The whole Transsexual Bigotry thing isn't about much, really. It's a reactionary "philosophy" that tries, desperately to hold back the changes in gender and its definition. While it has a few roots, one of the principal ones is based on identity, a seemingly desperate insecurity and need for a particular identity. Without a concrete definition of "woman" the sought gender becomes impossible. Unfortunately the concrete definition relies on a fairly plastic interpretation! Basically, it relies on what is between the legs.
I don't think anyone can deny that gender comes in many shades. Well, a fool might try, but we're discussing their ideas (I am, at least!). I think it's been long understood that there isn't a definite definition of "man" or "woman"; although it is possible for many, most, to claim that they know which gender they are. The unfortunate few who aren't quite so lucky have some issues identifying their gender, either partially, completely or absolutely. Those who argue that you're a man in a dress if you "pack a penis" (to coin an unfortunate phrase) apply a false binary to this little issue; they assert that you're either a man or a woman, although they admit - because they have to - that nature sometimes screws up. What they actually do is proclaim that gender is a switch, so nature can screw up only one way... Which is a bit like arguing that tall people are over six feet in height and everyone else is short. Shades of grey are not just neglected. They're evicted with forceful prejudice!
The only way to understand the philosophy of, and counter, these bigots is by comprehending their ideas. It's difficult to dissect prejudice; but I think it's necessary to show how wrong these odious ideas are. Fortunately there is no deep thought behind the intolerance and discriminatory speech; simple deconstruction is, perhaps, bringing a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But I can't help but feel that this sort of thing is the very thinking deconstruction should be used for. At least the problems, such as they are, come in bite-sized packages. And they're even recyclable. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Moving transsexual bigotry toward well deserved irrelevance
Here's what I think will happen in this whole transsexual bigotry fiasco.
It will become very popular within its audience. The three principles are going to gain some popularity, which will feed their sense of righteousness; they'll also have to ratchet up the rhetoric a bit, because you lose your audience when you keep iterating the same tired old drivel. Their superficial rationality will be perceived as acute and coherent.
Then will come the plateau. This is where you begin to see some real lunacy as various pundits and their coattail riders try to differentiate themselves and keep the momentum going.
Then they will begin to lose popularity. It is difficult, after all, to maintain anger and hysteria when there's no real cause. Some converts to the cause will become die-hard acolytes and disciples. But most of the current supporters will fade away. If they number 300 now, in awhile you'll be lucky to find even one who supported such odious bigotry.
The hard core will keep going, ebbing and flowing and will develop its own ecosystem. It won't ever go away, but they and their arrogant superiority will become sidelined and increasingly irrelevant. What will be interesting is trying to spot the quiet supporters; the ones who argue that such bigotry isn't as bad as it seems.
Hysteria and anger are really hard to sustain over the long term. Bigotry, on the other hand, is easy to keep going. What's difficult, and becomes increasingly more difficult, is persuading people that your bigotry is still relevant as the world moves ever onward. When you can't actually prove there's a dastardly plot against you, you either move on or split up. I think both will happen; some transsexual women will hate the bigotry and move on. Others will agree with much of it but move on and not allow it to dictate their identity. Because that's what's happening now: all this transsexual bigotry is starting to paint all transsexual women as bigots. Which is clearly and obviously not the case. But not too many are coming forward and saying "No! That's not me, that's not how I feel! You bigots are wrong!"
The bigotry is on the upward swing at the moment. It has a base, raw appeal to certain people. As it becomes apparent that it offers nothing - and I do mean nothing - it will lose popularity.
Carolyn Ann
It will become very popular within its audience. The three principles are going to gain some popularity, which will feed their sense of righteousness; they'll also have to ratchet up the rhetoric a bit, because you lose your audience when you keep iterating the same tired old drivel. Their superficial rationality will be perceived as acute and coherent.
Then will come the plateau. This is where you begin to see some real lunacy as various pundits and their coattail riders try to differentiate themselves and keep the momentum going.
Then they will begin to lose popularity. It is difficult, after all, to maintain anger and hysteria when there's no real cause. Some converts to the cause will become die-hard acolytes and disciples. But most of the current supporters will fade away. If they number 300 now, in awhile you'll be lucky to find even one who supported such odious bigotry.
The hard core will keep going, ebbing and flowing and will develop its own ecosystem. It won't ever go away, but they and their arrogant superiority will become sidelined and increasingly irrelevant. What will be interesting is trying to spot the quiet supporters; the ones who argue that such bigotry isn't as bad as it seems.
Hysteria and anger are really hard to sustain over the long term. Bigotry, on the other hand, is easy to keep going. What's difficult, and becomes increasingly more difficult, is persuading people that your bigotry is still relevant as the world moves ever onward. When you can't actually prove there's a dastardly plot against you, you either move on or split up. I think both will happen; some transsexual women will hate the bigotry and move on. Others will agree with much of it but move on and not allow it to dictate their identity. Because that's what's happening now: all this transsexual bigotry is starting to paint all transsexual women as bigots. Which is clearly and obviously not the case. But not too many are coming forward and saying "No! That's not me, that's not how I feel! You bigots are wrong!"
The bigotry is on the upward swing at the moment. It has a base, raw appeal to certain people. As it becomes apparent that it offers nothing - and I do mean nothing - it will lose popularity.
Carolyn Ann
Reason versus emotion
Time and again in this "transsexual bigotry" fuckup, I'm reminded:
(I'd love to know who said that; I've forgotten!)
In other words, something like this transsexual bigotry isn't arrived at by reason. Oh its proponents use a superficially rational process, but the foundation of bigotry is hate and the foundation of that is emotion. And emotion has never been called reasonable.
Carolyn Ann
You can't use reason against that which was derived without the benefit of reason.
(I'd love to know who said that; I've forgotten!)
In other words, something like this transsexual bigotry isn't arrived at by reason. Oh its proponents use a superficially rational process, but the foundation of bigotry is hate and the foundation of that is emotion. And emotion has never been called reasonable.
Carolyn Ann
Bigoted oafs or valiant warriors?
I'm having a hard time following Suzan's logic here. I suspect that's because there isn't any. At all.
Write it out as a 1, 2, 3... Go ahead. This blog will still be around in a dozen years. It might take you that long, by the way.
Okay, here's a starter:
1. If you're a man, you're not a woman (okay so far? Good)
2. If you're a man, you can't ever be a woman
3. If you've been male bodied, you can be a woman (still with me? No? Never mind)
4. If you reject Suzan's "philosophy" you're a man
5. If you do reject Suzan's "philosophy" it must be because you're a man
6. If you're a man in a dress you're part of the Transgender Borg Collective (I wonder if a skirt counts?)
7. The Transgender Borg Collective are automatically wrong because they're men
8. So if someone says you're bigoted, they're the bigoted ones (see later)
9. If you can't understand Suzan's "philosophy" it's because you haven't had SRS
10. If you've had SRS you're a woman
11. Even if some women say you're not (in other words, Suzan gets to determine who's a woman and never mind if another woman disagrees)
... I've run out of idiocy to examine.
Here's Suzan's real philosophy:
1. All men are bad (see note about "penis packers")
2. If you have decided not to have SRS, you're a penis packer
3. All penis packers are inherently evil, abusive, etc, etc
4. Suzan wants to look up your skirt and determine if you're a penis packer or not (no, that's not facetious; it's very accurate)
Here's her take on her correctness:
1. She's right
2. If she's right, and you disagree: you must be wrong
3. If you're wrong, you're a penis packer and are abusive
4. If you disagree with that, you're an abusive penis packer
An adjunct to all this is:
5. If you argue that we're all people and deserve respect you're disagreeing with Suzan
6. All penis packers in skirts are beneath her contempt
7. Penis packers should not be allowed to wear pretty feminine finery (no, that's not facetious; it's an accurate description)
All in all, I'd say that's the entire Transsexual Separatist "philosophy". (I've never accused Suzan of originality, and I doubt anyone actually could.) It's Radical/Extreme anti-man Feminism mixed with religious piety and an unhealthy dose of fanaticism. (I wonder what these people do all day? Congratulate themselves on being so pure?)
The thing is, these people have to fight on two fronts. They fight with transgendered people and they fight with feminists. They pick one battle and can't avoid the other. Idiocy, really. The really idiotic part is that these individuals have figured out that there's a huge transgender conspiracy to subsume all of them into something other. Doesn't that sound rather familiar? Christian Victimization, Gay Agenda's, Liberal Bias, demeaning the right, and so on and on and on and on. Once a central idea has been "proven", assumed, evidence builds up everywhere. It's pretty sad, really. Instead of being, all of these people feel as if they're victims. They fight back like cornered animals. I wonder what the motivation for all of those transgendered people is? I mean, if they're so intent on conquering the transsexual women, and such an epic fight is needed to counter, there must be some over-arching demand? Who are the generals in this mythical transgender army? I'd like to punch them in the nose! They've obviously caused a lot of heartache to a few incredibly dim people.
Suzan says that she fights back as a feminist; she doesn't, really. She launches meaningless attacks as a bigot. The problem isn't that she's sticking up for transsexual women, it's that she's picking a meaningless fight!
Carolyn Ann
Write it out as a 1, 2, 3... Go ahead. This blog will still be around in a dozen years. It might take you that long, by the way.
Okay, here's a starter:
1. If you're a man, you're not a woman (okay so far? Good)
2. If you're a man, you can't ever be a woman
3. If you've been male bodied, you can be a woman (still with me? No? Never mind)
4. If you reject Suzan's "philosophy" you're a man
5. If you do reject Suzan's "philosophy" it must be because you're a man
6. If you're a man in a dress you're part of the Transgender Borg Collective (I wonder if a skirt counts?)
7. The Transgender Borg Collective are automatically wrong because they're men
8. So if someone says you're bigoted, they're the bigoted ones (see later)
9. If you can't understand Suzan's "philosophy" it's because you haven't had SRS
10. If you've had SRS you're a woman
11. Even if some women say you're not (in other words, Suzan gets to determine who's a woman and never mind if another woman disagrees)
... I've run out of idiocy to examine.
Here's Suzan's real philosophy:
1. All men are bad (see note about "penis packers")
2. If you have decided not to have SRS, you're a penis packer
3. All penis packers are inherently evil, abusive, etc, etc
4. Suzan wants to look up your skirt and determine if you're a penis packer or not (no, that's not facetious; it's very accurate)
Here's her take on her correctness:
1. She's right
2. If she's right, and you disagree: you must be wrong
3. If you're wrong, you're a penis packer and are abusive
4. If you disagree with that, you're an abusive penis packer
An adjunct to all this is:
5. If you argue that we're all people and deserve respect you're disagreeing with Suzan
6. All penis packers in skirts are beneath her contempt
7. Penis packers should not be allowed to wear pretty feminine finery (no, that's not facetious; it's an accurate description)
All in all, I'd say that's the entire Transsexual Separatist "philosophy". (I've never accused Suzan of originality, and I doubt anyone actually could.) It's Radical/Extreme anti-man Feminism mixed with religious piety and an unhealthy dose of fanaticism. (I wonder what these people do all day? Congratulate themselves on being so pure?)
The thing is, these people have to fight on two fronts. They fight with transgendered people and they fight with feminists. They pick one battle and can't avoid the other. Idiocy, really. The really idiotic part is that these individuals have figured out that there's a huge transgender conspiracy to subsume all of them into something other. Doesn't that sound rather familiar? Christian Victimization, Gay Agenda's, Liberal Bias, demeaning the right, and so on and on and on and on. Once a central idea has been "proven", assumed, evidence builds up everywhere. It's pretty sad, really. Instead of being, all of these people feel as if they're victims. They fight back like cornered animals. I wonder what the motivation for all of those transgendered people is? I mean, if they're so intent on conquering the transsexual women, and such an epic fight is needed to counter, there must be some over-arching demand? Who are the generals in this mythical transgender army? I'd like to punch them in the nose! They've obviously caused a lot of heartache to a few incredibly dim people.
Suzan says that she fights back as a feminist; she doesn't, really. She launches meaningless attacks as a bigot. The problem isn't that she's sticking up for transsexual women, it's that she's picking a meaningless fight!
Carolyn Ann
Monday, June 27, 2011
Michelle opens her campaign with... A gaffe?
Michele Bachmann, Republican, Christian Fundamentalist and Tea Party Favorite, opened her Presidential Campaign in her home town of Waterloo, Iowa.
Iowa figures prominently in Republican primary campaigns; mostly because its straw poll is generally considered important by everyone who doesn't stand a chance. New Hampshire is where it's at, so to speak.
Anyway, Ms Bachmann is known for her historical anecdotes. She's especially known for getting them wrong. Apparently she noted that John Wayne came from Waterloo, Iowa. He didn't. He came from Winterset, Iowa, a town 150 miles away. John Wayne Gacy, a 1970's serial killer - he raped and murdered 33 boys - came from Waterloo, Iowa.
Oops.
Carolyn Ann
Iowa figures prominently in Republican primary campaigns; mostly because its straw poll is generally considered important by everyone who doesn't stand a chance. New Hampshire is where it's at, so to speak.
Anyway, Ms Bachmann is known for her historical anecdotes. She's especially known for getting them wrong. Apparently she noted that John Wayne came from Waterloo, Iowa. He didn't. He came from Winterset, Iowa, a town 150 miles away. John Wayne Gacy, a 1970's serial killer - he raped and murdered 33 boys - came from Waterloo, Iowa.
Oops.
Carolyn Ann
Getting' ready for a trip to nowhere (or New Jersey)
So I might take a small camping trip in the near future. I love motorcycle camping! :-) Get on my bike, head off for parts unknown (to me, at least, although this is New Jersey we're talking about...). Set up camp for the night; heat up something to eat, usually chat with a few other motorcycle campers, and do it again the next day. Fun, fun, fun! :-)
Anyway, for once I decided not to wait until the last minute to get ready. (Staggering, I know.) So I washed the sleeping bag, found the mattress pad and so on. All I have to find now are my pots. I think I know where they are, but that tends not to mean anything around here. And I really do need to get a battery powered shaver; it's not always possible to find running water at some of the more primitive campsites. They're the ones I truly enjoy. :-)
You know, I'd forgotten just how small my sleeping bag packs! While I was running these things through the washer, I did the wife's as well. Her's is nearly as capable as mine, but it's huge, in comparison. Mind you, she's not into camping like I am.
Going through my camping stuff, I'm really pairing it down. Do I really need all those toiletries? If I get a small electric razor, I can get rid of the can of paint, er soap, I use for that. I don't bother with shampoo; I do need antibiotic cream and lysol. And so on. It's quite an exercise, pairing all this down. Fortunately Starbuck's helped - their instant coffee is good enough and it saves me from carrying filters, coffee and a filter cup. (What? You expect me to drink Maxwell House? That stuff is dreadful!)
(Added: That was interesting. BY being absolutely ruthless, I went from a medium (10") toiletry bag to a small (6") one! Even my camp towel fits in there!)
My goal is to have three bags. One for the tent, one for the sleeping bag, mattress pad, chair and inside-the-tent chair, and one for clothing and toiletries*. What else do I need? I'd like to get an iPad, but can't afford one just yet. That means a book or a couple of magazines. I've piled up some Foreign Affairs to take. They're smallish, and I can usually leave them in a campsite lodge for others.
(* That one is a 2 foot long, 8" diameter heavy duty dry bag. Believe me, on a motorcycle, your stuff needs the same protection a kayaker provides their gear! If it's not protected, it will get wet.)
It's quite exciting, really. I'm not going anywhere just yet, but I wish I was. And this will make it easier when I do decide to head off to the wild blue yonder. Or the unexplored parts of New Jersey, whichever is the more dubious. Er, whichever is the more, er, whichever I have a map for! :-)
Carolyn Ann
Anyway, for once I decided not to wait until the last minute to get ready. (Staggering, I know.) So I washed the sleeping bag, found the mattress pad and so on. All I have to find now are my pots. I think I know where they are, but that tends not to mean anything around here. And I really do need to get a battery powered shaver; it's not always possible to find running water at some of the more primitive campsites. They're the ones I truly enjoy. :-)
You know, I'd forgotten just how small my sleeping bag packs! While I was running these things through the washer, I did the wife's as well. Her's is nearly as capable as mine, but it's huge, in comparison. Mind you, she's not into camping like I am.
