Apparently war has been declared

RadicalBitch (I don't recommend clicking on the link) has, apparently, decided I'm worth declaring some sort of war against. (If you want a giggle, I recommend clicking on that link. It stays on this blog.)

I wonder what that means?

According to her, I'm a sociopath and sexually deviant. I've been accused of many things in my life, but those are new ones. Let me see, "sociopath"... "noun, a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience." (Oxford American Dictionary.) I think that describes RadicalBitch quite well.

I tried to be nice, and RadicalBitch (RB from now on) gets all cross and throws a tantrum.

You know, it's almost impossible to take anyone seriously if their name is an Internet handle. It's really difficult to take someone seriously when they hide behind a handle and throw tantrums.

Oh well. I'm quite sure I'll find out what it all means. I wonder if it's exciting?

Added: Oh, you know, I should add: RadicalBitch connects to the Internet through Schenectady, NY, using Verizon as her ISP, runs a Windows XP system with a 1600x900 screen resolution and uses Firefox 3.6. She was on my website for a little under 8 hours. And I have all this information captured. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Macho morons (fetch the eye wash)

Neither party is, according to the NY Times, blinking. The debt ceiling is up for grabs and we have a contest between a bunch of reactionary idiots who can't think beyond sound bites and a canny (street) fighter. The only problem is that the canny fighter, Harry Reid, isn't dealing with one opponent. They've ganged up on him, and he's not getting any support from the Dems. They're asking each other if they want to hold the man's coat!

I know Will Rogers said "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat", but this is ridiculous. Could someone at least grab Harry's coat?

And can someone please tell the Republican rank and file that their leadership sold them out? In a meeting with Wall St bigwigs, where Cryin' Johnny Boehner promised they wouldn't do anything too serious to imperil the US credit rating. For such an anti-gay party, they sure are putting on the "theatrics"!

Carolyn Ann

No quite Easy Rider...

With a baleful silence, I sat at the front of a long line of cars, the red light having turned green. Silence might be golden, but right then it told me the engine of the bike had stopped. The whirring of the starter told me it wasn't going to restart any time soon. That "squeee!" I'd heard about 5 miles back had been me, after all.

Wonderful time and place to break down: one of the busiest roads in the area at rush hour. Pointed uphill. If evil looks were effective, I'd be 60 feet under that road. I counted at least half a dozen well-wishers, yelling encouragement for various, probably impossible, actions I could perform in the near future. (Un)Fortunately there wasn't much any one could do except wait for me to back up to the side of the road.

A stroke of good fortune had the Mrs about 5 minutes ahead of me; she turned about, collected me and we went to get the truck. Which led to the next round of joy. While the cops arrested some guy across the street (literally; two cop cars, two very intent, very serious looking, cops and one chap realizing he had food and board for the night, just not in his first choice of accomodation), I struggled to get the bike onto the bed of the truck. No one stopped, except one decent scholar and gentleman and all was done in a jiffy. By then, of course, rush hour was well over and traffic was back to normal. What was strange was I looked up once, the cops were searching the man. I did my thing strapping the bike to the truck, looked up and the cops were gone! I didn't even hear them disappear.

Ah well. Another repair I have to do. Another bit to buy. But, home sweet home (which more than I can say for at least one chap). I have to say, the Mrs looked very cute driving the truck. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Another one?

Another major banker has been arrested, in New York, for sexually assaulting a hotel maid.

Good grief.

Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar, the former head of the Bank of Alexandria, was arrested yesterday for an assault that allegedly happened on Sunday. However, the maid didn't report the assault until the next day. Such a delay is, apparently, not unusual in sexual crimes. That being said, the cops found her story credible and have arrested the man.

One top banker being arrested for sexual assault is an aberration. Two being arrested is disturbing.

I think it's time for the top hotels to implement rules about hotel staff and top bankers.

Carolyn Ann

It's "atheist", not Atheist

Added: Okay, folks. There's nothing to see, here. :-) Really.

You know those drips that accumulate in the bottom of your saucer when you're having a nice cup of tea? This is a spring shower in those accumulated drips. The simple fact is, the English language dictates that atheist is spelled with a lower case "a", except when it follows a period. Be that as it may, my opinion on the matter is neither here nor there. You do what you want!

For a throw-away post, this sure did generate of a lot of interest. (I'm keeping an eye on my stats because of an argument I'm engaged in with some transsexual women. It's quite lively and I encourage you to read about it. That's the End of the Self-Serving Announcement. :-)

Here's the post:

====

I've seen this more and more: people writing "Atheist", as if it were a proper noun. It's not. It's a mere noun. Christian is a proper noun, atheist isn't. Jewish is a proper noun. Muslim is, too. Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Wiccan are all proper nouns. Atheist isn't.

Here's the rule: proper nouns represent a unique entity. It is the name of something specific. A faith is something specific, a lack thereof is not. If there's nothing to be specific about, there's nothing to name. Therefore atheist is a common noun and doesn't get capitalized. (Except at the beginning of sentences.)

A Christian, while there are many of them, is a unique entity: the faith of Christianity is unique, it is specific. An atheist is not a unique entity. (Sorry. They just ain't. :-) ) If atheism was cast into different beliefs, you could write "he is a Secular atheist". It isn't. Secular is an adjective, so it follows the normal rules for capitalization.

An atheist might be inclined to argue that atheism is no different to a religion (that would be a mighty strange atheist, to be sure!) and as such, it should be capitalized. That's what's called a "stupid argument". It ignores the rules of English, emphasizing wishful, inarticulate thinking instead.

So: the name of a religion is a proper noun. It gets capitalized. The reasonable alternative to wishful thinking, atheism, is not a proper noun. It doesn't get capitalized. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Transphobia from a transsexual

Suzan, of the dubiously named "Women Born Transsexual" blog, is really quite annoyed with the "Transgender Borg Collective" and "Transgender Inc". She doesn't describe who is in those groups, but she's really annoyed with them.

She's quite judgmental:

Too often I hear transsexual wannabees with a ton of reasons why they can’t get surgery now or why they couldn’t do it when they were young. Or the it’s too hard to get the money.

"Transsexual wannabees", hmm? My oh my. You know what? I don't give a flying fuck what Suzan thinks of my reasons for not doing what she's done. It's my frickin' life, and I happen to like it. Tough tiddlywinks, Suzan, if you don't like my decisions. You don't get to make my decisions and you don't get to criticize them. You don't want others to personally criticize you? Don't personally criticize them.

I love this statement:

Many of us have had to do things like sex work that we didn’t want to do in order to survive and to get surgery.

You know, people have to make their own decisions. There are times when a woman is beaten into prostitution; it's a continual problem for law enforcement, and one of the reasons prostitution should remain illegal. But if you've made a decision and, further, decide you need to engage in prostitution to fund that decision, you don't get to claim innocence. That's not being unsympathetic - that's being realistic.

You dishonor those sacrifices and struggles by demanding to be considered the same as us without getting your sex reassignment surgery.

What? Gender reassignment is the same as armed service? Having gender reassignment entitles you to respect from others? Sod that. Soldiers deserve to be respected and honored, everyone else has to earn it. Suzan, you don't get my respect by demanding it. You get it by earning it. You don't earn it by self-sacrificial superiority, either. Or by calling people names. Or by bigotry.

I am not the same as Suzan, she is not the same as me. She has a set of qualities that make her unique. She's had her life experience, I've had mine. Neither is superior to other. I'm not the same as Suzan, or any other person. I'm me. I am the same as Suzan in one essential regard: I'm a person. She's had her battles, I've had mine. I could demand that she respect me, simply because I've overcome some unique challenges in my life; I could also, more reasonably, request that she consider that everyone, or at least just about everyone, has had their own challenges to deal with. She doesn't get to claim her challenges are worse than anyone else's. Some people do overcome challenges that we can agree are greater than is usual; having a sex change is not one of those. It is a challenge, a difficult one, but it is not greater than some of the things others' have to deal with. I don't get to demand anyone's respect; I can decide if it's worth earning their respect, but I don't get to demand it.

All in all, Suzan, in her blog post, does a lot of whining. She tells us she's hard done by, but "graciously" concedes some points. She brings in the irrelevant (why just "heterosexual crossdressing abusive men"? Aren't some homosexuals abusive, too? And what does their sexuality have to do with any of it?) and dispenses with the relevant. She also tries to make herself a martyr to the cause of transsexual superiority. Instead of arguing that we're different, and there's value in those differences, she tells us that she's in a position to judge others, their motivations and their lives. She advises those she insults to abide by that facile Serenity Prayer; she would do well to consider her own advice. Suzan chose her path in life. She doesn't get to wear it as a Sword of Damocles.

Carolyn Ann

The "Transgender Borg Collective"

There's a growing trend among some transsexual women to denigrate the transgendered. At its root is the idea that the transsexual is not transgendered; I'm not quite sure how this conclusion is reached, but it is. Actually, I do know how it is reached. :-)

Here's the idea: if you're a transsexual woman, undergoing the whole gender reassignment process, it's clear you've always been a woman. Therefore, you're not transgendered because, well, the transgendered are "people who do not conform to gender, such as drag queens/kings, cross dressing and transvestite males, gender queer activists or gender non-conforming people who identify with their physical sex." The transsexual woman was born with a medical condition - that of being born into a male body. In other words, the transsexual woman has always been a woman.

I like the "I define myself, but I get to define others" bit. It's not disingenuous, it's downright nasty.

