Times or Guardian contains. Never mind the Sunday Times - the flimsy Saturday edition will do for the comparison!
Whatever did George W. Bush fill his time with?
Carolyn Ann
Was that crass?
I left a comment on a particular photo in "Another Day to Dress Up"'s feed (the rules of grammar are pretty much suspended when it comes to internet names...).
Considering that the lass gets lots of views, and no comments, I couldn't help but feel it was a bit like snoring in church: only the crass do it.
Anyway, I love her style. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Considering that the lass gets lots of views, and no comments, I couldn't help but feel it was a bit like snoring in church: only the crass do it.
Anyway, I love her style. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Rumer...
Jessica had an interesting video on her blog, Thoughts and Ramblings, featuring a young lass "Rumer".
I was quite impressed by her!
I'm always impressed by Jessica, and I was quite taken by Rumer. :-)
Lots of people say she sounds like Karen Carpenter; a little thinner, but I can see the comparison. More like a "Karen Carpenter meets Stevie Nicks" sort of a voice. Anyway, it's nice to hear a modern balladeer; I was beginning to think such a skill was fading, Rod Stewart's wonderful efforts notwithstanding. She's been Jools Holland's show, which is a definite plus - he's no slouch when it comes to showcasing talent!
I'm looking forward to getting her debut album, "Seasons of my soul".
(Holy mackerel! Her album is £8.93 from Amazon.co.uk; that translates to $14.57, according to Google. But it's for sale at $20.42 from Amazon.com! I think I'll ask them about that...)
Carolyn Ann
I was quite impressed by her!
I'm always impressed by Jessica, and I was quite taken by Rumer. :-)
Lots of people say she sounds like Karen Carpenter; a little thinner, but I can see the comparison. More like a "Karen Carpenter meets Stevie Nicks" sort of a voice. Anyway, it's nice to hear a modern balladeer; I was beginning to think such a skill was fading, Rod Stewart's wonderful efforts notwithstanding. She's been Jools Holland's show, which is a definite plus - he's no slouch when it comes to showcasing talent!
I'm looking forward to getting her debut album, "Seasons of my soul".
(Holy mackerel! Her album is £8.93 from Amazon.co.uk; that translates to $14.57, according to Google. But it's for sale at $20.42 from Amazon.com! I think I'll ask them about that...)
Carolyn Ann
Churches...
English Shoes. :-)
Wonderful they are. Ten, no, fifteen, years ago they were $300 a pair. Fit like a glove, and you can - if you're willing to pay - get one resole done. (After that, it's a bit like a clunker: you're better off buying a new pair.) I've bought a few pairs over the years; they've served me well.
As it happens, I've not worn a pair of those shoes for nigh on ten years. Perhaps I wore some about 8 years ago, I can't quite recollect. (The problems of growing senile, I guess. Please, don't all agree at once! :-) ) It's been awhile.
And I've had occasion to wear a pair, one pair, twice in less than a week. The first moment was for what was allegedly a job interview. The highlight of which was, quite honestly, when I realized my socks didn't match my pants or my shoes. They did in the meagre light of the bedroom, but in the cold harsh light of reality (let me know if I can make it any more dramatic?), they were like a pink top on a red headed girl. A clash you don't want to see. Today, I was invited to provide my opinion on some matter and I had reason to wear them again. I provided my opinion. The shoes were so comfortable! (I made sure the socks matched.)
This might seem strange... Okay, this is strange. The last pair of shoes I had that fit like a glove, were so comfortable I could wear them all day with absolutely no discomfort and really looked forward to wearing was a pair of high heeled sandals from Payless Shoes. Seriously. :-) They were soooo comfy! Quite a high heel, too. They just worked. I was really unhappy when I had to toss them out (a strap broke). Being cheap fashion shoes, I couldn't get the like, again.
On the other hand, I think if I walked into a decent shoe seller, I'd be able to pick up not just the same style, but the same Churches English Shoe. Some things are just quality. Churches is one of those. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Wonderful they are. Ten, no, fifteen, years ago they were $300 a pair. Fit like a glove, and you can - if you're willing to pay - get one resole done. (After that, it's a bit like a clunker: you're better off buying a new pair.) I've bought a few pairs over the years; they've served me well.
As it happens, I've not worn a pair of those shoes for nigh on ten years. Perhaps I wore some about 8 years ago, I can't quite recollect. (The problems of growing senile, I guess. Please, don't all agree at once! :-) ) It's been awhile.
And I've had occasion to wear a pair, one pair, twice in less than a week. The first moment was for what was allegedly a job interview. The highlight of which was, quite honestly, when I realized my socks didn't match my pants or my shoes. They did in the meagre light of the bedroom, but in the cold harsh light of reality (let me know if I can make it any more dramatic?), they were like a pink top on a red headed girl. A clash you don't want to see. Today, I was invited to provide my opinion on some matter and I had reason to wear them again. I provided my opinion. The shoes were so comfortable! (I made sure the socks matched.)
This might seem strange... Okay, this is strange. The last pair of shoes I had that fit like a glove, were so comfortable I could wear them all day with absolutely no discomfort and really looked forward to wearing was a pair of high heeled sandals from Payless Shoes. Seriously. :-) They were soooo comfy! Quite a high heel, too. They just worked. I was really unhappy when I had to toss them out (a strap broke). Being cheap fashion shoes, I couldn't get the like, again.
On the other hand, I think if I walked into a decent shoe seller, I'd be able to pick up not just the same style, but the same Churches English Shoe. Some things are just quality. Churches is one of those. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Diet 2.0
This is where I restart my diet. In keeping with popular fashion, I'm calling it Diet 2.0. It's not actually any better than Diet 1.0 , but it blogs, tweets and Facebooks (is that a word? :-D ) So it's considered better.
Diet 1.0 died, quietly, sometime between the end of February and the middle of March. Unfortunately the summer, now called Summer 2.0, is fast approaching and I'd like to fit into some of my summer skirts and tops. Well, the tops sort of fit, but they have a strange bump where my tum is. My tum is definitely Tummy 2.0, and I'd like it to be Tummy 1.0, or more preferably, Tummy 0.5. I'll settle for 0.75. As it is, the damn thing is quickly making its way to Tummy 3.0.
Accompanying me on Diet 2.0 will be some weight scales that constantly lie to me* and are old enough to be considered pre-Columbian, never mind pre-Internet. I hate how the Scale lies to me, though. So I might discard it and get another set, but I'm afraid all of the scales will be in on lie, and the new ones won't tell me anything the old one wouldn't. However, I will issue a stiff non-binding resolution condemning the scales and the partizan lies it tells about my weight. :-(
So... No more diner meals for the foreseeable future; no more of those salty foods I've been eating and much less beer. No more burgers and beer (well, I'm sure I'll fit the occasional one or two in there! After all, it's a diet, not Purgatory.) And far fewer "comfort" snacks and meals. Salads, chicken, fish and so on. (Quick anecdote; I was in a diner the other day when I heard a woman order a Greek salad. I forget what she didn't want, but it basically amounted to "please give me a plate of lettuce and charge me a lot for it!") Fewer cheese sandwiches for me, too. Less bread. And so on. Oh, and I'll start riding my bicycle, too.
I'll also drink lots of water. Something I do regularly on camping trips, but rarely think of otherwise!
By the end of the year, I should be svelte and gorgeous. And able to fit into those beautiful evening gowns I've got, as well all my summer dresses and skirts. Perfect for those snowy nights in December... Well, I'll be thin; svelte might have been possible 20 odd years ago, and gorgeous ain't ever gonna happen.
Today, instead of toast and marmalade, I'm having Special K with strawberries. (They call it "red berries", as if someone else had copyrighted the word "strawberries".) I took look at the ingredients. I think there's some natural stuff in there.
Carolyn Ann
Diet 1.0 died, quietly, sometime between the end of February and the middle of March. Unfortunately the summer, now called Summer 2.0, is fast approaching and I'd like to fit into some of my summer skirts and tops. Well, the tops sort of fit, but they have a strange bump where my tum is. My tum is definitely Tummy 2.0, and I'd like it to be Tummy 1.0, or more preferably, Tummy 0.5. I'll settle for 0.75. As it is, the damn thing is quickly making its way to Tummy 3.0.
Accompanying me on Diet 2.0 will be some weight scales that constantly lie to me* and are old enough to be considered pre-Columbian, never mind pre-Internet. I hate how the Scale lies to me, though. So I might discard it and get another set, but I'm afraid all of the scales will be in on lie, and the new ones won't tell me anything the old one wouldn't. However, I will issue a stiff non-binding resolution condemning the scales and the partizan lies it tells about my weight. :-(
*Today, the conniving little harlot told me the truth! It told me I weighed less than I thought I did... :-)
So... No more diner meals for the foreseeable future; no more of those salty foods I've been eating and much less beer. No more burgers and beer (well, I'm sure I'll fit the occasional one or two in there! After all, it's a diet, not Purgatory.) And far fewer "comfort" snacks and meals. Salads, chicken, fish and so on. (Quick anecdote; I was in a diner the other day when I heard a woman order a Greek salad. I forget what she didn't want, but it basically amounted to "please give me a plate of lettuce and charge me a lot for it!") Fewer cheese sandwiches for me, too. Less bread. And so on. Oh, and I'll start riding my bicycle, too.
I'll also drink lots of water. Something I do regularly on camping trips, but rarely think of otherwise!
By the end of the year, I should be svelte and gorgeous. And able to fit into those beautiful evening gowns I've got, as well all my summer dresses and skirts. Perfect for those snowy nights in December... Well, I'll be thin; svelte might have been possible 20 odd years ago, and gorgeous ain't ever gonna happen.
Today, instead of toast and marmalade, I'm having Special K with strawberries. (They call it "red berries", as if someone else had copyrighted the word "strawberries".) I took look at the ingredients. I think there's some natural stuff in there.
Carolyn Ann
Extreme what?!?
Did you know there's a sport called "Extreme Ironing"? It's the "latest danger sport that combines the thrills of an extreme outdoor activity with the satisfaction of a well-pressed shirt".
Whatever next? Extreme Shoe Polishing? :-)
Carolyn Ann
Whatever next? Extreme Shoe Polishing? :-)
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, April 17, 2011
No delete key was mauled in this meandering (it was merely beaten, instead)
New York in the 1950's was the epicenter of "the" intellectual. Just as LA and its environs celebrated and subverted the car culture that was just beginning, in New York there was jazz and there were words. I doubt there's been such a creative outburst anywhere in history.
In the period between about 1953 up to about 1958, perhaps extending into 1963 - definitely ending with John Fitzgerald Kennedy's death on November 22nd, 1963 - there was a period of discovery the likes of which none could imagine. Even those who lived through that period couldn't imagine it. From the stirrings of the civil rights movement to the birth of modern feminism, or the founding of contemporary conservatism, people started to explore, to realize that the boundaries were truly imaginary. Within a few short years, the intellectualism that defined the 1950's changed to the consumptive world of the 1960's and the Hippies - a mass movement that proclaimed an authenticity that was as manufactured as it was false.
When we, the generation deified with as being the last of the Baby Boomers, but not quite the start of whatever came next, are presented with the 1950's, it's as a period of conformity, Ike in America and Atlee and his miserable wannabe communists. The 1950's were supposed to be when the world changed; then it was the 1960's. It was neither, it was both. The foundations laid by the 1950's New York intellectuals laid the foundations for the personal experience of the 1960's. What was written and shared became singular and personal; in the end it became commercial and exploited.
