Didn't they pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution?

With its by now usual cowardice, the Senate has voted to suspend habeas corpus for certain suspects. The lessons of WW2 internment are, apparently, lost on a bunch of whimsically fearful scaremongers. The Constitutional over-reach of George Bush and Dick Cheney has been forgotten. The moral high-ground has been discarded for the same stinking ditch that holds dictators and other anti-democratic folk.

There are idiots. And then there is Congress.

Carolyn Ann

Insecure and infantile

Iran and North Korea really are prone to dangerous hissy fits. The latest idiocy from Iran, the storming of the British Embassy, was intended to "send a shot across the bows" of Western powers. It might be better perceived as a shot into an Iranian foot.

Of course, Russia and China are really (not) helpful; they have "no intervention" policies. So they don't actually care what happens in either place; no matter that it might hurt them and what is happening is not in their best interests. For them to understand that human rights are in their interest, they'd actually have to have respect for them in their own nations.

With recalcitrant economies and contentious, insecure and infantile leaders, both nations pose a danger to their neighbors.

Carolyn Ann

Michele's dream and nightmare? $2 a gallon in the purse of a ... :-)

I was just down in the basement, clearing out some old boxes and stuff when I came upon my first purse/handbag. :-) A cheap plastic affair, it still looks reasonable-ish; let me put it this way: if I didn't already have one, I'd consider using it. It's so bland it's not out of style or anything. I'll put it to the side; perhaps I'll use it, but I'll more likely donate it to some charity shop.

Anyway, I found within it a stick of lipstick (a nice deep red; no I'm not getting up and going to my makeup kit to see what it is!), 12c (yippee! I'm rich... Ish...), a Stop-n-Shop loyalty card and a receipt for 16 gallons of gas, totaling $33.50. I think it's from June 2005? It's very faded.

Two bucks a gallon - can you imagine that, now? (Don't answer that if you're in England!)

Carolyn Ann

PS Michele Bachmann supports free markets and the imposition of price controls on petrol... She's not too fond of the gender-nonconforming, either! :-)

Whimsical umbrellas and plots to oppress someone or other for mysterious reasons

An interesting discussion, well, a few interesting words, over on Jane Fae's blog, about that controversial "trans" umbrella. For such a "hot" topic, the coverage is barely there and quite civilized (with the now-usual exception of Miz-Know-It-All).

The basic question is reasonable: what is this "transumbrella" and if it's inclusive, how so? To which I made the simple assertion that it's a rhetorical device, almost devoid of meaning.

One of the predominant mistakes people make in this discussion is trying to define others (but, notably, not themselves) by how they perceive this metaphorical umbrella. In short: if it's not keeping the rain off you, it's metaphorical. With all that implies. :-)

Here's the long version:

As I said before: it’s a rhetorical convenience. It’s like the umbrella “all Americans” or “all Britons” – there’s a general, superficial applicability, but that’s about it. “All Britons”, for instance, can be broken down further: all Scots, all Welsh, all English and so on. Heck, you can combine brollies: The set of All English people that are Women and Wiccan. Or listen to the Republican lineup: “Americans want this or that”; they don’t know that for a fact, but their ideologically questionable umbrella serves their purpose.

It’s a convenient label, a way of grouping a population that share one characteristic. In this context, that’s all an “umbrella” is. What do transgendered people and transsexual folk have in common? How about the prefix “trans”, attached to the subject of gender and/or sexuality – it’s a very fluid concept, so precision isn’t required. (Perhaps it’s undesirable, except to those who seek to fence in themselves and everyone else with their own constrained, poorly conceived, ideas and inane rants?)

You can forever dance around a gloomy maypole trying to define the people under some brolly’s by the brolly; sometimes you can do that, sometimes you can’t. You can define some umbrellas with clarity, but that means there are some that defy clear definition. The “trans” umbrella is such a whimsy; it’s not a device to eradicate identities or redefine them. It’s a rhetorical convenience, often enough a whimsy, that can be challenged. It can’t be redefined, because it has no definition.

There are intersections of interest between the transgender and transsexual communities (I use the term as a convenience); like all things to do with folk, these intersections change with time and situation. Only the uninformed or a fool would argue that there is no difference between the transsexual woman and the transgendered person; only the uninformed and arrogant would argue that there are no similarities or commonalities. (The fact that “you” can’t identify them is neither here nor there.) But such things don’t make up an umbrella; a commonality of experience can do so, as can a similarity of circumstance or situation. Perhaps the “transumbrella” can be as simple as the prefix “trans”, or as complex as a shared experience – no matter how superficial that shared experience might seem. And perhaps it’s all of those things, or none of them, depending on the writer’s whim? 

Like I said: it's all metaphorical, and is often whimsical metaphor at that! The strange thing is how some perceive shallow metaphors as oppressive tools, wielded by some mysterious elite that often doesn't leave the bedroom, never mind the house.  :-)

C'est la vie.

Carolyn Ann

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most complex one...

The whole thing with Pakistan is deteriorating far too rapidly. I sense there's something more behind all the Pakistani fuss than an attack on a border post. The occupants of which may or may not have been firing on ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) troops. There's too much "conspiracy" nonsense going on, basically. As in: no one has yet explained why it's in anyone's interest to start a war against Pakistan. But it's all been, apparently, engineered by the United States, for some vaguely defined, at best, reason. And now China has waded in. In other words: bullshit.

I think Pakistan's ISI is trying to start a war against the US forces in Afghanistan. They have reason to do so: they're irrelevant in a world where Pakistan and India are starting  to "not make war-like noises at each other", and people within the ISI obviously stand to lose if the insurgents are captured and killed. It's not as if the ISI, Pakistan's secret security and a part of the army, isn't known for its double-dealings.

And there are the border issues; the post is on a disputed border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But if the location of the border post were an issue, then it's not the US who should be "punished" - it's Afghanistan's military. And why is China suddenly popping up?

Of course, I like the statement from Major General Athar Abbas, chief spokesman for the Pakistan military. He said he didn't think ISAF or Afghan forces were fired on by Pakistani soldiers. He's quoted: "I cannot rule out the possibility that this was a deliberate attack by Isaf. If Isaf was receiving fire, then they must tell us what their losses were." He's assuming that the Pakistani soldiers fire was accurate enough to cause casualties. From what I've read, accuracy is not one of the strong points of their firing regimen. I also assume that Pakistan is not going to tell anyone how many bullets the Pakstani forces fired, were supposed to have, etc.

The whole thing is political. I'm more inclined to consider those 24 soldiers to be sacrificial pawns in some deadly game the ISI and the Pakistani military is playing; I'm also inclined to wonder if China has played a role in it. After all, they're upset about America's beefing up of its South East Asian forces. China has a lot to gain in bloodying American noses, and playing to Pakistan's fears is not beyond their ken.

It's a game that might, probably, went seriously wrong. Perhaps the whole thing really was a tragic fuck-up; in which case, learn the lessons and get on with it. The other thing is when borders are treated as barriers to hide behind and considered porous, even meaningless, then from where you're shooting at ISAF troops matters less than that!

In most matters, the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate. In this case, I'm not sure where the simplicity lies. War is a deadly business, playing games with it makes it deadlier still.

He's still with us, but he's not doing so well.

Dealing with a very sick cat is... Time-consuming. It's a mix of trying to make his last few days as good as possible and being a trifle selfish, trying to get as much time with him as possible.

I've not taken any photos of him, lately. We'd prefer to remember him as the big, strapping lad he was. He's very tired, and yesterday he had a mini-stroke that took him some time to recover from. Fortunately, he's aware and his appetite is pretty good - although he didn't drink his milk this morning. We're terrified of him getting frailer; we can't afford to take him to the vet if he breaks a bone, for instance.

All in all, it's a roller-coaster I'd rather not be on.

I'd better get on with my "stuff" for the day.

Carolyn Ann

Happy Thanksgiving. :-)

Happy Thanksgiving. :-)

The Republican position: change, but don't... But Do! Don't! Do! Don't! Etc

I'm struck by how many changes Republican policy positions would require. While making impossible promises and then delivering speeches outlining how you've just not done what you promised to do is stock-in-trade for a politician, this batch of Republicans seem to be enthralled with the idea of disappointing voters their base. Everything from Michele's industrial policy ($2/gallon gas? Really?!? Whatever happened to supply-and-demand, and the GOP Owners Club? Like so many half-witted politicians from Argentina, the current crop seem to be enthralled with Peronism. They're just as keen on fanciful payment schemes: "We're short how much? $600 million? Oh, just insert a 'growth projection' in there for that! And say the Heritage Foundation said it's true!") to King Rickety pronouncing his decrees for the People's Congress.

So while Congressional Republicans fight tooth and nail to ensure nothing changes, the Republican line-up exhorts and advocates aggressive, unprecedented changes. Go figure. :-)

Here are three highlights... :-)

Newt wants to limit the Justices to 18 year terms. That would require an amendment. The document reads:

[Art III, Sec 1] ...  The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, ...

He also wants to do away with the 9th Circuit. Because they issue a lot of decisions he disagrees with. He could try and get Congress to do away with it; I fear he'd rapidly face Judge Richard Posner's ire - and believe me, between those two, Newt really is a salamander. Anyway, Congress decides which courts exist:

[Art III. Sec 1] The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

I suspect that getting rid of the court would be a difficult task - he's not said how he would reapportion the case load. Basically, the man wants to dictate to courts because if a court issues decisions he doesn't like, it's activist. And if it issues the tame decisions he does like, it's slumbering.