Which isn't a problem for the fans of this approach. After all, if you're going to make yourself superior to others, to denigrate them, then you do need to be vague and insulting about your foe. Being specific is too difficult and undermines the whole emotional "argument". I'm quite sure Ms Love, for instance, is aware that "transvestite" has been considered a derogatory term for quite some time. But that's a sideshow. The main feature isn't the differentiation of the transsexual from the merely transgendered; it's Ms Love's bigotry.

Yup. Bigotry.

Here's the thing: if you need to vaguely define those you despise, to generalize "them" into one big nefarious group, and then proclaim your superiority to them, you're being bigoted. Racists lump non-whites and non-blacks into all-enompassing groups. Anti-Semites consider all Jews to be the same. The KKK argues that white protestants are superior to everyone. There are lesser forms of bigotry; Tea Partiers who consider all "liberals" to be Muslim-loving traitors, or liberals who view all right wing supporters as neanderthal knuckle draggers, for instance. Basically, if you need to differentiate yourself by grouping entire populations into a larger generalized group, with various attributes being attributed, you're a bigot.

Let's take Ms Love's definition of the transgendered, shall we? She argues that they are "people who do not conform to gender ...[a list of those examples] ... who identify with their physical sex". Ms Love, in other words, argues that I share some essential attributes with drag queens. I don't, but Ms Love is more than happy to lump me in with gender-queers as well. In other words, Ms Love is satisfying the most essential condition of bigotry: lumping entire populations based on a perceived common attribute. Confusingly, she needs another very vague generalization to help support her bigotry: she needs to argue that only those people who have undergone the needed procedures are genuine transsexuals. If you're undergoing the procedures, I'm sure Ms Love will consider you part of her happy group as well. If you're not undergoing those, well, then you're transgendered. Basically she argues that she gets to judge your life, but that you have to comply with her requirements when you judge hers. It's a common trait among the bigoted.

I should note that I'm actually having a spot of bother with this post. It's not that Ms Love and her commenters are putting forward viable arguments. It's that their arguments are so diverse I'm having trouble figuring out where to start. The common theme is the bigotry; Ms Love and her commenters all feel a need to differentiate themselves from the merely transgendered. If they left it at that there'd be nothing to argue about. But they don't - they, collectively, feel a strong need to denigrate the transgendered while they differentiate themselves.

(I'll note that I'm not going to address the rather stupid claim that "transgender" is socio-political. Mostly because it's such an inane claim it needs its own blog post. :-) )

For instance, Suzan asserts "[t]he Transgender Borg collective [sic] are the real problem. they [sic] are like a cult ..." Really? The transgendered, whom include everyone from drag queens to the genderqueer, are a Borg-like collective, all of a mind and all intent upon enforcing their views upon others? Really? My oh my. Here's the thing: if the transgendered are so diverse, how can anyone expect them to have such a single-minded determination? The short answer? There isn't any such coherence. That there is no such groupthink is neither here nor there; Suzan thinks it exists. Instead, there are a plethora of groups all insisting that only their definitions and standards are correct and right-minded. Most of these definitions and standards share only the trait of being poorly thought through. But let's not let that stop Suzan from labeling all those who are not transsexual as being a member of the transgender Borg collective.

Here's another thought about the bigot: if your definition of whom is in your group needs constant tweaking, you're in trouble. I wonder if Suzan's definition of a transgendered person includes someone who has decided not to go through the whole gender reassignment process, or if it includes only those with acceptable motivations for such a decision? The constant tweaking of who is acceptable and who is part of that transgender Borg must take a lot of time, but I doubt it requires much, if any, thought. (Agree with her, fine. Disagree, you're part of that evil collective.)

The issue isn't that transsexual women are different from the transgender woman; I doubt anyone could argue that there is no difference or that it doesn't matter. The issue is how you tackle it. Denigrating others, by lumping disparate groups, attributing common traits, characteristics and views to them and generally stating or implying that you're superior to such-and-such a group is not the way to persuade others. It is, however, a good way of proving you're a bigot. Ms Love does all that, and more, in her "open letter" to Marie Claire magazine.

Carolyn Ann

It's a heat stroke, baby, yeah yeah...

Well, it was almost a heat stroke. As a side affect of those awful storms in the mid-West, we're having a bit of a heat wave over on the East Coast. And I had some plumbing work to do in the knee-wall space at the back of the house. Wow! Was it hot back there!

Let me put it this way: my t-shirt was soaked. It's still soaked almost 8 hours after being taken off. Literally. My guess? I lost a couple of pounds back there. Getting out of that space was dodgy work; I drank over a pint of pure fruit juice to replace the sugars and a couple of pints of water to quench the obvious thirst.

I'm just glad I have a knee wall to work behind. Those poor folk in Joplin and other places don't have that luxury.

Carolyn Ann

Texas Loves Its Homophobia

Here's an interesting story. The New York Times reports that, in Texas, there's a law that "sort of" states that you're the gender you were born. I say "sort of" because it's not exactly clear. As a result, some County Clerks issue marriage licenses to transsexual people, and some don't.

So you can be a woman, for instance, on your drivers license, passport and so on. But if your birth certificate says "M", don't get married in Texas. The interesting question is, of course, what if you've changed your birth certificate? Quite a few places let you do that. That leaves Texas in a rather disturbing place: its government has sanctified discrimination against a very small group of people. If you're unfortunate enough to be born in a place that won't change your birth certificate, Texas says it's okay to discriminate against you; in fact, Representative Lois W. Kolkhorst, she sponsored the discriminatory legislation, says the state must discriminate against you. But if you're from a state or nation that does change birth certificates, and you want to marry someone of the opposite gender in Texas - Texas is none the wiser.

If every document you have reflects your new self accurately, but your birth certificate doesn't: tough tiddlywinks, you ain't getting married in Texas. Unless... If you're a transsexual woman and your birth certificate says "M", and you want to marry a woman, or (just to be interesting), a transsexual woman whom has had her birth certificate changed - you can get married! '

I have to wonder what Ms Kolkhorst thinks of a transgender woman being married to a woman? Let's say you're a transgendered individual, wearing dresses and skirts (so to speak) all the time. Your wardrobe contains nothing but women's clothing. And you want to marry a woman. According to her law, you can. Which is probably not what she wants; Ms Kolkhorst prefers to tell you that the state does not approve of your relationship if you fit certain, very arbitrary, criteria. In fact, she insists that the state discriminate against you and deny you a right they extend to others who don't fit the arbitrary criteria she introduced.

So, to summarize: Texas might, and probably will, discriminate against you if you were unfortunate enough to be born in a place that doesn't change your birth certificate as part of your gender reassignment process.

It's all part of an effort to prevent gay marriage, naturally. After all, it wouldn't be right to just discriminate against one group, would it?

Carolyn Ann

Jeez, I'm about done in...

We decided to turn the upstairs bathroom into a largish walk-in closet. This, of course, entails removing all the bathroom fixtures. In a dark, not very ventilated and quite warm room. (I'll install a new bathroom in a wee while.)

All but the tub is out. :-) That's going to need the water cutting off, and I need to do a load of wash before I do that. (Our washer and dryer are upstairs, by the bedroom. It makes it all so much easier! Which still doesn't explain, to the Mrs, how I never "see" the laundry... What laundry? :-) )

And I'm looking forward to a well-earned beer.

Carolyn Ann

The Quitter May Run, Yet...

Sarah might make a bid for the Presidential nomination!

I'm not sure if that's good news, stupid or bad. She would certainly shake up what is, so far, a lackluster Republican line-up. No one is sure if she will run; I think she will: she could almost taste the top job, and she's not the sort to leave it at that. I think she'll plan, plot and self-destruct her way to a decent showing. Standing against her is the whole "quitting when the going got tough" thing. Standing for her is her populism, her ability to (almost) recover from self-inflicted gaffs and her ambition.

I don't think her shortened tenure as governor is all that limiting; what will do her in is her infamous temper and her almost total lack of self discipline. She needs to understand that running for President isn't a part-time job and that it comes with a level personal scrutiny that she helped enable. She goes through staff with an alacrity that is disturbing, and if it's applied to a presidential campaign will be absolutely debilitating and, apparently, she trusts her husband's political instincts more than anyone else's. Which will sink her campaign like a stone, what with him having the political instincts of a stone.

She's actually a more credible candidate than Michelle Bachmann; that woman has an alarming ability to not only inflict damage upon herself, but also to compound it and ensure those around her are caught in the crossfire, too! Can you imagine Ms Bachmann on a trip like Mr Obama's current one? The English would send the mayor of Upper Chippingham to do the meet and greet on the basis that he's at least dead. (Quick note: I have no idea if there is an Upper Chippingham, or, if it exists, if it has a mayor. :-) )

Ms Palin would knock out any of the lesser candidates immediately; indeed, the rumor she may run has already placed them in the "irrelevant" category. Others, such as Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty have their own problems; Ms Palin will be quick to exploit those divisions and issues. All that fake buddy-buddy nonsense they have on Fox News will disappear; when you're going for the Presidency, you can't afford to be nice to those who want to get there before you. Think of the Obama/Clinton conflagration as kindergarten playtime. Ms Palin's ambition is probably matched by Ol' GrinchyGit's; although I'd argue she probably has more ambition, fewer qualms and an almost visceral hatred of the man. She's got a pathological hatred of opponents, so it will be a bloodbath before she's through. Mind you, she won't find Mr Obama an easy opponent; his campaign will make the dirty deeds of Bill Clinton's and George Bush's look like a genteel tea party. It would be a knock-down, drag out, knees and knuckles in tender spots, type of a campaign. That could be interesting; I think Mr Obama has definitely toughened up over the last couple of years, and he is, I think, very interested in a second term. (He wouldn't be on such a well-timed trip to Europe otherwise.) He also clearly doesn't think too much of Ms Palin; he's the sort of principled person who would go toe-to-toe simply to prevent her getting the job. Ms Palin's principles are a little more obvious, and while they are smaller in scope - being limited to her self-interest - she's displayed an ability to get deliver the punches, even if she's demonstrated no ability to take them. And then there's her alleged move from Alaska to Arizona; she'll need to explain that. Her opponents will make sure she needs to... Let me put it this way: if Newt can't get his half-million dollar revolving credit account from Tiffany's off the front-pages, she's going to find it harder to explain how such an Alaskan loyalist can move to Arizona.