Going through my camping stuff, I'm really pairing it down. Do I really need all those toiletries? If I get a small electric razor, I can get rid of the can of paint, er soap, I use for that. I don't bother with shampoo; I do need antibiotic cream and lysol. And so on. It's quite an exercise, pairing all this down. Fortunately Starbuck's helped - their instant coffee is good enough and it saves me from carrying filters, coffee and a filter cup. (What? You expect me to drink Maxwell House? That stuff is dreadful!)
(Added: That was interesting. BY being absolutely ruthless, I went from a medium (10") toiletry bag to a small (6") one! Even my camp towel fits in there!)
My goal is to have three bags. One for the tent, one for the sleeping bag, mattress pad, chair and inside-the-tent chair, and one for clothing and toiletries*. What else do I need? I'd like to get an iPad, but can't afford one just yet. That means a book or a couple of magazines. I've piled up some Foreign Affairs to take. They're smallish, and I can usually leave them in a campsite lodge for others.
(* That one is a 2 foot long, 8" diameter heavy duty dry bag. Believe me, on a motorcycle, your stuff needs the same protection a kayaker provides their gear! If it's not protected, it will get wet.)
It's quite exciting, really. I'm not going anywhere just yet, but I wish I was. And this will make it easier when I do decide to head off to the wild blue yonder. Or the unexplored parts of New Jersey, whichever is the more dubious. Er, whichever is the more, er, whichever I have a map for! :-)
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Vintage trans...Whatever photographs
Decades ago, before the term "transgender" was invented, there existed an underground of "guys wearing dresses". Some of those people had photographs of themselves taken.
Some of those photographs can now be found, (inevitably? and) wonderfully, on Flickr. :-)
There are some very interesting pictures there.
I want to know how people find these sort of pictures!
Carolyn Ann
Added: It turns out there's a group, "The Vintage Transgender Pics (Pre-2000)" that has some interesting pictures on it.
Carolyn Ann
Some of those photographs can now be found, (inevitably? and) wonderfully, on Flickr. :-)
There are some very interesting pictures there.
I want to know how people find these sort of pictures!
Carolyn Ann
Added: It turns out there's a group, "The Vintage Transgender Pics (Pre-2000)" that has some interesting pictures on it.
Carolyn Ann
Different roads can be good
Every now and then southern New Jersey get an interesting someone. They're usually visiting, but whatever, I like interesting folk. This evening it was the liquor store. Two young lasses, obviously a couple and obviously not used to buying beer (they settled on some lime flavored generic). They were in a nice blue Chrysler PT Cruiser. How do I know? I was behind them in the checkout line and on the road.
Those two girls would be at home in Park Slope, Brooklyn. In southern New Jersey? Not so much. A couple of drunks were leering at them. I spotted a couple of red necks trying to decide if they were excited or should remember to be disgusted. Or simply admire their ink. It was impressive!
One of the things about driving is that you need to pay attention. The short-haired lass was the driver. Let me put it this way: paying attention was not within her repertoire of driving skills. There's a right hand turn that the cops love. Because people always use the shoulder as a right turn lane. It isn't and I've seen no end of people pulled over at that junction. Fortunately for her, there were no cops around. Because the cop would have had a field day with her driving.
Me? I was glad she was on a different road to me.
Carolyn Ann
Those two girls would be at home in Park Slope, Brooklyn. In southern New Jersey? Not so much. A couple of drunks were leering at them. I spotted a couple of red necks trying to decide if they were excited or should remember to be disgusted. Or simply admire their ink. It was impressive!
One of the things about driving is that you need to pay attention. The short-haired lass was the driver. Let me put it this way: paying attention was not within her repertoire of driving skills. There's a right hand turn that the cops love. Because people always use the shoulder as a right turn lane. It isn't and I've seen no end of people pulled over at that junction. Fortunately for her, there were no cops around. Because the cop would have had a field day with her driving.
Me? I was glad she was on a different road to me.
Carolyn Ann
I'm popular, today
It seems I'm quite popular, today. :-)
Quite a few folk have read this blog o'mine. Many are coming from something called "TS/IS Liberation" and a few more from "Women Born Transsexual". ... Oh my goodness, Dana and Suzan.
Someone called Dana is getting excited thinking I'm obsessed with her. Suzan is incapable of thought so she doesn't think of anything. She parrots others, pretending that she's thinking and hopes no one actually notices she can't. Dana can think, but prefers to let others do it for her. So she waits for someone else to suggest a theme and then she jumps on it, squeaking "Me too! Me Too!"
If I had to guess, I'd say their concerns are that I'll assault them with the English language. And perhaps some logic. And then they'll have to swing into action. Run up their Miserable Rogers, woman their metaphorical water pistols and ... and? Erm. Yeah. And what? Cower behind the nearest temper tantrum, I guess.
Oh well.
I wonder what she wrote about me that prompted such attention? Oh, you know, I did read something from Dana; it was basically a meaningless ramble so I ignored it. Perhaps I should have read it fully and seen what interests her so much about me. Maybe it's the fact that I keep calling her an idiot? Because she is.
Carolyn Ann
Added: Someone finds me interesting to look at. They've looked through most of my Flickr photos of me! :-) Should I >-flirt!-< ?
Quite a few folk have read this blog o'mine. Many are coming from something called "TS/IS Liberation" and a few more from "Women Born Transsexual". ... Oh my goodness, Dana and Suzan.
Someone called Dana is getting excited thinking I'm obsessed with her. Suzan is incapable of thought so she doesn't think of anything. She parrots others, pretending that she's thinking and hopes no one actually notices she can't. Dana can think, but prefers to let others do it for her. So she waits for someone else to suggest a theme and then she jumps on it, squeaking "Me too! Me Too!"
If I had to guess, I'd say their concerns are that I'll assault them with the English language. And perhaps some logic. And then they'll have to swing into action. Run up their Miserable Rogers, woman their metaphorical water pistols and ... and? Erm. Yeah. And what? Cower behind the nearest temper tantrum, I guess.
Oh well.
I wonder what she wrote about me that prompted such attention? Oh, you know, I did read something from Dana; it was basically a meaningless ramble so I ignored it. Perhaps I should have read it fully and seen what interests her so much about me. Maybe it's the fact that I keep calling her an idiot? Because she is.
Carolyn Ann
Added: Someone finds me interesting to look at. They've looked through most of my Flickr photos of me! :-) Should I >-flirt!-< ?
A conversation with the wife
"Did you read the instructions?" The Mrs asks, waving some sheets of paper at me.
"Instructions?" I asked, as quick as ever on the uptake.
"Yes, the instructions! You're doing this wrong!" She told me.
"I know that!" I replied, a little annoyed.
"Did you look at the instructions?" She asked me again.
"What instructions? Yeah, I... What's that?" Swift on the uptake, me.
She gave me the instructions (which I'd not even noticed, despite having unpacked them from the box).
"Did you look at the picture on the box? You've got that upside down."
"Picture?" Sometimes I stagger even myself with my acuity.
I looked at the picture. It was on the box. "That bit's upside down." I told the Mrs.
"No kidding", she replied.
And then I did something I rarely do: I opened the instructions. I didn't actually read them. But I did open them.
And the device went together. What was it? Does it matter?
Carolyn Ann
"Instructions?" I asked, as quick as ever on the uptake.
"Yes, the instructions! You're doing this wrong!" She told me.
"I know that!" I replied, a little annoyed.
"Did you look at the instructions?" She asked me again.
"What instructions? Yeah, I... What's that?" Swift on the uptake, me.
She gave me the instructions (which I'd not even noticed, despite having unpacked them from the box).
"Did you look at the picture on the box? You've got that upside down."
"Picture?" Sometimes I stagger even myself with my acuity.
I looked at the picture. It was on the box. "That bit's upside down." I told the Mrs.
"No kidding", she replied.
And then I did something I rarely do: I opened the instructions. I didn't actually read them. But I did open them.
And the device went together. What was it? Does it matter?
Carolyn Ann
Another martini, please
Both of us having a day off, we went to Barnes & Noble (yeah, I know. It's difficult to contain the excitement). The Mrs to look up something in the AP Style Guide, peruse an Italian cooking magazine and something with beautiful pictures of New England and me to read about contemporary marketing "stuff". Things like Facebook, Twitter and blogs.
I have a few ideas, one of which will be released in the next few weeks (if I'm lucky) and a few that will be revealed when The Time Is Right. Which may be never, but "we" never know... I don't, at least.
Anyway, these ideas need marketing. They need Facebook, Twitter and a bunch of other things. They need me to be "real" and "honest" and here's the problem: "likable".
Oh dear.
I fear that these days I'm a crotchety old sod who's determined to prove just how crotchety he is.
I could rewrite history. One of the books I read (glanced through) suggested I do that. History can be rewritten by the delete key... Except when it can't. And online, nothing can be rewritten. It can be edited, but never deleted and never forgotten. You can create an new identity for yourself. I could say "I'm no longer Carolyn Ann", I am whomever I choose to be, and so rewrite history. Don't fool yourself; most people, doing that, would escape scrutiny because no one cares that much.
Notwithstanding that I don't choose to be Carolyn Ann - I simply am - I think that's fraudulent. A bit like the judge asking "Are you changing your name to evade something?" And you say "Yeah, yeah, let's get on with it!" I am Carolyn Ann. I conduct my life pretty much as Carolyn Ann... I'm distracting myself. :-) I do that often. :-)
Likable. huh?
To be honest, I'm not sure I could withstand the pressure. To be honest but likable, all the time? That's impossible. I think most of us would find it impossible. Those who think they can accomplish it are either pathological liars, delusional or politicians. I'm not Michelle Bachmann.
What I can promise is that I am genuine. I'm an idiot (but I think you know that, already). I'm a bit slow. And I'm not exactly concerned with being likable. I don't know what that even means, never mind if it's possible. To be honest.
So any online marketing I do won't include me, but it will include you.
I think I even know what that might mean. :-) Please pass me another martini*...
Carolyn Ann
*I've been on this planet quite awhile. I've never had a martini. Seriously. I've never even tasted one.
I have a few ideas, one of which will be released in the next few weeks (if I'm lucky) and a few that will be revealed when The Time Is Right. Which may be never, but "we" never know... I don't, at least.
Anyway, these ideas need marketing. They need Facebook, Twitter and a bunch of other things. They need me to be "real" and "honest" and here's the problem: "likable".
Oh dear.
I fear that these days I'm a crotchety old sod who's determined to prove just how crotchety he is.
I could rewrite history. One of the books I read (glanced through) suggested I do that. History can be rewritten by the delete key... Except when it can't. And online, nothing can be rewritten. It can be edited, but never deleted and never forgotten. You can create an new identity for yourself. I could say "I'm no longer Carolyn Ann", I am whomever I choose to be, and so rewrite history. Don't fool yourself; most people, doing that, would escape scrutiny because no one cares that much.
Notwithstanding that I don't choose to be Carolyn Ann - I simply am - I think that's fraudulent. A bit like the judge asking "Are you changing your name to evade something?" And you say "Yeah, yeah, let's get on with it!" I am Carolyn Ann. I conduct my life pretty much as Carolyn Ann... I'm distracting myself. :-) I do that often. :-)
Likable. huh?
To be honest, I'm not sure I could withstand the pressure. To be honest but likable, all the time? That's impossible. I think most of us would find it impossible. Those who think they can accomplish it are either pathological liars, delusional or politicians. I'm not Michelle Bachmann.
What I can promise is that I am genuine. I'm an idiot (but I think you know that, already). I'm a bit slow. And I'm not exactly concerned with being likable. I don't know what that even means, never mind if it's possible. To be honest.
So any online marketing I do won't include me, but it will include you.
I think I even know what that might mean. :-) Please pass me another martini*...
Carolyn Ann
*I've been on this planet quite awhile. I've never had a martini. Seriously. I've never even tasted one.
My apologies, Jenny
I've just challenged, yes that's the right word, the curators of T-Central to highlight Common Teri's "The Official Transgender Borg Collective" blog.
After all, Jenny did say they were the BBC of the "trans" blogosphere. And they do list three obvious transsexual bigots. One of whom, Suzan, they highlight in their "News" section.
So it would seem quite right they highlight The Official ...etc's blog. Suzan writes of this Collective often; so does Dana (but she follows Suzan's lead, being quite incapable of anything approaching original thought). It would seem to me that the obvious thing to do is list the blog in the "News" category.
At the very least, honor demands it be mentioned.
(Jenny, I'm sorry. You left yourself wide open. Should I have taken the opportunity? Perhaps not. But my quibble is not with you; it's with how T-Central highlights bigots. That's not BBC. That's supporting bigotry.)
Carolyn Ann
After all, Jenny did say they were the BBC of the "trans" blogosphere. And they do list three obvious transsexual bigots. One of whom, Suzan, they highlight in their "News" section.
So it would seem quite right they highlight The Official ...etc's blog. Suzan writes of this Collective often; so does Dana (but she follows Suzan's lead, being quite incapable of anything approaching original thought). It would seem to me that the obvious thing to do is list the blog in the "News" category.
At the very least, honor demands it be mentioned.
(Jenny, I'm sorry. You left yourself wide open. Should I have taken the opportunity? Perhaps not. But my quibble is not with you; it's with how T-Central highlights bigots. That's not BBC. That's supporting bigotry.)
Carolyn Ann
The Transgender Borg Collective - it exists!
The Transgender Borg Collective exists!
It's spell checker seems to be the same one The Steve provides all iPhone users, but what the hey! Now I know Suzan's dreaded Transgender Borg Collective exists! I didn't know it before, but I do now!!! :-)
Holy cannoli! Who knew?
Not me. :-D
Carolyn Ann
It's spell checker seems to be the same one The Steve provides all iPhone users, but what the hey! Now I know Suzan's dreaded Transgender Borg Collective exists! I didn't know it before, but I do now!!! :-)
Holy cannoli! Who knew?
Not me. :-D
Carolyn Ann
Oh sod it
Okay, the last (next...) post didn't work out so well.
I published it because I felt it needed publishing. I have no idea if anyone will read it. I couldn't' give two hoots if it is or isn't read. I wrote it because I needed to write it.
As my regular readers know, I'm quite selfish. I write for myself, of myself, of my life. This is a single topic blog: me. Narcissistic? Why, yes. Did you expect anything different?
I'll take this moment to apologize to "anonymous", who comes in for a harsh word or two, but also iterate that the lectures have to stop. It's one thing to kick someone up the ass, and you gave me a well-deserved boot, but it's another to continue. I get it, okay? I'm glad you like my blog, but seriously: quit with the lectures, alright? You sound like my Mom (except I know you're not).
Carolyn Ann
I published it because I felt it needed publishing. I have no idea if anyone will read it. I couldn't' give two hoots if it is or isn't read. I wrote it because I needed to write it.
As my regular readers know, I'm quite selfish. I write for myself, of myself, of my life. This is a single topic blog: me. Narcissistic? Why, yes. Did you expect anything different?
I'll take this moment to apologize to "anonymous", who comes in for a harsh word or two, but also iterate that the lectures have to stop. It's one thing to kick someone up the ass, and you gave me a well-deserved boot, but it's another to continue. I get it, okay? I'm glad you like my blog, but seriously: quit with the lectures, alright? You sound like my Mom (except I know you're not).
Oh sod it. I don't feel "good" about the previous (next) post. But I published it because it's an honest appraisement of (some of) my thinking about the recent ruckus.
Carolyn Ann
Anonymous ain't gonna like this. Ask me if I care.
One of the things I do is discuss my various debates and arguments with the Mrs. I like doing that because I like sharing my life with The Most Wonderful Woman In The World and because I've found it helps me sort out my thinking about this or that topic. I write about things to help me figure stuff out as well. But chatting to the Mrs is very helpful. She has an uncanny, and, to be honest, somewhat disturbing ability to get to the nuts and bolts of something.
Believe me, it's disturbing. :-)
So I described the recent contretemps to her.
"If they want to be women, why don't they be women?" she asked.
My reply put on show all of my vaunted intelligence. "Huh?" I replied.
"These people, they want to be women?"
"They say they are"
"So why are they still hanging out with transgendered people?"
Like I said, disturbing.
"Haranguing?" I asked
"That, too". (I set that one up, to be honest.)
That's pretty much a verbatim transcription of the relevant section of the discussion.
I described some of the issues I was having figuring out the entire conversation. "I can't see the trees for the forest!" I told her. "Other way around", she replied. I described to her why I had used that particular phrasing. I am, you see, usually fairly deliberate in my phrasing.