Anyway, first things first. He would need to vacate Marbury. He would need to do that through legislation - which is passed by Congress. If he had the misfortune (ours, not his) to be President, he might fancy doing that by some Finding or Decree or something. Unfortunately... Marbury has an insurmountable test built into it: the Supreme Court can invalidate anything passed by the other two branches. All they have to do is declare them unconstitutional. So if Newt tried to dictate to the courts, even the Roberts Court would run to Marbury if only to preserve their own relevance! Marbury was an end-run around the legislature and the president; it basically said confirmed that the Weakest Branch can be the most powerful.

So, Newt's off to a good start. :-)

Rick Perry would make Congress part-time. Oops. The President doesn't have the power to do that. Congress has that power... (And I'll completely ignore the popular sentiment that Congress works less than part time!)

[Art I. Sec 5] Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

There's nothing in there that says the president has any power whatsoever. That's to stop the sort of thing that happened in Canada a year or so ago: Parliament was dissolved, for an extended period, because they were planning a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister, Steven Harper. As a result, the vote never happened. This sort of nonsense happened a lot in Britain; one king, I forget which one, didn't call Parliament for about 18 years!

On the other hand, Rick is probably thinking of this:

[Art I. Sec 4.] The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

But, again - I don't see any reference to any presidential "input".

So Rick Perry's policy would require a couple of amendments: one to give the president a draconian power over Congress and then another to give him that specific power. He could introduce an amendment against Article I, Section 4 - but that would still require him to have such power, but he ends up with the same problem: he would need power over Congress, something the Constitution specifically guards against. And if he took that power - what other powers is he after? Or could gain by a cleverly worded amendment?

Anyway, can you see Congress saying "Sure, we'll let you take away our autonomy!" Can you see the outrage, referendums, recalls and so on that would happen? Yeah, so can I! Basically he's trying to acquire monarchical powers without actually saying so.

Okay... One more. :-) Oh, which shall I pick? How about: corporations are people? ... Nah. Too idiosyncratic and liable to be overturned in a future Supreme Court decision. Or by some decent legislation. Dealt with industrial policy... Religion in the public sphere? Not really. While most of the field favors xenophobia, it's difficult to argue against that because it's a default Republican position. War-making. Now there's something.

Most of the Republican field, Jon Huntsman being the exception, want to grant the president extensive war-making powers. They don't want to extend them to this president, but a far right figurehead? Sure. There's a reason it's difficult for the United States to go to war. It's called "the Founding Fathers waged one". Okay, that's a non-starter.

How about fiscal policy? Too complicated. None of these candidates have demonstrated anything like a comprehension of fiscal policies; Rickety Rick called for the head of the Head of the Fed. ( :-D Sorry. Once I realized I could write that - I couldn't resist!) While the President nominates, and Congress sort of approves, the Head Fed - there's nothing they can do afterwards. There's a reason for that: to prevent the politicians implementing populist but unwise monetary policy. Peronism is a stupid political stance for a reason. So while it would take a mere Act of Congress to make the Fed responsive to the politicians, it's not likely to happen for the simple reason that no wise person wants to go there. And there are enough wise persons remaining in Congress to stop such idiocy. (I hope...)

All in all, I look at the current crop and am relieved the Constitution specifically guards against Peronist tendencies. Unfortunately it doesn't guard against idiots. Only voters can do that.

Carolyn Ann

Mittens' campaign continues to respond

Mitt Romney's campaign continued to be unrepentant about it's ad taking President Obama out of context. Stuart Stevens, an advisor to Mr Romney, reading from his palm said, “I refer you to what I said yesterday, that this is what happens to people who forget that there is a process by which they will be challenged, and they will be held accountable.” Taking off his jacket and rolling up his left sleeve, Mr Stevens continued, “While we want to hold the president accountable, we do not want you to hold our candidate accountable for anything; he is, after all, persistently the second choice for a fifth of likely Republican primary voters!” Speaking extemporaneously, Mr Stevens continued, “Sure, we took Candidate Obama's words out of context! His campaign is too stupid to do something like that. Look at it this way, the Republicans have to rely on distortions and lies because we've nothing else. Nada. Not a thing. Our pantry is empty. We. Got. Nothin'! The only decent idea Mitt has had is making America safe for large corporations, something we need to do because they, quite frankly, own the Republican Party and told us that was our platform. And you always need to keep your sponsors and owners happy!” Referring back to his sleeve, Mr Stevens said, “They don’t get to choose what this race is about. It’s going to be Candidate Obama running against President Obama. We're not going to run The Governor against President Obama because we'd lose so badly it would be embarrassing!"

Carolyn Ann

You're kidding! You're not?!?

It seems that a certain individual injected transgender and transsexual women with - get this... "Fix-a-flat" and cement!

So just remember: whenever you order drugs from Vanuatu, or wherever it is - you're playing with the same damn fire. Who needs enemies when you have friends who recommend that sort of stuff?

Carolyn Ann

Mittens misleads

Mittens: Misleading claims. Misleading ads. Misleading "statistics". He's the leader of misleading.

Carolyn Ann

Is she trying to romance me? ;-)

Goodness gracious me! A rare moment of agreement between Suzan Cooke and I! It seems that she thinks transgender/transsexual porn is objectifying. And so do I! How about that? :-)

Of course, the agreement ends there. She wants to end the transgender/transsexual porn business, and I don't. If you like making porn - go right ahead. If you enjoy erotica, etcetera: you go right ahead, too! (Not that you need my permission, of course!)

And, as usual, Suzan is very limited constrained in her thinking. She thinks of pornography as merely exploitative, and not as something that some women find empowering. In her post, which rambles a little less than normal, she proclaims things about "TG/TS" porn. Has she gone soft on the transgendered individual? The transgendered "crowd"? Has she started to see the transgendered soul as an individual? Ah, no: Trannies ... was an inclusive term years before the coining of Transgender as [an] umbrella."

The porn consumer has many more places to get porn; there are YouTube knock-offs, Flickr and other, more specific, photo sites, there are people who put up their own porn websites and so on. Let's face it: pornography isn't ever going to go away. There will always be producers, because there's a perennial market for the stuff! (As is so often the case, these days, publishers are facing "challenges", and new ways of making money that aren't tied to older business plans are transforming businesses; the porn industry is merely a part of that overall trend.)

When it comes to transgender and transsexual pornography, I still think it absolutely objectifies women. It also objectifies the person appearing, but that's almost by the by. At some point, pornography will separate itself into various qualities; it happens in all free market endeavors. The low end will remain, and the high end of pornography will become more visible. Overall, folk like "The Lesbian Hugh Hefner", Jincey Lumpkin, will transform pornography and it won't (always!) be about simple exploitation. The trick is figuring out where exploitation ends and expression begins. And that, I think, is in the eye of the beholder.

Carolyn Ann

How many lobbyists?

Congress has a 9% approval rating. To be honest, I didn't know there were that many corporate lobbyists.

Carolyn Ann

Is the Tea Party losing its mojo?

I'm beginning to think the Tea Party (-ies) are losing both their moral clarity and their claim to represent "the American people". And it's happening rapidly. :-)

The far right extremists, the one's who perhaps claim to have actually read Ayn Rand, have led the GOP into sideshow after sideshow - the latest being a multi-act comedy where they try to figure out who has that perfect mix of unattainable virtues, piety, attitudes and opinions. And, as a bonus, is perhaps electable? As has been noted, Ronnie Reagan couldn't get nominated in 2011! And they worship the fictional biography they've laid out for him.

I can't put my finger on it, but I think a lot of not-hyper-right-wingers are starting to figure out that the Tea Parties don't represent "change"; what they do represent is their latest purchaser. They really do "obstreperous" well, and while that has appeal as a political anger for a short time, when it stops pragmatic solutions being suggested, never mind discussed, people start to figure out that the problem isn't what is being shouted down, but those who are shouting. Of course, these no-nothings will endure, and might even get to unseat Mr Obama (crikey - I hope not!) But as a force for "all things American"? I'm starting to get the feeling that voters are saying "They don't represent me!" And they're starting to notice that the Tea Party defends inequality quite vociferously. And local far-right conservatives are overreaching in strange and disturbing ways - from personhood amendments (sheer idiocy!) to blatantly rigged gerrymandering to political obliviousness. One thing is sure - the modern American voter tends to not to like extremists. And they do value a working government.

All in all, I'm astonished that a no-nothing political force, one that values fictions over truths, has lasted this long, and become so powerful. I reckon, hope, they'll start imploding just before next year's elections.

Carolyn Ann

Hmm. Interesting thought, there, Mr Chait.

Jonathan Chait, writing in New York, claims the much-heralded, but-sans-hope, Supercommittee actually succeeded. His premise is that it wasn't actually supposed to arrive at a solution - it was supposed to be a semi-decent way of avoiding a global financial meltdown brought on by a few Congressional morons.

You know, I can see his point. I'm not sure I agree with his supposition, but it did avoid the need for 40 House members to cause a global financial crisis. I'm not sure it's a stunt you could pull more than once, but if that was its intention, then it did succeed. And Messrs Boehner and Obama deserve some applause for being a slightly Machiavellian.

On the other hand, the Tea Party isn't going to like being so easily manipulated. Pah! What can they do? Cause another global financial crisis? ... Yes. These people don't care it's an election year - like all amateurs, they perceive things differently. Not "think different", but more "think naively, stubbornly, petulantly, whatever - take your 10 year old nephew's tantrums for a test drive!"

Oy vey.

Carolyn Ann

Because of Jackson, I accusingly look at a cat?