The thing about those 1950's intellectuals is that they knew words, they knew the language and used it. if jack Kerouac was around, he'd despise the "delete" key; and yet it took something like 14 rewrites, one on a long roll of toilet paper he sent in a drunken frenzy to Allen Ginsberg. Kerouac lays the ground and Tom Wolfe walked upon that paving.
How do you define a generation that changed the world? Moving from Indianapolis and Princeton and all points in between and further, these magicians of expression congregated around a few bars and taverns in The Village. They neglected to discriminate, mostly. Andy Warhol later proved they had discriminated, but he lived in the East Village (it was, one can argue, closer than Moscow or Paris) and exploited that which others neglected to consider. These days, there would be an outcry - "You've forgotten ME!"
You do have to start somewhere. The Gentlemen's Agreement proved that, I think.
Now, now, ... now we have an ardent and enthusiastic anti-intellectualism. It's on both sides of the Atlantic, but perhaps somewhat more muted in the old Isles. It has certainly been embraced in The Colonies! Starting with the previous president, of whom the less is said the better, thinking and erudite discourse have become the true enemies of populism and fanatism. I have a nightmare that, if mankind were immortal... Let me get to that in a minute.
I'd like to live forever. I'd love to see what became of mankind. To see its fits and starts in accepting that folk is folk, as the saying goes. I think mankind would devolve, evolve if you're charitably minded I suppose, into two camps: those that think we should live our three score and ten, although they'll probably find reason enough to stretch that to four or so and ten, and those that sit and watch soap operas for eternity. In such a world, I can't help but think that Glenn Beck and Osama bin Laden would be the most prominent names. Just think: both, in the course of time, will have schools of thought named after them.
The differences between then and now, between 1955 and 2011, are profound. But mostly superficial. Does it matter that we can compute how little we know about an entire series of loans? Isn't the other lesson more instructive? That impudence is accompanied by arrogance, or vice versa, I'm not sure it matters, and that we are no more the masters of our own fates as our fathers and their fathers were? Read Ayn Rand and you'd think you can control your fate; read Homer and you're fairly certain you have no control over the bit you think you do control. But as Achilles points out - we are the masters of our own fate. It's the circumstances that usually prove troubling.
Carolyn Ann
In the period between about 1953 up to about 1958, perhaps extending into 1963 - definitely ending with John Fitzgerald Kennedy's death on November 22nd, 1963 - there was a period of discovery the likes of which none could imagine. Even those who lived through that period couldn't imagine it. From the stirrings of the civil rights movement to the birth of modern feminism, or the founding of contemporary conservatism, people started to explore, to realize that the boundaries were truly imaginary. Within a few short years, the intellectualism that defined the 1950's changed to the consumptive world of the 1960's and the Hippies - a mass movement that proclaimed an authenticity that was as manufactured as it was false.
When we, the generation deified with as being the last of the Baby Boomers, but not quite the start of whatever came next, are presented with the 1950's, it's as a period of conformity, Ike in America and Atlee and his miserable wannabe communists. The 1950's were supposed to be when the world changed; then it was the 1960's. It was neither, it was both. The foundations laid by the 1950's New York intellectuals laid the foundations for the personal experience of the 1960's. What was written and shared became singular and personal; in the end it became commercial and exploited.
The thing about those 1950's intellectuals is that they knew words, they knew the language and used it. if jack Kerouac was around, he'd despise the "delete" key; and yet it took something like 14 rewrites, one on a long roll of toilet paper he sent in a drunken frenzy to Allen Ginsberg. Kerouac lays the ground and Tom Wolfe walked upon that paving.
How do you define a generation that changed the world? Moving from Indianapolis and Princeton and all points in between and further, these magicians of expression congregated around a few bars and taverns in The Village. They neglected to discriminate, mostly. Andy Warhol later proved they had discriminated, but he lived in the East Village (it was, one can argue, closer than Moscow or Paris) and exploited that which others neglected to consider. These days, there would be an outcry - "You've forgotten ME!"
You do have to start somewhere. The Gentlemen's Agreement proved that, I think.
Now, now, ... now we have an ardent and enthusiastic anti-intellectualism. It's on both sides of the Atlantic, but perhaps somewhat more muted in the old Isles. It has certainly been embraced in The Colonies! Starting with the previous president, of whom the less is said the better, thinking and erudite discourse have become the true enemies of populism and fanatism. I have a nightmare that, if mankind were immortal... Let me get to that in a minute.
I'd like to live forever. I'd love to see what became of mankind. To see its fits and starts in accepting that folk is folk, as the saying goes. I think mankind would devolve, evolve if you're charitably minded I suppose, into two camps: those that think we should live our three score and ten, although they'll probably find reason enough to stretch that to four or so and ten, and those that sit and watch soap operas for eternity. In such a world, I can't help but think that Glenn Beck and Osama bin Laden would be the most prominent names. Just think: both, in the course of time, will have schools of thought named after them.
The differences between then and now, between 1955 and 2011, are profound. But mostly superficial. Does it matter that we can compute how little we know about an entire series of loans? Isn't the other lesson more instructive? That impudence is accompanied by arrogance, or vice versa, I'm not sure it matters, and that we are no more the masters of our own fates as our fathers and their fathers were? Read Ayn Rand and you'd think you can control your fate; read Homer and you're fairly certain you have no control over the bit you think you do control. But as Achilles points out - we are the masters of our own fate. It's the circumstances that usually prove troubling.
Carolyn Ann
Friday, April 15, 2011
John vilifies the Administration
Let this be a tale unto those untold and unwashed: if thou art in need for assistance in passing critical legislation, it pays to not be too harsh upon your foe!
Case in point, Mr Boehner. He basically needs the Democrats to pass the budget he negotiated with Mr Obama. So his criticism of "The Obama Plan" has to be: "What an outrage! What a disappointment! What a... Hey, guys, I need a little, well, help here... Can you, er, I mean would be so kind as to, well, vote for me? My team ain't exactly playing it straight, if you catch my drift..."
Well done, John. Politicking at its best. Now lets see how long it is before the Looney Tunes Team decides they want your hide for a rug.
Carolyn Ann
Case in point, Mr Boehner. He basically needs the Democrats to pass the budget he negotiated with Mr Obama. So his criticism of "The Obama Plan" has to be: "What an outrage! What a disappointment! What a... Hey, guys, I need a little, well, help here... Can you, er, I mean would be so kind as to, well, vote for me? My team ain't exactly playing it straight, if you catch my drift..."
Well done, John. Politicking at its best. Now lets see how long it is before the Looney Tunes Team decides they want your hide for a rug.
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Mr Obama starts campaigning
So Mr Obama responded to Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity". Which reads, to me, more like a freeway to ruination. People kept whining that the President hadn't responded; if he'd come out with that speech first, they right would be complaining about something else and have material to stand against. As it is, Mr Ryan has been rocked onto the defensive - he now has to explain why 33 senior citizens should pay more for their health care, in order to fund a tax cut for the wealthy. (I noticed the Republicans aren't exactly answering that one. Mostly because they can't.)
As a speech to start his campaigning, which the right wing pundits are already complaining about, it was quite a soul-stirrer. It was the Barack we knew from 2008, not the one we've become accustomed to. As a solution to the deficit, I couldn't help but think it was intellectually more solid than Paul Ryan's sleights of hand. Hopefully no one on the right will be stupid enough to compare national financing with household financing; Maggie won with that and it turned out to be so much hogwash. It's one of those "it makes sense if you don't think about it" mantras. (Someone on the right will make the comparison, I'm sure. The only question is: will Anderson Cooper cover it?)
Currently, we're looking at faux battle lines; no one really wants no action on the debt ceiling. But now the Republicans have to be careful - if they want to pay for the deficit reduction by rewriting all those social systems we have (and goodness knows, they're few and far between!), they will need to give a little on taxes. Mr Obama has managed to reframe the "conversation"; Mr Ryan must have been a pig in clover, thinking he'd shaped how the conversation about the budget would go. Unfortunately, Mr Obama did his magic and the conversation changed. Paul Ryan should have anticipated that, but I fancy he got complacent.
At this point, the Republicans are in the grip of some pretty extreme people; reasonableness is seen as treason and a decent compromise is "my way or the highway". With his speech, Mr Obama pointed out the lack of intellectual honesty of their stance; he also showed how the Tea Party barely gives thought to its knee-jerk reactionary stances. Whomever the Tea Party nominates, they'll have a ways to go before they reach Mr Obama's clear intelligence.
Unfortunately, I keep thinking about how George W. Bush became a 2-term president.
Carolyn Ann
As a speech to start his campaigning, which the right wing pundits are already complaining about, it was quite a soul-stirrer. It was the Barack we knew from 2008, not the one we've become accustomed to. As a solution to the deficit, I couldn't help but think it was intellectually more solid than Paul Ryan's sleights of hand. Hopefully no one on the right will be stupid enough to compare national financing with household financing; Maggie won with that and it turned out to be so much hogwash. It's one of those "it makes sense if you don't think about it" mantras. (Someone on the right will make the comparison, I'm sure. The only question is: will Anderson Cooper cover it?)
Currently, we're looking at faux battle lines; no one really wants no action on the debt ceiling. But now the Republicans have to be careful - if they want to pay for the deficit reduction by rewriting all those social systems we have (and goodness knows, they're few and far between!), they will need to give a little on taxes. Mr Obama has managed to reframe the "conversation"; Mr Ryan must have been a pig in clover, thinking he'd shaped how the conversation about the budget would go. Unfortunately, Mr Obama did his magic and the conversation changed. Paul Ryan should have anticipated that, but I fancy he got complacent.
At this point, the Republicans are in the grip of some pretty extreme people; reasonableness is seen as treason and a decent compromise is "my way or the highway". With his speech, Mr Obama pointed out the lack of intellectual honesty of their stance; he also showed how the Tea Party barely gives thought to its knee-jerk reactionary stances. Whomever the Tea Party nominates, they'll have a ways to go before they reach Mr Obama's clear intelligence.
Unfortunately, I keep thinking about how George W. Bush became a 2-term president.
Carolyn Ann
We're sorry we doubted you...
Like an errant partner, we're flocking back to Barack. No longer is he the man we didn't marry - he was just going through a difficult time, and we didn't make it any easier for him. When he compromised with the Republicans, we thought he'd changed, and we didn't like that. It turns out, he's still the man who can win us with his smile and elocution.
With yesterday's speech, we swooned like we did in 2008; it felt good to see the man we fell for become himself, again! He laid waste to Paul Ryan's fecklessness and claimed the high ground of "Yes we can!" It seemed, far too often, that he was more about "That might be doable" and not about soaring rhetoric that is eclipsed by aspirations that soared higher!
We're sorry we doubted you, Mr President. Will you do that thing you do so well, will you do it to us for another year? :-)
Carolyn Ann
PS I thought it was a good speech. :-)
With yesterday's speech, we swooned like we did in 2008; it felt good to see the man we fell for become himself, again! He laid waste to Paul Ryan's fecklessness and claimed the high ground of "Yes we can!" It seemed, far too often, that he was more about "That might be doable" and not about soaring rhetoric that is eclipsed by aspirations that soared higher!