Being a rather slow and uneducated fellow, I often have trouble figuring out difficult topics. But one thing I've learned (UK: learnt) is that if something "feels" wrong, it usually is. I apply that to mathematics, English, logic, whatever. If it "feels" wrong, it usually is. Sometimes it takes me awhile to figure out what bothers me about an argument. Being angry about "it" doesn't help, of course. The recent tiff certainly made me angry.
I think this is important: I don't think it made some of my adversaries angry.
Think about that, for a moment.
I was angry at obvious bigotry, and one individual, in particular, knew that. She manipulated that anger and I fell for her gerrymandering. One other foe tried to taunt me and while she succeeded for awhile, she ultimately failed. I was a damn puppet on a string.
You know what really ticked me off about that? I once worked for a boss who did pretty much the same manipulation. For five years! Mind you, three of those were getting, and doing, the project of a lifetime - a professional goal none of my adversaries could ever match. The other two were doing something I took pride in, took professional and personal pride in. Between them they almost killed me, but I frickin' did them! And well. But I should have looked at their manipulation in light of my experience. I didn't. It's been a long time, yada yada yada etcetera etcetera etcetera. Whine whine, moan moan. I should have known better.
You know the difference between me and two or five particular individuals? Not to be arrogant, but I can criticize myself.
You know the other difference? And this one's a biggie. No? I apologize.
Calie excepted, have you seen an apology from the various individuals I argued with? Neither have I. Perhaps they don't think they need to apologize, perhaps they do and just don't have what it takes to do so? It's not easy issuing a genuine apology; it means something. When you mean nothing to yourself, apologies are hard to come by, I guess.
Okay, I'm still "a bit" bitter about the whole experience. You know what? I'm not going to beat about the bush, hinting at whomever and implying whatever. I'm going to name names and attribute motives and explanations. Let the named provide refutations and explanations.
Natasha, I think, figured out what would annoy me. I think she has a high emotional intelligence; she's certainly intelligent. And I think she's very aware of emotions - and she basically set out to goad me. She admitted as much, but I think her explanation is only half of the story. Considering the situation, I think she set out to provide me the stage to humiliate myself. I obliged.
I think Dana, with her endless yammering about "my" fascination with transsexual women, with my desire to be called a "woman" despite not being one, is putting her own insecurities on show. Not once, ever in my life, have I ever claimed to be a woman. Not once. "I'd like to be a woman" is so different from "I am a woman". Sure I'd like to be a woman. If nature had seen to that I was born female, I wouldn't be writing about this. Nature provided me a man's body and not a man's sexual/gender/whatever identity. I don't know why; there's no reason, so it's pointless wondering why. It happened. I live with it.
Apparently that's not enough for some, like Dana. Or Suzan. Or Anne. They determine whom is a woman and who is not. Except they don't.
You know that forest/trees thing from earlier? Yeah? You're still reading? Don't you have something better to do, like twiddle your thumbs? Take out the garbage? Feed the cat? :-) The whole "who is a woman" thing (look up the whom/who thing, if you must :-) ) is one of the roots of all this animosity, bickering and general idiocy.
Here's their argument: I (I being Dana, Suzan or Anne) define who a woman is. A man in a dress doesn't and isn't. By the way, "I" (see note, above) gets to define who is a man in a dress.
(You know what's really weird? There are some individuals who, by their definition, list those blogs on their personal websites! It's like they're saying: "aaand here's someone who invalidates my whole existence, never mind life!" Go figure.)
I'm so glad my byline is "Motorcycle mania and a man in a dress. What's not to like?" [My italics... Wait! I just entered a linguistic/logical temporal zone...] It's informative. :-) I like to think of it as sardonically accurate, whatever the heck that means.
Anonymous might not like this post, but truth be told, anonymous has done a little too much lecturing and not enough revealing. I don't mind getting a kick in the ass, reminding me I'm being an idiot. But don't lecture. (Your warrant on that ran out with the kick up the backside.)
Oh, I should mention Teagan. She'll be disappointed if I don't mention her. Teagan meant no offense with her "the crossdressers". She meant no thought with it, either. Truth be told, Teagan calls a facetious analogy "clever". Teagan dropped by the blog the other day and offered a few words. Mostly to say "I didn't know you were that stupid" and "I could have done worse". Yeah, well. If she was seeking a peace offering a simple "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you" would be a good start. But she's not going to offer those words, because she doesn't perceive the offense she caused and doesn't really care, anyway.
Anonymous really won't like that.
I wanted to get it off my chest. Even if it made me look like an immature idiot. (I know it did. Sometimes, you just have to accept the rough with the smooth.) And at this point, I'm not sure Anonymous should be saying anything.
Where was I? Oh yeah. You know why I had a hard time figuring out the basic problem we were all arguing about? Because there isn't one. It's about bigotry, which has no answer except personal honor. The bigot has none. It's about thoughtlessness. It's about a lot of things, but it's not about being a woman. Or who is a woman. I don't know what it's all about, but I suspect arriving at the reason would require a lot of therapy and the occasional thought about how words are perceived. And perhaps caring about others not because they're unlike you, but because they're individuals who might be going through the same experiences you did. Not that that matters to the bigoted.
Carolyn Ann
Believe me, it's disturbing. :-)
So I described the recent contretemps to her.
"If they want to be women, why don't they be women?" she asked.
My reply put on show all of my vaunted intelligence. "Huh?" I replied.
"These people, they want to be women?"
"They say they are"
"So why are they still hanging out with transgendered people?"
Like I said, disturbing.
"Haranguing?" I asked
"That, too". (I set that one up, to be honest.)
That's pretty much a verbatim transcription of the relevant section of the discussion.
I described some of the issues I was having figuring out the entire conversation. "I can't see the trees for the forest!" I told her. "Other way around", she replied. I described to her why I had used that particular phrasing. I am, you see, usually fairly deliberate in my phrasing.
Being a rather slow and uneducated fellow, I often have trouble figuring out difficult topics. But one thing I've learned (UK: learnt) is that if something "feels" wrong, it usually is. I apply that to mathematics, English, logic, whatever. If it "feels" wrong, it usually is. Sometimes it takes me awhile to figure out what bothers me about an argument. Being angry about "it" doesn't help, of course. The recent tiff certainly made me angry.
I think this is important: I don't think it made some of my adversaries angry.
Think about that, for a moment.
I was angry at obvious bigotry, and one individual, in particular, knew that. She manipulated that anger and I fell for her gerrymandering. One other foe tried to taunt me and while she succeeded for awhile, she ultimately failed. I was a damn puppet on a string.
You know what really ticked me off about that? I once worked for a boss who did pretty much the same manipulation. For five years! Mind you, three of those were getting, and doing, the project of a lifetime - a professional goal none of my adversaries could ever match. The other two were doing something I took pride in, took professional and personal pride in. Between them they almost killed me, but I frickin' did them! And well. But I should have looked at their manipulation in light of my experience. I didn't. It's been a long time, yada yada yada etcetera etcetera etcetera. Whine whine, moan moan. I should have known better.
You know the difference between me and two or five particular individuals? Not to be arrogant, but I can criticize myself.
You know the other difference? And this one's a biggie. No? I apologize.
Calie excepted, have you seen an apology from the various individuals I argued with? Neither have I. Perhaps they don't think they need to apologize, perhaps they do and just don't have what it takes to do so? It's not easy issuing a genuine apology; it means something. When you mean nothing to yourself, apologies are hard to come by, I guess.
Okay, I'm still "a bit" bitter about the whole experience. You know what? I'm not going to beat about the bush, hinting at whomever and implying whatever. I'm going to name names and attribute motives and explanations. Let the named provide refutations and explanations.
Natasha, I think, figured out what would annoy me. I think she has a high emotional intelligence; she's certainly intelligent. And I think she's very aware of emotions - and she basically set out to goad me. She admitted as much, but I think her explanation is only half of the story. Considering the situation, I think she set out to provide me the stage to humiliate myself. I obliged.
I think Dana, with her endless yammering about "my" fascination with transsexual women, with my desire to be called a "woman" despite not being one, is putting her own insecurities on show. Not once, ever in my life, have I ever claimed to be a woman. Not once. "I'd like to be a woman" is so different from "I am a woman". Sure I'd like to be a woman. If nature had seen to that I was born female, I wouldn't be writing about this. Nature provided me a man's body and not a man's sexual/gender/whatever identity. I don't know why; there's no reason, so it's pointless wondering why. It happened. I live with it.
Apparently that's not enough for some, like Dana. Or Suzan. Or Anne. They determine whom is a woman and who is not. Except they don't.
You know that forest/trees thing from earlier? Yeah? You're still reading? Don't you have something better to do, like twiddle your thumbs? Take out the garbage? Feed the cat? :-) The whole "who is a woman" thing (look up the whom/who thing, if you must :-) ) is one of the roots of all this animosity, bickering and general idiocy.
Here's their argument: I (I being Dana, Suzan or Anne) define who a woman is. A man in a dress doesn't and isn't. By the way, "I" (see note, above) gets to define who is a man in a dress.
(You know what's really weird? There are some individuals who, by their definition, list those blogs on their personal websites! It's like they're saying: "aaand here's someone who invalidates my whole existence, never mind life!" Go figure.)
I'm so glad my byline is "Motorcycle mania and a man in a dress. What's not to like?" [My italics... Wait! I just entered a linguistic/logical temporal zone...] It's informative. :-) I like to think of it as sardonically accurate, whatever the heck that means.
Anonymous might not like this post, but truth be told, anonymous has done a little too much lecturing and not enough revealing. I don't mind getting a kick in the ass, reminding me I'm being an idiot. But don't lecture. (Your warrant on that ran out with the kick up the backside.)
Oh, I should mention Teagan. She'll be disappointed if I don't mention her. Teagan meant no offense with her "the crossdressers". She meant no thought with it, either. Truth be told, Teagan calls a facetious analogy "clever". Teagan dropped by the blog the other day and offered a few words. Mostly to say "I didn't know you were that stupid" and "I could have done worse". Yeah, well. If she was seeking a peace offering a simple "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you" would be a good start. But she's not going to offer those words, because she doesn't perceive the offense she caused and doesn't really care, anyway.
Anonymous really won't like that.
I wanted to get it off my chest. Even if it made me look like an immature idiot. (I know it did. Sometimes, you just have to accept the rough with the smooth.) And at this point, I'm not sure Anonymous should be saying anything.
Where was I? Oh yeah. You know why I had a hard time figuring out the basic problem we were all arguing about? Because there isn't one. It's about bigotry, which has no answer except personal honor. The bigot has none. It's about thoughtlessness. It's about a lot of things, but it's not about being a woman. Or who is a woman. I don't know what it's all about, but I suspect arriving at the reason would require a lot of therapy and the occasional thought about how words are perceived. And perhaps caring about others not because they're unlike you, but because they're individuals who might be going through the same experiences you did. Not that that matters to the bigoted.
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Adjudication
Despite sacred admonishes, we all judge others. It's natural and quite reasonable, to be honest. While you shouldn't judge others, we do it. "She's beautiful", "he's handsome", "she's a corker", "he makes the back end of a horse look good!" and so on. We judge intelligence, grace, political skills and many other facets of our existence.
When it comes to tribal politics, we judge other tribes in relation to our own. But what's really odd is that we don't always judge others by our own experiences. Only the fool does that.
And right now there are some fools telling us they are so.
Carolyn Ann
When it comes to tribal politics, we judge other tribes in relation to our own. But what's really odd is that we don't always judge others by our own experiences. Only the fool does that.
And right now there are some fools telling us they are so.
Carolyn Ann
Saturday morning in the ol' homestead
Well, it's not that old to be honest. It just has more plumbing issues than a house twenty three zillion times its age. And some of the strangest wiring I've ever come across. And a leaky faucet. And a new closet. :-)
The Mrs is putting her stuff in there as I write.
It's taking awhile because she's arranging it as she wants it arranged, and every garment is being examined. Three bags of stuff have already gone to the donation bins. (Some of that was mine, but you get the idea.) While it's not quite as big as she wanted - some out of season clothing will have to remain in plastic bins - it's a lot more than she has now.
The next job will be upgrading the existing closet, making it useful and putting all my stuff (back) in there! I need a lot more long hanging space than the Mrs. When it comes to figuring out who wears the pants in this house, I can assure you it ain't me! :-) I've got a lot of dresses that need to be hung; and, as it happens, a lot of nice pants too! Some of them I've not seen for a bit. They were in garment bags, hanging in a temporary closet that had a strangely permanent air about it. No longer - that plastic closet was thrown out and the clothing was "rescued".
I love good clothes. :-) There's something about putting on a quality outfit that transforms both you and the outfit. It's even better when you can see what you have! We'll now be able to do that. Well, the Mrs can now and I'll be able to when I've finished my closet. Coming out of the closet will never have been so much fun... :-)
Carolyn Ann
The Mrs is putting her stuff in there as I write.
It's taking awhile because she's arranging it as she wants it arranged, and every garment is being examined. Three bags of stuff have already gone to the donation bins. (Some of that was mine, but you get the idea.) While it's not quite as big as she wanted - some out of season clothing will have to remain in plastic bins - it's a lot more than she has now.
The next job will be upgrading the existing closet, making it useful and putting all my stuff (back) in there! I need a lot more long hanging space than the Mrs. When it comes to figuring out who wears the pants in this house, I can assure you it ain't me! :-) I've got a lot of dresses that need to be hung; and, as it happens, a lot of nice pants too! Some of them I've not seen for a bit. They were in garment bags, hanging in a temporary closet that had a strangely permanent air about it. No longer - that plastic closet was thrown out and the clothing was "rescued".
I love good clothes. :-) There's something about putting on a quality outfit that transforms both you and the outfit. It's even better when you can see what you have! We'll now be able to do that. Well, the Mrs can now and I'll be able to when I've finished my closet. Coming out of the closet will never have been so much fun... :-)
Carolyn Ann
Holy moly!
29 to 33.
The advocates for gay marriage were worried about one vote. They gained four.
Amazing.
New York State now tells you the state has no business telling you whom you can marry.
Cool!!!
Carolyn Ann
The advocates for gay marriage were worried about one vote. They gained four.
Amazing.
New York State now tells you the state has no business telling you whom you can marry.
Cool!!!
Carolyn Ann
Friday, June 24, 2011
My closet needs sorting before I can come out of it...
I feel quite at peace this evening. Nothing aggravating going on. No production schedules (I'm ignoring them), no idiotic, emotional, conversations, no project work, no nothing.
We did a lot of clothes sorting this evening; the closet is just about done; I discovered that a silly oversight on the measurements means the lower bar was 2" higher than it should be. So I'll fix that tomorrow. Anyway, it was quite funny at times. We'd pull something from a bag, something that hasn't been seen in more than a few years - often, it was packed when we lived in Brooklyn! - and look at each other. "Who's is it?", we'd wonder. Then it was a case of "dated?" Yup. Over there. Still good, or classic or liked? It got put away.
I discovered that I have a lot of black lace skirts. I found 3 in one bag! And another in another bag. All different sizes, but still - how many black lace skirts do I need? (Lots... :-) )
Right, beddiebytime. G'night. :-)
Carolyn Ann
We did a lot of clothes sorting this evening; the closet is just about done; I discovered that a silly oversight on the measurements means the lower bar was 2" higher than it should be. So I'll fix that tomorrow. Anyway, it was quite funny at times. We'd pull something from a bag, something that hasn't been seen in more than a few years - often, it was packed when we lived in Brooklyn! - and look at each other. "Who's is it?", we'd wonder. Then it was a case of "dated?" Yup. Over there. Still good, or classic or liked? It got put away.
I discovered that I have a lot of black lace skirts. I found 3 in one bag! And another in another bag. All different sizes, but still - how many black lace skirts do I need? (Lots... :-) )
Right, beddiebytime. G'night. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, June 23, 2011
A ramble in the brambles
I've given my decision to back out of this whole "transsexual v transgender/transvestite/crossdresser" conflagration some thought. While it took a kick up the metaphorical backside to get me to understand what I was doing, there are some questions I need to think about, and perhaps even answer.