She's definitely running out of time to get herself nominated. There's so much to be done before the convention; including making nice to all those party bigwigs, enlisting the rank and file, reviving a flagging political movement, and figuring out which dogs of (political) war to release. She also needs to start reading.

And that is her weak spot.

Carolyn Ann

An interesting hypocrisy

Julie Bindel, no stranger to charges of hypocrisy, wrote, in The Guardian, "As a radical feminist I want to rid the world of gender." She was writing a comment about a Canadian couple whom have decided not to reveal their baby's gender.

Ms Bindel doesn't want to rid the world of gender, as she claims. She wants to level the playing field. A worthy goal, but one she strives to achieve by simultaneous appeal and ridicule. She's also quite well known as quite a bigot, in her own right. Her stance on the transsexual woman is well known; her ineptness with logical argument hides her actual point and displays her bigotry. Because she does, like Germaine Greer, ask an important question about the definition of "woman". What really makes this interesting is that some transsexual women echo Ms Bindel and Ms Greer! (I should note that the target of their bigotry is an even smaller group, the "merely" transgendered.)

I don't know if gender can be removed from the world; I don't think it should be. Whether it can depends on how you view gender; is it an entirely social construct or (more likely) a mix of the biological and social? I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world where gender was unimportant. Gender is quite important to me, and to, I suspect, the majority of transgendered individuals and transsexuals. It's even important to the gender-rejecting; if it was unimportant, they'd not care enough about it to reject it. It's clearly important to Ms Bindel; she seems to define herself solely by her gender. The people for whom it isn't important are those who have no reason to think about it. Which would be most of the world's population!

All in all, Ms Bindel displays her usual insouciance about gender and it's importance to so many; she also proves herself incapable of holding a consistent view on anything except herself.

Carolyn Ann

Reasons to wear a helmet (with a visor)

There are plenty of reasons to wear a helmet when you're out and about on a motorcycle. Reason #23 has to be "Splat!"

As in that rather awful noise as some large multi-legged critter makes it acquaintance with either your teeth (I guess you could say that was nutritious? "Hi, honey, are you hungry?" "No, I ate on the way over...") or your visor. (Or, as happened to me a few years ago, the splat was made by a bird with uncanny accuracy. Yuk.)

Reason #24 is probably the "Thunk!" a particularly large bug makes.

Plenty of "splats" and "thunks" this evening. :-\

Carolyn Ann

A special kind of idiot...

I-95, the main north/south East Coast highway passes through northern Delaware. I-295, a sort of "subsidiary" road that passes through New Jersey (pretty much paralleling the Turnpike, and going from the south-west to the north-east-ish, joins it at the Delaware Memorial Bridge. In northern Delaware, I-95 is a fast road, and quite narrow: only two lanes head north. It also has plenty of entries and exits. The exits tend to be long, making them easy, and the entrances tend to be really short, making them incredibly dangerous.

The speed limit is an impossibly low 55MPH; if you actually do that velocity, you're likely to end up as a hood ornament on some SUV or truck. The bare minimum speed is usually in the 65 to 70 range; not too many go much faster until it widens into a 4 or 5 lane highway up in Pennsylvania. So taking a bike, a Vespa, for instance, that can barely manage the posted speed limit upon Interstate 95 takes a special kind of stupidity.

Fortunately (?) I have that. ... In spades. :-)

Which explains why I was riding my Vespa on I-95 in northern Delaware. The rest of "it" I have absolutely no idea. It didn't even seem like a good idea at the time! (It wasn't.)

Oh well.

Carolyn Ann

Unfair doesn't begin to describe this...

Nikki Araguz, the wife of a Texas firefighter who was killed in the line of duty, is, apparently, about to have her marriage voided by a judge.

The back story is that Nikki is a transsexual woman, and she married Thomas Araguz. He died in a fire, and now his mother and his ex-wife are fighting to ensure she doesn't receive any death benefits. Texas is helping the mother and ex.

Can any of these people spell "unfair"? It's not unfair - it's desperately unfair.

Carolyn Ann

Yuk. Fleas.

So we're in the middle of a flea problem.

One of the cats probably contracted it; when you live in the country, it's virtually impossible to avoid the damn things. Fortunately, we seem to have caught it in two rooms (the wife's office and the upstairs bathroom); it's in the bedroom, but very limited. And they're in the living room, but only in small quantities.

Lots of evil-smelling smoke bombs, expensive cat treatments and nervous snoring is going on around here.

Damn critters.

Carolyn Ann

PS I suddenly remembered what it's called: a flea infestation. Either way, it's 'orrible.

It's (not) the end of the world

So the world didn't end.

Whew.   :-D

Worse, I didn't get a chance to wear my dress!!! :-(

I couldn't decide which shoes to wear, and that was that. A few other things got in the way, but the main problem was the shoes. Oh well. It's not like I had an "end of the world" party to go to. :-(

Right now, I'm guessing Harold Camping - the idiot who started it all - is pondering if senility can be faked. (Answer: no.) On the other hand, I did manage to read some ludicrous blog posts about armageddon. One person claimed that they knew the world wasn't going to end because they were a reincarnated from some other, pre-Jesus, age. ... Seriously. They ridiculed the Mr Camping because they had a past life? Really? Oy vey.

I can't even begin explaining that one. (Let's try this: if you had a past life, then surely your extensive life experience would tell you "don't tell anyone you're the reincarnated soul of some bloke or lass from a long time ago". But that's the wonderful world of folk for you. :-)

I did get a chance to play with some makeup. The results were, erm, not exactly "desirable". C'est la vie.

All in all, it's been quite a weekend! On the really "plus" side, we went to see the Robert Capucci at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Absolutely incredible! (I'll write about that tomorrow. Promise. Unless I forget.) And we saw the new Pirates movie; not the best, but quite enjoyable. And it was a lot of fun trying on shoes. Even if I didn't get a pair that suited my dress. :-)

Carolyn Ann

It's a nice day for an Armageddon

The weather is bright and sunny, a few fluffy clouds in the sky and lots of birds twittering (the old fashioned kind), with cats sleeping in the sun and on the furniture. Definitely a nice day for the end of the world. :-)

I've got a nice dress picked out; we've got a couple of errands to run (I won't be wearing my dress for those; it's too nice, and I might freak people out more than is strictly necessary on such an important, and nice, day. :-D ) I've got to decide which shoes, but that's not exactly a hardship. Well, it might be if I can't decide which shoes to wear.

Well, at least they picked a nice day for Armageddon. :-)

Carolyn Ann

CNN Covers Armageddon

So, by dint of sheer procrastination and invention, I have come across CNN's plans to cover the forthcoming Armageddon.

- Wolf Blitzer will report, live, from Washington with the "Best Armageddon Team on television"
- After Saturday night, he will be a zombie and report from Washington with the "Best Zombie Team" on television
- Anderson Cooper will keep God and Jesus honest; exclusive interviews with both are being scheduled
- John King will show you where Armageddon is, right now, on his big screens
- Considering it's the End of the World, not much new technology will be introduced; Anderson's interviews with God and Jesus will be done with that cool holographic stuff they used in '08
- Solidad O'Brien will report from the flooded Mid-West
- Ali Belshi will report on the affect Armageddon has on the market
- Don Lemon will wonder if telling the world he's gay caused it all
(Sunday; after Armageddon)
- Howard Kurtz will criticize media coverage of the Armageddon; he might provide some live (so to speak) action opportunities if a heavily criticized editor decides to eat him
- Fareed Zakaria will, as a zombie, cover the implications with a distinguished panel of zombies on Sunday (final guest selection depends on who goes to heaven and who gets consumed in the flames of hell)

So there you have it: CNN's Armageddon coverage. :-) I can hardly wait.

Carolyn Ann

Hazardous conditions outlook

HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS OUTLOOKNATIONAL BIBLICAL CONDITIONS SERVICE FAMILY RADIO CA1232 PM EDT THU MAY 19 2011

.DEZ001>ALL OF WORLD1232 PM EDT THU MAY 19 2011

THIS HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS OUTLOOK IS FOR ALL OF THE KNOWN WORLD AND NEW JERSEY

.DAY ONE...THIS AFTERNOON AND TONIGHT.A FEW THUNDERSTORMS MAY PRODUCE VERY HEAVY DOWNPOUR OF FROGS AND TOADS THIS AFTERNOON AND EVENING...RESULTING IN LOCALIZED SQUISHY BITS OF ROAD.

.DAYS TWO...FRIDAY.

FIRE BRIMSTONE AND STUFF WILL RAIN DOWN FROM THE HEAVENS...LOTS OF BAD STUFF WILL HAPPEN...GETTING TICKETS TO LATEST PIRATES MOVIE MIGHT BE DIFFICULT. 

.DAYS THREE...SATURDAY.