We're sorry we doubted you, Mr President. Will you do that thing you do so well, will you do it to us for another year? :-)
Carolyn Ann
PS I thought it was a good speech. :-)
Slapstick lifesavers
It seems that European anti-death penalty activists are stopping American states from purchasing the drugs they need to execute prisoners. So the states are taking legal shortcuts. (Perhaps they should ask that pharmacy in Vanuata? I have it on dubious authority that it's products are safe...)
The whole thing is a bit depraved. States can't buy the drugs they need to execute those they deem in need of executing. When they do find some, the Feds come along - they're also short on the drugs - and take it. Because it was obtained improperly. It's all quite Kafka-esque in its depravity.
While I am quite opposed to the death penalty - although sometimes it's very hard to maintain such an opinion - I can't help but wonder if there's too much concern for the wellbeing of someone who's going to be dead in a few minutes. I get the idea that society should be more humane, but when you consider the inhumanity of putting someone to death, I'm not sure side arguments about how someone should be put to death are all that relevant!
I agree that any such execution should be quick; I don't necessarily agree that society has an obligation to ensure it's painless. The electric chair, for instance, is not likely to be painless but is still employed. The firing squad retains its popularity; China, it said, bills the family of the executed for the bullet that actually did the deed. The appeal of drug-based execution is that its similar to putting your pet to sleep: painless and final. In any execution, you have to have an executioner; I'm not entirely convinced a doctor should be performing such a role. Perhaps it is time, in those states that still have the death penalty, to employ an official executioner?
All in all, the current situation shows how stupid the death penalty is. If you can't actually execute someone because of regulatory concerns, perhaps you shouldn't be executing them in the first place? When someone in California's penal system told their Arizona counterparts that they were "lifesavers", because they lent some of their lethal drugs, the only thing that was highlighted wasn't the supply problem, it was how slapstick and Keystone Kops the whole death penalty thing has gotten.
The whole thing is a bit depraved. States can't buy the drugs they need to execute those they deem in need of executing. When they do find some, the Feds come along - they're also short on the drugs - and take it. Because it was obtained improperly. It's all quite Kafka-esque in its depravity.
While I am quite opposed to the death penalty - although sometimes it's very hard to maintain such an opinion - I can't help but wonder if there's too much concern for the wellbeing of someone who's going to be dead in a few minutes. I get the idea that society should be more humane, but when you consider the inhumanity of putting someone to death, I'm not sure side arguments about how someone should be put to death are all that relevant!
I agree that any such execution should be quick; I don't necessarily agree that society has an obligation to ensure it's painless. The electric chair, for instance, is not likely to be painless but is still employed. The firing squad retains its popularity; China, it said, bills the family of the executed for the bullet that actually did the deed. The appeal of drug-based execution is that its similar to putting your pet to sleep: painless and final. In any execution, you have to have an executioner; I'm not entirely convinced a doctor should be performing such a role. Perhaps it is time, in those states that still have the death penalty, to employ an official executioner?
All in all, the current situation shows how stupid the death penalty is. If you can't actually execute someone because of regulatory concerns, perhaps you shouldn't be executing them in the first place? When someone in California's penal system told their Arizona counterparts that they were "lifesavers", because they lent some of their lethal drugs, the only thing that was highlighted wasn't the supply problem, it was how slapstick and Keystone Kops the whole death penalty thing has gotten.
Santorum launches what?
I saw this headline on the ol' HuffPo and the first thing I thought of was "he doesn't know where the Presidency is?" :-)
My guess? He's not sure. When he's figured it out found what he's looking for (nirvana and other mystical stuff like that), he'll approach Mr Obama and say "Mr President, I presume?" :-)
Carolyn Ann
The Economist article about gendercide in India & China
I saw this article and leader in The Economist; it's a story about how many girls are "missing" in India (mostly) and China. Because of patriarchal attitudes, girls get aborted while boys are encouraged. The result is a mismatch in the number of each gender; this leads to horrible outcomes such as purchased brides, kidnapping of girls to be brides, murder and so on. You know, the usual stuff that goes on in any society that doesn't value women as individuals in their own right.
Helen highlights the issue in a blog post.
She's quite right, if you're a fetus with a vagina, in far too many places you're not born - you're aborted. And in those same (and other) places, if you are, you're treated as chattel, because you basically are exactly that to your family.
Just as an aside, I'd like to see what the transsexual separatists make of that little nugget. :-)
Helen is right: if "transness" was possible to see on a scan, that fetus would be out of that womb so fast it would make a gender based abortion look leisurely. (Undoubtedly the pregnant woman would be blamed and punished for the sin of bearing a transgendered child, and the "need" for an abortion wouldn't be as great.)
It really puts the current Fox News idiocy about a lad with neon-pink toenails in perspective, doesn't it?
Carolyn Ann
Helen highlights the issue in a blog post.
She's quite right, if you're a fetus with a vagina, in far too many places you're not born - you're aborted. And in those same (and other) places, if you are, you're treated as chattel, because you basically are exactly that to your family.
Just as an aside, I'd like to see what the transsexual separatists make of that little nugget. :-)
Helen is right: if "transness" was possible to see on a scan, that fetus would be out of that womb so fast it would make a gender based abortion look leisurely. (Undoubtedly the pregnant woman would be blamed and punished for the sin of bearing a transgendered child, and the "need" for an abortion wouldn't be as great.)
It really puts the current Fox News idiocy about a lad with neon-pink toenails in perspective, doesn't it?
Carolyn Ann
I forgot someone...
The other night, I forgot to mention Rick Santorum as a possible Republican candidate. Oops. Ish.
Here's Mr Santorum's platform: "You think this is a War on Women? Wait 'til I get into the White House! You ain't seen nothing, yet! That I promise!" Oh, he's also for fiscal reasonableness. Which translates to "Rob the poor and give to the rich!" So he's the usual: full of piety and hypocrisy he tries to persuade us is forgiveness, and please grace the collection plate as it passes.
Social conservatives love him, but on the other hand they love anyone who promotes absolute selfishness and calls it God's Word. Or Jesus's Benevolence. (Have you ever noticed that these twits seem to keep mistaking "malevolence" for "benevolence"?)
To be honest, it's definitely an odd world when a bad hair do with a birther fixation outpolls such a chap as Mr Santorum. On the other hand, I shouldn't be so discriminatory: we all have bad hair days. Mr Trump's seem to last longer than anyone else's, though.
Carolyn Ann
Here's Mr Santorum's platform: "You think this is a War on Women? Wait 'til I get into the White House! You ain't seen nothing, yet! That I promise!" Oh, he's also for fiscal reasonableness. Which translates to "Rob the poor and give to the rich!" So he's the usual: full of piety and hypocrisy he tries to persuade us is forgiveness, and please grace the collection plate as it passes.
Social conservatives love him, but on the other hand they love anyone who promotes absolute selfishness and calls it God's Word. Or Jesus's Benevolence. (Have you ever noticed that these twits seem to keep mistaking "malevolence" for "benevolence"?)
To be honest, it's definitely an odd world when a bad hair do with a birther fixation outpolls such a chap as Mr Santorum. On the other hand, I shouldn't be so discriminatory: we all have bad hair days. Mr Trump's seem to last longer than anyone else's, though.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Yay! I passed the damn exam! :-)
I had an exam this evening. I passed the sodding thing. (And not even "barely"!)
So that course is over. Now for whatever is next.
...
What is next?
Carolyn Ann
So that course is over. Now for whatever is next.
...
What is next?
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Potentially Sinking Ship is Hiring
Maybe Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo, has finally decided that Yahoo can change. Either that or she's finally defeated the dark forces of "we're doing okay, why should we change?" (didn't the captain of the Titanic say something similar?) that seem to pervade Yahoo, these days. Reading about the travails of Yahoo is a bit like reading about the travails of a record company. You sort of hope they figure it out because you like a happy ending. On the other hand, soap operas are never ending and rely conflict. (Record companies, for the record (ahem...) aren't doing too well, these days. Especially since a chap, Steve Jobs, brought out this thing called "iTunes". And everyone else figured out how to get their music for free.)
Anyway, Flickr is advertising for people. (Apply? Yes I would. But they're in San Francisco and I'm not.)
That tells me two things: either they're actually changing. Or they want to change but need someone to tell them how to do that. (Why do I think it's the latter? Because of the job descriptions.)
What I'm really interested in is how far Yahoo, and hence Flickr, has sunk. I suspect it's much lower in the water than they're telling, but not quite at the water sloshing over the gunwales* stages. (*It's pronounced, and often spelled, "gunnels". I don't know why.) The danger is that moving in the wrong direction could sink the entire affair. As a side note, they're down quite a bit.)
This should be interesting. I wish whomever they hire well. And a golden parachute.
Carolyn Ann
Anyway, Flickr is advertising for people. (Apply? Yes I would. But they're in San Francisco and I'm not.)
That tells me two things: either they're actually changing. Or they want to change but need someone to tell them how to do that. (Why do I think it's the latter? Because of the job descriptions.)
What I'm really interested in is how far Yahoo, and hence Flickr, has sunk. I suspect it's much lower in the water than they're telling, but not quite at the water sloshing over the gunwales* stages. (*It's pronounced, and often spelled, "gunnels". I don't know why.) The danger is that moving in the wrong direction could sink the entire affair. As a side note, they're down quite a bit.)
This should be interesting. I wish whomever they hire well. And a golden parachute.
Carolyn Ann
A survey of the Republican candidates
Another review of the Republican line up is needed. Not that there aren't about a trillion, zillion of the things out there. :-) (Mine is special. Because, er, well because it is! :-D )
Newt Gingrich: Sort of announced the formation of an exploratory committee. He explored the possibility that someone might want to advise him on running. Unfortunately, he couldn't find anyone. So he's creating a reality TV show about his run for Exploratory Committee and forthcoming run for President.Is in danger of being Is the next John McCain: thinks he deserves the Presidency because, well, he does. Looks like a bitter old white guy because he is a bitter old white guy.
Tim Pawlenty: Announced. No one noticed.
Mike Huckabee: Says he has a nice house in Florida. Might want a squat in DC, but he's not sure, yet. Earns more saying idiotic things on Fox News. A favorite of the Evangelical crowd, he might decide to run. In which case, hang onto your brassieres and derrieres - this man hates equal rights. Could raise some serious cash - especially when you consider how enthralled the Supreme Court is with enabling the purchase of the White House. (Did Chief Justice Roberts never hear of the Teapot Dome scandal? Or did he think it displayed Ayn Rand-ian wonder? One can only wonder... [Sorry :-) ] ) Could prove nettlesome to Mr Obama. Not photogenic; jowly like Richard Nixon was.
Michelle Bachmann: Has said she's running. Has pretty much moved to Iowa. Has made some rather egregious errors with American history, but only the East Coast Elites noticed and who cares about them? Could be dangerous. Has fund raising power; is a social conservative and wants to wage a real war on women's rights. Would run a weak campaign; she has all the impetuousness of Sarah Palin with the people management skills of John Edwards. (In other words: the word is she's hell to work for.) Photogenic, except when photographed from some angles - then she just looks like a crone. Her weak spot is that she is the female Dick Nixon.
Mitt Romney: Who cares?