This morning, I sat down with my coffee and started to write a small history of the whole dismal thing, including my part in it. But then I realized that was responding to those "transsexual separatists" on their terms. No matter how the squabble is framed, there are three individuals, they are both transsexual separatists and conspiracy theorists, who will twist any such history. These three individuals, like all conspiracy theorists, didn't arrive at their conspiracies by reason.
Now, the conspiracies put forth by conspiracy theorists are complicated psychological things and I'm not about to write a dissertation on something I know very little about. What I do know is that no conspiracy theory passes the "reasonableness" test. I also know it's very, very difficult to actually describe conspiracies. Heck, figuring out what to question can be beyond reasonable thought.
The other factor to consider is that bigotry can't be reasoned with. Literally. Bigotry is, by definition, unreasonable. The demonization of entire populations because of one perceived characteristic? There's nothing reasonable about that. A bigot is a bigoted person; the dictionary defines bigoted thusly:
Now, is it "good" to ignore prejudice and bigotry? Before I can answer that, I have to see if these people have any support.
Any partizan group needs some community support if it is to survive. It needs active support if it is to prosper. There doesn't have to be much support, and what support there is doesn't need to be active or open. What do the three people I'm thinking of have? They have support from their immediate community and a large loud hailer from T-Central.
Extremely partizan people usually shape the debate they want to have. While most people, for instance, don't understand the fuss about the Federal deficit, they do understand the simplistic nonsense put forth by a few people. Those people are determining where the general conversation about the deficit can go; instead of examining the deficit through a macro-economic lens, the debate becomes about a fallacy of the overall Federal debt. In the end, a few, no more than five, perhaps six, people shape a debate that affects millions of dollars and millions of people. The key is not to sound like a nut or an idiot (although that's not an absolute requirement!). Pose reasonable sounding questions that only have the answer you want and most of the conversation will go your way. If you can force people to respond to your framing of the issue, you're basically home free.
Conspiracy theorists also spend a lot of time trying to shape the debate about their pet conspiracy. They need to because it's the only way they can redefine "reasonable". Their arguments tend to be scattered; finding a common thread is often impossible simply because there isn't one. You need "faith", basically, to perceive the commonality. The conspiracy theorist believes his or her own tale because it's the only one that makes sense to him or her. So the conspiracy theorist often takes lessons from the extremely partizan; they try to shape the debate so that their answers are the only plausible ones. Where they generally go wrong is in the basic unreasonableness of their argument; is it truly plausible that the entire community of transgender people is out to deny the transsexual woman her identity? No, but if you can shape even a small part of the debate around that, the conspiracy theorist believes they have won. How do they do that? By asking a seemingly innocuous question. In this case it's asking about the "transgender umbrella".
One thing both the conspiracy theorist and the partizan have to do is provide new definitions. Now, when it comes to the "trans" community, most of the work had been done. "Trans" is a common colloquialism; it has no actual meaning beyond a Humpty-Dumpty one. Another tactic is to dehumanize those you disparage. That's easy; in this case it's the "transgender Borg collective" and "the crossdressers". It's far easier to vilify those you have just turned into objects than it is to argue that an entire group of people are out to get you.
The support these individuals have is casual; it's not individualized or particularly noteworthy. It's more the support you give a team-mate because you're part of the same team. Some people are more avid supporters of these three; just as any partizan group needs a small group of people willing to actively assist, these more ardent supporters actively assist the conspiracy theorists in their efforts to dehumanize others by adopting the same language and references.
Now, one of the things about these partizans is that they create an atmosphere where casual discrimination can happen. Look at how a small group of far right Republicans managed to distract the discussion about the Iraq war by accusing opponents of being "unAmerican". Not all Republicans agreed with the tactic or the sentiment, but it attracted a fringe element that suddenly realized that it was okay to label all liberals as anti-American.That, in turn, allowed the creation of the casual invective we see in today's political arena. It become acceptable to dehumanize liberals, it became fair to give them derogatory labels and proclaim on their motivations. Some liberals, me included, responded in kind. What we have within the transblogsphere is a similar situation. Three individuals and their more ardent supporters have created an environment where it's okay to demonize not just one population, but a few! We're not arguing about the odious nature of the dehumanizing "transgender Borg collective", we're arguing about who's a member of it.
I feel that I do need to mention the casual discrimination; it's in the redefinition of others, the lumping of disparate groups into one, derogatorily titled group and the lack of outrage from within the transsexual community that this is happening. I am hard pushed to come up with a single example where a transsexual woman has spoken out against this casual redefinition. I've seen plenty of defensiveness. I've also seen a strange argument that, when extrapolated, makes Simon Wiesenthal a Fascist. But I've only seen a single transsexual woman come forward and say "all of this discrimination is unacceptable". That's the sort of thing that goes into casual support for the partizan bigots.
It might seem that I'm still "going after" the transsexual community. I'm not. The transgender community has been rocked back a bit; its members responded to dehumanizing attacks upon themselves, and to the casual bigotry of some other people. There was a lot of casual redefinition going on. If you look at the debate, you'll notice that just about all of it is responding to three people. They were provided a megaphone by T-Central and they used it.
So, is it good to let such bigotry slide? Ultimately I don't know. On the one hand responding became a personal battle of wits and wills. It's not a discussion, it's the start of a bar-room brawl. But to ignore the discrimination and bigotry, both casual and deliberate, is also wrong. I don't think there is an answer; mostly because the transsexual women participating in the skirmish are not discussing the prejudices they are wittingly or unwittingly supporting. The transgender individuals are, to a large extent, trying to figure out what it is that needs countering. They are tending to the personal attack and the outraged defense, which nearly always includes personal attacks. To be perfectly frank, I've yet to see any coherent argument from anyone except the transsexual lass who was outraged by the discriminatory yammering.
This isn't a donnybrook the transgendered community can win. It's about a few individuals and their supporters who have, for some reason, developed an intense aversion to the transgendered. Because this aversion has no reasonable basis, there is no reasonable countering; it's not as if anyone can argue that we're the same, because the basis of the aversion is that we're not the same. The word "same" being misconstrued with eagerness and enthusiasm. It's impossible to argue that we're equal, because that devolves into a slanging match. I can't help but feel that while T-Central provides these people and their supporters with a venue, they will continue to lambast the transgendered. It's a bit like Ann Coulter, et al. Because they have a venue, they shout loudly about how evil their opponents are. It becomes a vicious circle; the need to prove how evil such and such a group is becomes the goal, not the message. The same thing is happening within this debacle. I don't think it will end any time soon; there are too many people issuing "attagirls" and T-Central recently reinstated one of the originators and loudest of these chauvinists. T-Central, at this point, doesn't have a competitor and so there is nothing to police its listing. The defense offered, presenting both sides equally, is a bit disingenuous and false. They depend on others for their content; as I refuse to have this blog listed on the service, there is actually very little refutation of the three instigators. Now that I am also refusing to participate in the squabble, it seems that these three individuals basically have a free run. It's not that their arguments make any sense; they can't, because there is no sense in their discriminatory and hate filled speech. It's that I'm tired of the confrontation and idiocy. I'm also a bit tired of painting myself the fool.
From now on I'm staying out of it. Now I have a handle on it all, something I should have stopped and figured out much sooner than I did, I can put the responsible parties in their proper context. It's not a pretty context, but no one can argue they're pretty people.
Carolyn Ann
This morning, I sat down with my coffee and started to write a small history of the whole dismal thing, including my part in it. But then I realized that was responding to those "transsexual separatists" on their terms. No matter how the squabble is framed, there are three individuals, they are both transsexual separatists and conspiracy theorists, who will twist any such history. These three individuals, like all conspiracy theorists, didn't arrive at their conspiracies by reason.
Now, the conspiracies put forth by conspiracy theorists are complicated psychological things and I'm not about to write a dissertation on something I know very little about. What I do know is that no conspiracy theory passes the "reasonableness" test. I also know it's very, very difficult to actually describe conspiracies. Heck, figuring out what to question can be beyond reasonable thought.
The other factor to consider is that bigotry can't be reasoned with. Literally. Bigotry is, by definition, unreasonable. The demonization of entire populations because of one perceived characteristic? There's nothing reasonable about that. A bigot is a bigoted person; the dictionary defines bigoted thusly:
having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of othersLet's dig into this.
Prejudiced: having or showing a dislike or distrust that is derived from prejudice; bigoted
Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience; dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior formed on such a basisPrejudiced and bigoted were a bit self-reinforcing. You really shouldn't have to look up one and then the other in an endless circle. But by turning to the noun "prejudice", we see what we're really dealing with. A preconceived opinion that's not based on reason or actual experience.
Now, is it "good" to ignore prejudice and bigotry? Before I can answer that, I have to see if these people have any support.
Any partizan group needs some community support if it is to survive. It needs active support if it is to prosper. There doesn't have to be much support, and what support there is doesn't need to be active or open. What do the three people I'm thinking of have? They have support from their immediate community and a large loud hailer from T-Central.
Extremely partizan people usually shape the debate they want to have. While most people, for instance, don't understand the fuss about the Federal deficit, they do understand the simplistic nonsense put forth by a few people. Those people are determining where the general conversation about the deficit can go; instead of examining the deficit through a macro-economic lens, the debate becomes about a fallacy of the overall Federal debt. In the end, a few, no more than five, perhaps six, people shape a debate that affects millions of dollars and millions of people. The key is not to sound like a nut or an idiot (although that's not an absolute requirement!). Pose reasonable sounding questions that only have the answer you want and most of the conversation will go your way. If you can force people to respond to your framing of the issue, you're basically home free.
Conspiracy theorists also spend a lot of time trying to shape the debate about their pet conspiracy. They need to because it's the only way they can redefine "reasonable". Their arguments tend to be scattered; finding a common thread is often impossible simply because there isn't one. You need "faith", basically, to perceive the commonality. The conspiracy theorist believes his or her own tale because it's the only one that makes sense to him or her. So the conspiracy theorist often takes lessons from the extremely partizan; they try to shape the debate so that their answers are the only plausible ones. Where they generally go wrong is in the basic unreasonableness of their argument; is it truly plausible that the entire community of transgender people is out to deny the transsexual woman her identity? No, but if you can shape even a small part of the debate around that, the conspiracy theorist believes they have won. How do they do that? By asking a seemingly innocuous question. In this case it's asking about the "transgender umbrella".
One thing both the conspiracy theorist and the partizan have to do is provide new definitions. Now, when it comes to the "trans" community, most of the work had been done. "Trans" is a common colloquialism; it has no actual meaning beyond a Humpty-Dumpty one. Another tactic is to dehumanize those you disparage. That's easy; in this case it's the "transgender Borg collective" and "the crossdressers". It's far easier to vilify those you have just turned into objects than it is to argue that an entire group of people are out to get you.
The support these individuals have is casual; it's not individualized or particularly noteworthy. It's more the support you give a team-mate because you're part of the same team. Some people are more avid supporters of these three; just as any partizan group needs a small group of people willing to actively assist, these more ardent supporters actively assist the conspiracy theorists in their efforts to dehumanize others by adopting the same language and references.
Now, one of the things about these partizans is that they create an atmosphere where casual discrimination can happen. Look at how a small group of far right Republicans managed to distract the discussion about the Iraq war by accusing opponents of being "unAmerican". Not all Republicans agreed with the tactic or the sentiment, but it attracted a fringe element that suddenly realized that it was okay to label all liberals as anti-American.That, in turn, allowed the creation of the casual invective we see in today's political arena. It become acceptable to dehumanize liberals, it became fair to give them derogatory labels and proclaim on their motivations. Some liberals, me included, responded in kind. What we have within the transblogsphere is a similar situation. Three individuals and their more ardent supporters have created an environment where it's okay to demonize not just one population, but a few! We're not arguing about the odious nature of the dehumanizing "transgender Borg collective", we're arguing about who's a member of it.
I feel that I do need to mention the casual discrimination; it's in the redefinition of others, the lumping of disparate groups into one, derogatorily titled group and the lack of outrage from within the transsexual community that this is happening. I am hard pushed to come up with a single example where a transsexual woman has spoken out against this casual redefinition. I've seen plenty of defensiveness. I've also seen a strange argument that, when extrapolated, makes Simon Wiesenthal a Fascist. But I've only seen a single transsexual woman come forward and say "all of this discrimination is unacceptable". That's the sort of thing that goes into casual support for the partizan bigots.
It might seem that I'm still "going after" the transsexual community. I'm not. The transgender community has been rocked back a bit; its members responded to dehumanizing attacks upon themselves, and to the casual bigotry of some other people. There was a lot of casual redefinition going on. If you look at the debate, you'll notice that just about all of it is responding to three people. They were provided a megaphone by T-Central and they used it.
So, is it good to let such bigotry slide? Ultimately I don't know. On the one hand responding became a personal battle of wits and wills. It's not a discussion, it's the start of a bar-room brawl. But to ignore the discrimination and bigotry, both casual and deliberate, is also wrong. I don't think there is an answer; mostly because the transsexual women participating in the skirmish are not discussing the prejudices they are wittingly or unwittingly supporting. The transgender individuals are, to a large extent, trying to figure out what it is that needs countering. They are tending to the personal attack and the outraged defense, which nearly always includes personal attacks. To be perfectly frank, I've yet to see any coherent argument from anyone except the transsexual lass who was outraged by the discriminatory yammering.
This isn't a donnybrook the transgendered community can win. It's about a few individuals and their supporters who have, for some reason, developed an intense aversion to the transgendered. Because this aversion has no reasonable basis, there is no reasonable countering; it's not as if anyone can argue that we're the same, because the basis of the aversion is that we're not the same. The word "same" being misconstrued with eagerness and enthusiasm. It's impossible to argue that we're equal, because that devolves into a slanging match. I can't help but feel that while T-Central provides these people and their supporters with a venue, they will continue to lambast the transgendered. It's a bit like Ann Coulter, et al. Because they have a venue, they shout loudly about how evil their opponents are. It becomes a vicious circle; the need to prove how evil such and such a group is becomes the goal, not the message. The same thing is happening within this debacle. I don't think it will end any time soon; there are too many people issuing "attagirls" and T-Central recently reinstated one of the originators and loudest of these chauvinists. T-Central, at this point, doesn't have a competitor and so there is nothing to police its listing. The defense offered, presenting both sides equally, is a bit disingenuous and false. They depend on others for their content; as I refuse to have this blog listed on the service, there is actually very little refutation of the three instigators. Now that I am also refusing to participate in the squabble, it seems that these three individuals basically have a free run. It's not that their arguments make any sense; they can't, because there is no sense in their discriminatory and hate filled speech. It's that I'm tired of the confrontation and idiocy. I'm also a bit tired of painting myself the fool.
From now on I'm staying out of it. Now I have a handle on it all, something I should have stopped and figured out much sooner than I did, I can put the responsible parties in their proper context. It's not a pretty context, but no one can argue they're pretty people.
Carolyn Ann
Production schedules are Dante's Forgotten Ring
One of the many things I have to think about is a production schedule. These things, I assumed, were a bit like project schedules. They aren't. They're a bit of a beast, and are radically different to project schedules.
A project schedule has a goal, an end date and a set of processes and tasks that culminate in the completion of the project. A production schedule says when a series of somethings need to start making money. You need a project schedule to fulfill a production schedule. Those two things make a world of difference.
So I've spent the last few hours reading about how to make a production schedule and watching "Law & Order UK". Okay, I spent most of my time watching the telly. I could ask the Mrs about production scheduling; what she doesn't know about that topic isn't worth knowing. But I keep forgetting. Because it's not really on my list of "things I really do need to think about". And it should be.
My previous experience with production scheduling usually involved applying to a "craft" show, getting a space and working like fury to have something to sell. Which, far too often, involved working until one hour before we had to depart, falling asleep on the nearest "not vertical" surface I could find and a lot of coffee. Coming home was an adventure we never wanted to repeat, but somehow managed to because of my lack of planning.
Just as a side note, one of my favorite moments at a craft show was when the chap said "I could make these!" and his wife replied "Yes, but you don't!" She didn't buy anything, however. We didn't make a single sale that day. Disheartening? We were too exhausted to be disheartened. (And then there was the time I spent our entire profits on a cute jacket. :-) )
So I've been putting together a production schedule. Now, project schedules I can do. Production schedules? It's almost 3AM, I've been at it all evening and I have absolutely zilch to show. (Okay, I only watched one episode of L&OUK. I was eating my dinner at the same time.)
Whomever said that you only work half days when you work for yourself was joking. You get to work half the day and then some. I'm going to bed. See you in an aeon or two.
