When Prayer Isn't Enough.
Practical thoughts on how Westerners can help with the situation in Tibet.
Contra Mark Steyn's wife, it does seem as if awareness of the situation is helpful—so those little bumper stickers she decries in her cameo in American Alone may not be as unhelpful as she fears.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:17 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
What Is It with the New OS?
So, I'm just scrolling along, minding my own business, when the freakin' scrollbar decides that because I'm reading, and skimming headlines, and . . . whatever . . . I must want it to go faster. So it just decides to go faster, and it skips past some text. So I have to keep going back to where I was before.
I can't find it in Safari preferences. I can't find it in the OS preferences. I just don't know how to fix it, and it's fucking pissing me off.
I do not care about being homeless. I do not care about not having time or space to wash my hair. I do not care about having to do 1.5 hours of housework, very quickly, every morning before I leave the house. I do not even care about the leftward listing "current affairs" bookshelf at my local bookstore/coffee house.
What I care about is the fucking insane turbo-scrolling that goes on in my windows, when I don't want it to. And I'm out for blood.
1
Attila, it might not be the OS. If you're using a laptop (this has happened to all of my previous Dells) it might be the touchpad/mouse keys embedded below the keyboard. After a time, those keys become hyper-sensitive and the first symptom is a jumping cursor (moving drastically from one point to another). Next comes "turbo-scrolling" such as you describe. If this is true, then installing a mouse and disabling the touchpad would cure it.
Took me two laptops to figure out that particular trick. Now I keep a small mouse in my bag for any time I'm not on a docking station.
If that's not the problem, kindly disregard my entire comment.
Cheers.
Posted by: Woody at March 29, 2008 10:00 AM (N7uu0)
2
I think it's an undocumented feature. Apple has added some of the gestural actions from iPhone to the OS. I've noticed some strange scrolling issues not just in Safari but other apps as well.
I don't think the software that's supposed to tell it don't do that is working right.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 29, 2008 01:09 PM (R7LgM)
I'm afraid that I tend to toggle back and forth a bit on subsidized biofuels, just as I did with the space program.
But I'd like to see the former go private, just as the latter is starting to.
And, ethanol. Ugh. Homey don't play that.
But I think we need to remember that all of the alternative fuels are in their infancy. Of course they are not efficient yet. We're still identifying, um, as Edison might have put it, "ways to do it that don't work."
That doesn't mean that there isn't a way that will.
1
I meant corn ethanol, of course. And I may feel differently about those systems that use every part of the corn plant, including the stalks, etc.
Though I do share Glenn Reynolds' squeamishness about making fuel out of foodstuffs.
The point is, we aren't there yet in terms of information-gathering, so it isn't time to start throwing rocks.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 29, 2008 11:33 AM (BYH4x)
2
The old dictum that the government which governs least, governs best, is quite applicable to the debate on subsidizing anything, including biofuels.
People get subsidies not because their product should be saved or promoted, but because they have friends in Congress.
And the way the government moves (slowly, and listening to only the subset of the people that buy lunches for Congressmen), we will likely find ourselves years down a path that is ultimately unworkable before we learn it's a bad idea.
Posted by: John at March 30, 2008 09:43 AM (vVb85)
It's Official: I'm Completely Insane.
I cannot decide how I'm going to handle the offers on the house that haven't even come in yet, and are of undetermined amounts. And quantity.
All I know is, the real estate agent wants to move quickly. The husband wants to move quickly. And part of me wants to either counterbalance that, or see some damned good reasons why I shouldn't.
This whole process is really nervewracking. This one little business deal is going to make such a big difference in our lives over the next few years.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:32 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
RWN's Top Blogs
Unfortunately, John got the "Honorable Mentions" mixed up with the actual 1-40 Top Blogs, inadvertently ranking small fry like that "Instapundit" fellow above . . . me. Can you imagine?
So when you read his post, just mentally swap those two lists, and all will be well.
More on TSA's "Nippleringgate."
Well, yes. It does make for good joke fodder.
But it's only funny in a grim sort of way. When I flew to Chicago in the spring of 2002, I managed to get the underwire out of one of my bras (the metal detectors were set on "stun" at the time).