Donald Trump: Single policy candidate. Has formed an exploratory committee of paid Private Investigators who are exploring Hawaii. And running into this thing called "the truth". A significant impediment to anyone taking him seriously is Gail Collins, the NY Times humorist who has an uncanny ability to see straight through the man. His biggest problem is his TV series: if he made it to the White House, his ability to fire anyone would be severely curtailed. Won't be able to keep a campaign team together: do you really want someone who says "You're fired!" campaigning for the Presidency? Neither he nor his hair is photogenic.
Rand Paul: Wants to destroy America to save America. Is quite happy to see America fail in order to prove that he was right in buying all that Mexican gold. A real charmer, but I doubt he wants to be the Ralph Nader of the GOP. Has little money-raising prowess. He isn't all that photogenic, but who cares?
Sarah Palin: Not a contender. Was last seen slinking around Brooklyn muttering "I coulda been a contender!"
Did I miss anyone? Oh well. I'm sure they won't mind, because no one has noticed them.
Carolyn Ann
Newt Gingrich: Sort of announced the formation of an exploratory committee. He explored the possibility that someone might want to advise him on running. Unfortunately, he couldn't find anyone. So he's creating a reality TV show about his run for Exploratory Committee and forthcoming run for President.
Tim Pawlenty: Announced. No one noticed.
Mike Huckabee: Says he has a nice house in Florida. Might want a squat in DC, but he's not sure, yet. Earns more saying idiotic things on Fox News. A favorite of the Evangelical crowd, he might decide to run. In which case, hang onto your brassieres and derrieres - this man hates equal rights. Could raise some serious cash - especially when you consider how enthralled the Supreme Court is with enabling the purchase of the White House. (Did Chief Justice Roberts never hear of the Teapot Dome scandal? Or did he think it displayed Ayn Rand-ian wonder? One can only wonder... [Sorry :-) ] ) Could prove nettlesome to Mr Obama. Not photogenic; jowly like Richard Nixon was.
Michelle Bachmann: Has said she's running. Has pretty much moved to Iowa. Has made some rather egregious errors with American history, but only the East Coast Elites noticed and who cares about them? Could be dangerous. Has fund raising power; is a social conservative and wants to wage a real war on women's rights. Would run a weak campaign; she has all the impetuousness of Sarah Palin with the people management skills of John Edwards. (In other words: the word is she's hell to work for.) Photogenic, except when photographed from some angles - then she just looks like a crone. Her weak spot is that she is the female Dick Nixon.
Mitt Romney: Who cares?
Donald Trump: Single policy candidate. Has formed an exploratory committee of paid Private Investigators who are exploring Hawaii. And running into this thing called "the truth". A significant impediment to anyone taking him seriously is Gail Collins, the NY Times humorist who has an uncanny ability to see straight through the man. His biggest problem is his TV series: if he made it to the White House, his ability to fire anyone would be severely curtailed. Won't be able to keep a campaign team together: do you really want someone who says "You're fired!" campaigning for the Presidency? Neither he nor his hair is photogenic.
Rand Paul: Wants to destroy America to save America. Is quite happy to see America fail in order to prove that he was right in buying all that Mexican gold. A real charmer, but I doubt he wants to be the Ralph Nader of the GOP. Has little money-raising prowess. He isn't all that photogenic, but who cares?
Sarah Palin: Not a contender. Was last seen slinking around Brooklyn muttering "I coulda been a contender!"
Did I miss anyone? Oh well. I'm sure they won't mind, because no one has noticed them.
Carolyn Ann
Sage advice (otherwise known as "pretty obvious, really...")
Two bits of advice:
- Don't wear high heels when you've recently put your back out
- Don't try to walk very far in high heels when you've recently put your back out
- Don't chase after a bit of dropped mail that the wind has picked up* when you're in high heels and have recently put your back out
Okay, that's three bits of sage wisdom. Or, as it might be called "sodding obvious".
*It's not like it could blow very far! The edge of the driveway, perhaps?
I think I'll go take some Advil and pass out for a couple of hours. And I'll put on some slippers. Ooh. My back.
Carolyn Ann
To boldly tiptoe where other Republicans fear to tread?
Mitt Romney has declared that he's going to ... Open an exploratory committee. To see whether he should run for president or not.
What boldness! What deft politicking! What a wimp.
Here's the man who, with nary a concern for the consequences to dog or career, packed the family pet on the roof of the car so his family could go on holiday. Here's the man who bravely implemented a health care system that seems to be sort of working. Here's the man who faced down a lot of taunting (because of the dog) to declare himself a candidate for the 2008 election. With impetuousness like that, you'd think the man would stand up and bellow that he's running.
Instead, he's tiptoeing into the paddling pool. Letting others make the decision for him, and trying to make sure Republicans remember who he is. (The man who introduced Obamacare to America and the man who puts his dog on the roof of his car. A real Republican would shoot the dog and anyone who needed Obamacare.) Mitt? Mitt who?
Carolyn Ann
What boldness! What deft politicking! What a wimp.
Here's the man who, with nary a concern for the consequences to dog or career, packed the family pet on the roof of the car so his family could go on holiday. Here's the man who bravely implemented a health care system that seems to be sort of working. Here's the man who faced down a lot of taunting (because of the dog) to declare himself a candidate for the 2008 election. With impetuousness like that, you'd think the man would stand up and bellow that he's running.
Instead, he's tiptoeing into the paddling pool. Letting others make the decision for him, and trying to make sure Republicans remember who he is. (The man who introduced Obamacare to America and the man who puts his dog on the roof of his car. A real Republican would shoot the dog and anyone who needed Obamacare.) Mitt? Mitt who?
Carolyn Ann
Monday, April 11, 2011
This should be interesting...
Mr El'Jai Devoureau, is suing the firm, Urban Treatment Associates of Camden, NJ, (a rehab center) that fired him. His job, apparently, was to monitor men peeing into plastic cups. They say only a man can watch other men urinate into plastic cups. The problem is that Mr Devoureau was born a girl. An interesting twist crops up: he refuses to say how much surgery, etc he's had. What his treatment, the State of Georgia altered his birth certificate and New Jersey has him marked down as a chap.
This is going to be an interesting case - not least because it's not one of "those trannies", you know: male to female. It involves a man.
Leaving aside the whole privacy thing (it really is no one's business how much surgery the man has or hasn't had), the NY Times article poses two questions: "what is a man", and can you discriminate against the transgendered? New Jersey's anti-discrimination law covers the first one: gender expression is covered. And I think the Diane Schroer case says "nope", you can't fire someone just because they're transgendered. Basically you can't discriminate against someone because of who they are. The question of whether you can fire someone for not revealing their medical history is covered by America's HIPAA law, I think. It doesn't look as if the rehab clinic has much of a case, does it? That depends. They might think they have a case based on discriminating against someone for being what they are. In Mr Devoureau's case, they're firing him for being transgendered. Is that covered by anti-discrimination law? Again, the Diane Schroer case seems to say it is. The clinic, it seems, doesn't have a case. Perhaps their lawyers will point that out to them?
I would think the transsexual exceptionalists would be appalled by this case; it exposes their essential hypocrisy: the "binary" gender conventions they deplore and simultaneously argue should be enforced with disdain and enthusiasm. (Well, they provide the disdain and the rhetorical nonsense to support their elitism and hypocrisy; their targets provide the challenge to gender identity and expression.) More on that later.
All in all, a bit of a mess. So while I wish it would go to court, and the result be a firm and clear statement that discrimination against any is foolish and not to be tolerated (?), I'd hate to see Mr Devoureau be the guinea pig for that effort. On the other hand, and to be perfectly frank, I think a case involving a man has a much better chance of succeeding, because of simple misogyny. As more than a few people have found out, it's easier to put on pants and be accepted than a skirt and be considered anything other than a freak.
I wish Mr Devoureau success in getting his job back.
Carolyn Ann
This is going to be an interesting case - not least because it's not one of "those trannies", you know: male to female. It involves a man.
Leaving aside the whole privacy thing (it really is no one's business how much surgery the man has or hasn't had), the NY Times article poses two questions: "what is a man", and can you discriminate against the transgendered? New Jersey's anti-discrimination law covers the first one: gender expression is covered. And I think the Diane Schroer case says "nope", you can't fire someone just because they're transgendered. Basically you can't discriminate against someone because of who they are. The question of whether you can fire someone for not revealing their medical history is covered by America's HIPAA law, I think. It doesn't look as if the rehab clinic has much of a case, does it? That depends. They might think they have a case based on discriminating against someone for being what they are. In Mr Devoureau's case, they're firing him for being transgendered. Is that covered by anti-discrimination law? Again, the Diane Schroer case seems to say it is. The clinic, it seems, doesn't have a case. Perhaps their lawyers will point that out to them?
I would think the transsexual exceptionalists would be appalled by this case; it exposes their essential hypocrisy: the "binary" gender conventions they deplore and simultaneously argue should be enforced with disdain and enthusiasm. (Well, they provide the disdain and the rhetorical nonsense to support their elitism and hypocrisy; their targets provide the challenge to gender identity and expression.) More on that later.
All in all, a bit of a mess. So while I wish it would go to court, and the result be a firm and clear statement that discrimination against any is foolish and not to be tolerated (?), I'd hate to see Mr Devoureau be the guinea pig for that effort. On the other hand, and to be perfectly frank, I think a case involving a man has a much better chance of succeeding, because of simple misogyny. As more than a few people have found out, it's easier to put on pants and be accepted than a skirt and be considered anything other than a freak.
I wish Mr Devoureau success in getting his job back.
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Not for use over 8ft...
The dryer has been acting a bit strange - sometimes stopping randomly, sometimes not even going on. As it's still under warranty, we called the company and they dispatched a chap who basically told us the dryer vent was blocked, and that the frequent power outages we have here have probably destroyed the control board.
So I promised the Mrs I'd do something about the dryer vent. It's a 16 foot length of flexible hose, with a 2 foot galvanized steel "connector" in the middle. I spotted a label on the flexible pipe: not for use over 8 feet.
Great. Guess what I'm doing this afternoon!
Carolyn Ann
So I promised the Mrs I'd do something about the dryer vent. It's a 16 foot length of flexible hose, with a 2 foot galvanized steel "connector" in the middle. I spotted a label on the flexible pipe: not for use over 8 feet.
Great. Guess what I'm doing this afternoon!
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Is that really a good pairing?
The company that produces non-stop cars is, apparently, getting together with the company renowned for producing computers that stop on a whim. Yup, Microsoft is going to do the telematics systems for Toyota.
(What the heck are the telematics systems?)
Steve Balmer, Microsoft's boss, said: “customers will be able to turn on the heat or A.C. in their car while their vehicle is plugged into the grid or dynamically monitor miles until the next charging station right from their GPS system. Or a customer could use a smartphone to check battery power or maintenance information remotely.”
So while you drive, you can turn on the heat or air in your car using your smartphone. You can also have your smartphone tell you that you're not too smart for missing that last charging station. The next one is a mile past your maximum possible range and it's uphill, too. (I've run out of gas on bikes; I know this is a physical law. Like gravity.)
Just think: you'll not even have to drive your car if Microsoft is in charge. Until that security hole is patched (next Thursday), some hacker in Toledo Ohio will be happy to do the driving for you. Or perhaps they'll content themselves controlling your heat and air; just think of that nice cooling breeze going over you when it's 10 below where you are and 90 above where the hacker is.