Carolyn Ann
A project schedule has a goal, an end date and a set of processes and tasks that culminate in the completion of the project. A production schedule says when a series of somethings need to start making money. You need a project schedule to fulfill a production schedule. Those two things make a world of difference.
So I've spent the last few hours reading about how to make a production schedule and watching "Law & Order UK". Okay, I spent most of my time watching the telly. I could ask the Mrs about production scheduling; what she doesn't know about that topic isn't worth knowing. But I keep forgetting. Because it's not really on my list of "things I really do need to think about". And it should be.
My previous experience with production scheduling usually involved applying to a "craft" show, getting a space and working like fury to have something to sell. Which, far too often, involved working until one hour before we had to depart, falling asleep on the nearest "not vertical" surface I could find and a lot of coffee. Coming home was an adventure we never wanted to repeat, but somehow managed to because of my lack of planning.
Just as a side note, one of my favorite moments at a craft show was when the chap said "I could make these!" and his wife replied "Yes, but you don't!" She didn't buy anything, however. We didn't make a single sale that day. Disheartening? We were too exhausted to be disheartened. (And then there was the time I spent our entire profits on a cute jacket. :-) )
So I've been putting together a production schedule. Now, project schedules I can do. Production schedules? It's almost 3AM, I've been at it all evening and I have absolutely zilch to show. (Okay, I only watched one episode of L&OUK. I was eating my dinner at the same time.)
Whomever said that you only work half days when you work for yourself was joking. You get to work half the day and then some. I'm going to bed. See you in an aeon or two.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Anonymous comments
I'd forgotten I disallowed anonymous comments. They're back on.
Although I do have to say that if the level of invective continues as it did before I shut them off, I'll shut them off again!
Carolyn Ann
Although I do have to say that if the level of invective continues as it did before I shut them off, I'll shut them off again!
Carolyn Ann
Anonymous is right
Anonymous recently berated me:
I allowed these people to irritate me. I provided them the room to denigrate others; that they eagerly seized it shouldn't reflect on me as it does. I don't care if they mock me; I should, do, care that I allowed such superficial twittery to affect me. I, no one else, am responsible for my words and ideas.
Anonymous is right. I should hold myself to a higher standard than I have been.
Thank you, Anonymous.
Sorry.
Carolyn Ann
Perhaps you do not realize this, Carolyn Ann, but every time you attack someone you DISCREDIT YOURSELF! No, you're not the only who is doing it, but it doesn't matter. FACTS AND LOGIC which will persuade people. Personal attacks just make you look like an asshole.I do know that. My rather trite response makes that abundantly clear. I try to excuse my behavior, but that's all it is: an excuse. I shouldn't be willing to wade in the mud, even if I know it's not paradise. Especially as I know it's not paradise. Let those who choose to demean themselves wallow in their own pettiness and arrogance. I should choose not to. I do choose not to.
Stop being an asshole!!!!!!!
I allowed these people to irritate me. I provided them the room to denigrate others; that they eagerly seized it shouldn't reflect on me as it does. I don't care if they mock me; I should, do, care that I allowed such superficial twittery to affect me. I, no one else, am responsible for my words and ideas.
Anonymous is right. I should hold myself to a higher standard than I have been.
Thank you, Anonymous.
Sorry.
Carolyn Ann
She'll never be a lady
Teagan, remember her? Sure you do, is keeping a list of whom I write.
Here's a copy of it from her latest little snipe:
Teagan: 16
Suzan: 16
Dana: 16
Natasha: 9
Calie: 3
Cathryn: 2
Dani: 2
Anne: 2
Miz: 2
Ariel: 1
Karen: 1
Ashley: 2
Ambidextrix: 1
Elizabeth: 1
I can't help but think that some of those numbers are a bit low. But never mind. Her point is well understood! By her.
Personally, I think she's so brave and courageous in keeping such a list. I mean, it poses such a, what? to me! I can't ridicule it, it's only a list. (Oh, wait... I am ridiculing it! Goodness me. There I go, ridiculing something worthy of contempt!) She already knows I ridicule her; not as often as I could, but still. I don't want to be a one-topic writer like Teagan. Whenever she pops her head over the parapet, it's to try and mock me. Actually, she sort of sticks a bit of paper with some scribbles, and this list, over the parapet. She stays firmly out of sight. I do wish she would keep it up to date, though.
The thing is, I stick my head above the parapet. I stand for what I say. Teagan? Not so much. She's a silly little twit who loves to emulate 8 year olds. Indeed, her finest moments are when she's throwing a tantrum a two year old would be proud of.
I could tell you that she's only capable of such petty personal attacks, but I think she knows that already. Not for her the lofty ideal of arguing ideas. She must have read, somewhere, that women are petty and catty, so she's doing her best to live up to that depiction. She's much more comfortable pointing out that someone doesn't quite live up to her perfect feminine ideal. She does, of course. In her mind, I suppose, she considers herself to be a real woman, if not the perfect example of femininity.
Fortunately she's a coward, too. Otherwise I'd have to contend with her prissiness on this blog. But she prefers to hide and snicker. She's the sort that loves to mock others when they aren't around. Because if they are around, she can't actually live up to her pissy ideal. All she can manage is a feeble taunt and then, squealing with fright, she runs behind the sandwich board she carries this list on. Mostly because the only person who's ready to publicly defend her has already run behind the board. That person sometimes finds the courage to issue a lecture; but considering it's delivered from the safety of that board, it's difficult to hear. The bits anyone can actually hear consist of "You're horrible and mean to pick on us! We only want to be meanies and be childish and mean to others!"
When she gets older will she, I wonder, look back on her behavior and say to herself "my finest moment!"? Or will she actually grow up and say "I could have been an adult on that one"? Somehow I doubt it. Will she say, to herself never mind anyone else, "I acted with dignity and proved myself a lady?" Actually, I don't think she'll ask that, because she already knows the answer: the one thing she will never be is a lady.
Carolyn Ann
Newt demands... What?
Newt Gingrich, a now erstwhile Republican candidate, is demanding an apology from NBC. They reported that Newt lets Calista, his wife, run amuck in his campaign. So he's demanding the apology because... Actually, I'm not sure why he's demanding an apology. NBC did nothing wrong; they reported the news. I think he's ticked off the truth got out.
Oh well. Nice one, Gringe, proving yourself an idiot as well as incompetent.
Carolyn Ann
Oh well. Nice one, Gringe, proving yourself an idiot as well as incompetent.
Carolyn Ann
How to annoy lots of people...
The FBI recently raided a Reston, VA, data center. They took lots of servers because, it seems, they equated “one enclosure is = to one server”. That would be one large equipment rack, about seven feet tall, three deep and a little under two wide. It would be full of servers. One of those servers was the one the FBI wanted. (Why, I don't know. If the data center's technical architecture was up to snuff, so to speak, the FBI should be after disk drives, not servers.)
Anyway, they took the servers because some hacker group targeted official websites. Something that turned out to be "not a good idea", with arrests happening in various nations around the world. Considering that up to 25% of the hacker community works for the FBI, it can be reasonably asserted that attacking official websites really isn't a good idea.
So now there are a lot of people who are mad at the FBI and the LulzSec hacker group.
Way to go guys and gals.
Carolyn Ann
Anyway, they took the servers because some hacker group targeted official websites. Something that turned out to be "not a good idea", with arrests happening in various nations around the world. Considering that up to 25% of the hacker community works for the FBI, it can be reasonably asserted that attacking official websites really isn't a good idea.
So now there are a lot of people who are mad at the FBI and the LulzSec hacker group.
Way to go guys and gals.
Carolyn Ann
How to annoy an electorate...
If you really want to annoy an already annoyed voter, tell them that a recall vote "is as a gnat on the rump of an elephant”. In other words, tell the voters that their recall efforts are meaningless because they don't get to choose who represents them, anyway.
With friends like that, Russell Pierce, the man who introduced that odious immigration legislation in Arizona and the President of its Senate, sure as heck is in no need of enemies. Such as the eight thousand and some who petitioned to recall the racist sod.
May the best person win. And that wouldn't be Russell Pierce.
Carolyn Ann
With friends like that, Russell Pierce, the man who introduced that odious immigration legislation in Arizona and the President of its Senate, sure as heck is in no need of enemies. Such as the eight thousand and some who petitioned to recall the racist sod.
May the best person win. And that wouldn't be Russell Pierce.
Carolyn Ann
Learning Latin. Sort of.
So I've been toying around with Drupal for a bit. Well, not so much "toying" as "trying to produce a website". The client is tolerant (fortunately). I'm married to her, which helps. :-D
Now, one thing I've learned about Drupal is that it has a "learning curve". It's more of a very tall cliff. It makes the Unix learning curve look like a nice Sunday stroll. You need some serious gear to climb that damn cliff!
The problem is that Drupal doesn't have an architecture. It has a set of conventions. Arbitrary conventions. If it had an architecture, it wouldn't be too hard to learn. Django, a web framework, has an architecture. Wordpress has an architecture. Well, it sort of does. It's architecture is a bit like the second floor of my house: you can figure out what's where simply by the fact that something else is where you're looking. Wordpress is a bit stupid, really.
Well, if I describe Wordpress as stupid, then Drupal is that really pretentious chap at the end of the bar who insists on conversing in Latin. Because he can and you can't.
I'm sure someone will suggest other CMS's and frameworks, but they don't really matter. (Do they?) The fact of the matter is, if you want to produce something for the web, you're stuck with Django's "I live in my Mom's basement like that chap in that Die Harder movie" cleverness, Wordpress's staggering ability to be the first man who gets shot in an action movie or Drupal's habit of speaking Latin to any and all. If you want to use Joomla, you have to learn to do unnatural acts. Which might be entertaining for some, but for most is a pain in the wotsit and are probably illegal anyway. Mostly, you get the sense that you're an encumbrance to these "frameworks" and "content management systems". If you abide by them, fine. If not, go to that purgatory Microsoft built.
I think I'll go build something from wood. Just reassure myself that I still exist.
Carolyn Ann
PS Cocoa, Apple's programming "framework" has an architecture. Unfortunately, it's inspiration was a the Taj Mahal version of a Cape Cod house. With Colonial details tossed in because they sort of fit. If that sounds like a nightmare, believe me: it is.
Mind you, MS Windows has an architecture that's more "Kremlin meets Missile Silo with the windows left open". Small wonder they called it "Windows". There are so many fenestrations... <- Cheap joke at Microsoft's expense. :-)
Now, one thing I've learned about Drupal is that it has a "learning curve". It's more of a very tall cliff. It makes the Unix learning curve look like a nice Sunday stroll. You need some serious gear to climb that damn cliff!
The problem is that Drupal doesn't have an architecture. It has a set of conventions. Arbitrary conventions. If it had an architecture, it wouldn't be too hard to learn. Django, a web framework, has an architecture. Wordpress has an architecture. Well, it sort of does. It's architecture is a bit like the second floor of my house: you can figure out what's where simply by the fact that something else is where you're looking. Wordpress is a bit stupid, really.
Well, if I describe Wordpress as stupid, then Drupal is that really pretentious chap at the end of the bar who insists on conversing in Latin. Because he can and you can't.
I'm sure someone will suggest other CMS's and frameworks, but they don't really matter. (Do they?) The fact of the matter is, if you want to produce something for the web, you're stuck with Django's "I live in my Mom's basement like that chap in that Die Harder movie" cleverness, Wordpress's staggering ability to be the first man who gets shot in an action movie or Drupal's habit of speaking Latin to any and all. If you want to use Joomla, you have to learn to do unnatural acts. Which might be entertaining for some, but for most is a pain in the wotsit and are probably illegal anyway. Mostly, you get the sense that you're an encumbrance to these "frameworks" and "content management systems". If you abide by them, fine. If not, go to that purgatory Microsoft built.
I think I'll go build something from wood. Just reassure myself that I still exist.
Carolyn Ann
PS Cocoa, Apple's programming "framework" has an architecture. Unfortunately, it's inspiration was a the Taj Mahal version of a Cape Cod house. With Colonial details tossed in because they sort of fit. If that sounds like a nightmare, believe me: it is.
Mind you, MS Windows has an architecture that's more "Kremlin meets Missile Silo with the windows left open". Small wonder they called it "Windows". There are so many fenestrations... <- Cheap joke at Microsoft's expense. :-)
Apple takes a hit...
Apple's stock price declined 8% today.
Whoopdeewoo. And other noises of celebration. Oh, never mind: a single share is still more than my weekly grocery bill.
Various considerations were touted for this. They're the "best house in a bad neighborhood." (Think about the idiocy of that one for a moment. I'll wait.) Also mentioned was the weakness of the European economy (America's ain't doing so well, either!), the antiquity of the current iPhone, Paul Johnson leaving and, well, that's about it. All in all, nothing quite explains why Apple declined 8%.
Oh wait. It's still trading at $325. It dipped at about 3:45PM. Literally. It went all the way down to $324. Well, to be fair, it was running at $315 or so shortly after the market opened.
Added: The likeliest explanation is that a confluence of "not so good" news gave investors a case of the jitters. And then they remembered they love and worship The Steve. Which drove the price back up.
Never mind. Go back to what you were doing, or continue worshiping The Steve, if that's what you were doing.
Carolyn Ann
(To be fair, I do have to note that shortly after market open, it dipped to $315. I wish I'd been in the market about then! I'd have bought so many shares, I'd have bankrupted myself! Which would happen after about, oh, I don't know. Perhaps the first half of the first share?)
Whoopdeewoo. And other noises of celebration. Oh, never mind: a single share is still more than my weekly grocery bill.
Various considerations were touted for this. They're the "best house in a bad neighborhood." (Think about the idiocy of that one for a moment. I'll wait.) Also mentioned was the weakness of the European economy (America's ain't doing so well, either!), the antiquity of the current iPhone, Paul Johnson leaving and, well, that's about it. All in all, nothing quite explains why Apple declined 8%.
Oh wait. It's still trading at $325. It dipped at about 3:45PM. Literally. It went all the way down to $324. Well, to be fair, it was running at $315 or so shortly after the market opened.
Added: The likeliest explanation is that a confluence of "not so good" news gave investors a case of the jitters. And then they remembered they love and worship The Steve. Which drove the price back up.
Never mind. Go back to what you were doing, or continue worshiping The Steve, if that's what you were doing.
Carolyn Ann
(To be fair, I do have to note that shortly after market open, it dipped to $315. I wish I'd been in the market about then! I'd have bought so many shares, I'd have bankrupted myself! Which would happen after about, oh, I don't know. Perhaps the first half of the first share?)
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Looking to take offense?
An accusation that is often leveled at me is that I am looking to take offense at whatever it is I've just been offended by. It's the sort of accusation you'd expect on the Internet; it's cheap, it's easy, it's (essentially) irrefutable and it's astonishingly stupid. It's also very common.
Dani is the latest to tell me of my motivations.
I don't think I need to explain why it's cheap and easy; it's obviously requires no thought. Indeed, it's a convenient way of avoiding thinking! If the accused is merely looking to take offense at whatever, then it's easier to tell them than actually refute their argument. Because refutation does take thinking. It's essentially irrefutable because if the accused argues they're not looking to take offense, the subject has changed and the accused is suddenly explaining themselves. When you're in that position, you're not going to do anything to refute the accusation. It's a circle; your accuser can say you're looking to take offense and your argument that you're not is proving that you're looking to take offense. It's a bit of a Dreyfus accusation, really.
It's astonishingly stupid because it proves the accuser doesn't have an answer, prefers ad-hominem attacks and can't actually differentiate between the person and the idea. You will often find the accuser arguing that they don't like to attack people, as they eagerly do so, and that they prefer to attack ideas. As they strenuously avoid doing anything about the ideas they dislike. It's usually because they can't actually find fault with the idea, or don't understand it and simply don't want to admit that. It's easier to tell someone they're looking to be offended; it saves so much thinking!
If someone actually disliked an idea I put forward, they'd argue that. Instead, they argue about me. Or they cast the argument into one about me and my motivations. As proof, I offer that not one person I've conversed with on this topic has actually examined my explanation of why "the crossdressers" is offensive. No one has taken it apart and said "you're wrong and here's why". Dani offers a slightly facetious explanation that (jokingly, I think) imposes an interpretation upon someone's words. But if you go back through the entire conversation (I don't advise that, by the way), you won't find anyone doing anything but taking offense at my taking offense! And telling me, in a variety of ways, that I'm merely looking to take offense.