1
I managed to walk through security with my cellphone *in my pocket* the last time I flew.
I was shocked when I discovered what they didn't discover. And worse yet, on the same trip my dear esposa somehow got through with a canister of mace attached to her purse that she forgot to pack in the checked luggage.
Y-yikes!!
Posted by: Desert Cat at March 28, 2008 09:15 PM (DIr0W)
2
The mace should have shown up. The phone--I'm not so sure. Very common item for people to have, particularly if it is simply a cell phone, and not loaded down with explosives.
I still hate it when they confiscate my water; flying without water is awful. I always pack a child-size empty water bottle in my purse, so I can fill it up at a water fountain or restroom faucet on the other side of security. But if I forget to empty it before I hit the screeners, they will take it. (LAX has lined barrels wherein you can empty your bottles before you get in line for security. Much appreciated.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 29, 2008 06:40 AM (Hgnbj)
Newsflash: Genies Don't Gently Back Into That Good Bottle.
Nope; I haven't seen FITNA yet. That has to do with being temporarily homeless: until I get a headset for the Mac, it seems rude to watch videos of any kind here at Camp Lefty.
And when I go home at night I'm only really interested in two things: 1) how many household tasks can I accomplish before I bed, and 2) once I'm in bed, how soon can I be unconscious?
If you were looking for the vid, it's here, via Ace, who editorializes, in his inimitable style: "Fuck you." (Apparently, he's back on the "F-word" again, which means he's probably back on cigarettes.)
But, really. It's all about me, no?—
I should clean my car out and find a quiet place to park it; I caught up with sleep last night and I'm all Ritalined-up right now, but I know I'm going to want to sleep in that thing at some point before we go into escrow.
I've been told that we may be in escrow by this time next week. And because I'm the bull terrier in the family, I have to decide how far we should compromise on price before the written offers start to roll in on Monday afternoon.
The way I play this next week will determine the way A the H and I live for the next 2-5 years. Ick.
And I haven't showered since Tuesday. I haven't washed my hair since last Saturday. I haven't worn makeup in two weeks. I look, in short, like hell.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:41 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.
David Corn Sees RACISM! in the McCain Campaign.
Racism! I tell you.
Yup. I buy it: any time anyone uses the term "American" in a seemingly Pro-American fashion, they're using code language. They are anti-black, or anti-Semitic, or anti-funny-name or anti-Whatever-It-Is-That-You-the-Voter-Are.
Even if one of the candidates has a spouse who's putting this country down every chance she gets.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:16 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
Congratulations!
Not only are you safe from the danger posed by keyring-sized pocket knives and tweezers; you're now also safe from body jewelry!
Hooray! Thank you, TSA! I say, let the terrorists grow their eyebrows out! That'll teach 'em.
UPDATE: Gloria Allred is involved, now. Insty says the expression on her face is "scary," but IIRC that's her normal expression: she favors the severe schoolmarmish look.
I'm glad that the woman who was picked on by silly people at the TSA is pursuing this. And I'm glad she has a staunch defender in Gloria—though sometimes, to be perfectly honest, Gloria unwittingly reminds me what the things are that I don't like about feminism. And about many attorneys (sorry, Glenn et al.).
1
Just another stick for the raving libertarian fire in me.
I don't know, just guessing here, but I suspect the legislation that established the TSA probably is loaded with protections barring lawsuits against the TSA or its employees.
Posted by: Desert Cat at March 28, 2008 05:59 AM (DIr0W)
2
It's not policy. You give some people a little authority and they abuse it. Give the Left any authority and you'll curse the day you were born.
Posted by: Darrell at March 28, 2008 01:16 PM (m4uCe)
3
But the tweezers thing is policy. So, not only is the policy crazy, but the implementation gets even crazier than policy suggests it should.
I mean, I've never been asked to take off the jewelry on my earlobes. Totally unnecessary. I was once asked by a security screener at an event what the metal item was in my pocket. "I don't need to see it," he told me. "I just need to know what it is." (It was a lipstick tube.)
I also don't want to put too fine a point on this, but ANY WOMAN who has breasts of any heft whatsoever has to wear an underwire bra. Once the TSA has decided it can hassle people for body jewelry, it's well within its rights to make me take my bra off, which is just silly.