Well, at least Toyota can reasonably claim their cars now stop. When Windows crashes, you'll get the option of physically crashing, reporting your crash to Microsoft so they may improve your crashing experience or pressing "ctl-alt-delete" and watching your car boot up while you're in the fast lane of either the NJ Turnpike (around Manhattan) or doing an exact 70MPH into that parking lot called the M25. Unplugging the car will help if your car has totally frozen. In which case you're not going anywhere, anyway, so it's not like you've changed your situation any.
Oh well. At least they didn't have Apple do the telematics. Steve would dictate what your driving experience was and you could always buy a new one (to go home, for instance) from iTunes or the App Store.
Carolyn Ann
(What the heck are the telematics systems?)
Steve Balmer, Microsoft's boss, said: “customers will be able to turn on the heat or A.C. in their car while their vehicle is plugged into the grid or dynamically monitor miles until the next charging station right from their GPS system. Or a customer could use a smartphone to check battery power or maintenance information remotely.”
So while you drive, you can turn on the heat or air in your car using your smartphone. You can also have your smartphone tell you that you're not too smart for missing that last charging station. The next one is a mile past your maximum possible range and it's uphill, too. (I've run out of gas on bikes; I know this is a physical law. Like gravity.)
Just think: you'll not even have to drive your car if Microsoft is in charge. Until that security hole is patched (next Thursday), some hacker in Toledo Ohio will be happy to do the driving for you. Or perhaps they'll content themselves controlling your heat and air; just think of that nice cooling breeze going over you when it's 10 below where you are and 90 above where the hacker is.
Well, at least Toyota can reasonably claim their cars now stop. When Windows crashes, you'll get the option of physically crashing, reporting your crash to Microsoft so they may improve your crashing experience or pressing "ctl-alt-delete" and watching your car boot up while you're in the fast lane of either the NJ Turnpike (around Manhattan) or doing an exact 70MPH into that parking lot called the M25. Unplugging the car will help if your car has totally frozen. In which case you're not going anywhere, anyway, so it's not like you've changed your situation any.
Oh well. At least they didn't have Apple do the telematics. Steve would dictate what your driving experience was and you could always buy a new one (to go home, for instance) from iTunes or the App Store.
Carolyn Ann
Schoolyard & barroom fights
I'm starting to think that the earlier machismo-driven brinkmanship has led to a rather dangerous situation. It's a bit like a bar fight - there are plenty of times leading up to that first punch where either side could back down. And without losing face or respect! But if one of the participants wants to fight... Well, nothing is going stop them. And then comes that moment when the instigator realizes it wasn't a good idea to pick that fight.
I think the Republicans are at that point.
Mind you, the Democrats were passive/aggressive all along. Which never helps oil turbulent waters! I suppose a few of them are wondering if they can get away with claiming not to have done anything; unfortunately for them, I don't think so.
Also, like a schoolyard fracas, both sides are shouting the other one started it first. The left believe the Dems and the right fanatically back the GOP. No one seems to be paying attention to the fact that neither side exactly shied from the fight. The GOP, however, are clearly the ones who were itching to fight. Some of them still are.
But it's all coming out, now. Some of the more idiotic Tea Party supporters still want a fight, while the adults and those who pretend to be adults, try to figure a way out. No one wants to be seen as throwing that first punch; right now, there's a lot of huffing and puffing, and the fists are clenched, but no one has actually landed one on the other fellow. It won't be long, however, before some idiot does so.
Mr Obama hasn't helped, much. He's done his usual, leaving it up to Congress. Herding cats might be a more satisfying and fruitful job. The press is eagerly reporting on, well, nothing and laying blame firmly at the feet of whomever they last interviewed.
Not a very satisfactory state of affairs. The GOP somehow managed to seize the initiative; the Dems, as usual, waffled and wailed and allowed the Tea Party to basically shape the budgetary conversation. (When will the Dems realize that they need to seize the initiative? Especially if it's been presented on a golden platter?) After that, any thought of compromise was shot. The Tea Party has become infamous for its "my way or the highway" politics. It's everywhere: their contempt for women, for working people and for anyone who isn't white and middle class with a secure source of income. (Yes, I'll keep calling the Tea Party misogynist and racist until they prove they aren't.) They act first and ignore the consequences later. The Dems should know this; it's not like they've ever hidden their political strategies! Interestingly, while the Tea Party are beating up on the Republican leadership, it seems to be the Democrats who are being hammered!
All in all, it doesn't look good for the government shutdown. I fully expect the slanging match to be accompanied by some serious bruising come the weekend. The one thing, I think, that Mr Obama has on his side is his position. The endless whining of the GOP and Tea Party has reduced their credibility; if they seek to blame the Dems and Mr Obama, the only people likely to believe them are their die hard supporters. Whom make up somewhere between 23% to 35% of the nation's voters. Mr Obama has decent ratings and Mr Boehner has good ratings among those who know who he is. Which turns out to be fewer people than know who Mr Obama is.
Okay people: let's party like it's 1995.
Carolyn Ann
I think the Republicans are at that point.
Mind you, the Democrats were passive/aggressive all along. Which never helps oil turbulent waters! I suppose a few of them are wondering if they can get away with claiming not to have done anything; unfortunately for them, I don't think so.
Also, like a schoolyard fracas, both sides are shouting the other one started it first. The left believe the Dems and the right fanatically back the GOP. No one seems to be paying attention to the fact that neither side exactly shied from the fight. The GOP, however, are clearly the ones who were itching to fight. Some of them still are.
But it's all coming out, now. Some of the more idiotic Tea Party supporters still want a fight, while the adults and those who pretend to be adults, try to figure a way out. No one wants to be seen as throwing that first punch; right now, there's a lot of huffing and puffing, and the fists are clenched, but no one has actually landed one on the other fellow. It won't be long, however, before some idiot does so.
Mr Obama hasn't helped, much. He's done his usual, leaving it up to Congress. Herding cats might be a more satisfying and fruitful job. The press is eagerly reporting on, well, nothing and laying blame firmly at the feet of whomever they last interviewed.
Not a very satisfactory state of affairs. The GOP somehow managed to seize the initiative; the Dems, as usual, waffled and wailed and allowed the Tea Party to basically shape the budgetary conversation. (When will the Dems realize that they need to seize the initiative? Especially if it's been presented on a golden platter?) After that, any thought of compromise was shot. The Tea Party has become infamous for its "my way or the highway" politics. It's everywhere: their contempt for women, for working people and for anyone who isn't white and middle class with a secure source of income. (Yes, I'll keep calling the Tea Party misogynist and racist until they prove they aren't.) They act first and ignore the consequences later. The Dems should know this; it's not like they've ever hidden their political strategies! Interestingly, while the Tea Party are beating up on the Republican leadership, it seems to be the Democrats who are being hammered!
All in all, it doesn't look good for the government shutdown. I fully expect the slanging match to be accompanied by some serious bruising come the weekend. The one thing, I think, that Mr Obama has on his side is his position. The endless whining of the GOP and Tea Party has reduced their credibility; if they seek to blame the Dems and Mr Obama, the only people likely to believe them are their die hard supporters. Whom make up somewhere between 23% to 35% of the nation's voters. Mr Obama has decent ratings and Mr Boehner has good ratings among those who know who he is. Which turns out to be fewer people than know who Mr Obama is.
Okay people: let's party like it's 1995.
Carolyn Ann
Not lost in translation
The Guardian has a few more details about Mr Beck's departure from the deliberately tumultuous shores of Fox News. Apparently, when they play his show on Fox News International, advertisers are so scarce, they do news updates!
The man lost over a million viewers in 2010. I knew it was down a third, but I really didn't want to contemplate the fact that meant almost three million people watched his show. It seemed too, well, out there. It was. He's down to 1.9 million viewers, with the clear implication that three million people actually did watch his show!
I once read an article, it was in either the NY Times or Slate, I forget which, that detailed how the Tea Parties really got started. People, usually middle aged or older white guys, would invite others to watch Mr Beck at some diner. From there it was a short step to being outraged and, frankly, inane and inconsistent. I recently got a view of this in a local car shop; the populist, and inconsistent, politics on display was actually pretty scary! What really made me wonder was a piece of paper with "Living As Southern As Possible!" on it; I'd never seen that mantra before.
Now Mr Beck's departure has been announced, I expect he will lose viewers at a faster clip. His recent fame has enabled him to build a small media empire; what seems to be lost on many is that his media company needs his daily appearances on Fox News. Once he's out of the limelight, he's not likely to be as powerful. Mind you, he will continue to be a force in far right politics. Now he has an audience, and many more ways of reaching them than that old anti-Semite, Father Coughlin had, Mr Beck will still be able to influence some conversations. Unfortunately, I don't think the man who tells everyone to do their homework will stop cherry-picking the "facts" he researches. So his influence is likely to remain quite toxic!
On the other hand, he still has his radio show. I've lost track of how many stations carry him, but I do know a few have cancelled. Again, the declining numbers of listeners speak for themselves; if his show was popular, it would be carried. It's not, so it's dropped. Unlike Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, Mr Beck doesn't have a sustainable outrage; conspiracy theories get old, real fast, unless you're one of the converted.
All in all, I think Fox News executives are glad to see the back of him. Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, said ""Glenn Beck is a powerful communicator, a creative entrepreneur and a true success by anybody's standards. I look forward to continuing to work with him." I think that basically translates to "Has the man left the building?" As Keith Olbermann pointed out, with a declining audience, a veritable fleet of advertisers unwilling to put their ads on his show and a lot of cheap ads in their place - his audience might have been large, the profit margins on his show weren't. That's what will hobble Mr Beck's "media empire", too. Because that's all that really matters: if you can't pay your bills, you can't go on the air. Mr Beck will not fade into the woodwork anytime soon, but his pernicious influence will quickly fade. He's going to take that awful, but well deserved, journey from powerhouse to has-been. Perhaps he can interview Newt Gingrich?
Carolyn Ann
The man lost over a million viewers in 2010. I knew it was down a third, but I really didn't want to contemplate the fact that meant almost three million people watched his show. It seemed too, well, out there. It was. He's down to 1.9 million viewers, with the clear implication that three million people actually did watch his show!
I once read an article, it was in either the NY Times or Slate, I forget which, that detailed how the Tea Parties really got started. People, usually middle aged or older white guys, would invite others to watch Mr Beck at some diner. From there it was a short step to being outraged and, frankly, inane and inconsistent. I recently got a view of this in a local car shop; the populist, and inconsistent, politics on display was actually pretty scary! What really made me wonder was a piece of paper with "Living As Southern As Possible!" on it; I'd never seen that mantra before.
Now Mr Beck's departure has been announced, I expect he will lose viewers at a faster clip. His recent fame has enabled him to build a small media empire; what seems to be lost on many is that his media company needs his daily appearances on Fox News. Once he's out of the limelight, he's not likely to be as powerful. Mind you, he will continue to be a force in far right politics. Now he has an audience, and many more ways of reaching them than that old anti-Semite, Father Coughlin had, Mr Beck will still be able to influence some conversations. Unfortunately, I don't think the man who tells everyone to do their homework will stop cherry-picking the "facts" he researches. So his influence is likely to remain quite toxic!