.AM SUNNY REASONABLE TEMPERATURES GENTLE BREEZES

.PM END OF WORLD WILL HAPPEN AT ABOUT 2PM...GROUND WILL OPEN UP...SATAN AND HIS MINIONS WILL EMERGE...OTHER REALLY BAD STUFF WILL HAPPEN...BELIEVERS WILL BE SAVED...THE REST OF YOU WILL PERISH IN MISERABLE WAYS...TIM LEHAYE WILL RECOUNT YOUR SUFFERING IN GORY AND VIVID (AND QUITE DISTURBING) DETAIL IN HIS NEXT BESTSELLING DOOMSDAY/ARMAGEDDON NOVEL...THE MAN DOESN'T WRITE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE, SO WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? A THOMAS KINKADE PAINTING?...TEMPERATURES ARE EXPECTED TO CLIMB TO HELLISH LEVELS...FIRE...BRIMSTONE...ENDLESS AGONIES...EQUAL RIGHTS...GAY MARRIAGE...UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE...REASONABLE DISCUSSIONS IN CONGRESS*...GLENN BECK BEING SENSIBLE*...THAT SORT OF STUFF AND SO ON WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE WEEKEND... 

*MIGHT NOT HAPPEN EVER

LISTEN TO FAMILY RADIO FOR UP TO THE MINUTE NEWS AS ARMAGEDDON DOESN'T HAPPEN...WATCH FOX NEWS FOR IN DEPTH AND UNNECESSARILY GRAPHIC COVERAGE OF THE EVENT AND WHY BARACK OBAMA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT HAPPENING

.SPOTTER INFORMATION STATEMENT...SPOTTER ACTIVATION IS NEEDED. WE DON'T WANT TO LOOK LIKE COMPLETE IDIOTS WHEN THE WORLD DOESN'T ACTUALLY END. WE NEED EVIDENCE THAT IT MIGHT NOT HAVE ENDED HAD BARACK OBAMA NOT BEEN PRESIDENT..I MEAN IT WILL END BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA IS PRESIDENT...THE WORLD IS ENDING BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA IS PRESIDENT...FOX NEWS AND GLENN BECK SAID SO...SO IT MUST BE TRUE...

.A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR

WATCH FOX NEWS FOR UNNECESSARILY VIVID GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF ARMAGEDDON AS IT HAPPENS...UP TO THE MINUTE COVERAGE OF WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT...OH WAIT...THAT'S OUR USUAL REPORTING...

$$

Oy vay. That didn't work out so well...

Oy vay, indeed.

Fun skirt, a photo by Carolyn Ann Grant on Flickr.

One of my favorite skirts, that one is. :-)

So, between thunderstorms and rain showers, I decide to risk life and limb (have you seen the size of the midges around here? :-) ) and take some pictures. Wonderful idea. :-)

I finally find a top to go with the skirt. Believe me, it's been a quest. It's a T-shirt with a scoop-neck and a few flowers embroided around it. Goes quite well, in fact! :-) Shoes? Oh, some cute sandals I bought in Mexico a few years ago. Flat and very comfortable.

So anyway, off I go into the woods. I felt very pretty. I'd got the camera and (I'd found) a tripod. I couldn't find the instructions to the camera, so it was one of those "set it and run to where I think I aimed the infernal machine" sessions so beloved by a certain group of (ahem) personal photographers. I could have waited until the Mrs got home but spur of the moment is, well, spur of the moment. This miserable effort was the best of the lot! I even stood on a big fallen tree; it was quite rotted, so I almost fell off it, too. In this picture I don't look too bad if you close your eyes and picture something else.

The rest? I looked like an overweight middle-aged bloke wearing a pretty skirt. :-(

Oh well. There's always next year. (And I did feel pretty, even if I didn't exactly look it!) :-)

Carolyn Ann

Newt apologizes to Paul

Newt issued a well deserved apology to Paul Ryan, this afternoon. After criticizing Paul Ryan's plan to destroy Medicare and end Social Security (pensions) for anyone over 55 - but it doesn't kick in until Mr Ryan approves of the last twist of the nutcracker - Newt abdicated and said he was sorry. He said that Mr Ryan's plan to shaft everyone older and poorer than himself was the only way to get the budget under control.

"Why shouldn't the elderly, some of whom can't figure out which day it is, not be in charge of their own health care? Why shouldn't a profit-seeking insurance company have the right to kick someone out on a cold winter's night because they're senile and forget not only that they needed to pay their insurance premium, but also forgot where they were!" After all, if the evicted elderly person drops dead of hypothermia, it's less for the insurance company to deal with!

With all this rushing to an Ayn Rand utopia, also known as a "fucking hell hole of selfishness, desultory freedom and insane "rationality" ", I want to know where the hell the Democrats are. Well?

Carolyn Ann

Oh, Don

Apparently Don Lemon, the CNN anchor, is gay.

That's news? It's a tidbit about someone's life. In 2011 we shouldn't be going all gaga over the revelation that some prominent newscaster is gay. Even if he's the one making the revelation.

Granted, there's a lot of folk who will be inspired by his courage and "come out" themselves. Good for them. In 2011 no one should feel the need to hide their sexuality; unfortunately, some do. In some ways, America is backwards; I think we can thank the bombasts of the Christian Right for that boat anchor. We're not quite at the "live and let live" stage, but we're getting there. Europe will be there first, however. (Unless Marie le Pen gets in, which is quite possible, now.) Mr Lemon was courageous, but his story isn't news. It's less than an inch in a gossip column; two, perhaps three sentences, at most. Or it should be. (It's certainly not worth three articles in the Huffington Post!)

He's a good anchor, I like watching him deliver the news; he does it well. Isn't that the standard by which he should be judged?

Carolyn Ann

Grace

This is something I've been thinking about, and probably shouldn't write about. But it keeps niggling at me, so I will... One of the things that I've noticed about many transsexual women is their lack of grace. It's almost as if these individuals strive to keep stereotypical male gruffness, and in some cases, adjudicate it with the social sensibilities of a overly hormonal teenage girl.

I'm not saying that transsexual women need to be graceful, or what-have-you. Everyone is different; I could say I know some women for whom grace is a unknown talent, as well. And I know a few very graceful chaps. (Not many, and, thankfully, that whole "I need to prove I'm a red-neck" thing seems to be dying down among young men.)

What is grace, anyway? It's indescribable, really. It's part personal conduct, part consideration for others; for some it's a style, for others an affectation. For yet others it's simply the way you do things. Writing this, for instance, is not very graceful. It's a bit pissy and close-minded; it's also a tad impetuous and ill-considered. One thing I will note is that false grace, thinking that if you wear a nice dress and act all frou-frou as you play the part of the horror of a bitch isn't grace. That's narcissism. (I'll take a moment to note it's naively trying to be "more feminine" than a woman.)

The issue for many transsexual women, as they seek to continue their lives, with none wiser of their past, is that grace is almost essential. If you act like a man, or an angry teenager, your behavior will become a topic of conversation. (Don't worry about managing how others talk about you; no one alive can do that, and the rest don't care.) It's like that moment in the playground where you screwup, and realize that you look like an idiot because you were an idiot. Well, there's a moment when you look at something with self-satisfaction and a knowing smirk and realize that you could have handled that situation with more grace.

Telling others how to behave is an area many shy from, for obvious reasons. I normally do, too. But recently I've noticed an almost perverse rejection of gracefulness from the transgender and transsexual "conversation". It's mostly characterized by screechy shrieking and fingers-on-a-chalkboard caterwauling. (It's from both sides, apparently.) The one thing that is predominant is the attitude that "I'm a victim of your insert-whatever-grievance-here". People are accused of seeking to play the victim not because they are, but because they don't give any room for the accuser to do so. Ribald discussions about the conspiracies of one group to subvert the other are commonplace; like all conspiracies, the believer finds ample evidence and makes out ever changing charge sheets to reflect these fictional facts. No one, it seems, stops and asks if the charges are even possible, or are they the result of some other person not being graceful?

So now I've marked myself as a fuddy-duddy, a busy-body wishing for an elder time (I'm not and I don't), I think I should stop digging this hole; it's already too deep to easily extract myself from. As I've got the rhythm going, however, I'll continue for a moment longer. This lack of grace is not restricted to the transgender and transsexual communities. As I mentioned, the trend for young men to prove they're red-necks seems to be diminishing (it will never go away), and I see more young guys being graceful; I also see more young women trying to prove they're tougher, and less caring, than a Navy SEAL (it comes across as petulance). But, overall, I think gracefulness has diminished over the last twenty years. I see it mostly in the little things; I could give  a list, but that would be nit-picked and is pointless, anyway. Grace can't be thought of as not particularly being bothered how others think of you, but not going out of your way to prove it. It's not about you - it's about other people and how you approach, address and maintain even momentary interactions with them. It's one thing to not care what others think, it's quite another to prove that you don't care what you think of yourself.

Carolyn Ann

Aargh, a real witches brew, that is...

With eye of Newt, a finger of Mitt, a scant pick of Rick, a bell from Michelle with, perhaps, a snatch of Mitch (for flavor) we have ourselves a fair brew of Republican Presidential Contenders.

The question is: do we brew on a moonlit night, or as they wish, hiding in shadows an' dubious intent until a daylight that ne'er appears? Well, do we?