From then, it's requiring those with pacemakers and artificial knees to rip them out. We cannot take the attitude that "all my piercings are in conventional places, so this isn't a problem." It's a big problem.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 28, 2008 01:42 PM (BYH4x)
4
Tweezers can be machined to use as screwdrivers; same with small pocket knives. If you have a separate plastic handle made for it, you'll have the torque of a full-size version. Why? To assemble/disassemble something you're not supposed to. With a handle, those little tweezers/knives can be made into formidable weapons.
Not all underwire bras use metals. Plus they sell "frequent flier" bras that avoid the use of any metal, even for the clasps/hooks/closures. Then there's always something like the Bra-llelujah(Spanx). Seems like they need mechanical engineers in the bra-biz, with a knowledge of Aramid fibers and such. When faced with a problem like airport security or global warming, "engineer" types like you and me look for workarounds, not taxes or grumbling.
This is as good a time as any to show you some amazing new materials/uses coming up.
http://www.flixxy.com/smart-materials-demo.htm
Posted by: Darrell at March 28, 2008 09:05 PM (N7Liw)
The Obama-Clinton Tie
Karl at Protein Wisdom points out that the superdelegates are going to have to sing for their supper this time around:
While Cost (and I agree) that Clinton remains a long shot, the spate of media stories reminding us of this should be read in light of the fact that Obama, like Clinton, stands little to no chance of winning the nomination based on elected delegates. Many superdelegates may wish for a deus ex machina, but it is not forthcoming.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:17 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.
How India Can Help Tibet, While Helping Itself.
Rajiv Sikri writes in Rediff India on the ways in which Indian diplomacy could help to resolve the Indian border dispute with Tibet (China)—without undermining the Tibetan uprising:
While formulating its policy on Tibet, India has to keep in mind that it is uniquely placed vis-a-vis Tibet, and therefore must have a unique policy that conforms to its national interests, irrespective of what the rest of the world says or does. No other country has as important stakes in peace and stability in Tibet as India does. A Tibet in ferment makes India's Himalayan frontiers unstable and insecure. As a democratic country that is hosting such a large number of Tibetans, India has a legitimate interest in what happens in Tibet. Since developments in Tibet have direct consequences for India, Tibet cannot be, as the Left parties in India make out, just an internal matter of China.
If there is a severe crackdown on the Tibetans, it is likely to lead to an increased Chinese military presence in regions close to India's borders, which would have implications for India's own defence planning. It will also inevitably trigger off a fresh influx into India of Tibetan refugees, whom India would find it difficult to turn away on practical and humanitarian grounds.
In subsequent official statements and/or through authoritative but deniable unofficial channels, India could emphasise that while it firmly upholds the principles of supporting the territorial integrity of duly constituted states and non-interference in other states' internal affairs, its own experience shows that the peace and stability of multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural societies requires dialogue and accommodation within a democratic framework.
Ethnic and separatist problems require political solutions that give every citizen the confidence of being an equal stakeholder in the state. India expects that China would put in place policies that would stabilize Tibet and give the Tibetan Diaspora in India the confidence that they can return to their homeland.
India needs to take full advantage of an important nuance, perhaps unintended, in India's acceptance of Tibet as a part of China: India has merely conceded that the "territory of the Tibetan Autonomous Region is a part of the People's Republic of China;" it has not accepted that Tibet (whose borders historically and in the minds of the Tibetans extend beyond the Tibetan Autonomous Region) was always a part of China. As a matter of fact, Tibet was quite independent of Chinese rule and had all the attributes of a sovereign state between 1913 and 1950.
Traditionally, thousands of Indian pilgrims have made pilgrimages to Mount Kailash and Mansarovar lakes in Tibet without needing any permission from the Chinese authorities. If China can lay claim to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh on the grounds of its cultural, historical and spiritual links with Tibet, the case for India's claim to Kailash-Mansarovar region on similar reasoning is probably more substantive. Secondly, if at any time in the future the People's Republic of China were to give way to another entity India could well argue that it is not obliged to recognize Tibet as a part of any new political entity of China. Of course, this is a hypothetical scenario, but the Chinese would not miss such nuances and subtleties.