I popped up to the local(ish) Barnes & Noble; to get away from painting and because I needed a new paintbrush. (If I turn left out of the B&N parking lot, I go past a Home Depot... About 15 miles later!)

Anyway - I was perusing the toys. B&N has as much toy space as they do book space, these days. I was curious about the jigsaws. :-) I've always liked jigsaws, but haven't been able to do one for years. Decades, actually. No cat-free place to them mid-construction, you see. At one point I even started work on a box, specifically for jigsaws. But it got heavy and I got distracted and I never did build it.

I like complicated jigsaws. The ones with the 10 big pieces and bright colors... ;-) Actually, I like the ones that contain a famous painting or something; challenging to reconstruct, but at least you have something to hang up. Assuming you didn't lose any pieces! So there I was browsing around, basically wasting time until the cafe area cleared a little and I saw... A Jackson Pollock jigsaw!

That, I'm gonna have to get! Heck, I'll build a room for that - I'll need it. I can see it now "How long did they say they could replace missing and lost pieces? ... Oh, twenty years ago!" As I look accusingly at a cat. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Get on with it, already!

Oy.

Jeremy is hanging in there; he has good days and bad days. Today is a fair day.

I was going to write a post that basically whined about stuff. You know: Jeremy, my cold, and various other bits and pieces of life at the moment. But that's pointless, isn't it? We all have "stuff" to deal with; there's no point in complaining about things. That's just negative. Instead, I'm thinking about the good stuff. :-)

A couple of my projects are finally gaining some traction; I've got some ideas for next year - some of which I'd hoped to do in this half of this year. They're all going to be quite challenging - which is something I like. I'm also hoping to find time to build myself a woodworking shop. I miss doing my woodwork; although I'm not about to again try and earn a living with it. I'll keep it as a hobby, this time around! :-) And I am actually losing weight (again!). While I might not be able to fit into some of those cute summer outfits, I should, in a few weeks if I keep this up, be able to wear something cute for New Years. It's the "keeping this up" bit that poses some challenges... (Ooh. Steven Colbert's Americone ice cream! Sure, I'll have some!)

Right, I've got a room to paint. It's not going to paint itself - so I'd better get on with it. :-)

Carolyn Ann

I'll miss him

Jeremy seems to decline a bit each day. He's still holding his tail high - when he can - but he's not the lad he used to be.

Damn.

He's a love, that lad. He's 13 and a bit, and he's still the handsome lad he's always been. He's so tired; he barely shouts for dinner, doesn't get up, doesn't want to go out - something he loves to do.

I keep thinking of when he was a kitten; adventurous and quite daring. He was the first to climb the "tree" we put in their room; the first to scale that green sofa we had. It became ragged from all his climbing! He's always been a hit with the girls - Maxine just adores him! Ever since we rescued her, not more than a few weeks old, she's been doting on him. She had a brief thing for Copper - the poor lad was heartbroken when she stopped fancying him! - but she's never wavered in her admiration for Jeremy. It's as if she sidled up to him and said "Hi, Good Looking!"

We got him some of his favorite foods; his enthusiasm for dinner or breakfast hasn't diminished. And this morning I had sardines on toast so he could lick out the can and bowl I heat the fish in. (He thoroughly enjoyed both!)

The poor lad is a veritable bag of bones; he gets thinner every day. It was just a few weeks I told him he was a big lad; I was giving him a hug - he professes not to like them, but he secretly loves them! - and he felt so big, round and well-padded. That hug seems so long ago. He spent most of the summer outside; he'd have has his dinner or breakfast and then demand to be released from the confines of the house. Now, he's barely able to make it from the kitchen.

I fear the lad hasn't long. Oh, we could subject to endless tests that we haven't a hope in hell of paying for, but what good would they do? Some vet would tell us what we know: it's just a matter of time. We went through that before and we can't subject the lad to such scrutiny. He still has his dignity!

We worried that Bongo, his Mom, would be the first to go. They're not getting younger, and she's losing her hearing and faculties. But his decline has been startling, and a bit frightening. I initially thought he might have worms; his weight loss seemed to be in accord with that. But then it became something else; we're thinking leukemia. He's not in any obvious pain; he likes his milk and tuna; heck, this evening he was wolfing down some steak. But it's obvious he's not doing well; his haunches are visible, his ribs easily felt through that beautiful fur of his.

I remember him a few minutes after birth. I, we, couldn't give them up. Oscar, Ebony, Jeremy we named the kittens. They've been an important part of our lives ever since. He was the one who climbed the "tree" we put in their room; he was forever scaling that old green sofa we had. He's always loved his meals; his enthusiasm for food is matched only by his enthusiasm for milk! He loves milk.

He's always been a comforting presence on cold nights - he'd scoot in, for awhile, and then wander off in search of something to do or eat. He hasn't done that, the last couple of years. But he'd feign disinterest in hug, and then purr like an engine when you gave him one, anyway. Until he'd had enough. Then he'd let you know he'd had enough and go off to sleep in the sun or have a snack.

I don't know how much longer he'll last.

I just want him to have a good time in whatever time he has left.

I'll stop now.

Carolyn Ann

The speed of light might be very simple? (Aka I spout nonsense, once again.)

The other night, Brian Greene was describing how distance doesn't matter to entangled particles. :-) Entangled particles are two quantum particles, the building blocks of the bits of atoms, that are linked by some mysterious force.

It's an important question: why do they seem to be locked together?

When I first came across these strange beasts, in some popular science book awhile back, I couldn't get my head around them. (As they say: if you understand quantum physics, you missed something really important...) And then I came across the idea that there may be more than the 4 dimensions we inhabit.

A few years ago I asserted that we actually live in a 2-dimensional universe. The three physical dimensions just happen to be describable by a vector: a=[x,y,z]. Coordinate systems are a bit awkward, don't you think? They're always describing a point in space in relation to another point in space. So, a'=[x',y',z'] where the difference between n and n' (assuming n is a, x, y, or z) is ∆n. ∆n can be positive or negative - it can't be zero (i.e. no difference) because then n'=n. You know what you can do with a series of numbers? Turn them into a set. :-) (a, a')=((x, x'), (y, y'), (z, z')). So far I've not described much of anything. I might as well have tried to demonstrate x=f(x). But what if you think of space not as a three discrete dimensions? What if space is two dimensions, but one dimension is a set of numbers? A coordinate system, in other words.

So why can't time, the fourth dimension, be included in that set? In my argument, there's no particular reason it can't be - but I'd rather it wasn't. Simply because time has a special quality - it is not like the other numbers. The other numbers need time in order to be described. ... Okay, let's figure that one out. :-)

A coordinate system has to reference some other coordinate if it is to make sense, if it is to be sensible. Nonsensical coordinate systems are possible, but we'll assume we're dealing with sensible ones. :-) Therefore coordinate (x, y, z) has to be referenced from some (0, 0, 0); the actual point references are quite arbitrary. But they always have two defining features: they can be "more finely" defined and you have to measure their length in time. You might apply an interpretation of that time (i.e. a "foot", a "mile", a kilometer", etc), but those are always defined by time. After all, you cannot see the heel of a foot at the same exact time as you see the toes of it! You can see the heel of the foot some finite - and measurable - time after you've seen the tip of the big toe. (If you dispute that, you'd better brush up on your special relativity. Albert figured it out first. I merely made it silly. :-) )

So... You need time to measure distance, but you don't need distance to measure time. Okay? All agreed? Good. :-)

Let's assume that there's only one universe. (It's important.) But let's assume that there might be slightly more to it than we reckon. After all, if you travel at the speed of light, the photons coming toward you are also traveling at that speed! ... Oh dear. Our coordinate system just took a hit. If we're traveling at some 186,000 miles a second, and the light we see is also traveling at 186,000 miles a second - that means we need a new coordinate system. Ah, but we don't. We just need a new reference. :-)

Entangled particles don't seem to notice distance. Perhaps because they exist in planes where two of the three coordinates we need don't matter? Likewise, if light is always traveling at the speed of light - perhaps it's not our coordinate system that's to blame (so to speak). Perhaps we simply need to figure out that it makes sense in some other coordinate system - one that doesn't depend upon the thing we're measuring being the thing we're measuring! (That didn't make sense... Did it? Hmm. I'll have to think about that a bit more. Sorry. :-( ... )

Anyway, if we measure the speed of light - we're relying on two things: time and dimension. (After all, velocity is simply distance/time.) What if there's another dimension that has as much interest in the dimensions we need as we do in it? The thing is - photons have a very small mass. That's why they have a velocity. If they had no mass, they'd have no velocity (m=E/c²). To have energy, you have to mass. To have velocity, you have to have both energy and mass. The speed of light, in other words, is dependent upon the concepts of mass and energy; they're all linked. In the universe we can see. And I think that's the important point: what of the bits we can't see?

... Oops. Sorry.

I need to brush up on my set theory (it's been a loooong time). I can see how it works, I just don't have the language to describe it. It's really simple. Really, it is.

On the other hand, I might be, probably am, spouting nonsense. C'est la vie. :-)

Carolyn Ann

The nature of reality is language? Let's see what Mr Magritte has to say about that.

I caught the tail end of some program that, apparently, was asking "What is reality?" And they had an MIT mathematician on - I didn't catch his name - who said that reality was mathematics. I was so disgusted I did something I've never done: I switched the program off. Fucking idiot.