If I was looking to take offense, I'd pop over to a couple of Christian fundamentalist blogs I know, or an atheist blog or two. Or a right wing blog or two I know. Or Suzan's "Women Born Transsexual" or whatsername's bit of transsexual bigotry; those two set out to offend! It's easy to find things to be offended by; it's become even easier with the advent of the Internet! The fact that I, or anyone, can think of a dozen different places I could go to be offended is neither here nor there; that's really what makes the accusation so frickin' stupid.
I don't go looking to be offended. But apparently I'm not supposed to say anything if I am offended.
Carolyn Ann
Added: Oh, I forgot. Natasha spent a lot of words telling me "the crossdressers" was a generalization; which is fine. It's the objectification provided by that particular generalization I objected to; Natasha dismissed that particular point as unimportant.
Dani is the latest to tell me of my motivations.
I don't think I need to explain why it's cheap and easy; it's obviously requires no thought. Indeed, it's a convenient way of avoiding thinking! If the accused is merely looking to take offense at whatever, then it's easier to tell them than actually refute their argument. Because refutation does take thinking. It's essentially irrefutable because if the accused argues they're not looking to take offense, the subject has changed and the accused is suddenly explaining themselves. When you're in that position, you're not going to do anything to refute the accusation. It's a circle; your accuser can say you're looking to take offense and your argument that you're not is proving that you're looking to take offense. It's a bit of a Dreyfus accusation, really.
It's astonishingly stupid because it proves the accuser doesn't have an answer, prefers ad-hominem attacks and can't actually differentiate between the person and the idea. You will often find the accuser arguing that they don't like to attack people, as they eagerly do so, and that they prefer to attack ideas. As they strenuously avoid doing anything about the ideas they dislike. It's usually because they can't actually find fault with the idea, or don't understand it and simply don't want to admit that. It's easier to tell someone they're looking to be offended; it saves so much thinking!
If someone actually disliked an idea I put forward, they'd argue that. Instead, they argue about me. Or they cast the argument into one about me and my motivations. As proof, I offer that not one person I've conversed with on this topic has actually examined my explanation of why "the crossdressers" is offensive. No one has taken it apart and said "you're wrong and here's why". Dani offers a slightly facetious explanation that (jokingly, I think) imposes an interpretation upon someone's words. But if you go back through the entire conversation (I don't advise that, by the way), you won't find anyone doing anything but taking offense at my taking offense! And telling me, in a variety of ways, that I'm merely looking to take offense.
If I was looking to take offense, I'd pop over to a couple of Christian fundamentalist blogs I know, or an atheist blog or two. Or a right wing blog or two I know. Or Suzan's "Women Born Transsexual" or whatsername's bit of transsexual bigotry; those two set out to offend! It's easy to find things to be offended by; it's become even easier with the advent of the Internet! The fact that I, or anyone, can think of a dozen different places I could go to be offended is neither here nor there; that's really what makes the accusation so frickin' stupid.
I don't go looking to be offended. But apparently I'm not supposed to say anything if I am offended.
Carolyn Ann
Added: Oh, I forgot. Natasha spent a lot of words telling me "the crossdressers" was a generalization; which is fine. It's the objectification provided by that particular generalization I objected to; Natasha dismissed that particular point as unimportant.
Dropping Andrew Sullivan
I've decided to drop Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Dish, from my blogroll. While he blogged at The Atlantic, what he covered and how he covered it was entertaining and informative. Now he's at The Daily Beast, his blog seems to have become somewhat ordinary. It's nowhere nearly as good, and I think his conservatism has taken a turn to the idiotic right.
So he's gone from my blogroll.
Carolyn Ann
So he's gone from my blogroll.
Carolyn Ann
Oops.
I just noticed: T-Central has a "links to this post" bit at the end of the most recently discussed post.
Oh well. I'll have a few listings in that list.
Carolyn Ann
Oh well. I'll have a few listings in that list.
Carolyn Ann
Juxtaposed. Or someone really does need a dictionary.
Teagan, fair Teagan said, in a comment:
I'm not sure that "the" and "crossdresser" were placed together, by either Teagan or Calie, because they contrast. "The" is a determiner. "Crossdresser" is a noun. There's no contrast or contrasting effect. What we have is a phrase, "the crossdresser". The particular usage, (I quote), "I envy the crossdressers. ..." (I'm ignoring Teagan's usage as she has decided to put a stupid javascript blocker on her blog; I can't be bothered to circumvent it (if you need instructions, they're here).) I think that "the" and "crossdressers" were placed together because both Teagan and Calie are a bit prejudiced and don't care about the insult such usage provides. (You don't use such phrasing if you do care about the insult it provides.)
After all, when you group people into a group, and treat that group as an object, aren't you treating every single member (who weren't given a choice in membership, by the way) as an object? If Calie had said "I'm envious of some crossdressers", she'd be in the clear. But no, she used a specific phrase: the crossdressers. It's pretty clear that she views each crossdresser as an object; Teagan's intent was similar. You don't ascribe particular qualities to individuals, en masse, unless you don't care about them or don't regard them as your equal. You simply don't.
The crossdressers this, the crossdressers that. Natasha asked where it will end. I suggest that it will end when people recognize that others are not objects, they are individuals. When it becomes obvious that echoing the southern racists and the various transphobic hate groups isn't acceptable, then it will end.
But that requires some individuals to own their own words, and the sentiments they imply. And we can't have that, can we?
Carolyn Ann
Calie, I read your comment the other day, and I thought to myself, "oh no... Calie has used The.Two.Words.That.Must.Never.Be.Juxtaposed. ...Now, I don't know about you, but when I use a word I try to adhere to its meaning. Juxtapose is a verb; it means "place or deal with close together for contrasting effect". (Oxford American English Dictionary.)
I'm not sure that "the" and "crossdresser" were placed together, by either Teagan or Calie, because they contrast. "The" is a determiner. "Crossdresser" is a noun. There's no contrast or contrasting effect. What we have is a phrase, "the crossdresser". The particular usage, (I quote), "I envy the crossdressers. ..." (I'm ignoring Teagan's usage as she has decided to put a stupid javascript blocker on her blog; I can't be bothered to circumvent it (if you need instructions, they're here).) I think that "the" and "crossdressers" were placed together because both Teagan and Calie are a bit prejudiced and don't care about the insult such usage provides. (You don't use such phrasing if you do care about the insult it provides.)
After all, when you group people into a group, and treat that group as an object, aren't you treating every single member (who weren't given a choice in membership, by the way) as an object? If Calie had said "I'm envious of some crossdressers", she'd be in the clear. But no, she used a specific phrase: the crossdressers. It's pretty clear that she views each crossdresser as an object; Teagan's intent was similar. You don't ascribe particular qualities to individuals, en masse, unless you don't care about them or don't regard them as your equal. You simply don't.
The crossdressers this, the crossdressers that. Natasha asked where it will end. I suggest that it will end when people recognize that others are not objects, they are individuals. When it becomes obvious that echoing the southern racists and the various transphobic hate groups isn't acceptable, then it will end.
But that requires some individuals to own their own words, and the sentiments they imply. And we can't have that, can we?
Carolyn Ann
Some management changes
Eight executives at Skype have left after Microsoft's purchase of the firm. A spokesperson said "Skype, like any other pragmatic organization, constantly assesses its team structure to deliver its users the best products. As part of a recent internal shift Skype has made some management changes.”
I'm guessing here... If eight execs leave the firm, whether they are canned or quit, we're going beyond anything pragmatic. We're going for "management bloodbath". Considering some of the names, a few of which I actually know (now that tells me Skype has a real problem on its hands), Skype has some real problems on its hands. You don't lose those people without "negative" stuff happening.
If they were fired, there's the problem of what they know. It's not hard to build a Skype competitor and make it better. Especially if Microsoft is your competition. Not to be snarky or anything, of course... :-) If they quit, there's the problem that it's not hard to build a Skype competitor and make it better than Microsoft can make Skype.
Personally, I'd look to the open source community to respond with a Skype replacement. And Apple to come out with something that makes Skype irrelevant. ... Oh, wait. They did: FaceTime.
Carolyn Ann
I'm guessing here... If eight execs leave the firm, whether they are canned or quit, we're going beyond anything pragmatic. We're going for "management bloodbath". Considering some of the names, a few of which I actually know (now that tells me Skype has a real problem on its hands), Skype has some real problems on its hands. You don't lose those people without "negative" stuff happening.
If they were fired, there's the problem of what they know. It's not hard to build a Skype competitor and make it better. Especially if Microsoft is your competition. Not to be snarky or anything, of course... :-) If they quit, there's the problem that it's not hard to build a Skype competitor and make it better than Microsoft can make Skype.
Personally, I'd look to the open source community to respond with a Skype replacement. And Apple to come out with something that makes Skype irrelevant. ... Oh, wait. They did: FaceTime.
Carolyn Ann
The Guiled Foe
Upon taking offense, the first thing Jim did was equip himself with a tin dustbin lid for a shield, and a broken broomstick for a sword. "Come hither, you varmint and do your worst!" He cried, desperately searching for the exit in a land with no doors. Those whom had taken it upon themselves to insult him thought for a moment - any longer gave them a headache - and pronounced themselves bored.
Jim stood there, aghast. "You're going to insult me and not even bother? What kind of troll are you?" He asked.
"The Internet kind," came the godlike reply.
"Oh." What other response was there?
"If you like, we can take offense at your taking offense at our casual insult?" A squeak said. "Oh my good Lord! Look at your arms! They're horrendous! Cover them up at once!" The squeak admonished. Jim looked at his arms. They'd rescued cats from strange places, cut wood to build, carried dirt to create gardens, held his love and told a history. They were a little hairy, too.
"I, Iiii, take offense at the pipsqueak!" The roar was enough to make a mouse grumble about it being too early to rise. But it was enough that Jim looked about. Perhaps taking offense at an insult was exactly what these people wanted? Should he have ignored the insult? Let it become background noise? Let it become part of the lexicon, where some would attach a label to an entire population and use it as a derogatory insult, as the English once did the Irish? After all, he'd come to not a pretty end in one debate. But he couldn't let it go. He had to tell of the offense this casual muttering provided.
Jim fastened a dented metal colander to his head with a broken bungee cord and set forth.
"You are a stupid little man!" the voice told him.
"That may be so, but I'm not the one going around pretending that insulting others is a fine thing!" He replied.
"It is a fine thing, if it is you I am insulting!" The voice was eery. It seemed to echo with authority and whine like a child who's told to go bed, all at the same time. It continued, "How dare you take offense at our insults? How dare you voice complaint? We will squash you and deny you blog comment privileges!" Jim now knew he up against that most unfathomable foe: the Internet coward.
"Thou art coward!" He yelled!
"You are the coward, hiding behind your victims mask!" The voice was quite insistent, even as it whined like unoiled gears. "I will deny you the ability to read blogs and opinions that are critical of the likes of you!" The voice continued, going on and on and on and on.
"Where is the utterer of the insult?" Jim wondered. Silence greeted him.
Just as the sparrows were starting their slumber, the voice yelled out, "You insult me! You are playing the victim! I will not hear you!" The sparrows grumbled, but soon fell fast asleep.
Jim was astounded by what happened next: an apparition appeared. A rotund little blue boy in a little pink dress and white shoes appeared before him, but the boy was enormous! He reached to the sky! The boy looked down upon Jim and snickered. Then the boy stuck his fingers in his ears and started shouting "Na Na NAAAAA! I can't hear you! I won't hear you!" He then stomped his feet, each jolt waking up the children of field mice. And Jim realized that his dustbin lid shield and broken wooden sword were no match for his foe. He angrily tossed them to the side, blaming them for his lack. Picking them up, he apologized to his foe, and his armor. Never should he take on such a guiled foe with his dented colander helmet, tin shield and broken broomstick. His foe cackled with her friends, mockingly mourning Jim's poor showing.
Jim was a fool. He thought the voice could be persuaded, but no persuasion was possible. Jim resolved to do better. To take the casual insult for what it was. To simply learn that those who issue such casual insults, and their supporters, never care about others, only themselves. He vowed to never be as hopeful when it came to such matters; for it was certain that the bully was a bully and would never change. He couldn't remember a battle like it; where those in the wrong berated those who complained, and whined that they were complaining! How dare their authority be challenged? How dare a poor lad like Jim be so careless as to question their casual insults and wave his broken broomstick at those superior beings? Didn't he know, you never question the avariciously vapid bully?
Carolyn Ann
Jim stood there, aghast. "You're going to insult me and not even bother? What kind of troll are you?" He asked.
"The Internet kind," came the godlike reply.
"Oh." What other response was there?
"If you like, we can take offense at your taking offense at our casual insult?" A squeak said. "Oh my good Lord! Look at your arms! They're horrendous! Cover them up at once!" The squeak admonished. Jim looked at his arms. They'd rescued cats from strange places, cut wood to build, carried dirt to create gardens, held his love and told a history. They were a little hairy, too.
"I, Iiii, take offense at the pipsqueak!" The roar was enough to make a mouse grumble about it being too early to rise. But it was enough that Jim looked about. Perhaps taking offense at an insult was exactly what these people wanted? Should he have ignored the insult? Let it become background noise? Let it become part of the lexicon, where some would attach a label to an entire population and use it as a derogatory insult, as the English once did the Irish? After all, he'd come to not a pretty end in one debate. But he couldn't let it go. He had to tell of the offense this casual muttering provided.
Jim fastened a dented metal colander to his head with a broken bungee cord and set forth.
"You are a stupid little man!" the voice told him.
"That may be so, but I'm not the one going around pretending that insulting others is a fine thing!" He replied.
"It is a fine thing, if it is you I am insulting!" The voice was eery. It seemed to echo with authority and whine like a child who's told to go bed, all at the same time. It continued, "How dare you take offense at our insults? How dare you voice complaint? We will squash you and deny you blog comment privileges!" Jim now knew he up against that most unfathomable foe: the Internet coward.
"Thou art coward!" He yelled!
"You are the coward, hiding behind your victims mask!" The voice was quite insistent, even as it whined like unoiled gears. "I will deny you the ability to read blogs and opinions that are critical of the likes of you!" The voice continued, going on and on and on and on.
"Where is the utterer of the insult?" Jim wondered. Silence greeted him.
Just as the sparrows were starting their slumber, the voice yelled out, "You insult me! You are playing the victim! I will not hear you!" The sparrows grumbled, but soon fell fast asleep.
Jim was astounded by what happened next: an apparition appeared. A rotund little blue boy in a little pink dress and white shoes appeared before him, but the boy was enormous! He reached to the sky! The boy looked down upon Jim and snickered. Then the boy stuck his fingers in his ears and started shouting "Na Na NAAAAA! I can't hear you! I won't hear you!" He then stomped his feet, each jolt waking up the children of field mice. And Jim realized that his dustbin lid shield and broken wooden sword were no match for his foe. He angrily tossed them to the side, blaming them for his lack. Picking them up, he apologized to his foe, and his armor. Never should he take on such a guiled foe with his dented colander helmet, tin shield and broken broomstick. His foe cackled with her friends, mockingly mourning Jim's poor showing.
Jim was a fool. He thought the voice could be persuaded, but no persuasion was possible. Jim resolved to do better. To take the casual insult for what it was. To simply learn that those who issue such casual insults, and their supporters, never care about others, only themselves. He vowed to never be as hopeful when it came to such matters; for it was certain that the bully was a bully and would never change. He couldn't remember a battle like it; where those in the wrong berated those who complained, and whined that they were complaining! How dare their authority be challenged? How dare a poor lad like Jim be so careless as to question their casual insults and wave his broken broomstick at those superior beings? Didn't he know, you never question the avariciously vapid bully?
Carolyn Ann
Monday, June 20, 2011
Phaedrus begone?
The recent tiff between some transsexual women and some transgender individuals has certainly cast the communal Phaedrus to a less than Shakespearean cauldron. (Was that tortured enough? If not, I can try harder... ;-) )
There used to be a sort of truce between the two communities; they would ply their diplomacy together to achieve common goals. Now it seems that the goal of some transsexual women is to put the transgendered and the crossdresser firmly into dungeons. Or, dungeons not being immediately available, the stocks are surely a suitable alternative?