India needs to take a leaf out of China's book in the matter of observance of solemn bilateral commitments. Just as China, contrary to the agreements with India in 2003 and 2005, has re-opened very aggressively its claim to Arunachal Pradesh, has still not fully accepted Sikkim as a part of India, and does not want an early settlement of the boundary question, India too should subtly reopen the whole question of the legitimacy of China's claim to Tibet, which is the basic foundation for China to make any territorial claim on India.
There could be many ways in which India could introduce some nuances in its traditional policy. For example, India could state that it considers Tibet, as an autonomous region, to be a part of the territory of the People's Republic of China -- the implication being that it is only if Tibet is a truly autonomous region that India recognises it as a part of China.
Ironically, China, in welcoming the Indian approach during the recent uprising, has given legitimacy to India's unofficial policy shift. The Chinese should be made aware that subtle shifts in India's Tibet policy will continue, and that India will remove the ambiguities in its Tibet policy only under the following conditions: firstly, if the situation on the ground permits it (very unlikely if China persists with its present repressive policies); secondly, if there is a definitive settlement of the boundary issue; and, finally, only as a quid pro quo for China recognising all of Jammu & Kashmir as an integral part of India.
1
It looks like China is going to pull a Ministry of Truth operation on Tibet, and do their utmost to erase all signs of a non-Chinese Tibet from Tibet.
And shoot any Tibetan who objects, of course.
Posted by: John at March 28, 2008 06:21 AM (qjfbN)
Hullo from Camp Lefty.
Day Three of the Prospective Buyers' Seige. At least three parties went through the house yesterday, and five are going through today.
I've been informed that if I want to, I may go home briefly between 4:00 and 5:00.
What I really want to do is (1) shower, and (2) sleep. Not necessarily in that order.
I'm tempted to try to nap in my car, but in this town there's a very real risk that I'd get arrested for vagrancy or something.
My schedule: I get up, fold the laundry, wash the dishes, make the bed, light the candles, turn on all the lights, and leave the house. Then I come home and clean/straighten/rearrange knicknacks for a few hours before going to bed again—or trying to.
Then I wake up. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I'm essentially a live-in domestic servant for potential La Canada homeowners, so if we don't get an offer that's a few hundred thousand north of what we are asking, I'm going to be kind of annoyed.
1
I'm watching closely.
If you can sell, then surely I can sell.
Posted by: Desert Cat at March 27, 2008 02:59 PM (Q8AsJ)
2
Do potential buyers want to see your house looking clean and sparkly so they can trust you on more invisible questions, like the state of the drains?
or are they buying a fantasy? That is, do they think, oh look, this couple had their coffee in this charming breakfast nook; therefore, my spouse and I, though we've never had time for breakfast before, will sit and chat in like manner.
I think they're buying a lifestyle, which suggests that they're incapable of producing or importing their own. Sad, really.
So, your job is produce a canvas on which they can project a life better than the one they're living. One with more time for meals, conversation, wine, sex, good books, and self-worth.
Leave out some books (Pride and Prejudice, maybe some poetry books --warm poetry, cummings, not Plath or Pound!), a trowel and flowerpot and seeds, a smart, happy movie (O Brother Where Art Thou or Best in Show), and a very small bowl of chocolate (metonymizing your ability to balance pleasure and self-control).
Or am I wrong? Should you leave out a crack pipe and some really gross porn, so they can revel in a sense of superiority instead?
Who can say? Who knows what lurks in the inscrutable heart of the viewing public?
fuck 'em all!
you have my sympathies, babe! and if I had a spare $$$$$$ wad o' cash, I'd buy your house and spare you this hullabaloo!
Posted by: Rin at March 27, 2008 03:09 PM (pzH6j)
3Do potential buyers want to see your house looking clean and sparkly so they can trust you on more invisible questions, like the state of the drains
We're on our 4th house (retired military). People want to envision how they could live in your space. That's why it's best to remove a lot of furniture, keep the personal items to a minimum and yes, keep it clean and sparkly.