Asserting that the universe is mathematics is not like saying that writing is language. It's making the claim that writing precedes language! Mathematics is not the "thing" - it is a description. Mathematics is the communicated description; it has two elements: it is written, and therefore is not reliant upon the physical and immediate presence of the communicator and it always describes some interaction. Whether the description is accurate, nonsense or irrational is irrelevant - language can be used to describe anything. Accuracy is desirable, and if understanding is needed, it is essential - but the accuracy required is limited to an agreed symbology; the message itself maybe nonsense, but as long as the symbols carry common meaning - the message itself can be any old nonsense. In other words, as long as we agree that "this" symbol has a common and communicable meaning, it can be used to communicate a common perception.

So when someone says that the universe is mathematics, all they are really saying is that mathematics can describe the relationships between different parts of the universe. We know some of those relationships and can describe them, mathematically. This does not mean the universe is mathematical - it merely means we've (or, more accurately, we think we've) figured out some relationships between parts of the universe. The infamous E=mc², for instance, describes a relationship between mass, the speed of light and energy. It's got all the connotations of Ohm's Law, or any equation that has three elements. So m=E/c² and c=√(E/m). Hence, we have descriptions of the relationships between three different elements (if you will?) of the universe. Ol' Albert described a part of the universe - he did not define it. Professor So-and-so over at MIT successfully figured out that the description is the thing. Perhaps he should consult René Magritte?

I think that rather adequately explains why so-and-so MIT professor is wrong. The universe cannot be mathematics, but it can be described by mathematics. You cannot have written language without language; ergo, you can't have mathematics without language and therefore you can't have a universe that is mathematics. You can, however, have a universe that can be described mathematically. But I'd advise against anthropomorphizing anything. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Fast Five, Limited Furious Edition...

I saw "Fast Five", the (hopefully) last installment of the Fast & Furious movie franchise for sale at a local Target. The sales pitch was "limited time" and "extended". As it was only $14.99, I decided to splurge. I didn't check the run time... The theatrical version runs for two hours and eleven minutes. Guess how long the "extended" version runs... Yup, you got it: one minute extra. Two hours and twelve minutes. I think the extra minute is in the end credits.

Good movie [Added: Actually, it's a really bad, even awful, movie. But I like the nonstop action sequences. :-) ] Just don't look for things that make sense. :-)

(Unlike West Side Story, which was released in a new version. We saw it the other night on the big screen! All I can say is WOW!)

Carolyn Ann

We're worried about Jeremy

So we're very worried about Jeremy. A big, strapping handsome lad, he's become a bag o'bones very quickly. Disturbingly quickly. His appetite is still there, but he's not as strong as he was - unsurprisingly, considering all of his muscles have gone.

Unfortunately, we don't have the money to take him to the vet - and our experience is that isn't always the best option, anyway. We think he has something serious and are just hoping he lasts awhile. :-(

Carolyn Ann

The (un)official NRA statement on President Obama's would-be assassin

In today's NRA (Rifle, not Restaurant) press conference, a statement, Wayne Lapierre responded to questions about the assassination attempt on President Obama and guns. He said "If President Obama had been in residence, and had been able to get to a gun, he could have shot back at the man. While DC had to change its laws to allow for concealed carry, those rules are still in effect in the White House. If Mr Obama was allowed to carry a concealed weapon, he'd have less need to rely on Secret Service and the police!" He also went on: "Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez needs target practice; we're going to make it a priority to ensure that the state pays for target practice for everyone: felons, presidential assassins, housewives and God-fearing Americans, but not liberals or Democrats. If Ortega-Hernandez had had adequate target practice with his semi-automatic weapon, he'd have made a bigger impression. Firing an AK-47 from that far out was really stupid, you have to get in close for that sort of weapon..." While responding to a question, Mr Lapierre said "Look, if we had a God-fearing right-wing decent white American as president, this would never have happened! Liberals don't have the balls to go buy a gun, never mind shoot one! So, if you don't want someone shooting the president, make sure you vote for Republican!" At this point he turned a funny shade of red and dashed out of the room muttering "Damn! I might have said too much!"

Carolyn Ann

How's your wooden leg?

It's got woodworm.

Bleh. And more bleh. I feel worse today. I didn't sleep a wink, last night - because I couldn't breathe. I'm stuffed up something awful. And then every time I did doze off - I started coughing. A dry, raspy cough. Yuk.

Oh well. At least my ankle is much better.

Bleh.

Carolyn Ann

Bongo and the rainy day

Me: You're not going out! You're a Little Old Lady and it's not Little Old Lady weather! (It's pouring out there... You could say it's raining cats and dogs... [sorry! :-) ]

Bongo: Growls. (She's quite cute, er, intimidating when she does that)

So I opened the door. 

Bongo: I'm not going out there! It's raining! What's it like at the other door?

(Unfortunately it was raining there, too.)

===

Cats! Who'd 'ave 'em?!? :-)

Carolyn Ann

And next up is...

So the Newt is on top. He's riding high in the polls. ... Well, he's riding higher than he was. He's definitely the next Savior Candidate - the one who will save the GOP from Mittens.

Unfortunately, he's not quite electable. Okay - he's not at all electable. :-)

Let's see... He's been married three times. He left his second wife while she was recovering from cancer. It was in a famous Mirabella article. (Unfortunately, Mirabella, the magazine, is no longer around - it shut down in the 1990's!) He was conducting the affair with his now third wife, while trying to indict Bill for a blow job. And then there's his political history... :-)

Let's see... Closed down the government - twice. Lost both times. Took $1.6M for unspecified work for the two mortgage giants, Freddie and Fannie. (Crushingly, he doesn't know how much he charged, no he didn't do any lobbying, and merely provided historical guidance for a business and business sector that has never been interested in history. So much for having a grasp on the details of things.) And he's been out of public office for 13 years. He also went on vacation at the start of his campaign and his staff quit, en masse. With his ascension to the front, his past is going to be examined in some detail. Personally, I don't think it will stand up.

As a plausible "Not Mitt" candidate, he's got it all. Conservative credentials, academic qualifications, a growing bank account, a dubious past and ... He's prone to condescension. Prone? He breathes it!

Okay... Next! Ah, Mr Santorum, please tell us about yourself. Don't worry about the bits you haven't told us before. We'll find them out...

Carolyn Ann

Tennessee Fail

Andrea Jones, a transsexual lass in Knoxville, Tennessee, was jailed for 23 days(!) because she removed her top. The reason she took of her shirt was because the state had just told her she was a man. Men get to take off their shirts; women, for whatever reason, don't. So the cops jailed her - in a men's jail. Because women aren't allowed to go topless.

Confused? Yup. Outraged? You should be!

The whole thing was precipitated by a visit to the DMV. Her surgeon had provided a letter saying she was, for all intents and purposes, female. The Feds agreed, giving her an "F for female" on her social security card. The Tennessee DMV? They didn't agree. You have to complete the entire GRS process to be labeled "female" by them. So she was, by their lights, a man. And while a dress code is imposed in the DMV, none can be outside it.

And she gets locked up for 23 days! Twenty three days. Can you believe it? All she has to do is admit to indecent exposure, risk getting placed on the sex offenders register and admit that she's a man. Then she'll get two days in jail... What kind of idiocy is this?

The cop was wrong to arrest her; I can imagine how it happened, but the cop should have given her a bench ticket (at most) - not an arrest for indecent exposure! The state had just said she's a man - men go around without a shirt. She certainly shouldn't have been locked up for any time at all - and especially not in a men's jail!

Personally, I think there's more than official ineptitude and idiocy going on here. I think there's a heck of  a lot of prejudice. A tremendous amount of the government telling her what she is, who she is and a sweeping preference that we all fit into neat little boxes.

The state has a right to know if you're a man or a woman for the purposes of your driving license. They have a duty to ensure that the license is accurate and that you're described properly. They do not have a right to tell you who you are, or what your gender is! You get that right. Except when you meet officialdom. Then, then there's no telling what they deem you to be.

Carolyn Ann

Bleh & the end of the world

Bleh. The world is obviously coming to an end. Harold camping was right! ... I have a head cold. Bleh.

Carolyn Ann

Mike Bloomberg acts - wrongly

I can't help but think that Mike Bloomberg has helped the OWS protestors immeasurably. Heavy-handed police evicted the protestors in the middle of the night - and they also tried to impose a media blackout. Way to go, Mike - adopt the tactics of Hosni Mubarak.

While the protest drummers were, by pretty much every account I've read, a nuisance (note to protestors: no drummers next time!), the general protest was peaceful. It was irritating a lot of folk, but people don't protest to be pleasant; this isn't Japan where protestors seem to try avoid offense or notice.

All in all, it's a bit of a mess. Mike hopes he can silence them - he says they now have to occupy the space of ideas (they were, Mike). He knows this protest needs a base.

I have little doubt the Tea Partiers are delighted; they fight for the status quo - they just argue they're not. They also seem to have a fetish about the vagueness of the OWS demands; what they don't notice is that the Tea Party/hardlone conservatives are just as vague. And a lot more duplicitous.

It ain't the end of the show. Not by a long stretch.

Carolyn Ann

The cat was somewhat startled, but not overly concerned.

I did a real number on my ankle. It hurts like hell - still - and I'm kinda looping tired loops from the Advil.

Last night was fun. One of the cats decided my ankle made a good spot for a paw as he strolled across the bed. I differed in my opinion - and let him know with a reasonably constrained expression of pain. The wife didn't think it was at all reasonably constrained... I saw stars and not the movie kind. The cat was somewhat startled, but not overly concerned.

Ah well. It'll heal.

A new electrical code for lighting?