Ah, sod it. I'll turn it over to the Master. (And issue some very heartfelt apologies to him and his legions of fans... :-D )


TEA PARTIER. Thrice the brinded Newt hath mew'd.
REPUB. GOV. Thrice and once, the Mitt whin'd.
FOX NEWS HOST. Bachmann cries:—'tis time! 'tis time!
TP. Round about the caldron go;
In the poison'd candidates throw.—
Scandal, that under cold stone,
Days and nights has thirty-one;
Swelter'd venom sex has got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot!
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
RG. Fillet of a fenny Michelle,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of Newt, and finger of Mitt,
Wool of Ron, and tongue of Tim,
Santorum's fork, and Palin's sting,
Mitch's leg, and Roger's wing,—
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
FNH. Scale of debate; tooth of Cantor;
Boehner's mummy; maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea voter;
Root of scandal digg'd i the dark;
Liver of blaspheming Speaker;
Gall of Ron, and slips of yew
Sliver'd in the moon's eclipse;
Nose of Beck, and Limbaugh's lips;
Finger of birth-strangled reform
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,—
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingrediants of our caldron.
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
RG. Cool it with a Obama's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.

And then the Wise Wizard Lincoln shakes his head, resting in a place that's far, far above.

Carolyn Ann

Problems with pronouns

As you might know, it's impossible to prove a negative. I can prove something exists, but I can't prove that it doesn't. Well, it's not quite the same with pronouns. I can't prove that a pronoun isn't necessary, but I can prove that discussions about pronouns ignore quite a lot of important details. :-)

Let's take this list (pdf), highlighted by Helen, and put together by a "Forge", a transgender support group in Wisconsin. (You might have some difficulty loading the Forge website; it wouldn't display properly for me.) To summarize, the list is a collection of pronouns and their various forms. No definitions are provided, just the forms. (I'll also mention that it includes an utterly useless pronunciation guide.) It has subjective, objective, two possessives, adjective and pronoun, and the reflexive form of the word. The words covered are she, he, ze, sie (aka zie), ey, per, they. ... "They?" They is a troublesome addition to that list; it's plural in construction; it's sometimes used as a third person singular pronoun, but that usage is, I believe, incorrect. Let me put it this way, it's one the wise man would stay away from.

Anyway, the list doesn't define these words, I'm not inclined to look them up and I think it contains two fundamental flaws. The first is a perfectly unreasonable complexity. The other is quite serious: it's selfish.

To deal with the latter first, we never exist in a vacuum of relationships. While some try to argue that they are the sole determiner of their lives, they're either foolish or delusional. We are born, hence a need for a mother. A father is also required; how his help is obtained is neither here nor there; the simple fact is sperm is required and the requisite sort comes from a male member of the species. Let's assume you're derived the old fashioned way; your parents will have parents of their own; these people are called grandparents. These days, it's not uncommon to have four generations: so we have great grandparents. Often, our parents have brothers and sisters of their own; these are your aunts and uncles. You might have siblings; they are your brother or sister. Your siblings might meet someone; they go off and have kids of their own; they have two, a girl and a boy. You're their uncle, or aunt; the child is your niece or nephew. If you have children of your own (nature doesn't particularly care if you call yourself gender-neutral; if you're capable of pregnancy, nature can, and if you're not careful, will, take care of the rest). Are those children sans gender? Like it or not, these various nouns describe specific individuals; well, the final bit was a dose of reality.

Unfortunately there isn't a gender-neutral word for uncle or aunt. Or mother or father. Or brother or sister, come to that. Son and daughter have an acceptable gender-neutral noun: child. Now, let's say your sister has a daughter, and you're dead set on being gender-neutral. You're her what? Also, what gives you the right to demand that her parents teach their child something they may not agree with? Or just might not want to discuss with their 3 year old? Who gets to decide that you're the gender-neutral version of aunt or uncle? There's no gender-neutral replacement, remember. So it would have to be invented.

Let's say you have a child, and you insist you're not of any particular gender. I don't know anyone like that, but in the great pantheon of human experience, I'm sure it has happened. Are you sure your child is comfortable with not having their gender defined? Most little boys want to be little boys, and most little girls want to be little girls. It's not universal, obviously, but I'd argue you're playing with a fire, an inferno, if you insist on your child not having a gender: what if they disagree? You have the right to raise your child as you see fit; you and your child get to bear the consequences of your decisions.

The complexity, and unnecessary ambiguity, the list introduces is also a problem. How do I know what pronoun to use? Do I need to care? Let's say you need medical attention. Some problems are particular to a gender. Neutrality in gender isn't much help there. In fact, it could be quite detrimental to your future well-being. It's also not going to help when the hospital puts you in a ward; very few wards, these days, are a happy mix of genders. (In Britain, there's a rapid move away from shared-gender wards. As odd as it might seem, people didn't want to share their wards. Women, in particular, were quite opposed to the whole thing. They generally felt they had enough to deal with, without the added issues of lechery and men they didn't know, knowing all about their ovarian cancer and so on.) On the other side of it all, do you really want the potential confusion caused by your insistence on gender-neutral pronouns, when your doctors figure out your treatment?

So there's a practical limitation to gender-neutral pronouns and nouns.

Some like to propose "it" as a gender neutral term. I guess they prefer to be objects; but that still doesn't address the issue of "uncle", "aunt" and so on. The family goldfish can be an it; no one knows how to sex those, anyway. (The usual way? Stick a bunch in some water, and eventually (you hope) one will spawn lots of little goldfish.) Personally, I refuse to call someone an "it". Cousin It was funny on the Addams Family, in the real world an it is an object. You want to dehumanize yourself? Go ahead, just don't expect me to play along - no matter what you demand.

As far as that line of thinking goes, I can also state that if you want to tell me how to think of you, it's better to do it with some humor; insisting I use a particular pronoun because you, well, insist on it, is likely to annoy me. You don't get to tell me how I perceive you. In other words. :-) Beyond the limited confines of a discussion with me, you're not likely to find much traction for your insistence, anyway. People like to argue that they have control over how they are perceived, but I've yet to meet anyone who actually does. I doubt I ever will. Basically, you can't control what I think, of you, your claim or your argument.

The problem with gender neutral terminology is that it is all selfish. There's no attempt to reconcile the social nature of our existence; it's all about "me". While I'm ambivalent about any definite need for a gender neutral pronoun or noun, I do think that if there's going to be any "deconstruction of the gender narrative", as someone once clumsily called it, then it helps to know what that narrative is, to perceive the full implications of your argument. Unfortunately, lists that don't explain themselves, that don't explain the need for those words, ignore all but the most irrelevant of that narrative and those implications.

Carolyn Ann

They're Tracking You...

There's quite a bit of fuss over "Internet tracking", the ability of companies, such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft, to track your every move on the Internet. And tailor a response to those movements. The final result is that when you're browsing the web, you see ads that are mysteriously specific.

Some find this sort of monitoring disturbing, and they've changed the conversation around it into a choice between an Orwellian nightmare or a pastoral nirvana. No monitoring, no intrusion is the basic idea. Which, to be frank, is not embracing the conversation, but is merely abdicating any role in it.

Figuring out your customers is part and parcel of any modern business. If you don't do that, you're not going to survive. You're also not going to start a business, because figuring out what you're going to sell to whom is the whole idea of a business. With the advent of the Internet, and a few smart people, this "figuring out" bit has taken on a whole new meaning. Instead of it being done by a corporate department in some office park somewhere, a lot of the actual effort is done automatically using astonishingly simple mechanisms. Someone still has to do the creative bit of figuring out the marketing channels and all that, of course.

Let's take an example: I need a motorcycle battery. There are a number of firms that make them, and a number that sell them. These days I don't rely on the salesperson to tell me which is the best battery, or the well-thumbed "battery guide" that hangs by a mediocre display of the things. I go onto Google and type in "motorcycle batteries". Now, Google has a decent idea of where I live; in fact, it knows precisely where I live because I've used a credit card to make purchases from them. So their computers sift through lots of data and display, to me, some places that have paid Google to display their ads to specific customers. If I fit the criteria, I see the ad. I click on a couple of the ads, to see the websites, etc; I copy and paste the names of the stores into new browser windows to get reviews of their customer service and I use Google Maps to figure out how far away they are. I have my own criteria: I want to see, and lift, the battery. I don't want  a boat anchor, nor do I want a ziplock container with acid and electrodes. The marketing department of "Motorcycle Batteries R Us" might think a three thousand seven hundred and fifty two mile trip to be reasonable, or they can mail me a battery for a small additional fee. I might not like either option; for one thing, I'd prefer to ride about 30 or 35 miles to see the store, and see the battery. I also want to install the battery in the store's parking lot; I'd like friendly staff who are willing to either lend a hand or a tool.

Now, Google knows I like motorcycles. Facebook knows it, too. I don't know if Microsoft know it, and I don't care. I don't use Facebook for product reviews or to find a store. Facebook might like me to do that, but they make it really difficult and I'm not interested if I have to do something difficult I can easily do on a familiar channel: Google. So Google got the few cents from two firms; they bid to place those ads in front of someone who fit the criteria they had determined, and when I clicked on them, they get the bill. I probably will buy a battery from the second one listed; the first one was too impersonal and it's mail order. Neither firm knows who I am, although they both have a much better idea, now. For one thing, they know I exist - that's a big step in and of itself. And they know I'm looking for a motorcycle battery. A reasonable conclusion is that I own at least one motorcycle. One of them knows it's a Vespa, because I used their search facility. And they both know I'm southern New Jersey. That's a lot of data, and it took no effort to turn it into information; the next thing is action: how can they sell me a battery?