I think they're buying a lifestyle, which suggests that they're incapable of producing or importing their own. Sad, really.
Nope. What they're doing is trying to look past YOUR lifestyle to see how THEY would fit into that house. Dirt, clutter etc. are static that get in the way of doing that.
And yes, it's a hassle. We had 4 dogs when we sold our last house. I repainted, floors were refinished etc. and EVERY TIME someone came to see the house there were zero - and I do mean zero - traces of the dogs anywhere.
We got a cash offer for close to our asking price, with minimal other demands. The buyers commented that we had obviously cared for the house well.
For what it's worth. And yeah, it's a hassle. Hang in there!
Posted by: rkb at March 27, 2008 04:03 PM (GbgRr)
4
It's a little different for us, since our asking price is below market, given how much extra land they get.
My office is still cluttered, but it's the smallest room in the house. By the time they see that, they've already decided whether or not they're in love.
I should have tat fixed by the time the open house comes 'round, this weekend. And I'm still not perfectly happy with the gleamage of the floors.
Frankly, though, with the land and the view and the mid-century construction, the house is selling itself.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 27, 2008 06:08 PM (Hgnbj)
Look. I Know Everyone's Going to Get Mad at Me Again,
but I think it's interesting that men can now get pregnant.
Transgendered men, but . . . men nonetheless.
I mean, I know it's a rather challenging topic, and I do remember finding out that my ex-girlfriend was now cross-living, and IM'ing about this new development with a prominent blogger.
"Wait a minute," he asked. "If the disconnect is due to the person being 'mentally' the other gender, why couldn't simply change this person's brain chemistry? I mean, to be politically incorrect about it."
Well," I explained, "in many cases it isn't about the human brain. It's about genetic irregularities, and those are immutable. To my knowledge, one cannot change one's chromosomes. They are, after all, in every freakin' cell in our bodies."
"You know," he confided, "men don't like the idea that they might be dating a girl, and find out that she'd once been a man. It's just weird to us."
"Oh, okay," I responded. "In that case, we should outlaw gender-reassignment surgery, cross-living, and probably even cross-dressing. I didn't realize it was making you uncomfortable."
Okay: I didn't say that. I think I wrote: "interesting; gotta go. Working in the office tonight. Please link me soon, 'kay?"
Just think about it. This kind of thing is not very common, but it does happen. It worries me that we seem to be lumping it in with homosexuality. Truth be told, there is some overlap: I think people with a gender-disconnect often flee to the gay community (and its "agenda," which is bound in crocodile and contains a Mont Blanc pen), but I'm not sure that is how it would go if the mainstream were more accepting.
When, for example, did The Advocate become a "transgender" publication? And why do we use the designation LGBT all over the place? Furthermore, why are left-handed people excluded from that grouping? Are left-handed people not real "equals" in the LGBT community?
And why can't we simply give left-handed people drugs to make them right-handed? Not, you know, to be politically incorrect about it . . . but they make me uncomfortable. I mean, I give someone a document to sign, and suddenly they're angling the paper in the wrong direction. I don't like it.
1
Yes, I too find it interesting that someone born a biological female can get pregnant. Who knew?
Posted by: Darrell at March 27, 2008 07:50 AM (N5/7f)
2
"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked."
I seem to recall reading that the uterus is itself not necessary for childbearing. Evidently a fertilized ovum, placed in the abdomen outside of the uterus, will develop a placenta and begin to develop. The chief advantage of the uterus is that it has an exit point already installed.
Posted by: John at March 27, 2008 08:55 AM (GEvnN)
3
The immune system may have something to say about that, irrespective of what's "possible". And Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. ("Junior")
Posted by: Darrell at March 27, 2008 09:42 AM (N5/7f)
4
I guess I just don't understand how a person can feel any particular gender at all. I mean, I was a tomboy, I like being a stay at home mom. I had a career, I like math. Should I be confused?
I guess what makes me uncomfortable about it is that it seems very stereotypey if you think you like X so you can't be Y gender. Or is it different? I quite honestly don't know. I just know I was the ungirly girl, but I never thought, "Hey! I must really be a man inside!"
Hmm.