On the other hand, he still has his radio show. I've lost track of how many stations carry him, but I do know a few have cancelled. Again, the declining numbers of listeners speak for themselves; if his show was popular, it would be carried. It's not, so it's dropped. Unlike Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, Mr Beck doesn't have a sustainable outrage; conspiracy theories get old, real fast, unless you're one of the converted.
All in all, I think Fox News executives are glad to see the back of him. Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, said ""Glenn Beck is a powerful communicator, a creative entrepreneur and a true success by anybody's standards. I look forward to continuing to work with him." I think that basically translates to "Has the man left the building?" As Keith Olbermann pointed out, with a declining audience, a veritable fleet of advertisers unwilling to put their ads on his show and a lot of cheap ads in their place - his audience might have been large, the profit margins on his show weren't. That's what will hobble Mr Beck's "media empire", too. Because that's all that really matters: if you can't pay your bills, you can't go on the air. Mr Beck will not fade into the woodwork anytime soon, but his pernicious influence will quickly fade. He's going to take that awful, but well deserved, journey from powerhouse to has-been. Perhaps he can interview Newt Gingrich?
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Bye, Mr Beck
Glenn Beck is leaving Fox News.
Amazing but true.
Mr Beck and Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, waxed lyrical love poems to each other, but I think that was a fell-off Broadway show put on for the cameras. I think what really happened was that Mr Beck's declining ratings made it impossible for him to stay at Fox News. After all, he'd lost them about 300 advertisers; Fox says they went to other shows on Fox. Which kind of missed the point. It's difficult to make money when all you have is low rent and remainder advertisers. At a crucial spot in the day, too!
Ultimately, of course, Fox News needs to change. It can't keep the same people in the same time slots yelling about the same things over and over and expect to retain any relevancy. Glenn Beck was losing his audience, and while he still had more than anyone else - it's not good when your audience numbers keep going declining. They'd end up with the Glenn Beck Show appealing to right wing conspiracy theorists and no one else. (The Glenn Beck Show appeals to right wing conspiracy theorists, and no one else, anyway.) As even the Tea Party has discovered: you can't stay angry all the time. The people who run Fox News aren't stupid - if you've lost a third of your viewers, how long will it be before that particular steamroller falls off the cliff? No one can say Mr Beck is a fresh, talented, guy anymore. When your show doesn't change, people lose interest. Mr Beck's message and show hasn't, as far as I can see, changed since he started on Fox News. His much-vaunted and quite over-rated talent is beginning to look like a one-trick pony. So, knowing that once a stampede starts, people will increasingly just stop watching Mr Beck, I think they've decided to cut their losses at Fox News.
So what's next? Mr Beck will probably continue his tirades; apparently he's busy doing the sort of things you do when you're starting your own TV channel, and the love fest between Fox News and Mr Beck will continue for the meanwhile. Lou Dobbs is sitting in the wings, waiting for his chance; he's just as right wing as Mr Beck, but he's not a conspiracy nut. Overall, I can't help but think Mr Beck will begin to fade into the background. After all - if he starts a cable channel, he's going to be competing with Fox News. And Mr Ailes is better at indignation and persuading you you're a victim.
Carolyn Ann
Amazing but true.
Mr Beck and Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, waxed lyrical love poems to each other, but I think that was a fell-off Broadway show put on for the cameras. I think what really happened was that Mr Beck's declining ratings made it impossible for him to stay at Fox News. After all, he'd lost them about 300 advertisers; Fox says they went to other shows on Fox. Which kind of missed the point. It's difficult to make money when all you have is low rent and remainder advertisers. At a crucial spot in the day, too!
Ultimately, of course, Fox News needs to change. It can't keep the same people in the same time slots yelling about the same things over and over and expect to retain any relevancy. Glenn Beck was losing his audience, and while he still had more than anyone else - it's not good when your audience numbers keep going declining. They'd end up with the Glenn Beck Show appealing to right wing conspiracy theorists and no one else. (The Glenn Beck Show appeals to right wing conspiracy theorists, and no one else, anyway.) As even the Tea Party has discovered: you can't stay angry all the time. The people who run Fox News aren't stupid - if you've lost a third of your viewers, how long will it be before that particular steamroller falls off the cliff? No one can say Mr Beck is a fresh, talented, guy anymore. When your show doesn't change, people lose interest. Mr Beck's message and show hasn't, as far as I can see, changed since he started on Fox News. His much-vaunted and quite over-rated talent is beginning to look like a one-trick pony. So, knowing that once a stampede starts, people will increasingly just stop watching Mr Beck, I think they've decided to cut their losses at Fox News.
So what's next? Mr Beck will probably continue his tirades; apparently he's busy doing the sort of things you do when you're starting your own TV channel, and the love fest between Fox News and Mr Beck will continue for the meanwhile. Lou Dobbs is sitting in the wings, waiting for his chance; he's just as right wing as Mr Beck, but he's not a conspiracy nut. Overall, I can't help but think Mr Beck will begin to fade into the background. After all - if he starts a cable channel, he's going to be competing with Fox News. And Mr Ailes is better at indignation and persuading you you're a victim.
Carolyn Ann
PS It seems Keith Olbermann is somewhat in agreement with me! :-)
John Boehner offers a... Compromise?
Apparently John Boehner offered the President and Democrats a compromise. The problem was a $33B gap between what the Dems, etc, would cut and what the House GOP wanted. So, Cryin' Johnnie offered them something to make everyone's eyes water: he's willing to settle if the Dems and President will agree to $40B of cuts.
Yup, you read that right.
They were discussing $33B in cuts, and Sobbin' John now demands they discuss $40B in cuts. $7B more. Some compromise!
So, yes. I agree with him: if the government does shut down, it works for the democrats. Because they can now say "We were a few billion shy of agreement, and the Republicans came in making new demands! The GOP disrupted the talks!" And the evidence, evidence that not even Fox News could deny (although I have no doubt they'll try), points to the GOP as itching to shut down the government.
The GOP's new campaign slogan: Reasonable is a four letter word!
Carolyn Ann
Yup, you read that right.
They were discussing $33B in cuts, and Sobbin' John now demands they discuss $40B in cuts. $7B more. Some compromise!
So, yes. I agree with him: if the government does shut down, it works for the democrats. Because they can now say "We were a few billion shy of agreement, and the Republicans came in making new demands! The GOP disrupted the talks!" And the evidence, evidence that not even Fox News could deny (although I have no doubt they'll try), points to the GOP as itching to shut down the government.
The GOP's new campaign slogan: Reasonable is a four letter word!
Carolyn Ann
Fetlife? What's fetlife?
I was wondering why my post, "Transgender porn is the absolute objectification of women" had suddenly appeared on my "Popular Posts" list. (That was put there on a whim; I was curious.) The post is quite old, written in the dark deep depths of pre-history (Dec 23, last year; hey: we're talking internet time, here! Last week is antiquité!) :-)
So I checked the statistics for that post. Turns out all of the referrals are coming from a site, "Fetlife". Fetlife is, apparently,
So now I know. My life was not enhanced by the acquisition of this knowledge.
Carolyn Ann
So I checked the statistics for that post. Turns out all of the referrals are coming from a site, "Fetlife". Fetlife is, apparently,
"the largest and most popular FREE Social Network for the Kinky community (Bondage, BDSM & fetish). Similar to Facebook and mySpace but for ..."I don't know what it says after the ellipses. I copied that from a Google search for "fetlife". They even have a Wikipedia entry. It seems someone wrote about my post, and others are taking a peek at it, as a result. Go figure!
So now I know. My life was not enhanced by the acquisition of this knowledge.
Carolyn Ann
The Republicans Throws A Tantrum
In an amazing feat of invention blogaristic [wth?] journalism [?] I obtained, and can exclusively publish, some of the transcript of Mr Obama's meeting with the leadership of the House Republicans. Unfortunately, the first page of the meeting minutes was lost when I my source ran away. We pick up the meeting half way through.
JB: "You will cut the budget by unreasonable amounts!"
EC: "Our sponsors, sorry, constituents have been clamoring for this for years!"
EC: "We need to destroy Medicare and Medicaid to save our wealthy benefactors money!"
JB: "Psst, don't you mean "constituents"?"
EC:"Oh, sorry. We need to destroy anything that smacks of socialism!"
The 1: "Nope, won't!"
EC: "You will!"
The 1: "What're you going to do if I don't?"
JB: "We'll close down the government!"
The 1: "You'll be blamed for it."
EC: "Won't!"
The 1: "Will!"
EC: "Won't!"
The 1: "I think you will be blamed!"
EC: "Won't! Won't! Won't!" (Sticks tongue out)
The 1: "Okay, so what's next?" (Hands JB a hankie)
The 1: "Here, wipe your tears, there's no need to cry!"
JB: "I can't help it! I hate anything that smacks of society trying to help the less fortunate, or women gain independence or ..." (Lots of tears, sniffling and even more tears)
EC: "Do as we say or we close the government down!"
The 1: "You're not the majority, and you don't represent the majority"
EC: "Do!"
The 1: "We do!"
The 1: "Erm, I don't think you do"
EC: "Do! Do! Do! And you'll be in doo-doo if you don't do what we order!" (EC: Giggled)
The 1: "You can't order me!"
EC: "Can, so!"
The 1: "Oh dear. You are being petulant, aren't you?"
EC: "Am not!"
The 1: "Isn't it time for your nap? I have to go catch a big airplane, it's called Air Force One and go on a campaign trip; the nice lady out front will show you where your corporate lobbyists can pick you up and take you home!"
EC: "Am not going! Am not! Agree to destroying America as we know it or I'll sit here and hold my breath until I turn blue!"
The 1: "You will have to go or you don't get your picture, the one taken with me!"
EC: "Ookay. You play dirty! I want my picture!"
(The notes are unintelligible but I think it says "JB, new round of tears")
Pictures taken earlier in the meeting are distributed.
John Boehner, Eric Cantor and so on leave.
The 1: "Wow. Are those people still in kindergarten or what?"
Secret Service Agent: "Sir, that was the House Republican leadership"
The 1: "I know... Like I asked..."
Carolyn Ann
JB: "You will cut the budget by unreasonable amounts!"
EC: "Our sponsors, sorry, constituents have been clamoring for this for years!"
EC: "We need to destroy Medicare and Medicaid to save our wealthy benefactors money!"
JB: "Psst, don't you mean "constituents"?"
EC:"Oh, sorry. We need to destroy anything that smacks of socialism!"
The 1: "Nope, won't!"
EC: "You will!"
The 1: "What're you going to do if I don't?"
JB: "We'll close down the government!"
The 1: "You'll be blamed for it."
EC: "Won't!"
The 1: "Will!"
EC: "Won't!"
The 1: "I think you will be blamed!"
EC: "Won't! Won't! Won't!" (Sticks tongue out)
The 1: "Okay, so what's next?" (Hands JB a hankie)
The 1: "Here, wipe your tears, there's no need to cry!"
JB: "I can't help it! I hate anything that smacks of society trying to help the less fortunate, or women gain independence or ..." (Lots of tears, sniffling and even more tears)
EC: "Do as we say or we close the government down!"
The 1: "You're not the majority, and you don't represent the majority"
EC: "Do!"
The 1: "We do!"
The 1: "Erm, I don't think you do"
EC: "Do! Do! Do! And you'll be in doo-doo if you don't do what we order!" (EC: Giggled)
The 1: "You can't order me!"