Google tracked my inquiries, and piecing those with my location, offered something I'd otherwise spend a lot of time figuring out: where to buy a motorcycle battery in southern New Jersey. I like that sort of "intrusion". That sort of "data mining" provided me with some very useful information; I gave up some information to find it out, but I'd have to do that anyway. Other intrusions aren't welcome. Unfortunately, it's one of those "I can't be specific" sort of things. I know I don't want to see ads for any pornography, for instance, even though I've done semi-extensive research on transgender porn. (It was for a blog post about the subject.) I can tell Google not to show me "X" rated ads, and I do. Do I want Google to know I'm thinking about a motorcycle trip to Vermont? I don't mind if they know where I'm going as long as they keep it a secret. But what other stuff do I not want them to know? Well, I'm not sure. I can't be specific about it, because I don't know what they do with all that data they have about me. I don't know what sort of information and knowledge they derive from it. Would I like them to tell me? I doubt they would, and, more importantly, I doubt they could!

Do I want the authorities to know I'm thinking of taking a legally registered motorcycle to Vermont, and indulging in a perfectly legal and very nice activity? Not really. It's none of their business - as long as it's all legal. Which is where the catch is... I know for a fact that, even if I stay off the highways, me and my bike will end up having our picture taken by an official camera. I don't where it will be and I don't know what its purpose is. If I do that other camping trip I'm thinking of, to Montauk, I know the NYPD will be able to track my every move once I get close to NYC. If you live in London, your life is spent under an official gaze. If you live in the UK, the authorities can pretty much piece together your entire life from their cameras. The British police have two things American cops don't: a coherent database of people they want to keep an eye on and a number plate recognition system that is beyond imagination.

All in all, it's a strange situation. While the NJ State Police might not care that I'm planning to drive northwards in New Jersey, Google does. Google doesn't care that the bike I'm using is registered, etc, but the cops care about that, a lot. On the other hand, the NJ State Police might be very interested in my forthcoming travels if they suspected me of nefarious doings. One group wants to know one set of things about us. The other wants to know other things about us. Sometimes they want to know the same things, but I'd wager "not often". They both use data points, stored in databases, to derive information about us, and they both use data mining to turn that information into knowledge. That knowledge can then be turned into actions; for Google, it's displaying a collection of ads in the hope I'll click on one and for the NJ State Police, it's a determination of the honesty of my intent. (Guess which one is the more nebulous, and troublesome...)

Neither group is going to give up data mining; for one, it's their business, for the other it's all about public safety and catching the bad guys. What we need is not an either/or "discussion" about data mining, but a discussion, an informed discussion, about the ethics and limits of the whole thing. And it's no good demanding that these two entities reveal what is known, how they know it and how they use it. For Google, it's not your data - it's theirs, and for the cops, it's about staying ahead of the bad guys.

Think of it this way: it's your life, but when you move through it, you leave traces of you. Some of those traces are actively captured, others are surmised or deduced. It's a modern problem and it needs a modern approach. It also needs an acknowledgement that there isn't a "solution" (there's no "problem"); there is a compromise, however. I wonder what that is?

Carolyn Ann

The weather forecast for tonight

From the NOAA:

Tonight: Showers likely and possibly a thunderstorm before 11pm, then a chance of showers and thunderstorms after 11pm.

 :-D

Carolyn Ann

(10:24, it's pouring. And it's 5-4 to the Red Sox at the end of the 6th. The Yanks are not having a good series!)

Kicked out...

The Mrs tossed me out!

... Of her office, with the words "Take some Advil and Robitussin! Do we have any orange juice? Drink some! Go down to the living room and rest, have a nap. And don't give me your cold!"

"Sniffle, sniffle, okay, sniffle, cough, cough, sniffle" replied I.

Bleh. I've been up for quarter an hour. I need a nap.

Carolyn Ann

A nervous wrack...

Nordstrom Rack opened a store in the Garden State Pavilion (?) mall this weekend. It's in Cherry Hill, NJ. Which was once a hill populated by cherry trees* but is now the epitome of New Jersey suburban sprawl.  (* I have no idea if that's true. I'm working on the supposition that developments are named after the trees that were chopped down to make way for the development. :-) )

I did the husband thing. I was the wreck upon which my wife placed her selections. ... I mean rack. Yeah, rack. So many beautiful garments! So many outrageous shoes! I peeked at a pair and wondered if they came with their own health insurance? They were a cheerful hot pink. :-) (And a nice price tag; I think it was about $189...)

It's tough to be a fashionista when you're the wrong shape and broke. :-(

Carolyn Ann

The Transgender "Agenda"

Apparently there's something called a "transgender agenda". I've read about it on a few blogs; notably, those blogs belong to a small group of transsexual individuals. Here's the gist of this agenda: to deny the transsexual something. Not rights. Not liberty. Not equality. Not even happiness. Just "something". I don't know what, but it sure as heck gets some folk steamed up.

One of the (apparently many) things this agenda covers is the invalidation of the transsexual experience. I don't know what that means, but I can guess. One clue is Dana Lane Taylor's blog post about it all. Some one, it seems, decided to write a piece that basically says that you can live your life as a woman without having to undergo surgery. I think that's what they mean; the language in the article is a little vague, to be honest.

It strikes me that most of this antipathy can be traced back to language. If you discount that some transsexuals will always hate the transgendered, and that some transgendered people will always despise the transsexual person, what you end up with is a very heated discussion about language. Really.

No, I'm not kidding - it's what you end up with.

Well, there are a couple of other issues, but they're mainly about insecurity and personal confidence. (Believe me when I say that neither the transgender nor the transsexual communities are places to go to see exemplary, common, personal confidence. That insecurity makes many a discussion a fraught affair.)

We can dispense with the prejudiced because they're prejudiced. In other words, you can't count on them to provide either context or rationality. Once that lot is ignored, as they properly should be, you end up with a few transsexual individuals who seem to need community validation, and a few transgender individuals who seem intent on abusing the English* language and displaying how ignorant they are of the whole gender "thing".  (*I'm sure the various bigotries live on in other languages, too. I don't know them, so can't comment.) The dispute has been brewing for a few years, now. It was only a matter of time before a small group of people said stupid things. They have now spoken.

And oh boy, have they ever.

For quite some time I've been advocating precision in language. I've been told I'm discriminatory, a troll, someone who's not very nice and so on. Recently Natasha said I sought victim status - over the use of language. No Natasha, the victim was language and understanding; empathy was bludgeoned a bit, too. You could say my pleas for linguistic precision haven't been received with much, if any, enthusiasm. :-)

Not to worry. I doubt my argument will ever receive communal support. There are too many people with a vested interest, coupled, perhaps, with a grievance or two, in ensuring that imprecision in definition carries the day. Also, many are just plain lazy when it comes to the English language.

The problem is that this laziness with language shows a laziness of thought. If you can't be bothered to define your terms with any accuracy, preferring the colloquial and vague to the precise and measurable, you're not likely to favor your thinking, or writing, with precision. There's nothing new about this, of course - politics (and diplomacy), domestically and internationally, rely upon imprecision. Where it gets a little tricky is when you're trying to be precise in your point...

Let's take "trans", for instance. It's used casually; no one actually knows what it means. Oh, the dictionary definition can be provided: "a prefix; across, beyond". That's not how many transgender and transsexual bloggers use it. They use it as a shorthand for either, or both, transgender or transsexual. Often, the prefix will be used simply because the blogger is lazy in their language. Considering that transgender and transsexual have two distinct meanings, one quite vague the other quite precise, is there any wonder that confusion and antipathy will come about?

One favorite of mine is defining "woman". It's a perennial. Defining a "man" isn't quite as hard for no other reason than very few really care. But "woman"? A veritable minefield.

Add in the "new age" transgender and other gender "thinkers" and bloggers, and all of a sudden you have not just a minefield. You're getting bombed by linguistically shoddy B52's as well! These bloggers can be spotted a mile off; they need a dozen obscure books to back up their point and if you get bored in the meantime, it's your fault for dozing off. It proves you're anti-trans or something. Or tired. I'm not sure which.

You can tell when someone is being lazy in their writing. Mostly the thinking they are explaining isn't clearly explained, or their point is made and if you don't understand it, and in particular if you don't agree with it, you're a troll or some other mythical woodland creature. (Unicorns don't live in the woods, as far as I know. I live the woods and I've never seen one, ergo they must not live in the woods...) Like I said, lazy thinking is usually pretty easy to figure out. :-)

From all of this, we can conclude two things: that when the transgendered individual complains about the transsexual "mafia", they're complaining about something else. And when the transsexual individual complains about "TG Inc" or the "transgender agenda", they also mean something else. What they mean is left open to debate. The accusers know, precisely, who is to blame and what their crimes are. Supporters may have some clue, but in general only the accuser knows. It's trial by idiocy, basically. (Yes, I've been guilty of it, too. I've never claimed to not be an idiot.)

The solution? There is no solution to bickering; you just have to wait it out or yell "Quit! Or you'll both get sent to bed!" Considering that treating entire communities as you would a five year old isn't, probably, the best idea anyone could have, the former suggestion seems to be the right one. (Remember: keep it simple.) Negotiation doesn't work because there's too many individuals, no organization and if you negotiated on my behalf without my permission you'll find I'll be contrarian - just because I can be. No, what's really needed is everyone to remember two things: it's a funny old world, and the two communities are more alike than they are different. And both communities have to fight prejudice, inequality and bigotry; it always seems it's the same prejudice, inequalities and bigotry, but sometimes there's a difference.

Vive la difference, and don't forget that we're all facing the same bigots. :-)

Carolyn Ann

It was only a matter of time...

It was only a matter of time before someone came up with a way of merging spatial and temporal data. And, more importantly, figuring out how to present it in a coherent and easily understood way. That company is called GeoTime. Their product is marketed to law enforcement (although I could see a tweaked version being very useful for marketers), and, apparently, spy agencies. They're based in Toronto, Ontario, a veritable Canadian silicon valley (or so I've been told) and they make a tool that is pretty scary!