Posted by: silvermine at March 27, 2008 12:31 PM (4gdyI)
5
Well, I certainly relate to that, inasmuch as I keep telling people that I must really be a 17-year-old male inside: after all, I like guns and trains, and I think about sex a lot (but I repeat myself . . .).
And I have a streak of the engineer in me, mentally: it doesn't manifest itself in being good at math (quite the opposite, really), but in a desire to make things precise that cannot necessarily become precise, and in a sort of absent-minded disconnect from the world around me, from time to time.
Do I really know any "girly girls"? I don't know anyone who can live up to the notion of being feminine all the time. I don't know anyone who wants to.
But at the same time I'm not particularly feminine, I'm very, very female. So even if my brain is androgynous, I don't have any reason to suspect that my chromosomes are irregular.
Plus, I have great breasts. I could see trimming them back a bit so I could run, but I wouldn't want to get rid of them entirely. (My mother, after her breast-reduction surgery: "Great start! When are we going to get the rest of it?")
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 27, 2008 01:26 PM (BYH4x)
6
Does it matter more who the person you're dating thinks s/he is, or who you experience him/her as? That is, when I dated a girl (oooh, a girl!), I had the experience of dating a girl. The fact that that person now says he was always a guy doesn't change the experience that I had. It may cast an interesting new light on that experience, but it doesn't change it so fundamentally that I now have to say I never dated a girl. Does it?
But then again, what's most important, at least to me, is that that person then and this person now are smart, funny, eclectic, loud, supportive, and kooky.
Do we really choose our partners based on their gender identity -- either the one they seem to be defined by or some secret one -- or on whether they're cool and groovy, kind and funny? The latter, I hope.
Which is not to say that gender and genitals shouldn't matter. You like what you like. But what you like most should be a personality, character, worldview, sense of humor, and commitment to human decency. Oh, and good teeth. Definitely hold out for good teeth.
I guess, deep down, I'm a teethist.
Posted by: Rin at March 27, 2008 01:36 PM (pzH6j)
7
Well, on my personal scorecard, Joe counts as having dated a girl. Definitely. He was on the other side of the line at the time, and he had (and has) all the juicy girl equipment.
Though with a couple of other girls--even one who considered herself a hard-core dyke--I think more of the male part of my personality ascended. Just as when I had that fling with a male-to-female person, I experienced a sort of macho overprotectiveness that is difficult to explain, except that it's less vicious than feminine overprotectiveness. More reasoned, and less potentially violent. (When my maternal side is aroused, God help anyone who gets in the way of whomever I've decided I'm feeling overprotective toward.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 27, 2008 01:54 PM (BYH4x)
8
BTW, when we were teenagers my mother wondered if you and I might be involved, because we were so touch-feely.
"No, no," I told her. "It isn't a sexual relationship; just really sensual."
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 27, 2008 01:55 PM (BYH4x)
9
Despite the fact that you were unspeakably gorgeous (and I miss your curls!) and brilliant and sexy. And you still are.
I feel very fortunate to have been tucked under your protective girl-wing. I would not be where I am today without it; of that I'm sure.
Posted by: Rin at March 27, 2008 02:07 PM (pzH6j)
10
Hmm. I dunno. I suspect after what I am about to write I might find myself a couple of hundred feet away with a gigantic boot print somewhere on my back...side.
Nevertheless.
I disapprove of homosexuality. That's fine by me. I suspect I disapprove of homosexuals too. I'd go so far as to say that I viscerally have a problem with someone I know to be out and out. This part, not so great, but at this stage I'm not sure I can change.
Which is somewhat of an issue, because when it comes to trannies, especially the really, really passable ones, well... anyways, let's just say my lower-body brain doesn't always agree with my skull-encased brain.
First, the main point of the post. Has anyone read the Bicentennial Man? I swear, Isaac Asimov, atheist/agnostic that he is, must have just a apark of divine intervention, because that story carries with it everything you ever want to know about the SRS thingy today. Andrew Martin went to a whole lot of trouble, even to the extent of killing himself slowly, to be recognised as a Man.
Rather, I should have said, R. Andrew went to a whole lot of trouble, even to the extent of destroying itself slowly, to have the World President declare it a Bicentennial Man. Even though it was not then, and would never be, a man.