EC: "Can, so!"
The 1: "Oh dear. You are being petulant, aren't you?"
EC: "Am not!"
The 1: "Isn't it time for your nap? I have to go catch a big airplane, it's called Air Force One and go on a campaign trip; the nice lady out front will show you where your corporate lobbyists can pick you up and take you home!"
EC: "Am not going! Am not! Agree to destroying America as we know it or I'll sit here and hold my breath until I turn blue!"
The 1: "You will have to go or you don't get your picture, the one taken with me!"
EC: "Ookay. You play dirty! I want my picture!"
(The notes are unintelligible but I think it says "JB, new round of tears")
Pictures taken earlier in the meeting are distributed.
John Boehner, Eric Cantor and so on leave.
The 1: "Wow. Are those people still in kindergarten or what?"
Secret Service Agent: "Sir, that was the House Republican leadership"
The 1: "I know... Like I asked..."
Carolyn Ann
Their feminism might not include you...
Bird of Paradox says:
Feminism doesn't have to include the transsexual or transgender woman.
(By the way, I think it's fair to quote the entire post. It's a bit like quoting a tweet. In fact the entire thing is 143 characters long.)
Here's the issue: transgender and transsexual women often feel excluded from women's events. Usually because the women involved don't want to have anything to do with people who haven't been female from the get-go. Is it discriminatory? Yes. Is it their right? Yes.
The thing is, transgender and transsexual women are not viewed the same as other women. It's not right, it's just what is. Transgender and transsexual women have some different concerns to other women; some of those concerns are facile, some are real and some are manufactured. While there is some overlap between feminism and (what I call) transfeminism, there isn't much of a one. And, to be brutally honest, the transsexual community still hasn't addressed the issue of the wife who put her family before herself, only to find out that the husband wants to be her wife. To many, that's the caricature of the "tranny", and for far too many, it's accurate.
Bird of Paradox is wrong in her statement. The statement is scorning and derogatory. You can be a feminist and not think about the plight of the transgendered or transsexual. Goodness knows, many transfeminists refuse to think about feminism!
It's not a debate about who is a woman or who isn't. It's a debate about who, and what, is important in feminism. Right now, it's incredibly insensitive to suggest to women fighting to preserve a woman's right to control her own future, that they aren't feminists if they don't want transwomen in their audience. Women who thought the battles of the fifty or more years ago, those efforts to be recognized as people and not baby factories and laundresses, are realizing they have to refight those same battles again. Against a group of people, men and women, who are equally determined that women should know their place (in the bedroom and the kitchen), so to speak. The priorities of transwomen just don't matter when you're fighting for your right to be a human being. Oh, don't get me wrong: transwomen have to fight for that recognition, too. But in a different way, and in the same way. In many ways, the transwoman faces an even harder fight - they're starting from a position of absolute disdain and sexualized gossip.
Having a little awareness helps. Bird of Paradox, hiding behind her elongated name, denigrates the feminist because she doesn't automatically include the transwoman. Perhaps there's a fundamental disagreement about the nature of womanhood? It's not the end of feminism. Feminism is about women. Whether some women include transwomen in their definition of women is more important than some idiotic tantrum.
At the end of the day, transfeminism has enough differences with feminism that I continue to argue they can't mix. Just like the transgender and transsexual communities latching onto the gay political effort, the efforts of the transgender and transsexual communities will be ignored because, while important to those communities, other issues matter more to the larger group. And in the real world, the larger group gets to set the agenda. Right now, women aren't advancing their cause: they're simply trying to preserve the gains they've made over the latter decades of the 20th century. Fighting for the rights of a smaller group that not everyone agrees should be included? Not a priority. That's realpolitik. It sucks, but it is.
Carolyn Ann
If you…I think she is missing the point.
…are a cis woman and advertise an event as “women only” when you mean “cis women only”, please don’t try and tell me you’re a feminist.
Feminism doesn't have to include the transsexual or transgender woman.
(By the way, I think it's fair to quote the entire post. It's a bit like quoting a tweet. In fact the entire thing is 143 characters long.)
Here's the issue: transgender and transsexual women often feel excluded from women's events. Usually because the women involved don't want to have anything to do with people who haven't been female from the get-go. Is it discriminatory? Yes. Is it their right? Yes.
The thing is, transgender and transsexual women are not viewed the same as other women. It's not right, it's just what is. Transgender and transsexual women have some different concerns to other women; some of those concerns are facile, some are real and some are manufactured. While there is some overlap between feminism and (what I call) transfeminism, there isn't much of a one. And, to be brutally honest, the transsexual community still hasn't addressed the issue of the wife who put her family before herself, only to find out that the husband wants to be her wife. To many, that's the caricature of the "tranny", and for far too many, it's accurate.
Bird of Paradox is wrong in her statement. The statement is scorning and derogatory. You can be a feminist and not think about the plight of the transgendered or transsexual. Goodness knows, many transfeminists refuse to think about feminism!
It's not a debate about who is a woman or who isn't. It's a debate about who, and what, is important in feminism. Right now, it's incredibly insensitive to suggest to women fighting to preserve a woman's right to control her own future, that they aren't feminists if they don't want transwomen in their audience. Women who thought the battles of the fifty or more years ago, those efforts to be recognized as people and not baby factories and laundresses, are realizing they have to refight those same battles again. Against a group of people, men and women, who are equally determined that women should know their place (in the bedroom and the kitchen), so to speak. The priorities of transwomen just don't matter when you're fighting for your right to be a human being. Oh, don't get me wrong: transwomen have to fight for that recognition, too. But in a different way, and in the same way. In many ways, the transwoman faces an even harder fight - they're starting from a position of absolute disdain and sexualized gossip.
Having a little awareness helps. Bird of Paradox, hiding behind her elongated name, denigrates the feminist because she doesn't automatically include the transwoman. Perhaps there's a fundamental disagreement about the nature of womanhood? It's not the end of feminism. Feminism is about women. Whether some women include transwomen in their definition of women is more important than some idiotic tantrum.
At the end of the day, transfeminism has enough differences with feminism that I continue to argue they can't mix. Just like the transgender and transsexual communities latching onto the gay political effort, the efforts of the transgender and transsexual communities will be ignored because, while important to those communities, other issues matter more to the larger group. And in the real world, the larger group gets to set the agenda. Right now, women aren't advancing their cause: they're simply trying to preserve the gains they've made over the latter decades of the 20th century. Fighting for the rights of a smaller group that not everyone agrees should be included? Not a priority. That's realpolitik. It sucks, but it is.
Carolyn Ann
Demagoguery or idiocy, you decide...
Anne has an interesting headline, this evening. It almost makes sense, if you don't think about it: "Demagoguery or a simple choice. YOU decide".
Let me see:
Demagoguery: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
Using Anne's infantile argument, you get to choose between uninformed populism and a simple choice. The simple choice being uninformed populism, or an uninformed opinion about the budget.
There's a larger point at play here, which is why I pick on Anne and her (as usual) uninformed populism. It's exemplified by Glenn Beck, but he's only the latest protagonist of the whole far right idiocy. The Birchers were an important step along the way, believing in global conspiracies and the like (Glenn Beck seems to believe in them, too). Never mind the varied competence of bureaucrats, these people prefer their paranoid delusions. And that's is what's at play in Paul Ryan's budget: paranoid delusion, and more than a few numbers and statements that aren't connected to reality.
In this forthcoming all-but-certain government shutdown, the Republicans and Tea Partiers will decry Mr Obama as a spendthrift socialist. What they will fail to mention is that they want to enact the greatest denigration of social security, Medicare and Medicaid America has ever seen. This wasn't in any of their electoral promises - "Vote for me! I'll reduce your pensions, how much we spend on your health care in your waning years and give the poor wedgie they'll not soon forget! And I'll give tax breaks to rich people and big corporations!" Doesn't quite do it as a vote-getter.
I don't think any sane person could argue that the US government needs to change. What is debatable is how it should change, at what pace and what needs to change. The Tea Partiers and they're fanatical, unthinking supporters, are adamant that they will determine all of that. Discussion and debate be damned. Promises of open, responsive government be damned. It's their way or the highway.
Some of the more inane statements made by the right include the number of days $33B buys: 3 days of US government. Anne gets into the spirit of things by including a number, $45,000 as your share of what? She doesn't explain, but she makes it seem awful scary. Or at least she tries to, but like that raving moron on the TV, her delivery is more fun than any coincidence her statements have with fact. No one sees fit to mention what that $33B actually buys - and does it include the costs of waging war in Afghanistan, operating in Iraq and Libya, keeping South Korea peaceful and not communist? Does it buy pensions, or drugs so others can live a bit longer? How about border patrols and the FBI? What is $33B relative to the rest of government expenditure? Does it include capital expenses, such as new cruise missiles to replace the ones fired at Col Qaddafi? How about sniper detection equipment, or close service protection for diplomats working in the more hostile regions of the world?
The point is: no one really knows, because you can't break the US budget into simple numbers and expect anything but idiocy. What about Anne's $45k per what? Taxpayer? Corporation? Over how long a period is that money owed? Is it put to good use, funding things like school programs, road works, mortgage relief (to help, oh perhaps, the developers who built too many houses?) and so on. What does it buy? The number is meaningless without context.
I expect we'll see lots of meaningless numbers in the forthcoming days and weeks. The Republicans are intent on proving they run the country when they don't, they're determined to impose an austerity budget on America when all that will do is scare the markets, and they're determined to make the average person suffer for not being rich. Or for being a woman. Or poor. Or elderly.
Childish? These idiots are like that kid who held his breath until he turned blue. My vote? Let him turn blue. We can always call an ambulance to rescue the moron.
Carolyn Ann
(Just as an aside: why does Anne insist on telling us to think for ourselves, while she repeats what she's heard and read? Personally, I think Anne is the worst kind of follower. Or best. It depends on whether you consider unthinking knee jerk reactionary hysteria to good or bad.)
Let me see:
Demagoguery: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
Using Anne's infantile argument, you get to choose between uninformed populism and a simple choice. The simple choice being uninformed populism, or an uninformed opinion about the budget.
There's a larger point at play here, which is why I pick on Anne and her (as usual) uninformed populism. It's exemplified by Glenn Beck, but he's only the latest protagonist of the whole far right idiocy. The Birchers were an important step along the way, believing in global conspiracies and the like (Glenn Beck seems to believe in them, too). Never mind the varied competence of bureaucrats, these people prefer their paranoid delusions. And that's is what's at play in Paul Ryan's budget: paranoid delusion, and more than a few numbers and statements that aren't connected to reality.
In this forthcoming all-but-certain government shutdown, the Republicans and Tea Partiers will decry Mr Obama as a spendthrift socialist. What they will fail to mention is that they want to enact the greatest denigration of social security, Medicare and Medicaid America has ever seen. This wasn't in any of their electoral promises - "Vote for me! I'll reduce your pensions, how much we spend on your health care in your waning years and give the poor wedgie they'll not soon forget! And I'll give tax breaks to rich people and big corporations!" Doesn't quite do it as a vote-getter.
I don't think any sane person could argue that the US government needs to change. What is debatable is how it should change, at what pace and what needs to change. The Tea Partiers and they're fanatical, unthinking supporters, are adamant that they will determine all of that. Discussion and debate be damned. Promises of open, responsive government be damned. It's their way or the highway.