At some point in the future, I think there's going to be a change in electrical standards. LED lights, for instance, don't need 110V (never mind 240V!) to run. And it adds to the cost to provide convertors; an LED needs two - one to reduce the voltage, and another to provide smooth-ish direct current. Cut those out and you get an internationally-applicable electrical standard. One that doesn't require the same type of wires that outlets need. Indeed, I foresee a need for a standard, easily installed (clip-on?) connector as well.

It's going to take some time - but once the benefits are clear, it'll actually happen pretty quickly. Changing existing installations will take a lot longer, if it's even needed - but new installs will be cheaper as a result. If it's a truly international standard it will help in all sorts of places, including shantytowns like those surrounding Mexico City.

All that stands in the way is that old builder's mantra: they'll try anything new. As long as their Dad taught them. ;-)

Carolyn Ann

Electrical work - done. Finally...

Blah. I've just finished some electrical work in the attic. Considering how nice the day is, it's surprisingly hot up there. The worst bit was figuring out which, among 3 lines, was actually the one I needed; I needed the one that goes to the panel. Because the house is wired in a way where the neutral is used for the switches (I have no idea why), all of the wires show "live" with my induction tester. I figured it out, but it needed a lot of tracing of wires! Which is difficult when it's only you and a fading flashlight.

Ah well. Done. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Not much to get excited about in Abu Dhabi

Well... That was a race without too much going on. Despite the poor coverage and the (US) commentators getting all excited, not much happened in this mornings' Formula One race in Abu Dhabi. The director wasn't very good, although he did spend a fair amount of time on the mid-pack cars. He just chose the most boring shots he possibly could.

Sebastian Vettel, the world champion, was out from some sort of suspension problem by the second corner, which left Lewis Hamilton basically commanding the race. He stayed so far ahead of Felipe Massa, you really got a sense of who was the better driver; I think he was 26 seconds in front by the checkered flag. Considering the two have been having a bit of a Massa/Ferrari-started feud, it was good to see some distance between them.

The most exciting action came when Fernando Alonso needed a very quick pit stop to retain the lead. He'd gained it when Lewis Hamilton did the mandatory tire change, switching to the harder compound. But his team let him down - instead of taking 3.4 seconds to change all of the wheels, they took something like 5.6 - and that not just allowed the McLaren of Lewis Hamilton to go by, it put Fernando's Ferrari about 5 seconds behind with not enough laps to catch up. You could really see how the Ferrari didn't like the harder compound tires, though.

Red Bull and Mark Webber adopted a very strange tire strategy; they relied, I think, on something going wrong. When it didn't, it meant that Jenson Button's McLaren could just about cruise to third. I'm quite sure no one knew what they were doing, and then on the last lap they did the mandatory switch of tires and... Wasted all the effort Mark Webber had put into racing the Jensen Button.

The Abu Dhabi Yas Marina track is a fairly typical Herman Tilke track. Which means it's pretty interesting the first few times, but when you've watched a few races on his tracks, you sort of get bored with them. Entirely artificial, they all have similar corners, straights and overtaking zones. It leads to artificial racing. I'm becoming less and less a fan of the new "DRS" (drag reduction system; it's a computer-driven system that gives trailing drivers the opportunity to do something they couldn't do naturally - overtake the guy in front. But only at certain places on the track); it provides stilted racing. Especially when the track has two close DRS zones - you end up with an allegedly exciting see-saw; first one overtakes and then the other. The Yas Marina has the two zones separated by a pair of very close corners. It became so damn predictable it ceased to be interesting, never mind exciting.

And the damn commercials! I know it's supposed to pay for the broadcasting and all that, but do they really need that many?

All in all, I'd say the Abu Dhabi race is one of the one that you could easily miss.

Carolyn Ann

Praise the Lord! (Etc)

Good God! The man has (finally!) left! Can you believe it? The tin-pot twit, the man who would be king if the role was allowed, has finally done what he should have done just after being elected.

Silvio Berlusconi has finally resigned.

Amazing. Astonishing. Confounding.

How could such a blithering buffoon stay in power for so long? His reign of stupidity has left Italy with 10 years of stagnation, sky-high debt, stratospheric interest rates and a government that is as dysfunctional as it is confusing.

Praise be to the Lord! And so on. Actually, if the Lord actually existed, there's a very good case to be made that he sat this one out. We're told the ways of the Lord are mysterious to us mere mortals. The only thing I can respond with, at this point, is that the ways of Silvio Berlusconi must have been a mystery to the Lord.

Whatever. Italy can finally start paying attention to its economy and not the (alleged) shenanigans of its (alleged) leader. That's gotta be worth something over at the Vatican. :-D

Carolyn Ann

Pugilists, Round 3...

This evening's fight between Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Márquez sounds like a good one. I wish I could have watched it, but pay-per-view is about a trillion dollars a fight, these days. Or it might as well be!

I'm a fan of boxing - I don't think I've mentioned that for a bit? That "Ultimate Fighting", while technically exacting, doesn't do much for me. I prefer to see a good old fashioned boxing match. This one sounded like it was worth watching, even though it seems they were both fighting slightly shy in the latter rounds - both thought they'd won!

Folk are talking about a Pacqiuao/Mayweather fight. That would be worth paying money to see! :-) (Although I'd have to favor Pacquiao in such a contest. I don't know, Floyd Mayweather just doesn't seem to have "it" at times.)

Carolyn Ann

On the QT isn't so much, anymore

I just checked on QuestioningTransphobia... Remember them? Advocates for sex-changing rapists and dodgy hormone dealers? Yeah? I've been ignoring them for some time now - mostly because Ms Harney & Co have had nothing interesting to say. So... I wondered what was happening over on that blog. The tl;dr? Not much.

The frequency of posting has gone way down; if it's one every few days, it's a lot. The specific subjects have changed, the general tone hasn't. (Can't?) They recently noted their 4th year of blogging. Perhaps it got difficult to continue the anger for so long? Can't be healthy, being so angry for so long. Their vehemence has been eclipsed by the inane anger of the transsexual separatists; it's difficult, I guess, to keep your audience entertained when others are doing a better impression of a transsexual Glenn Beck.

Och, they've begged, they've argued, they've pleaded, they've censored, they've advocated and they've stayed stuck in an ever-changing world. Heck, not even the basic format has changed. After 4 years of saying the same thing, over and over and over - either they got fed up, or their audience did. Perhaps they got fed up of me continually poking holes in their precious arguments? It was a service I happily provided, after all. :-) The blog rose fast, for awhile it was quite important. And you know what they say about rising high - you're easier to aim at. (Ms Harney & Co helped by painting big bulls eyes on their arguments.) I often thought their positions were untenable, which is why I argued against them. In retrospect, I'd say the ending of that blog came when they helpfully told folk how to get into trouble with the Feds. Folk who needed good advice, not blithe stupid advice on how to order hormones without a prescription. (Lisa's reasoning? She'd never had a problem with illegally obtained hormones.) ... ... ...

I'm not sure I should be writing their obituary, just yet... Oops? :-)

Carolyn Ann

Pacifism (is a cop-out)

With the passing of Veteran's Day, Remembrance Day, the annual pacifist exhortation comes to its thankful close. "War is the failure of diplomacy!" it is declared, as if diplomats could influence the evil men who wager the blood of a nation's youth against their thirst for blood. And sometimes wars are started by idiots and ended by fools.

The thing is, pacifism is a cop-out, a denial, a wish and a fantasy. Some are evil, and turning the other cheek just doesn't work. There will always be cruel men who kidnap a woman in a wheelchair - because she represents an easy target. There was a man who approved and sponsored an attack upon 3,000 innocent folk, going about their lives. There were men who thought that the murder of athletes would further their vaguely defined cause. Or men who place a bomb that would blow up and kill babies in Northern Ireland. And then there was Hitler. Not to mention Stalin, Mao and more than a few others.

As you might guess, I've never been a pacifist. I never could bring myself to object to America's nuclear weapons on British soil, nor to the idea of an army. My problem, so to speak, is not a love of war - I've never been in one - but that I recognize that evil exists. And has to be dealt with, not merely addressed in stern language.

It's been my experience that when you don't refute all war, you're taken as supporting, eagerly, each and every war. Which isn't the case at all. Blanket assumptions never work and support the assertion that the person making one is little more than an idiot to be tolerated. :-) One can despise the idea of war while also recognizing the importance of being able, technically, willingly and morally, to wage it. To acquiesce to pacifism is to provide those who seek your destruction a free ticket to the coliseum.

I'm inclined to agree with (allegedly) George Orwell on this issue: People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

If I knew how to salute, I'd do that for those who choose to be those "rough men" (and women). :-)

Carolyn Ann

Where mortals fail

From 1981 to 2009, the greatest accomplishment of the anti-government Republicans was not to reduce the size of the federal government but to stop paying for it.

Italics are Bill's. :-)

As in Bill Clinton, in his latest book, "Back to Work" (p35). 

Intelligent chap, Bill. (Pause for a moment of ... Bill! Come back! We need you! Okay. Back to my regularly scheduled ... stuff. :-D )

I perused Bill's latest book over a cup of coffee. A fairly easy read, it's also very technical, delving quite deeply into some arcane policy issues that turn out to be quite important. The man just goes through it! He must breathe this stuff.

He didn't so much write this book as muse about it and had it accidentally recorded and transcribed. He can take a very complex subject, reduce it to its essence, name the important folks around it and describe why the decisions they made were either good or bad or both. In detail. Heck, his sidebars contains more concrete information than an entire Republican debate! (Okay, that's not difficult, but still...) 