Well, it seems that a lot of people in Britain are quite concerned because the Metropolitan Police - they of the quite tarnished reputation - have recently purchased the software. And they ain't saying what they're going to use it for...

The problem is that Britain, home of George Orwell, has a slightly complicated political issue with the cops, innocent people and the data the cops have on them. The cops like to keep tabs on everyone, and I mean everyone. For some reason, people who haven't' broken any laws don't like that... Can't think why. Oh, that's right: the cops have no right to keep tabs on people who haven't broken any laws. And considering the reputation of the Met, the problem with cops stopping people who haven't broken any laws simply because their car was picked up by automated number (registration) plate recognition (ANR) systems, I'm not especially surprised people are concerned.

It's not enough that the British cops have cameras to watch, basically, your every move. Or that they secretly spy on you when you're protesting something or other. Or that they put undercover cops into protest organizations. Or that their ANR systems introduce Britain to Philip K. Dick's "Minority Report". Now the cops want the ability to track everyone in the nation, in real time. The danger is that people think "Minority Report", Kafka's "The Trial" and George Orwell's "1984" should be read literally. Perhaps a figurative reading would be more accurate?

But don't worry - if you've not broken the law, you have nothing to fear. (However, you might be inconvenienced every now and then.)

Remind me again, who watches the watchers?

Carolyn Ann

An astonishingly stupid argument

But it's definitely one the more conservative elements can, and do, rally behind. Apparently, Virginia's Attorney General is arguing that the central requirement of "ObamaCare", the mandate to buy insurance or face a penalty, isn't legal because it conflicts with a Virginia law that says you don't have to buy insurance. If memory serves, that law was passed in response to the Health Law.

So he's basically arguing that a law, enacted in response to a Federal law, that negates the Federal law trumps the Federal law.

Really?

You see, he might not have standing to argue that the Federal requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. The Health Care law affects individuals, not states. But he sure as heck doesn't have standing to argue that state law trumps Federal law. It's a popular notion on the right: states are sovereign entities. (Except when they're looking for Federal largesse.) What these people keep forgetting is that this question was answered, once and for all, with a little get together called The Civil War. It was a popular little thing; lasted four years and covered half an actual continent and most of as-then America.

I wonder if his argument will prevail? It says a lot that it's impossible to say, one way or the other, if it will or won't. "State's Rights" used to be about slavery and Jim Crow. Now they're about selfishness and Ayn Rand's twisted philosophy - as understood by people who apparently don't think.

Carolyn Ann

Who's Next?

I've been on a "Who's Next" kick. It's hardly been off the turntable! Well, it wouldn't be if I had a turntable; instead, it's been on the truck's CD player and as an MP3 on the Mac. :-) The Vespa doesn't have a sound system. Not that I've never thought installing one, of course. Cruise along with some cruising music? Oh yeah. :-) Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for other road users, I've never quite gotten to doing the deed. It would mean buying an iPod, something I'm actually a little loath to do.

Anyway, I've developed a particular liking to "My Wife". It's the story of a chap who has a few beers too many, gets arrested and spends a few days in jail. Unfortunately for him, his wife doesn't believe him. She thinks he's been with another woman. So he tries to figure out his "out"... Yeah, it's a fun song. :-D

The other one I really like is "Behind Blue Eyes". That's a really disturbing song; not the sort of thing you should listen to while tripping - as I did, many, many years ago. These days I just enjoy the musical sophistication of it, and remain mildly disturbed by it.

Who's Next. Required listening. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Simple stuff

The whole conversation with Natasha, Teagan and Ariel was a trifle irritating. I mean, how hard is to say "Ah, someone found my words offensive. Let me see if I understand why." (And then there's Anne, but that fucking dimwit is in a league of her own when it comes to taking and causing offense.)

Instead of looking at what was said, the mud flinging was begun. Teagan's original words did leave me cold; I could almost see the disdain for "the crossdressers" dripping from her words. I hate stupid prejudice like that; it's so pointless and unnecessary.

Look, I know a little bit about upsetting people. I've done it a thousand times, both intentionally and unintentionally. Before I'm through, I have little doubt I'll do it a few thousand times more. But I do try and understand what the other person is trying to convey. How the hell do you think I derive my retorts? Osmosis? I have to understand what the offended individual is trying to say! I have to read their words, figure out what they mean (and if that differs from what I think they're trying to say) and then come up with a reply. Sometimes I make sure my reply won't land me in hot water or something; one or two replies have been a little too easy to turn back on me!

One of the things I've noticed about the transgender and transsexual communities is that it is actually very difficult to separate the impersonal criticism of ideas from the idea that I've just launched a highly personal attack on someone. The sort of thing Natasha wrote to me, for instance. I point out that a certain phrasing is offensive and all of a sudden Natasha launches into a highly personal tirade. Go figure. Let me put it this way: I don't do that. Oh, I make personal comments and often. I do it in response to others'; you go for me, I go for you. Simple. You might have noticed that I'm pretty good at condescension. :-)

To be honest, I think a lot of the annoyance from Teagan, et al, is because those individuals do consider the transgendered in a derogatory way. To their credit, they're not as blatant and bigoted as Anne. Instead of looking at other people and saying to themselves "their life, their choice", they dislike how this transgender group or individual assume to speak for all, or how the transsexual is included in the transgender "umbrella". (It's looking more like a lace parasol at the moment.) Basically Teagan and some other transsexuals have made it quite clear they regard the transgendered as a bit icky, and don't want to be associated with such lowlifes. Oh, they tolerate the occasional transgender, indeed some of their friends are transgendered, and so on. But make an effort to understand someone else's life? Their decisions? Nope. Not gonna happen.

Of course, it goes both ways. I'm sure there are more than a few in the transgender community who see a transsexual person and don't make the necessary mental connections. Heck, I'm sure there are a lot of people within the transgender community who disdain the transsexual community, both as individuals and as a group. Stupidity and prejudice aren't absent from any group.

The overall result is a stupid fracas that makes Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer look like they're providing full-throated support to both, or either, community. When Anne squeaks her halfwitted sermons, she reinforces those who discriminate against her. When the transgender community decries or tries to speak for the transsexual community, they refuse to acknowledge that perhaps that community would prefer to speak for itself. (I'd give a name, but I don't know anyone who does that.) When people with similar issues argue who is the most privileged, the most aggrieved, the most genuine or whatever, they're really arguing about which group is the lesser. If you feel superior to some group, you're probably looking up at them.

I be the victim (apparently)

Natasha tells me that I'm trying to be a victim. And that I'm the final arbiter of what is offensive. That I should start a blog or write a book*. And some other stuff as well.

Oh well.

... ... ...

What a load of crap.

I point out one faux pas, one offensive phrasing, and it becomes a whole drama. Mind you, it often does.

Natasha used to "follow" this blog; she stopped following it a wee while ago. (I have no idea, or interest, in why. I mention it because it shows Natasha knows my writing.) In a nutshell, Natasha should know I don't back down. Hell, if I believe I'm right, and the topic is interesting - I'll pursue the damn thing to the ends of the earth. Unless I get bored with, or lose interest in, the topic. That has been known to happen.

Natasha should also remember that I dislike prejudice. After all, I write about it often enough. She should also remember that I typically respond, in kind, to people trying to insult me. I rarely go looking for a fight, but if one comes along I don't back out, either. Call it a personality flaw, if you want. What was interesting was this particular fracas didn't take long to devolve into Natasha and Ariel flinging personal insults in my direction. For a moment I thought I'd hit the coal seam; then it turned out that neither liked being told they were prejudiced. I guess they wouldn't; not many take pride in being even mildly bigoted.

So, anyway, Natasha says I got what I wanted; even though I never want what she says I do. I wonder if all her observations are as blinkered?

Carolyn Ann

(* I've already got a blog - this is it. And, as it happens, I am writing a book! Not on the subject Natasha suggests, however.)

Prejudiced generalization

Teagan's post, "Decisions vs Realizations" includes the passage "to borrow a phrase from the crossdressers". (The phrase was "en-femme".)

I objected: "the crossdressers" is a little derogatory. Teagan is making an entire collection of people an object. It's not like these individuals are members of a band called "The Crossdressers"! Within the transgender community, there are a lot of different people. Some people call themselves "crossdressers", others call themselves "transgender[ed]" and so on. Each person has a unique identity; to lump them all together is insulting. It's a bit like saying "All the Pakistani's are unhappy about bin Laden". I'm fairly sure there are some Pakistani individuals who are delighted someone removed bin Laden from mortal existence.

Teagan lumps people together and provides an opinion to the resulting object. She takes a perceived common attribute, names that group with a moniker that seems calculated to offend and uses that name in a way that drips with disdain.

That's not offensive, right?

Natasha and Ariel don't think it is.

Indeed, Natasha thinks I'm looking to be offended. Which is offensive, in itself! It's a stupid, ad hominem attack, too.

Lumping all Pakistanis into one group is insulting and derogatory. I'd also argue that it's racist. But Teagan, Natasha and Ariel think it's okay to lump all "crossdressers" (and the transgendered) into the same monolithic group.

Not so long ago, Stace called me out on a similar problem in my blog. I'd written something and lumped all transsexuals into one indiscriminate group. She was right, I was wrong. (Thanks, Stace!) I accepted Stace's criticism, realized she was right and apologized. Well, Teagan's faux pas seems to have prompted a different response: double down, batten the hatches, scrunch their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, shout "Tra-la-tra-la, I'm not listening!" as loudly as possible, get to launching ad hominem attacks and generally hope the problem (me) goes away. After I do, Teagan, Natasha and Ariel can all congratulate themselves on their prejudice and tell each other "aren't those crossdressers an antsy lot!" I have little doubt they'll have a few choice observations of me to add to their post-mortem.