The issue, at face value, is who is a woman and who is not. And whom is allowed to make that judgment, and who will sully the halls of womanhood by presuming such authority.
Which is a desperate misreading of the transgender community and its love of the feminine. But pay no heed! For all who claim womanhood and are yet packin' that ol' penis are not women! Oh dear. That leaves certain people, certain individuals who have according to their own words at (the very) least disdain for the mere crossdresser, and yet still retain their male accouterments, in a rather embarrassing position...
Whither begone, Phaedrus? Hardly.
Carolyn Ann
There used to be a sort of truce between the two communities; they would ply their diplomacy together to achieve common goals. Now it seems that the goal of some transsexual women is to put the transgendered and the crossdresser firmly into dungeons. Or, dungeons not being immediately available, the stocks are surely a suitable alternative?
The issue, at face value, is who is a woman and who is not. And whom is allowed to make that judgment, and who will sully the halls of womanhood by presuming such authority.
Which is a desperate misreading of the transgender community and its love of the feminine. But pay no heed! For all who claim womanhood and are yet packin' that ol' penis are not women! Oh dear. That leaves certain people, certain individuals who have according to their own words at (the very) least disdain for the mere crossdresser, and yet still retain their male accouterments, in a rather embarrassing position...
Whither begone, Phaedrus? Hardly.
Carolyn Ann
Fit that Apostrophe!
Another Yay! :-D I fit! FIT! FIT!! FIT!!! into my wonderfully cute Apostrophe denim skirt! :-)
It's difficult to type while you're swirling around, showing the wife that you actually do fit into a wonderfully cute Apostrophe skirt! :-)
I haven't been able to wear that skirt in... Oh, at least that long ago.
But tonight, I thought "I wonder..." And it fit!
Now to work no the rest of me. Oy vey...
Carolyn Ann
It's difficult to type while you're swirling around, showing the wife that you actually do fit into a wonderfully cute Apostrophe skirt! :-)
I haven't been able to wear that skirt in... Oh, at least that long ago.
But tonight, I thought "I wonder..." And it fit!
Now to work no the rest of me. Oy vey...
Carolyn Ann
Baseboards & punch list...
Yay! The closet is almost finished!
Jeez, that engineered wood floor wasn't what I'd call an "easy install". Not a nightmare, like some wood floors can be, but not easy, either. That tongue & groove "click to fasten" is okay in one dimension. Try and attach two boards together? And then three? Not so fast, ducky.
Fortunately the stuff cut like I've never seen anything cut! The final strip needed about an inch and a half shaving from it. On any normal ¼" thick plank, I'd have to take my time with the table saw. Especially if it had a laminate top. This stuff? Slid through like a knife through melting butter. Literally! I've never seen anything quite like it in almost 10 years of working wood. It looks great! In the artificial light, it looks almost real. It will certainly do the job! I think it'll sound nice with heels, too... :-D
Anyway, I've got the baseboards to install tomorrow. I could do it tonight, but all that "up and down", on my knees fitting and measuring, then down two flights to the basement, cut, back up two flight, get back on the floor and so on did a major number on my bad leg. It went past screaming to whimpering for mercy. It's still whimpering, the damned sod.
The punch list items have been taken care of. Well, one left - I didn't know all my mirrors were broken. Years ago, when I did woodworking for a living, I stockpiled a few mirrors. When we moved, I popped them in the shed. It seems that the three large trees that fell (I chopped one down, the other two fell in storms) by the shed jolted the mirrors and broke them into nasty looking pieces. Oh well. And one of the lights doesn't work; I think I know why, which is a bit irritating because that means a trip up to the furnace known as our attic. That light might stay "not-working" until the fall.
Buying a threshold was an exercise in irritation. The Home Depot seems to stock two types: the wrong profile and the wrong material. Eventually I found one, in oak, that wasn't outrageously priced; it was a literal penny shy of that, and it'll do the job. I've got the switch plates installed; that's pretty staggering as it normally takes me a year or two to remember to buy the right ones. And another few months to remember I bought them, find them and think about installing them...
Right. Two punch list items left, the shelving (an hour's job... He says with more optimism than expectation) and viola! A closet for the Mrs. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Jeez, that engineered wood floor wasn't what I'd call an "easy install". Not a nightmare, like some wood floors can be, but not easy, either. That tongue & groove "click to fasten" is okay in one dimension. Try and attach two boards together? And then three? Not so fast, ducky.
Fortunately the stuff cut like I've never seen anything cut! The final strip needed about an inch and a half shaving from it. On any normal ¼" thick plank, I'd have to take my time with the table saw. Especially if it had a laminate top. This stuff? Slid through like a knife through melting butter. Literally! I've never seen anything quite like it in almost 10 years of working wood. It looks great! In the artificial light, it looks almost real. It will certainly do the job! I think it'll sound nice with heels, too... :-D
Anyway, I've got the baseboards to install tomorrow. I could do it tonight, but all that "up and down", on my knees fitting and measuring, then down two flights to the basement, cut, back up two flight, get back on the floor and so on did a major number on my bad leg. It went past screaming to whimpering for mercy. It's still whimpering, the damned sod.
The punch list items have been taken care of. Well, one left - I didn't know all my mirrors were broken. Years ago, when I did woodworking for a living, I stockpiled a few mirrors. When we moved, I popped them in the shed. It seems that the three large trees that fell (I chopped one down, the other two fell in storms) by the shed jolted the mirrors and broke them into nasty looking pieces. Oh well. And one of the lights doesn't work; I think I know why, which is a bit irritating because that means a trip up to the furnace known as our attic. That light might stay "not-working" until the fall.
Buying a threshold was an exercise in irritation. The Home Depot seems to stock two types: the wrong profile and the wrong material. Eventually I found one, in oak, that wasn't outrageously priced; it was a literal penny shy of that, and it'll do the job. I've got the switch plates installed; that's pretty staggering as it normally takes me a year or two to remember to buy the right ones. And another few months to remember I bought them, find them and think about installing them...
Right. Two punch list items left, the shelving (an hour's job... He says with more optimism than expectation) and viola! A closet for the Mrs. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Note to Natasha & Calie
N, my friends can call me CA. You're not a friend. :-)
Not that I would have someone as self-righteous as you as a friend. Instead of stopping and thinking, you berate me for being offended by a specific generality. You lecture me on generalities without once stopping and considering that "the crossdressers" is offensive. In your book, because you agree with it, you don't find it offensive. So why should anyone else? My goodness, why indeed!
I'm not the one mixing up discussions. You are. I'm not the one who's whining about "the crossdressers", but you're whining about my being offended. I point out that casual bigotry is bigotry, and you complain. You disagree that bigotry is bigotry and then complain that I call you a bigot because you support bigots? If you support bigots, you're as bad as the bigot you support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that a couple of obvious bigots aren't that bad? I think that's the same as telling someone not to be offended by a racist's racism, because it isn't that bad.
Let me see... I'm not the one hiding behind a bit of javascript. Scared I'll read something and criticize you? I'm standing up and saying "I think this is offensive". Instead of asking why, or trying to persuade me such generalities as "the crossdressers" isn't offensive - you whine about how I'm so offended. You truly believe what you say about me, I know. If I could bring myself to care what you think of me, I'd tell you. I'm not as thin-skinned as you, so you can feel free to read this blog, comment or not, criticize and even insult me. I don't bar any of that; I don't hide, quivering, behind a stupid bit of javascript that's so easy to circumvent it's beyond idiotic that you think you're accomplishing anything!
I'm having difficulty believing you're actually as dim as you keep pleading you are. Are you really so blind to the offense a specific generality like that is? Are you really so simple-minded that you can't see an example for what it is? Are you so dim that you don't understand an obvious satire? Are you really that dim? Really?
By the way, point out where I said what you said I said... :-) I'm sure I attributed something to you, but I've lost track of it all. All I know is that you like to berate people who are offended by insulting generalities and provide some level of support to one or two bigots. Do I need to care about anything else when it comes to you?
(By the way, I didn't call you a zealot. I called you a bigot. There's a difference.)
===
Calie, thanks for closing that thread down before I had a chance to respond to Natasha.I truly appreciate the courage it must have taken for you to say "Oh dear, someone's unreasonably offended by something I said. I'd better close down the discussion." [Added: Calie, your timing could have been a tad different...] Perhaps you can add this to your list of things "the crossdressers" are good at: being offended by vague insults and language that echo the southern racists and religiously righteous.
You say, let me get this right, "I envy the crossdressers. They can just turn it on and turn it off, on demand. I can never turn it off..." You don't specify what you're envious of. All you know is that an entire group can switch it on or off at will. You don't actually know that for a fact, do you? You just decided to casually lump a group of people into an object and ascribe an attribute to every single member of that group.
Calie and Natasha,
Because you can't understand the lives of "the crossdressers", and make no real effort to, you assume that "the crossdressers", the entire sodding lot of them, can turn their gender issues on and off at will. You assume that they put on a dress because, oh, they fancy it. And when they're done, they switch off whatever it is and that's that. You make no effort to understand the lives of others, do you? Because if you made that effort, if you tried to understand, instead of berating me for being offended, or closing down a discussion that got awkward because of something you said, Calie, you would know that sort of generality is offensive. It's like dealing with a couple of teenagers!
Neither of you make any effort to understand the lives of the transgendered. You simply call them "the crossdressers", or berate them for feeling offended by such simplistic insults. "The crossdressers" isn't offensive to you, and you, neither of you, make any effort to understand why someone else might find it offensive. Heck, I'm not even a crossdresser but I found it offensive. Very offensive.
I'm sorry you don't understand that inferences that are more appropriate to southern racists and religious bigots is offensive. Just because you don't find such to be offensive doesn't make them inoffensive. It simply makes you more offensive.
Thank you for your attention
Carolyn Ann
Updated, Jun22.
Not that I would have someone as self-righteous as you as a friend. Instead of stopping and thinking, you berate me for being offended by a specific generality. You lecture me on generalities without once stopping and considering that "the crossdressers" is offensive. In your book, because you agree with it, you don't find it offensive. So why should anyone else? My goodness, why indeed!
I'm not the one mixing up discussions. You are. I'm not the one who's whining about "the crossdressers", but you're whining about my being offended. I point out that casual bigotry is bigotry, and you complain. You disagree that bigotry is bigotry and then complain that I call you a bigot because you support bigots? If you support bigots, you're as bad as the bigot you support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that a couple of obvious bigots aren't that bad? I think that's the same as telling someone not to be offended by a racist's racism, because it isn't that bad.
Let me see... I'm not the one hiding behind a bit of javascript. Scared I'll read something and criticize you? I'm standing up and saying "I think this is offensive". Instead of asking why, or trying to persuade me such generalities as "the crossdressers" isn't offensive - you whine about how I'm so offended. You truly believe what you say about me, I know. If I could bring myself to care what you think of me, I'd tell you. I'm not as thin-skinned as you, so you can feel free to read this blog, comment or not, criticize and even insult me. I don't bar any of that; I don't hide, quivering, behind a stupid bit of javascript that's so easy to circumvent it's beyond idiotic that you think you're accomplishing anything!
I'm having difficulty believing you're actually as dim as you keep pleading you are. Are you really so blind to the offense a specific generality like that is? Are you really so simple-minded that you can't see an example for what it is? Are you so dim that you don't understand an obvious satire? Are you really that dim? Really?
By the way, point out where I said what you said I said... :-) I'm sure I attributed something to you, but I've lost track of it all. All I know is that you like to berate people who are offended by insulting generalities and provide some level of support to one or two bigots. Do I need to care about anything else when it comes to you?
(By the way, I didn't call you a zealot. I called you a bigot. There's a difference.)
===
Calie, thanks for closing that thread down before I had a chance to respond to Natasha.
Because you can't understand the lives of "the crossdressers", and make no real effort to, you assume that "the crossdressers", the entire sodding lot of them, can turn their gender issues on and off at will. You assume that they put on a dress because, oh, they fancy it. And when they're done, they switch off whatever it is and that's that. You make no effort to understand the lives of others, do you? Because if you made that effort, if you tried to understand, instead of berating me for being offended, or closing down a discussion that got awkward because of something you said, Calie, you would know that sort of generality is offensive. It's like dealing with a couple of teenagers!
Neither of you make any effort to understand the lives of the transgendered. You simply call them "the crossdressers", or berate them for feeling offended by such simplistic insults. "The crossdressers" isn't offensive to you, and you, neither of you, make any effort to understand why someone else might find it offensive. Heck, I'm not even a crossdresser but I found it offensive. Very offensive.
I'm sorry you don't understand that inferences that are more appropriate to southern racists and religious bigots is offensive. Just because you don't find such to be offensive doesn't make them inoffensive. It simply makes you more offensive.
Thank you for your attention
Carolyn Ann
Updated, Jun22.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The price tag is an iPad?
For one reason or another, we ventured into the Apple store in Cherry Hill Mall this weekend. It's not something I would normally, what with my bad leg acting up something awful. Anyway, it was the first time I'd seen their new "iPad displays". Apple recently went with using an iPad instead of a small cardboard label in front of their products. So if you want to see the details (such as the price) of that iPad you're looking at, you turn to the iPad mounted under a piece of plastic, next to it.
I was impressed.
With the profligacy.
I know it's the future; the trees will be saved from the pulper, but they'll be felled to provide fuel for China's endless power stations. Still, I can wonder if something less, well, expensive, could have been used?
Still, it shows Apple is thinking ahead.
Coldwater Creek was nice, too. Although I didn't get anything. And their price tags were paper.
Carolyn Ann
I was impressed.
With the profligacy.
I know it's the future; the trees will be saved from the pulper, but they'll be felled to provide fuel for China's endless power stations. Still, I can wonder if something less, well, expensive, could have been used?
Still, it shows Apple is thinking ahead.
Coldwater Creek was nice, too. Although I didn't get anything. And their price tags were paper.
Carolyn Ann
Wow. They went down...
My readership figures. :-)
I was in the low three digit range, and now they're about half that.
Astonishing!
I guess there really isn't anything like conflict. Jon Stewart is only half right: the "media" chases the sensational story. The bit he missed was "because a lot of their audience demands such things".
Like I say, I don't chase readers. It's one thing a lot of those attention whores out there don't get: I don't crave attention like they do...
Carolyn Ann
I was in the low three digit range, and now they're about half that.
Astonishing!
I guess there really isn't anything like conflict. Jon Stewart is only half right: the "media" chases the sensational story. The bit he missed was "because a lot of their audience demands such things".
Like I say, I don't chase readers. It's one thing a lot of those attention whores out there don't get: I don't crave attention like they do...
Carolyn Ann
Taking forever...
The wife's closet is finally, oh jeez, finally!, in the final stages!
I have the floor to lay - a quick job, it's one of those engineered wood things. We picked it up cheap at a local Home Depot; not enough boxes to do a "proper" room, and too many boxes for them to toss. The same with the lights; they were in the clearance section at $8 a pop; normally something like $18 each. And then yesterday (or was it Friday? I forget), the Mrs spotted the best bargain of all! We needed a 7½ foot and a 3½ foot section of that wire shelf/clothes rack stuff. I was about to get two eight foot sections, at $25 a go, and use them. The Mrs saw the store had one, I counted 'em, 12 foot piece. For $28. Less 20% because they were on sale. Lowes, the store, doesn't charge for cuts, so we've got one useless foot long section and two perfectly good pieces. :-)
I couldn't sleep the other night, and figured out how to hang the shelf-thingy without the $60 worth of hardware and...
I'm feeling rather pleased with myself! :-)
Sure, it's taken two weeks to do a three day job. Considering that it was a poorly plumbed bathroom, with dark walls and inadequate lighting, I'm quite chuffed (pleased) with the transformation. Although that doesn't explain how the room ended up a nice sunny yellow when it was supposed to be white... I couldn't find the white paint and the sample on the lid of the yellow showed a pale cream. I guess it had faded over the years... We bought the paint in 2005.
All things considered, she's going to have a really nice closet. And I get the old one...
Hmm. I'm thinking "pretty"...