Bill (how can he be called anything else? :-) ) makes the important point that when he left office, the Federal deficit could be paid off, and quickly. He goes into why, acknowledging some of the mistakes he made (not all, obviously), but the nutshell version is "he balanced the budget and PAYGO" (that was the Congressional policy of having to pay for things as you go. Something the GOP didn't bother renewing when they ran Congress. I can't think why...) Considering that he left office with a considerable budget surplus - one that, if it had been maintained, would have been a policy discussion, and even before George Bush's first year was out, the government was running a deficit. 

Bill lays the blame, and I don't think I'm spoiling anything by revealing this, firmly on the anti-government Republicans. They have, as is common knowledge, argued that it wasn't the lack of regulation that caused the financial meltdown of 2008 - it was not enough regulatory laxity. In other words, if regulations had been removed with alacrity, the financial sector would be in ruddy health and Ronnie Reagan's edict would be proved. That it has never been proved is by-the-by. 

I'm only halfway through his book and I'm awed by the man's intellectual capacity. Where mortals see streams, he sees the river. We're lucky that he tells us what he sees. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Yesterday was... yesterday

Yesterday was one of those very busy days that ends with me wondering what I did and what took so long to do. You know those days? You're on the go, but at the end of the day you think to yourself "what the heck did I actually accomplish, do, today?" and you can't think of a single thing?

I know I managed to do some experimenting with Drupal, and it didn't do what I wanted, but aside of that? I can't think of a single prominent thing I did.

Oh well. Today is going to have something in it. (I have no idea what, though...) :-)

It's my (new) mantra: yesterday was yesterday. There's nowt you can do to change it, so learn from it. It's better than my old one (variations of: yesterday was the only tough day); that was something I used to get through those dark days of a few years back. (I need simple mantras, being a simple chap. And for a few other reasons, that I won't dwell upon.)

Carolyn Ann

Perry vows to continue the fight

Texas Governor Rick Perry vowed to keep fighting for ... Er, hmm, yes, what was it? Dog Catcher? Nooo... Governor? That sounds riiight, but ... ... No, that's not it... What was he going to keep fighting for?

Oh, it'll come back to me. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Pah! Pre-hung doors are for wimps!!! :-D

Pah! Pre-hung doors are for wimps!!! :-D

I just hung a new door (and built the frame) to my wife's new closet extension. What a lot of precise measuring it takes! I'd forgotten how much, to be honest.

That's done. Now on to the gazillion other things that need to be done. Electrical is next. The space needs a light.

But first - I need a beer! Slurp...

Carolyn Ann

Wow. HTML5 can do that?!? :-)

Remember that I said HTML 5 will overtake Flash? (Or something like that...) Weeelll.... Check out this from Ellie Goulding. :-)

I should note that you need a modern browser and a machine with decent graphics performance. (For some reason it doesn't work on Safari; that browser doesn't support WebGL - an up and coming (?) graphic standard for the web.)

Carolyn Ann

Really? Penn State idiots riot for the wrong reason

Penn State students rioted when their football coach, Joe Paterno, was fired. He was fired because he didn't do much of anything to stop a pedophile preying on children. And students rioted on the news.

Mr Paterno played the role of the arrogant prick quite well - telling the Board of Trustees that there were more important things to discuss. Really? The welfare of children under one of his coaches isn't important? His reaction to it all, his sweeping it under the rug, isn't important? The man was on track to leave an amazing legacy and now he'll be remembered as the guy who covered for a pedophile, because football was more important than the welfare of some boys.

The amazing thing, the irony of it all, is - if he'd reported the guy to the cops when he should have, he'd be a bigger, larger than life character. We'd be saying "he practiced what he preached" and "he did the right thing, even though it was painful". It shouldn't be difficult to report a pedophile - especially when he's caught in the act of buggering some poor lad! If I have it right, he was actually a careless pedophile - he was caught three times! But each time he was given a pass.

Mr Paterno didn't just screw up - he was criminally negligent!

And the students rioted at the news he was fired? Idiots. The damn lot.

Carolyn Ann

So soon...

Even The Economist is calling Mr Perry's gaffe the end of his campaign.

As Johnson goes on to say, if you've ever spoken in public, you've had, or will have, one of those moments. I still squirm at mine, about 14 years ago. To call it a "disaster" would be kind. I lost track of what I was going to say minutes into the speech. A large, very full, room at 4 World Trade Center and I had to have a meltdown! Eventually I traced the problem to two things: an almost complete lack of preparation that was informed by arrogance and notes that were cryptic, scant and poorly structured. But it was mostly arrogance. "I can do this!" I thought. And then proved I couldn't...

C'est la vie. Life went on and everyone carefully avoided mentioning it. For some reason, I was never asked back by that organization...

The thing is - I was simply giving a speech. Mr Perry was trying to stem the loss of support for a presidential campaign. While the voting public can forgive the odd gaffe, they don't tend to forgive a number of them. And he's had plenty - his first two debates weren't quite disasters, but they were near enough as makes no difference and then there was that speech in New Hampshire. The one where he seemed to be drunk or high. Or both. If I worked for Mr Perry's campaign, I'd be making some phone calls about now: does Mittens have an opening in Barrow, Alaska?

All in all, the right has proven itself to be poor arbiters of the electable. Indeed, they've proven themselves to be poor in consistency and they've demonstrated that they are more about hero-worship than substantive policy discussion. So long Rickety. We'll kinda miss ya. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Shades of Argentina beckon...

There's a lot of chit-chat about Greece leaving the Euro. I think that would be a mistake.

While the Euro has many flaws, one or two are Grand Canyon-sized, the overall benefits of staying in the Euro outweigh leaving it. While Greece doesn't have a spectacularly large export sector, it does have a large import trade - and that would be directly affected. Prices would shoot up because of uncertainty, opportunism and a basic inability to fund anything. Can you imagine how quickly and how high petrol would go?

The appeal of leaving the Euro - Greek (local) control over fiscal policy - sounds appealing, but doesn't really address the problem of too much debt. Inflating your way out of it, which seems to be the suggested method of those advocate resuming the drachma, would leave ordinary people mired. The economy wouldn't stagnate - it would enter a very deep recession. At the moment, the Greek government can't print its way of debt; considering the fiscal discipline they've shown in the past, the temptation would be too much. Seriously - I think printing drachma's would be the first thing they'd try. They'd make that old Peronist Argentina look like a casual rehearsal for economic collapse. Over the last 10 years, the Greek government has consistently lied about its financial condition; why should anyone assume it has suddenly developed a dose of the "honests"?

Argentina had one thing it could do - it could remove its linkage to the dollar. After that, it basically allowed all hell to break loose as the government tried this populist strategy or that one; eventually settling on a sort of almost-honest fiscal realism. I don't think anyone trusts the Greek legislators to arrive at the latter stage; they've not shown much movement toward it. Unfortunately Greece doesn't even have the ability to free-float its currency; now it's in the Euro, it's kinda stuck in it. The one really good benefit is that runaway inflation is actually impossible. Move to the drachma, and it becomes inevitable.

Ultimately, there is no "good" choice to be made. The markets are demanding too much austerity; the rest of Europe is holding its collective nose and begrudging bailout money. The Greek voter is left with a choice between ridiculousness and inanity; the Greek economy was badly handled for decades and now Europe seems to be intent on keeping up that tradition. Greece needs to push forward with much-needed economic and competitive reforms; it needs to shrink its civil service and it definitely needs to open its books. It also needs to start collecting all the taxes it knows it is owed.

Populism and officially winked-at corruption don't make good economic policy. Greece will make it out of the quagmire, and if they're aggressive about it, soon. But Europe needs to think about the future of the Euro. After all, if you give a corrupt government the keys to the bank, can you really be outraged when they visit the vault and leave with souvenirs?

Carolyn Ann

"Too much, too soon"?

I was wondering when the voters would reject the overreach of the far right and Tea Party legislators. Elected in an anti-incumbent Election Day Massacre, they're doing exactly what they promised to do. But in the wave of anti-incumbancy sentiment(ality) that was 2010, no one, it seems, cared what these people stood for - they weren't incumbents and that was that.

Except it wasn't.

At the time I predicted these newly elected people would think they had a mandate to do what they wanted. I predicted they'd ignore the overwhelming evidence that they were there because they weren't whomever had held the office. And I was right! (Ahem... :-D )

As Tuesday's elections ably showed - voters rejected the far right's agenda. In a distorted conversation (so to speak), the voters said "Enough!" The question is - will the Tea Party and far right get and understand the message? As Ohio Governor John Kasich said "Too much, too soon". So... No. The right doesn't get it. Look for the ongoing discussion to center on how to market, to sell, these reactionary, discriminatory and entirely too extreme ideas. In other words, between now and 2012 - the far right and Tea Party legislators, advisors and pundits will double-down. Not back off. Or move to the center. (Isn't it interesting how they want Mr Obama to move to the far right, but make no effort to move the center?)

If you're looking for effective government over the next year or so - keep dreaming.

Carolyn Ann

Bye, Bye, American Rick...

The GOP is running out of candidates. The only one they'll have left is Mittens! Rickety Rick proved himself to be somewhat ricketier than originally thought (not that he appears to have any original thoughts... :-D ), The Hermanator was nasty and the Newt tried to be as slippery as a salamander. But ended up proving he needs to study Christine o'Donnell's "I'm not a witch" ad. (I wonder what her Halloween outfit was? :-) ) There were some other folk on stage, but they were there to fill the stage up a bit.

All in all, Rick Perry's "oops" moment ended any presidential aspirations the man has. He's had one too many moments. (I've tried to find anything else on the debate, but there's nothing.)