Some of the more inane statements made by the right include the number of days $33B buys: 3 days of US government. Anne gets into the spirit of things by including a number, $45,000 as your share of what? She doesn't explain, but she makes it seem awful scary. Or at least she tries to, but like that raving moron on the TV, her delivery is more fun than any coincidence her statements have with fact. No one sees fit to mention what that $33B actually buys - and does it include the costs of waging war in Afghanistan, operating in Iraq and Libya, keeping South Korea peaceful and not communist? Does it buy pensions, or drugs so others can live a bit longer? How about border patrols and the FBI? What is $33B relative to the rest of government expenditure? Does it include capital expenses, such as new cruise missiles to replace the ones fired at Col Qaddafi? How about sniper detection equipment, or close service protection for diplomats working in the more hostile regions of the world?
The point is: no one really knows, because you can't break the US budget into simple numbers and expect anything but idiocy. What about Anne's $45k per what? Taxpayer? Corporation? Over how long a period is that money owed? Is it put to good use, funding things like school programs, road works, mortgage relief (to help, oh perhaps, the developers who built too many houses?) and so on. What does it buy? The number is meaningless without context.
I expect we'll see lots of meaningless numbers in the forthcoming days and weeks. The Republicans are intent on proving they run the country when they don't, they're determined to impose an austerity budget on America when all that will do is scare the markets, and they're determined to make the average person suffer for not being rich. Or for being a woman. Or poor. Or elderly.
Childish? These idiots are like that kid who held his breath until he turned blue. My vote? Let him turn blue. We can always call an ambulance to rescue the moron.
Carolyn Ann
(Just as an aside: why does Anne insist on telling us to think for ourselves, while she repeats what she's heard and read? Personally, I think Anne is the worst kind of follower. Or best. It depends on whether you consider unthinking knee jerk reactionary hysteria to good or bad.)
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
I read the GOP Budget
And survived.
I should have that put on a t-shirt! (On the other hand, that's 2 hours of my life I'll never get back.)
I actually did read Paul Ryan's "budget". (I'd do a curtsy, but I'm too busy hiding behind the sofa, scared of those Washington liberals and their increasingly apparent reasonableness.) I thought "I wonder if there are any hard numbers in it?" You can dispute hard numbers. It's impossible to refute numbers that seem to be dreamed up and presented in a way that leaves you wondering if Paul Ryan and the GOP have any acquaintance with reality*. His budget certainly isn't familiar with the concept of reality. He's certainly familiar with the concept of "hyperbole". One table has two columns: "Path to Prosperity" and "President's FY2012 Budget" (p7). I can't help but wonder why he didn't call the second one "Road to Ruin"!
* Don't be silly. The GOP has an ever decreasing connection to reality. It's going to get worse as we get closer to the 2012 election. By then, my guess is that Sarah Palin will, as a GOP candidate, look reasonable.
I started preparing a detailed refutation. You know, the sort of thing I've used in the past to refute someone's numbers or (il)logic(al) [ :-) ] claims. I abandoned it when it seemed it was going to be larger than the GOP "budget" plan. For instance, where does he get the $1.5T tax increase he claims?
It's not a budget - it's a political pamphlet dressed up to look vaguely intelligent. Unfortunately, but quite expectedly, it's more vague than intelligent.
Carolyn Ann
I should have that put on a t-shirt! (On the other hand, that's 2 hours of my life I'll never get back.)
I actually did read Paul Ryan's "budget". (I'd do a curtsy, but I'm too busy hiding behind the sofa, scared of those Washington liberals and their increasingly apparent reasonableness.) I thought "I wonder if there are any hard numbers in it?" You can dispute hard numbers. It's impossible to refute numbers that seem to be dreamed up and presented in a way that leaves you wondering if Paul Ryan and the GOP have any acquaintance with reality*. His budget certainly isn't familiar with the concept of reality. He's certainly familiar with the concept of "hyperbole". One table has two columns: "Path to Prosperity" and "President's FY2012 Budget" (p7). I can't help but wonder why he didn't call the second one "Road to Ruin"!
* Don't be silly. The GOP has an ever decreasing connection to reality. It's going to get worse as we get closer to the 2012 election. By then, my guess is that Sarah Palin will, as a GOP candidate, look reasonable.
I started preparing a detailed refutation. You know, the sort of thing I've used in the past to refute someone's numbers or (il)logic(al) [ :-) ] claims. I abandoned it when it seemed it was going to be larger than the GOP "budget" plan. For instance, where does he get the $1.5T tax increase he claims?
It's not a budget - it's a political pamphlet dressed up to look vaguely intelligent. Unfortunately, but quite expectedly, it's more vague than intelligent.
Carolyn Ann
Baucus finds his backbone?
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), one of the roadblocks to proper healthcare reforms, said "we can't allow the house to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and we won't - not on my watch." You see, Paul Ryan, the Republican budget guru and head of the House Budget Committee, has proposed that the elderly get vouchers for health care instead of actual health care. They can take these vouchers and use them to buy private insurance.
Doesn't take more than a moment to figure out the problem, does it?
"Here, in the waning years of your life, you have complete health care coverage! Unless your insurance company denies it for some reason, but we're not into regulating the marketplace. We trust competition to do give you the services you need! So what if you can't change insurance company because the one you're with denied you life saving treatment, and you're in a hospital bed trying to stay alive! You should have thought of that before getting sick!" That's just one thought that went through the old noggin'.
Mr Ryan's plan wouldn't just "end Medicare", it would help America become the one nation where getting old was, well, how can I put this? Punished? Getting old in this nation is bad enough - it used to be not so bad, but the various state legislatures and Washington have all helped make it somewhat more fraught than is reasonable. Now Mr Ryan, who presumably never had a Granny, wants to punish the elderly. Oh, he also wants to reward the rich and the big corporations.
The Republicans, ideologically driven by the Tea Party lunatics, are increasingly demanding that the poor, women and the elderly all be punished for simply being poor, or a woman, or elderly. If you're a working stiff, you're getting your own shafting from the GOP. But it's all fiscally responsible, isn't it?
Carolyn Ann
Doesn't take more than a moment to figure out the problem, does it?
"Here, in the waning years of your life, you have complete health care coverage! Unless your insurance company denies it for some reason, but we're not into regulating the marketplace. We trust competition to do give you the services you need! So what if you can't change insurance company because the one you're with denied you life saving treatment, and you're in a hospital bed trying to stay alive! You should have thought of that before getting sick!" That's just one thought that went through the old noggin'.
Mr Ryan's plan wouldn't just "end Medicare", it would help America become the one nation where getting old was, well, how can I put this? Punished? Getting old in this nation is bad enough - it used to be not so bad, but the various state legislatures and Washington have all helped make it somewhat more fraught than is reasonable. Now Mr Ryan, who presumably never had a Granny, wants to punish the elderly. Oh, he also wants to reward the rich and the big corporations.
The Republicans, ideologically driven by the Tea Party lunatics, are increasingly demanding that the poor, women and the elderly all be punished for simply being poor, or a woman, or elderly. If you're a working stiff, you're getting your own shafting from the GOP. But it's all fiscally responsible, isn't it?
Carolyn Ann
NATO runs out airplanes
After agitating to intervene in Libya, it seems that NATO, in particular the British and French, are a little stuck. They need some airplanes from America because they've run out. After rushing through their ridiculous and unnecessary layoffs in the armed forces, Britain will run out of people to arm, fix and pilot the airplanes they have sent.
Let me see... Europe is all about being a soft power. Mostly because they counted on America being a hard power. Now, when a couple or so European nations are almost desperate for some sort of global leadership relevancy, they launch an adventure without considering how they'll actually accomplish it! "Mission Accomplished?" How about "The dog ate my mission!" I can't help but think that the British and French figured that once America was involved, they'd stay involved. And they could ride American coattails to success (and glory). Unfortunately domestic political concerns, namely a forthcoming election and weird group of Congressional isolationists, didn't seem to pass notice in the Palais de Élysée or the once-hallowed halls of Whitehall. The fact that even a limited military incursion costs a lot of money seems to have escaped 10 Downing St. Europe is just not set up, financially or any other wise, to conduct the military incursions.
Now, there's nothing wrong with being a soft power. Basing all your power on the peaceful idea of trade is quite reasonable, in fact. The EU, when it gets it act together (rarely), is quite a potent force in world affairs. But when it comes to military actions, Europe spends too much time fretting about the past and not enough worrying about how the changes in global conditions affect its influence. I'm not arguing that Europe needs a massive military infrastructure - that's unrealistic, and besides, no one really questions American hegemony. (They grouch about it, but no one seriously questions it.) What I am arguing is that if you're eager to be a global influence, and want to be taken seriously, it's best to not run out of airplanes or troops when those things are required!
As we've seen, not all problems can be solved with soft power alone; as Iraq ably demonstrated, relying solely on hard power is an astonishingly stupid idea (who knew? Oh, yeah: anyone with a brain). And, as I've just said, Europe isn't ready, and likely will never be, for American style defense expenditure. But it's really embarrassing if you need, and have had a definite need for a long, long time, for strategic assets like military cargo planes, aircraft carriers, adequate troops levels to support incursions and so on. And you don't have them because you either ignored the need, or mothballed or even retired the capability you did have! The world has changed, no more dramatically than in the last couple of years; the challenges that face Europe are different to those they've faced before. Europe is facing, like America, the rise of other regional powers, whether it's Brazil, China, a newly belligerent Russia, and other problems such as regional strife in Africa and the Middle East. To be fair, Africa is perennially in regional strife; what has changed is the demand that the West be able to do something about it. No one wants another Darfur or beget a failed state like Somalia.
European electorates will continue to demand humanitarian interventions, and they will continue to refuse the invoice for them. The militaries of the world might restructure themselves to cope with the new demands. Canada, for instance, trains many in its military to be (quite literally) traffic cops. Major wars, such as Russia invading Europe, are a thing of the past. China is an unknown; all indicators are that they are content to be a regional power, preferring to push the bill for global peacekeeping onto the Americans. (It's actually a very clever strategy!) China also faces internal opposition that seems (finally!) to be gaining strength; no one really knows how China will respond to that. But one thing is clear: the emerging powers have economic, diplomatic and political influence; they do not have hard power. No one except the Americans can project their power very far. Britain keeps trying, but it keeps shortchanging itself. (If there were another Falklands War, for instance, Britain would not be in any position to fight it! As a simple matter of political preparation, I'd be reluctant to look at Argentina and definitely claim their economy and politics will be stable enough to prevent such a thing within the next 20 years.) And yet European voters keep demanding interventions.
At some point Europe has to realize that the desire to prevent massacres has to backed by solid military might. Recent American military history proves that you can't project power on the cheap - it's a convincing argument to say Iraq, and especially Afghanistan, became quagmires because of idiocy and negligence at the top, underfunding of the military force required (the simple "you broke it, you bought it" principle) and a lack of clear political policy and direction. Britain and France (and, to a lesser extent, America) have provided mumbles where clarity is needed. It also helps to have a military that isn't scrambling for funds, reeling from layoffs and has the capabilities, along with the political and budgetary support needed, to do the jobs the politicians and voters demand they do.
So far I'd have to say that Britain and France want to be seen doing something meaningful, without actually doing much at all.
Carolyn Ann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)