Carolyn Ann
I have the floor to lay - a quick job, it's one of those engineered wood things. We picked it up cheap at a local Home Depot; not enough boxes to do a "proper" room, and too many boxes for them to toss. The same with the lights; they were in the clearance section at $8 a pop; normally something like $18 each. And then yesterday (or was it Friday? I forget), the Mrs spotted the best bargain of all! We needed a 7½ foot and a 3½ foot section of that wire shelf/clothes rack stuff. I was about to get two eight foot sections, at $25 a go, and use them. The Mrs saw the store had one, I counted 'em, 12 foot piece. For $28. Less 20% because they were on sale. Lowes, the store, doesn't charge for cuts, so we've got one useless foot long section and two perfectly good pieces. :-)
I couldn't sleep the other night, and figured out how to hang the shelf-thingy without the $60 worth of hardware and...
I'm feeling rather pleased with myself! :-)
Sure, it's taken two weeks to do a three day job. Considering that it was a poorly plumbed bathroom, with dark walls and inadequate lighting, I'm quite chuffed (pleased) with the transformation. Although that doesn't explain how the room ended up a nice sunny yellow when it was supposed to be white... I couldn't find the white paint and the sample on the lid of the yellow showed a pale cream. I guess it had faded over the years... We bought the paint in 2005.
All things considered, she's going to have a really nice closet. And I get the old one...
Hmm. I'm thinking "pretty"...
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Lost interest...
I've lost interest in that whole transsexual/transgender idiocy.
I figured it out, and then I literally lost interest. The only interesting bit, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's one thing to argue such attitudes are bigoted, and quite another to truly understand how bigoted certain people are. It's also been interesting to figure out who the bigots are, and whom are their supporters.
But a conversation that has one side screeching like a ranting five year old isn't a conversation. It's a tiresome provenance of how limited bigots really are. I don't need that sort of lesson; it's one I already know. So I lost interest. Believe me, I tried to generate some interest; surely I should be interested in what someone is saying about me, but I'm not. I really don't give two hoots what an idiot like Dana says about me. It's not important, and neither is she.
All in all, I'm quite happy. I exposed a few bigots and their supporters, got a lesson in argument, and had a bit of a jolly time. I haven't lost interest in the bigots and their supporters, but I have lost interest in continuing the discussion. The bigots and their supporters say nothing new, insist on issuing insults and complaints (well, whines, really) and refuse, as might be expected, to acknowledge their prejudice. "I'm not prejudiced against the crossdressers/transgenders/transvestites! Some of my best friends are [insert derogatory label here]!" If these people actually cared, they'd provide rational, clear, arguments and explanations for their opinions, attitudes and words. But they don't care about their prejudice; they simply despise. They can't support their prejudice, so they resort to insults and ad-hominem attacks. The very inanity of their case eludes them. So does the ugliness of it all.
Carolyn Ann
I figured it out, and then I literally lost interest. The only interesting bit, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's one thing to argue such attitudes are bigoted, and quite another to truly understand how bigoted certain people are. It's also been interesting to figure out who the bigots are, and whom are their supporters.
But a conversation that has one side screeching like a ranting five year old isn't a conversation. It's a tiresome provenance of how limited bigots really are. I don't need that sort of lesson; it's one I already know. So I lost interest. Believe me, I tried to generate some interest; surely I should be interested in what someone is saying about me, but I'm not. I really don't give two hoots what an idiot like Dana says about me. It's not important, and neither is she.
All in all, I'm quite happy. I exposed a few bigots and their supporters, got a lesson in argument, and had a bit of a jolly time. I haven't lost interest in the bigots and their supporters, but I have lost interest in continuing the discussion. The bigots and their supporters say nothing new, insist on issuing insults and complaints (well, whines, really) and refuse, as might be expected, to acknowledge their prejudice. "I'm not prejudiced against the crossdressers/transgenders/transvestites! Some of my best friends are [insert derogatory label here]!" If these people actually cared, they'd provide rational, clear, arguments and explanations for their opinions, attitudes and words. But they don't care about their prejudice; they simply despise. They can't support their prejudice, so they resort to insults and ad-hominem attacks. The very inanity of their case eludes them. So does the ugliness of it all.
Carolyn Ann
Friday, June 17, 2011
Roy McDonald tells it as it is...
The New York Daily News ran a poll along side the story about Republican state Senator Roy McDonald's now famous "fuck it" quote:
How hard is it to understand that equal rights means equal rights? It shouldn't be that hard!
Carolyn Ann
"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing," McDonald, 64, told reporters.The poll shows 72% in favor of gay marriage in New York state, 27% against it and 1% not sure.
"You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing.
"I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this."
How hard is it to understand that equal rights means equal rights? It shouldn't be that hard!
Carolyn Ann
The Cloak
An interesting site popped up in the statistics for this blog: The Cloak. It's a proxy site; you tell it what you want to look at and it handles the rest. So I see "The Cloak", but not who is looking. Sometimes, however, you can make reasonable guesses based on what someone was searching for. :-)
Actually, sometimes it's more informative to know what someone wanted to look at.
Whomever was using The Cloak certainly spent some time on this blog. They did a search for "natasha" and peered at a few general posts. (Interestingly, the query has disappeared from the logs!) Mostly they are going to specific posts, although that might be how the cloak system works. Their last look-see was about half an hour ago.
Added: I can understand why someone wouldn't want me to know their location. What I don't understand is why they think I care.
It's all quite curious. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Actually, sometimes it's more informative to know what someone wanted to look at.
Whomever was using The Cloak certainly spent some time on this blog. They did a search for "natasha" and peered at a few general posts. (Interestingly, the query has disappeared from the logs!) Mostly they are going to specific posts, although that might be how the cloak system works. Their last look-see was about half an hour ago.
Added: I can understand why someone wouldn't want me to know their location. What I don't understand is why they think I care.
It's all quite curious. :-)
Carolyn Ann
The life of a hater
Get up. Remember who you hate. Put on the coffee.
Think about the day. Check Internet. Oh, look, something (new) to hate.
Have lunch. Remember to hate someone today.
Have dinner. Feed cat. Hate cat for needing feeding. Remember bigger hate.
Hate. Watch TV. Hate.
Go to bed. Remember, with fondness, all those moments of hate.
Have heart attack from stress of hating. Drop dead far too early in life. Be buried with epitaph: She hated well.
Was it a nightmare?
Carolyn Ann
Think about the day. Check Internet. Oh, look, something (new) to hate.
Have lunch. Remember to hate someone today.
Have dinner. Feed cat. Hate cat for needing feeding. Remember bigger hate.
Hate. Watch TV. Hate.
Go to bed. Remember, with fondness, all those moments of hate.
Have heart attack from stress of hating. Drop dead far too early in life. Be buried with epitaph: She hated well.
Was it a nightmare?
Carolyn Ann
Because they want their tune
I'm getting tired of all this hate. I've helped it along, for sure, but I knew what I was doing. The people I argue against don't seem to be aware that they are hating for the sake of hating. They've paid their piper and they'll enjoy his evil tune, come what may. They think it a jolly tune, because they don't want to notice the storm clouds it conjures. They sure as hell don't notice that the Devil provided the strings or the wine they so enjoy. Because they want their song and their merry dance.
All of these transphobic fools bludgeon their way to moral superiority. I was told that transphobia applies only to the transsexual; a careful reading if I've ever heard one! Those who seek to deny the transgender and the transsexual their basic rights make no distinction! They'd deny me the rights they seek to deny to Dana Lane Taylor, and just as quickly, too. Hell's bells, Dana would deny me the rights she seeks for herself!
The thing is, we're all in this together. We don't have to like it, we just have to acknowledge it. Does it matter to the religious right if I wear a skirt most of the time or all of the time? Does it matter to Dana that I wear a skirt most of the time, or all of the time? Who is the fucking enemy? Who do I have to fight? I'll fight the fucking lot, but I'd like to know who I'm frickin' fighting.
Not that it matters. All that matters to me is that I stand for what I believe, which isn't bigotry or denigration. Dana, Suzan, someone who goes by "Ambidextrix", they all believe in bigotry and denigration. They are transphobic and so are their supporters. They refuse to see who supplied the wine and the strings they think so fine. Me? I notice the fucking horns on his head.
My reply to an inane rant by Ambidextrix, for whatever it's fucking worth:
Carolyn Ann
All of these transphobic fools bludgeon their way to moral superiority. I was told that transphobia applies only to the transsexual; a careful reading if I've ever heard one! Those who seek to deny the transgender and the transsexual their basic rights make no distinction! They'd deny me the rights they seek to deny to Dana Lane Taylor, and just as quickly, too. Hell's bells, Dana would deny me the rights she seeks for herself!
The thing is, we're all in this together. We don't have to like it, we just have to acknowledge it. Does it matter to the religious right if I wear a skirt most of the time or all of the time? Does it matter to Dana that I wear a skirt most of the time, or all of the time? Who is the fucking enemy? Who do I have to fight? I'll fight the fucking lot, but I'd like to know who I'm frickin' fighting.
Not that it matters. All that matters to me is that I stand for what I believe, which isn't bigotry or denigration. Dana, Suzan, someone who goes by "Ambidextrix", they all believe in bigotry and denigration. They are transphobic and so are their supporters. They refuse to see who supplied the wine and the strings they think so fine. Me? I notice the fucking horns on his head.
My reply to an inane rant by Ambidextrix, for whatever it's fucking worth:
Okay, I'm going to give Ambidextrix the time of day. Anonymous is both stupid and cowardly, and can, as far as I'm concerned, go hang.
It's about defining you, is it? Okay, how about this: in trying to stop others from defining you, you are defining others.
How about that? Instead of using an internet handle, why not a name? Quick to judge and eager to hide? Is that you? I'll give Dana one thing: she's willing to put herself out there.
You're not, are you?
Transphobic means hatred of all under that big glorious umbrella "transgender". Do you think the religious right differentiates between Dana and me? If you do, you're a bigger fool than your inane thinking would indicate.
(And I resent your false assertion! My wife borrows my clothing!) :-)
(Seriously. She does. Not my shoes, though. We're different sizes.)
You know nothing about me. And you call me a pervert, ascribing to me what are probably your own habits? Oh, but I forget: you're a paragon of virtue behind that anonymous internet handle.
As for my name, well I'm sure it makes no difference, but it's something I've liked since I was 15. (I'm somewhat older than that at the moment. But aren't we all?) When did you pick your name? When did you decide that a handle was a good idea? When did Dana pick her name?
You see, it's not about defining people. It's about being a person. I don't deny Dana anything about her personhood. I don't deny you. But you seek to deny me, you denounce me and you insult me. (Sure I insult others; put on your big girl panties and deal with it.)
You and Dana both hate people like me. You make no effort to understand me, or others. You simply hate because it's easier. Well, it isn't. Such hate has a toll, and I for one wouldn't be willing to pay that piper! But you, you and Dana both, you ensure that particular piper stays at the finest hostelries and eats at the finest restaurants.
Hate is easier than understanding isn't it? i chide, I cajole, I poke fun. But I don't hate. You hate, both of you. What tired lives you must have. Tired, pathetic lives.
Me? I'd like to see that piper die of starvation, a pauper. Because I think it's easier to live and let live. I see the wonder of humanity. You don't. Because you're both so eager to hate. It's not pathetic, not really. It's sad. I feel sorry for you. I don't pity you, but I do feel sorry for you.Feel sorry? For them? Yes I do.
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Chicken and Cats
On the front deck, there are five cats... And one Chicken. I'd take a photo, but I left my camera in the wife's car (which is currently a long way from here).
The cats are waiting for dinner time. Chicken? She's probably waiting because her "friends" are there.
Carolyn Ann
The cats are waiting for dinner time. Chicken? She's probably waiting because her "friends" are there.
Carolyn Ann
"I have no recollection of that" = "Yeah, it happened"
The CIA is being accused of spying on an American citizen, in America, for the Bush White House. I know, I know: that's like accusing someone of having a birthday. After the whole Valerie Plame affair, denials by CIA officials and ex-Bush White House staff have a, well, aura of falsity.
So now a retired ex-senior CIA official, is saying someone in the White House wanted the CIA to gather information about a prominent critic of their rush into war. His boss was involved and was the one doing the asking on behalf of the Bush White House. He saw something, but doesn't remember what it was. That's a bit like saying you were at the game, saw every pitch and don't remember the batter hitting that particular home run. It's possible, but not plausible. What is plausible is that he took the issue to the CIA's lawyers, who, apparently, buried it. That's plausible, too.
The NY Times got wind of all this and asked around, finally tracking down many of the participants. They even asked his boss, who said the fatal words: “I have no recollection of that [...]"
Someone should write a government-wide memo: If you say you have "no recollection", you're essentially admitting you know all about something but prefer not to put yourself in jail. It's not a question of semantics or meaning. It is, however, all about popular interpretation. And that interpretation is that when a government official says "I have no recollection of that", they're lying.
I don't remember where I figured that one out. :-)
Carolyn Ann
So now a retired ex-senior CIA official, is saying someone in the White House wanted the CIA to gather information about a prominent critic of their rush into war. His boss was involved and was the one doing the asking on behalf of the Bush White House. He saw something, but doesn't remember what it was. That's a bit like saying you were at the game, saw every pitch and don't remember the batter hitting that particular home run. It's possible, but not plausible. What is plausible is that he took the issue to the CIA's lawyers, who, apparently, buried it. That's plausible, too.
The NY Times got wind of all this and asked around, finally tracking down many of the participants. They even asked his boss, who said the fatal words: “I have no recollection of that [...]"
Someone should write a government-wide memo: If you say you have "no recollection", you're essentially admitting you know all about something but prefer not to put yourself in jail. It's not a question of semantics or meaning. It is, however, all about popular interpretation. And that interpretation is that when a government official says "I have no recollection of that", they're lying.
I don't remember where I figured that one out. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Is T-Central biased to the transsexual?
Of late I've been thinking that T-Central, the blog listing for all (well, most) things "trans" has been leaning toward the transsexual bigot. Not just to the transsexual - I wouldn't mind if it did that - but definitely toward the transsexual bigot.
Nothing I can put my finger on, but definitely an inclination. It's things like putting Suzan's blog, "Women Born Transsexual", on a different list, the "Trans related news list". She mostly republishes far left idiocy, but when she actually does come up with an original post, it's transphobic. I guess putting "Pam's House Blend" on the list sort of compensates, but not really. Suzan republishes a lot quicker than Pam writes. And she definitely does not produce news.
Like I said, nothing specific, but I get the general feeling that T-Central has become more the transsexual's blog listing than the transgender's blog listing. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Everything changes; if it didn't, the world wouldn't be what it is. But I feel it's moving to a place I really don't want to go. If it is becoming the place for certain transsexuals to get their bigotry, I really don't want to know.
At this point, I trust Lynn's blog listings more than I trust T-Central's! At least with Lynn I know it's a fair cross-section of the transgender blogosphere!
Carolyn Ann (Hi, Lynn! :-) Sorry about the spotlight. If the bulb didn't burn out, that is...)
Nothing I can put my finger on, but definitely an inclination. It's things like putting Suzan's blog, "Women Born Transsexual", on a different list, the "Trans related news list". She mostly republishes far left idiocy, but when she actually does come up with an original post, it's transphobic. I guess putting "Pam's House Blend" on the list sort of compensates, but not really. Suzan republishes a lot quicker than Pam writes. And she definitely does not produce news.
Like I said, nothing specific, but I get the general feeling that T-Central has become more the transsexual's blog listing than the transgender's blog listing. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Everything changes; if it didn't, the world wouldn't be what it is. But I feel it's moving to a place I really don't want to go. If it is becoming the place for certain transsexuals to get their bigotry, I really don't want to know.
At this point, I trust Lynn's blog listings more than I trust T-Central's! At least with Lynn I know it's a fair cross-section of the transgender blogosphere!
Carolyn Ann (Hi, Lynn! :-) Sorry about the spotlight. If the bulb didn't burn out, that is...)
Controlling women (huh?)
I've been accused of wanting to control women twice in the last few hours. That's twice more than I've accused of doing so in the last three decades.
Really.
So the Mrs just appeared. I asked her if I was into controlling women. She said "Nah. That's not your style at all!"
Oh well. I guess Dana and Anonymous will have to find some other nefarious thing to accuse me of. (Perhaps being a man? In a dress? Oh, Dana did that already. Oh well.)
Carolyn Ann
Really.
So the Mrs just appeared. I asked her if I was into controlling women. She said "Nah. That's not your style at all!"
Oh well. I guess Dana and Anonymous will have to find some other nefarious thing to accuse me of. (Perhaps being a man? In a dress? Oh, Dana did that already. Oh well.)
Carolyn Ann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)