Bye, bye Rick.

Carolyn Ann

Adobe kills Mobile Flash

I was wondering when Adobe would kill Mobile Flash. I didn't need Apple, or Steve Jobs, telling me it was old - a quick glance at HTML 5 showed the end was near for Flash. The big question now is: if Mobile Flash has gone (it'll fade very quickly now), how long does "regular" Flash have? After all - computing is going mobile and who needs a proprietary and expensive "solution" in the browser?

To be honest, I'm surprised Flash has lasted as long as it has. It's long past time it was sent the way of Internet Explorer 6. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Sad or pathetic - I report, you decide...

With all the fuss about Herman Cain, I've been looking at some of the resulting polls about sexual harassment. I can conclude that men typically don't believe it exists or if it does, it's not a problem. On the other hand, Republican men don't think it's possible. Some Republican/right-leaning women don't believe it can, either. Most other women know it does.

Carolyn Ann

Taxing the poor...

In a stunning concession, the GOP has said it will entertain some tax increases. A spokesman for Eric Cantor said, "Look, we have a lot of people who don't pay any tax whatsoever! And all we're saying is that they should!" He continued: "If the poorest 1% pay a basic rate of 35%, the same as the wealthiest Americans, it shows we're fairly spreading the burden of taxation. And that's a good thing, right?" When asked about GOP efforts to lower the highest nominal rate to 28%, he said "That's right. The richest Americans, our sponsors, contribute more than anyone to the Treasury; they shouldn't have to bear the same tax burden as the poorest Americans, who simply want benefits and not work for them!"

Reporting to you live, from nowhere near anything,
Carolyn Ann

Yeah, we can monitor you (in fact, we might be doing that already!)

I'm baffled how the government thinks that attaching a GPS-enabled tracking device to your car isn't a violation of the 4th Amendment. A Constitutional literalist would have to argue that it's okay - because nothing like it existed in the late 18th century. And that seems to be the government stance. (Justice Scalia, meet the real world. For a change.)

Considering the cost of the devices, it would be very cost-effective for the cops to place a device on every car they suspect the owner of, and then sit back and watch just about anyone in their jurisdiction from the comfort of the police station. No one would know, really. (Of course, technology works both ways; scanners would become available, negating any advantage the cops had.) And without any particular oversight, there wouldn't be any reason for the cops to stop watching you. After all, the data would go into a database somewhere, to be examined at leisure, or data-mined, issuing speeding tickets from afar, for instance.

What is especially baffling is what the government attorney said. He claimed that there was nothing to stop the government tracking the justice's cars:

MR. DREEBEN: -- there was no search, Justice Scalia. The rationale of that case was that open fields are not among the things that are protected by the Fourth Amendment. And the Court was very specifically focused on the distinction between trespass law and Fourth Amendment law.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You think there would also not be a search if you put a GPS device on all of our cars, monitored our movements for a month? You think you're entitled to do that under your theory?
MR. DREEBEN: The justices of this Court?  CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yes. (Laughter.)
MR. DREEBEN: Under our theory and under
this Court's cases, the justices of this Court when
driving on public roadways have no greater expectation
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So your answer is yes, you could tomorrow decide that you put a GPS device on every one of our cars, follow us for a month; no problem under the Constitution?
MR. DREEBEN: Well, equally, Mr. Chief Justice, if the FBI wanted to it could put its team of surveillance agents around the clock on any individual and follow that individual's movements as they went around on the public streets and they would thereby gather -­

(The quote ends there as Justice Alito jumps in.)

I'd say that's not a winning argument! In fact, I'd say it was an invitation to expand the decision into "proper" 4th Amendment concerns.

There are two very simple facts in this whole case. The first is that the twenty-first century poses challenges to any literal, unchanging, view of the Constitution and the other is that the intent of the 4th Amendment is to prevent the government from unreasonable monitoring of the nation's citizenry.

The 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, a literal interpretation (the one the government advances) says that as long as you're out of your house, they can monitor you. But I think the intent of the Framers was to prevent the government from becoming the same as England's, which at the time (and even now) had a distinct preference for keeping a very close eye on its citizens. Up to now, if the cops wanted to keep an eye on you, they had to send someone to do that. They didn't need a warrant for that. In the modern world, we have the situation where the cops don't need a physical presence to monitor you - they just attach a device to your car and track your movements from afar.

The cops, it can be argued, are simply increasing their capabilities - they can see where you go, with whom you meet and so on, if they follow you. By using these GPS-enabled devices, they're simply being more efficient and cost-effective. Do they really need a warrant for what is a decades-old practice - one that is implemented more efficiently with the GPS devices? This is where it gets tricky, and the intent of the Framers needs to be understood.

A literal interpretation, as I've said, alleges that the cops can monitor you wherever. They don't need a probable cause, a crime or anything. Attach a device, at their expense, plug it into a computer and they can create a society that is not just watched but actively monitored. Everywhere you go, how fast you go, how long you were there, and so on will be available to authorities. (Interconnection of the monitoring systems is the least challenging technical problem.) It's no good simply saying "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"; that facetious argument simply says that official monitoring of the population is fine. Big Brother, where fore art thou, indeed. The intent of the Framers was, clearly, to prevent the government from arbitrary monitoring of people.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not known for upholding fundamental Constitutional principles. You'd think they were, but a few cases have shown they're more than likely to side with the government. The most pertinent, I think, is the decision that so clearly violates the 5th Amendment: you have to give your actual name (not your pseudonym) to a cop when asked. What might help in this case is the scary prospect of the cops monitoring everyone, no legitimate reason being required. Here's where I really hope the literalists of the Court start to understand the limitations of their position.

Carolyn Ann

Poland's first transsexual MP!

Poland's first transsexual woman took her seat in Parliament today.

That's neat! :-)

Carolyn Ann

Rush Limbaugh proves he has no taste (again)

Rush Limbaugh isn't known for his "political correctness". Nor his taste. Which he proved, more than adequately by doing an immature riff on Sharon Bialek's name. He goes to great lengths - the sort of lengths a 14 year old would easily attain - to ensure you know her name is "Buy-A-Lick".

What a chauvinist! What a prig.

Carolyn Ann

Apple's new EasyTheft system...

This story, about Apple's new "EasyTheft" system is begging for satirical commentary. I'm just a tad too unfocussed to provide it, right now... :-\

Here's a go: Apple CEO Tim Cooke said "We keep losing iPhone prototypes in bars, so we figured we'd make it easier for people to pinch our new stuff. To get whatever you've pinched back, we'll pose as police officers and offer you a bribe. While it might hurt our earnings forecast a little, we expect to make it up in volume..." :-)

Carolyn Ann

It said what?!? Pistols at dawn, I say!

Jeez, I can tell I'm out of shape!

Well, I am in a shape, it's just not the one I would prefer! ;-) That dishonest, lying cur of a machine told me a blatant one this morning - it told me something that cannot possibly be true! I simply can't weigh that much! Not after all that dieting I did a few, er, months ago and have neglected since... :-(

Oh well. Back on the diet. And I'll be glad when my latest construction project is finished - I'm aching in muscles I forgot I had! (I think they've been breeding. I'm absolutely positive I didn't have some muscles where I ached last night the last time I ached this much/all over...)

Right, back to it.

Carolyn Ann

The job changed...

So the closet job expanded in scope...

It quickly became apparent that there was no, and I mean "no" as in nada, zip, nowt, fresh air, framing in the closet walls. Sheetrock was basically hanging up on a few nails; joins were held together by a bit of tape and a prayer. The prayer wasn't working.

So I ripped out all most of the sheetrock and reframed the space. What a job! It's a heck of a lot easier to frame something in when there isn't a full (& finished) closet on the other side of a wall. Ah well. The framing is done; all I have to do is spray some foam insulation, re-rock the walls, some taping and mudding and then I can move onto the electrical and painting. It should be finished by this time tomorrow. ... Assuming nothing else goes wrong. Which, in this house, is a dubious bet.

Carolyn Ann

The Koch bros. start a database...

More on this in a wee while. I just wanted to say "That's scary!"

The (in)famous Koch brothers, the new owners of the Republican Party, have started a database that tracks all conservative, tea party and Republican voters and supporters. Nationwide.

If that doesn't scare, you're probably working on the database.

Carolyn Ann

Staying in the (entry) closet...

I'm feeling a little like Mike Holmes, right now. :-)

The home improvement "Mr Fix It", frequently laments about how projects increase in scope. He goes in to fix a bedroom and ends up rebuilding the entire house - that sort of thing. I've got my own version going... ;-)

The Mrs decided she needed some more space in her closet. So... I'm putting it together. I've taken to calling it the "anterior closet", even though anterior isn't the correct word to use... I should call it the entry closet! :-)

Just as you enter her closet, it's an old bathroom that I removed and reconstructed, there's a shallow linen closet. That would be perfect for her baskets of scarves, jewelry boxes and the like. So, if I move the door to where the old bathroom door was, she has a nice 3 foot "entry" into her closet proper. The problem is the linen closet. There are two such closets on the 2nd (UK 1st) floor of the house; one was the bathroom closet (duh...) and the other is a proper-ish linen closet. Well... I never checked the construction of them. You know how it is, you glance into the closet, see the finish and shelves and that's that. I should have peered behind the doors. Because there's no sheetrock on those walls!

That actually explains a lot. Why the upstairs was so cold in winter, for example. There's literally nothing between the cold air of the vented attic space and the insides of those closets. So the closets got cold, and then, with the cheap and crappy builder-quality doors, the air then leaked out. No draft, per se - just very cold air seeping out of those spaces.