That is the long and short of it. You cannot assign so-called 'gender' roles and say that it's based on your deep feelings. We need objective reality to guide us, and if you can't shove your penis in a vagina and make babies, and you do not have XY chromosomal patterns, then your malehood and manhood is extremely suspect.
Yes, I would say that if (if!) a woman can get her genes tweaked to grow herself a dick and balls (and hell, maybe the prostate), then she'd be a man (sort of the 'If your Aunt... she'd be your Uncle!" scenario). Pretty-boy kinda man, but a man. Similarly, if a man can tweak his genes to grow ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus etc, then he'd be a woman. Ugly - ass woman, maybe, but a woman.
But if it's just cosmetic surgery and hormone therapy, forget it. You're a man or a woman till you die. Life sux, get over it.
Now, having insulted quite a number of people, let me continue along those veins.
Rin, You'd better believe a whole lotta people, male and female both, choose their long-term sex partners based on reproductive capacity. AFAIK, about 99% of the world's population. Or more. Sure, I'd hit Patricia Araujo (and I've admitted as much before), but like I said, that's my lower-body brain talking. If I invested actual processing cycles on mate selection, you bet your ass I'd go for a woman with actual ovaries.
More to the point, personality can be grown and cultivated. Genitalia, not so much.
In my more drunken moments, though, I always thought the best 'marriage' would involve a man, a woman, a tomboy and a trannie. Just for the hell of it. Menage a what???!!!
And, just so you know, I was left-handed once. But thanks be to my parents, I have seen the light, and am now unequivocally right-handed. And I thank God for their guidance, because they increased my life expectancy by about 10 years or so.
But you know why I'm not so bothered about lefty-handy folk? They're not trying to telll me that it's 'normal', they're not trying to force my kids to see if they're left- or right-handed, and they're most definitely not forcing companies to accommodate their strange and unusual practices.
btw, it really was true, I was left-handed when I was young. My Mum had to tie my hand behind my back and force me to write with my right hand. I'm fine now. Honest. But I do more typing than writing.
And to try to answer your facetious question seriously, or semi-seriously, Atilla, it would probably be much, much better for left-handed people if there really was a procedure that would turn them into right-handed people. Southpaws tend to die younger, because this world is adapted for right-handed folk. Not that I'd force them, but the option would be a good one.
Posted by: Gregory at March 28, 2008 01:35 AM (cjwF0)
11
Gregory: I agree with almost none of what you say. And yet I swoon before your honesty. Naturally, I alienate a lot of my true SoCon friends when I post on homosexuality and on TS issues, but I'm not planning on shutting up any time soon.
Let me throw out the obligatory Koans:
- is an infertile woman less of a woman?
- is a man with a low sperm count less of a man?
- may I see the studies that correlate life expectancy with left-handedness? (I'm curious about the methodology: as one might expect, 33-45% of my friends are left-handed, which has to be unusual.)
- If you were to find out that no female-to-male transexuals had XX chromosomes, and no male-to-female transexuals had XY chromosomes, would that change your feelings about the matter?
- Does the fact that the Bible says nothing about gender reassignment change your feelings about the matter? (Especially given that Scripture is so disapproving about homosexuality?)
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 28, 2008 01:17 PM (BYH4x)
12
Are Gregory's feelings about homosexuals genetic in origin?
Posted by: John at March 29, 2008 11:02 AM (DvFud)
13
And won't that be just great: yet another excuse we shouldn't strive to change - I can't help myself!
1. And 2. No. Assuming they had the correct chromosomal patterns. XX and XY, iow.
3. It's not the 'native' or 'raw' life expectancy. It's the fact that because our urban world is predominantly set up for righties (scissors, knives, for all I know guns, mice, etc etc etc), southpaws tend to die from related accidents more ofen. Of course, if you had Ned's Leftorium in your neighbourhood, maybe it won't be so bad. I'll try to dig out the source, if you're really ineterested.