The main thing I get from this isn't that calling a group "the crossdressers" is not offensive - it is - but that when people are intent on being prejudiced, and especially when they really don't like that group, nothing will persuade them that their description of that group has some problems. C'est la vie and all that. You can never persuade someone if they refuse to hear you.

Carolyn Ann

What a load of nonsense

Sometimes it seems that bullshit and squirming are all the ultra-religious are capable of. Come to think of it - that is all they are capable of.

An ultra-orthodox Brooklyn newspaper photoshopped Hillary and one staffer Audrey Tomason out of "that" Situation Room picture. Because it was mandated by religious law and the demands of modesty. I'm not sure which is more offensive - the newspaper invoking the first amendment to justify their actions or the fact that they are, apparently, too stupid to realize that their action isn't actually covered by it.

The picture comes with some terms:

This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. [My emphasis]

So why did Di Tzeitung photoshop the two women in the picture out? Because they have a problem with women, apparently.

Their excuse is pathetic. I especially like this bit:

Our photo editor realizing the significance of this historic moment, published the picture, but in his haste, did not read the "fine print" that accompanied the picture, forbidding any changes and published a picture omitting the female participants in the room.

Yeah, right. I'm not sure, but I'd have to guess that photoshopping out Hillary and Audrey Tomason (the other woman they photoshopped out) took a lot longer than actually reading the text accompanying the picture. Especially as that text accompanies every official White House picture.

I also liked this bit:

Our editorial policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board and because of laws of modesty, does not allow for the publishing of photos of women. The readership of the Tzeitung believe that women should be appreciated for who they are and what they do, not for what they look like, and the Jewish laws of modesty are an expression of respect for women, not the opposite.

Respect for women, hmm? I'd say that's bullshit. If they'd said it was because they need to oppress women because they're too sodding immature to cope with looking at women, never mind treating them as equals.
Basically, pictures of men are okay because men are appreciated for who they are, what they do and what they look like. Women can sometimes be heard but must not be seen.

Sodding idiots.

Carolyn Ann

PS: Michelle Goldberg has a good post about it over on The Daily Beast.

Another PS: Apparently Di Tzeitung is not the only Orthodox Jewish newspaper that has a problem with women.

Ayn Rand rears her head - again

She's like the Sirens, but worse. Instead of three killers, she's one and really bad at it, too. Not for her the clean kill. No, she has to bore her victims to an unfair grave.

I was thinking about Ayn Rand as I read about the current Israel/Palestine impasse. It's like their both at some grand canyon, and neither side wants to venture into the canyon lest their opponent have archers positioned in the rises. What no one has told them is that they are in different canyons.

Mr Netanyahu is his usual belligerent self. He's the Israeli Berlusconi: everyone thinks he's wise when he shuts up. But when he starts to talk, not only do you know he's a fool, you quickly realize he's a bloody fool. He's the moron who talks himself into a corner.

That's probably the kindest criticism of him I have about his "take" on the Fatah/Hamas deal.

My criticisms included words like "idiot", "dunce", "lemming", "fucking lemming", "fucking idiot", "is this guy a moron" and "he's a fucking moron!" And other platitudes with a similar ring to them. (I don't mean to imply that he is like Mr Berlusconi; that man really is a fucking moron, in that he's a moron who, allegedly, does an inordinate amount of fucking. I mean to imply that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Berlusconi should not apply for a Rhodes scholarship, individually or collectively. Because they are, individually and collectively, fucking morons. I have no doubts about their abilities to get laid.)

Let me see. Arab Spring = (equals, is the same as) a need for Israel to re-evaluate their neighborhood. Which they are doing with an attitude that's about as dated as Hosni Mubarak.

Where was I? Oh, yeah. The idiocy of Rand.

(Cop-out time...) Added: Hey! I said I was thinking of Ayn Rand, while reading about Israel, etc. I didn't say there was a connection. Was that a good cop-out? :-)

One of the things I never got about Ayn Rand was how no one caught her "let them eat the crumbs of my cake" attitude. Marie at least asked if they wanted cake! "Care not for your fellow man, your neighbor, for he is as out to get you as you are out to get him!" Yeah, yeah: an eye for an eye. Pretty soon the whole world implodes in a no-verification needed mortgage scandal.

Ms Rand certainly had the intellect to argue that the government shouldn't be involved in the personal. Unfortunately, the people who came after her weren't quite up to her level of either obfuscation or intelligence. I have to be fair about her English language skills as well. Reading her work, I get the feeling that she loved words. How else do you explain her use of twenty three thousand of them when ten would do? (Bad philosophy? Hmm. Hold that thought. If you're talking to an Ayn Rand acolyte, you might do better to hang on to it for dear life.)

Ms Rand has been, unfairly, accused of dabbling in philosophy. I'd argue that she had a sneezing fit and her publisher published the results. If you, the fair and - by the time you've finished actually reading her philosophical meanderings a dear wreck - reckless (sorry; you will be, by the way) reader, actually take the time to understand her thoughts, you might want to pay heed to two things. It takes John how long to say "fuck the world!"? 73 pages. Count 'em. Because I really don't want to. And: her philosophy doesn't "hang". As in: she implies that personal responsibility is the be all and end all, but if that gets in the way of making money: goodbye and see you never again personal responsibility. (Should there be a comma or two in that last sentence? :-) )

I mean, really: it takes a cheek to justify selfishness. It takes a severe misunderstanding of history to make Rick Santelli's meaningless rant your political mojo. And it really takes stupidity to make Glenn Beck your political messiah. ... ... ... I'm not at all sure how to explain Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. "Intelligence met its match, and deliberate stupidity won?" (I didn't know it was in the neighborhood, let alone on the field!)

Ayn Rand reads well, as long as you ignore the words. Her ideas sound good as long as you, or your dog, don't think about them. In this "either/or", "take it/leave it" world, I'm not sure how to explain that moderation is a good thing. That helping your neighbors is good, that being kind to seniors helps lift an entire economy or that many forms of common investment pay back multiples on the dollar or pound invested. It's not that I'm short of words (good grief, never that!), but that I know that the man who hasn't reasoned himself into something can't be reasoned out it. And no one, as far as I know, has ever accused Ayn Rand of being reasonable.

Carolyn Ann

The air-conditioning was turned up for the entire trip home

Yeehaaaa! :-)

I was out and about on a bike. :-D

Finally getting the bike put back together - it took awhile! - I went for an afternoon's ride. Not too far - it's been a long time, and I did want a cup of coffee. The bike was glorious! I did a few sharp turns, a U-turn or two, a swerve, that sort of thing to get my "feel" for the ride back. It had never left. :-)

Stopping for coffee, I decided to see if she would restart. She wouldn't... Oh dear. The battery has gone, I think.

One quick call to the Mrs later: "Rescue me!", I went in for my coffee. The Mrs arrived a bit later; by now, it was turning chilly. I was dressed for warm weather... Ah the memories. Riding into the evening, getting colder by the minute, but loving every turn of the wheel. I saw a spectacular sunset, almost got mowed down by an idiot in a pickup truck and got so chilled it took me awhile to warm up.

It's good to be riding, again. I just have to fix that air conditioning...

Carolyn Ann

Mr Bloomberg intends to change that...

Apparently the economy is doing quite well. Jobs are up and so on. Mike Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City - you know, the chap who argued that Rudy shouldn't have three terms, but then figured it was okay if he changed the rules so he could have three terms? Yeah, him - apparently thinks things are going too well. He wants to lay off 4,100 teachers.

Well done, Mike. That's what we want to see: layoffs just as the economy starts to do well. Nothing like throwing a tanker of water over a spark, is there?

(Image from this evenings NY Times)

As you can see, Mr Bloomberg doesn't just doubt the upward trend can last - he's hell bent on making sure it doesn't!

Carolyn Ann

The Editor of Foreign Affairs might have a breakdown...

One job I'd really not want to have right now is that of editor of Foreign Affairs. :-)

I don't want Gideon Rose's job, in other words. :-)

(Wow. I've never looked at the editorial staff of Foreign Affairs, before. Those are some pretty smart and cool people!)

Foreign Affairs is a wonderful magazine; it gets some of the real heavyweights of politics, diplomacy, foreign and social policies writing for it. The focus of the magazine is on the long term, more strategy than the usual "this is what happened" or "these are the immediate implications of such and such". When you read an essay in Foreign Affairs, you know the subject is of importance and will continue to be for the next few years. Not weeks - years.

Well, over the last year, they've had Clay Shirky writing that social media will be important, Malcolm Gladwell retorting it won't be and the Arab Spring being enabled by it. The next issue discusses the Arab Spring (I've not read it, yet); and now we have the death of Osama bin Laden. All of these things are happening with a rapidity that is astonishing. Which must lead to some considerable angst in the offices of the Council of Foreign Relations. How do you produce a magazine like Foreign Affairs when the factors underlying the story keep changing? And might not even be relevant next week, when you call up a thinker and ask them to scribble a few words on this or that subject.

So the editor gets to go from being a surveyor of all that is important to the editor of a weekly, trying to keep it all in context. In the same issue. All in all, not a good time to be on the editor staff of Foreign Affairs. On the other hand, it's the perfect time to be on the editorial staff of Foreign Affairs! I just hope their insurance covers whiplash. :-)

Carolyn Ann