So now I'm busy closing those spaces off. Obviously the Mrs needs a different shelving arrangement; so now I have to figure that out as well. And a light is needed, which means new electrical. And then the lipstick and mascara of paint and trim and... A job I figured would take up most of Saturday has become a 3 day saga! Four if I keep up my current progress.

Right, break time is over. I'd better get on with it. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Sometimes satire is lost

If thy need proof that some fail to grasp satire, desire as they do that all conveyance of ideas be literal, loom no further than Miz Know It All's latest attempt at outrage. :-)

It contains this video, upon which she confides that words fail her (there's a first).   :-)

(Warning: it's a little risqué... )

The "money quote"? Deena's:

MKIA would you please send a link to that video to Autumn Sandeen. Title it "I have a dream".

Thanks

C'est la vie.

Occasionally, satire is a lost cause.

Added:
Sometimes I just want to return the favor of someone's bitchiness. Mission accomplished, etcetera. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Meaningless reflections?

I was thinking about Kim Kardashian - the reality show star who got married and divorced so quickly, to so much outrages, etc. She's like Andy Warhol's soup cans: meaningless. And yet there's something about her meaningless; like the Campbell soup cans, or the Brillo box picture(s? I forget...), she (sort of?) reflects society, and acquires meaning because of, through, that.

There are other young women who have managed the same, but I don't think any has taken "it", whatever it is, to the same plateau as Andy Warhol. Mind you, I'm quite sure I wouldn't know if they had!

I want to say she's vacuous, but she isn't. The coverage of her life is, and the outrage at her short-lived marriage is vacant of meaning or implication. The soup cans still reflect us, our society; they are an imperfect reflection. Not a fun-house mirror's reflection, either. An incomplete reflection, an inaccurate one. The soup cans are slightly cynical, but you're never quite sure if the can is the target of their sarcasm or you, the viewer, are. (Perhaps both?) Unlike René Magritte's "This is not a pipe", Andy Warhol's soup cans don't tell us they are not a soup can, or that they a mere representation of soup cans - they are simultaneously both. (Mind you, the soup cans aren't quite as disturbing as Mr Magritte's picture!)

Like many of these famous young women, Ms Kardahsian shares their beauty and constructed glamor. Where Lady Gaga is a kind of Frank Gehry-esque figure, challenging orthodoxy in an often beautiful way, Ms Kardashian is more like Andy Warhol's soup cans. Brilliantly orthodox and not, all at the same time. Is she a reflection of "us", or do "we" seek that reflection? It's like catching a glimpse of something familiar in the mirror, but never being able to see it fully reflected, or finding the actual thing itself. The voyeur imposes meaning upon Ms Kardashian; the paparazzi help us find a context, or do they provide it?   So many questions! And they don't have answers!

It's quite fascinating, really. I don't think there is any meaning to any of it, but I'm slightly perturbed by the fact that there actually is meaning in that meaningless.

Carolyn Ann

As they always do...

Oy vey! It's never ending! All the "stuff" that needs doing around here. And then there's the little side trips to fetch this or that - lots of gasoline and time. Oh well. Shrug.

The Mrs made a beef and onion pie the other night - by golly it was Good! I just really fancied a beef and onion pie with some chips that night. But heading to the Chip Shop in Brooklyn was out of the question, and the British place in Haddonfield isn't that good, so that left making one. The Mrs is really good at improvising, so she figured out what was needed and viola! Beef and onion pie. :-) But no chips. :-( We forgot to pick some up (and even if there were some spuds in the house, we have no way of frying them. Stace's solution notwithstanding...) Oh well. It was still very, very good! :-)

Today I'm staying in the closet. :-)

The Mrs wants her closet extending about a yard; as the space exists (it needs painting and a door), it'll only take a few hours to finish. And about a week for me to find the needed tools. Which have undoubtedly wandered off from where I put them, as they always do...

Right, onwards! I need more coffee...

Carolyn Ann

Masculinity... Defined?

The falsetto of Robert Plant. The primeval, gut-wrenching tones of Jimmy Page. Plant, strutting across the stage, wearing his trophy, some little blue number he's ripped from some wench, bare chested. Jeans that reveal more than if the man was naked. Jimmy Page, lit up like some demon, torturing his instrument and his listener - challenging us to challenge him, invoking that primal god of lust.

And some idiot of a radical feminist asserts that "deep down, all men know they are shit".

Yeah. Idiots abound. Excuse me while I go revel for a moment. :-)

Carolyn Ann

"C++ is a horrible language" Or: where Mr Torvalds reprises the role of Mr De Kooning to great success

There was an interesting little putdown from Linus Torvalds, he of Linux and git (a programming tool; and yes, it was named for precisely the reason you think it was...), on DZone. "C++ is a horrible language" the blurb said. "Yeah, we know that", I thought. (Have you tried Objective-C? It's worse.) I clicked. And was led to this little bit of "by now" internet lore.

The nutshell (I'm making it a habit to include a nutshell, a "tl;dr", etc): someone criticized the code for git, the programmers tool, because Mr Torvalds used an ancient language, C. (The inventor of that language, Dennis Ritchie, died not too long ago. I don't know why you need to know that. He was a clever chap, anyway.) And Mr Torvalds proves he's as big a dick as Steve Jobs. Well, he's trying to. Except Mr Jobs came up with things of beauty and Mr Torvalds came up with Linux. (Don't get me started on BSD, the foundation of Mac OS X.)

Look, C++ is horrible. C is worse. Mr Torvalds adopts the tone and (literal?) posture of someone who says "I cut all my dovetails by hand - it's the only way!" And anyone who's tried making money with handout joinery thinks "so that's why you're the amateur". Even worse, he's like the man who insists that Japanese joinery, sans glue and nails, is the only way to go. Mr Torvalds reasoning is, to be blunt, as stupid as his argument. The expression of an abstraction is important? Why? An abstraction can be found wanting no matter the language. Perhaps Mr Torvalds is not as able to differentiate between the idea and the expression of the idea as he might like us to think he is?

Ah. Another analogy. :-) Willem de Kooning once screeched at Andy Warhol "You destroyed art!" As his reply makes clear, Mr Torvalds is playing the role of Mr de Kooning.

Carolyn Ann

The mind boggles...

Apparently you can now take a concealed gun into the Wisconsin government building. But you can't take a concealed camera.

Some things just go beyond "mind boggling".

Carolyn Ann

Internet groping to celebrating the trivial. Yeah, well. Some can't help themselves.

Here's an interesting one... Dan Savage, the man who managed to associate Rick Santorum with anal sex, was glitter bombed the other day. (I want to know how come I've managed to use Bilerico for source material - and I don't even read the thing! Oh, yeah. Other people do, and I follow the links.) Mr Savage is known for being a tad transphobic. So it's not surprising he was glitter bombed. At least he now has something in common with Newt Gingrich. :-)

Here's the interesting bit: a couple of the usual transsexual separatists* they've decided that this latest glitter bombing is, er, important! How about that?! Putting aside their usual inconsistency, I'm not sure this is important. The man is known to lump transsexual women and transgender women into one big happy (?!?) family. He doesn't differentiate. Fortunately the transsexual separatists do. ;-) And they think it's an own goal for "the transgenders". I can't follow their logic - there's none to follow - but surely letting someone know that transphobia is in poor taste... Ah. I just figured it out. :-)

They're transphobic and they feel a need to support other transphobic folk. Even if that person is as anti-transsexual as they are anti-transgender.

What is interesting is how some people think this whole story is important. So they've gone from discussing the truly important stuff (yeah, well) like figuring out how to surreptitiously grope someone to trivialities.

At least they're talking themselves into irrelevance. Excuse me while I stand on the sidelines and cheer them on. :-D

Carolyn Ann

* No links. They don't need the traffic and it would simply feed the trolls gratify those particular individuals. :-)

State of the GOP (it's quite disgraceful, really)

The GOP is in a right old state! ;-)

They've got Mitch McConnell doing his level best to keep the economy stagnant (and hoping no one notices his mawkish hand), they've got Mittens consistently in the race and their Saviors keep tripping over themselves. Just to make things that bit worse, it looks increasingly no one but Mittens will be left standing!

As a public service, I'll summarize the competition as it stands now...

Mittens: Not quite on top. As always, lots like him and then remember he's not a Christian and in league with the devil or something. And then they don't like him so much. Has ever-evolving positions - they evolve depending on who he thinks is listening. He hasn't noticed no one is; they dozed off when he got on stage.

Herminator: A pizza topping. Current "not Mittens" front-runner. Prone to more gaffes than his two main competitors. Blew a commanding lead of ahem, yeah, that was good game, by being himself. Unfortunately being yourself works only if you're likable. So much for authenticity.

Rickety Rick: After his wonderful marijuana-fueled or booze-addled speech, the man is on the top of a world. It's just not this one. His penchant for being an Evangelical Christian from Texas has people worried - he might remind voters of another Evangelical Christian from Texas who happened to ruin the economy and lead the nation into two wars, neither of which he really paid attention to.

Michele the Belle: Who? Is she still in the race?

The Other Rick: Good grief. Hasn't he run out of money yet?

The Neutered Newt: Is still trying to prove his virility. He could play the lead in a porn movie and no one would be convinced, "He's photoshopped!"

Randy Ron: Sartorially challenged, the man, and his supporters, love his irrelevance, embracing it as they would a prickly skunk.

The Mandarin: Jon Huntsman is still in the race. Astonishingly.

I think that's it. No need to thank me. :-)

Carolyn Ann