4. Definitely. I'm a big believer in chromosomes. If the doc chopped your dick off (accidentally! it happens) and tried to make you a girl with your parents' agreement, and you want to reclaim your manhood, I say go for it! For that matter, if you're a hermaphrodite (as opposed to a pseudo-hermaphrodite), then go ahead and choose. Or not, I don't particularly care.
5. The Bible doesn't say much about hentai tentacle rape dickgirl anime either, but I'm sure it's not a good idea to watch it...
Gosh, I musta srunk morere 'n I shuld...:hic>
Posted by: Gregory at March 30, 2008 09:53 PM (cjwF0)
Yeah. Chelsea.
I believe the translation is, "fuck you, hard and fast. No vaseline."
She's pretty hardy, for a hot-house flower.
Yeah, yeah: I know Bill and Hillary spent hours around the dinner table insulting her so she'd grow a tough hide. I also know that a memo came down from the division head at a prominent animation company here in L.A.--circa 1994--that said, "make fun of any public figure you want, except Chelsea Clinton."
So, either management overreacted to that infamous (and brutal, and uncalled-for) Saturday Night Live skit, or Hillary Clinton called every single contact she had in the entertainment industry, and--surprise!--they took the call from the First Lady, and created a sort of media blackout around Chelsea.
Personally, I think that should be the rule for underage children of Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Senators. But Amy Carter might see the issue differently.
And there is the fact that Chelsea enjoyed a lot of exotic Grand Tours on the public dime; furthermore, her starting salary right out of college was $100K annually. Which I don't begrudge her, but as a manager in a small publishing company, I pulled down $16K when a subsistence salary was closer to $27K.
This involved a lot of microwaved macaroni and cheese lunches, and a teary confrontation with the cleaning lady when she accidentally threw my mac 'n' cheese out on a Friday night; I'd counted on eating it the following day.
So, yeah. Chelsea looks hot, and poised. She should. I doubt the cleaning lady has thrown out her lunch too many times lately. Protein and a good colorist will do that for just about anyone.
1
The question involved Hillary's handling of the situation, during and after the revelation. Since Chelsea is a surrogate for her mother on the campaign trail, it is a legitimate question.
Posted by: Darrell at March 27, 2008 08:14 AM (N5/7f)
2
Actually, it was. She was just bristling because someone dared to use the "M" word in front of her.
But it will be perceived as an example of her meeting a challenge--even though the person who asked might have merely meant the question literally.
And it was a fair question--it was a "horse race" question, and one that had nothing to do with Chelsea's own feelings about her father's affair.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 27, 2008 11:13 AM (Hgnbj)
Recession-Proofing Your Life.
Hackbarth on the way bookstores cope with a changing economy, and why some industries (or segments thereof) are more resistant to the effects of a recession than others.
In late 2001/early 2002 I was working at The Food Magazine, and one of the insights its editor had was that when times get tough (a terrorist attack, the beginnings of a recession) it was good to be in an industry that was considered an affordable luxury. "People still have to eat," I was told. "And if they can't afford to go clubbing or go out to fancy restaurants, they'll entertain at home, or have dinner at home."
We started running a lot of "comfort food" on the covers of the magazines and cookbooks, and emphasizing a "back to basics" approach. Simple elegance. Less caviar, more chicken pot pies. Fewer celebrity chefs, more on the visceral pleasures of food.
Of course, for the upper crust (yeah; I meant that) cooking is an affordable hobby.
So what's that thing the you can do at a level that is perceived by those around you to be a special value? What is, to put it in Hackbarthian terms, the equivalent to stocking up on Young Adult paperbacks, and relying less on YA hardcover sales?
How do we survive? How do we thrive?
What in your life—emotionally, financially, temporally—is the equivalent of a blue-chip stock?
I have some ideas, but it's taken me a while because I happen to be a bit dimwitted.
1
We hunker down. We eat out less-much less. Netflix instead of the Regal Cinema. You can buy really good clothes off eBay rather than from the mall.
But we do eat better. I own a smoker; I can turn very inexpensive cuts of meat into savory treats that have my friends begging for more. A mango sliced up and served with nothing on it is special in itself.
Posted by: Gordon at March 28, 2008 06:06 PM (52nKX)
I guess what makes me uncomfortable about it is that it seems very stereotypey if you think you like X so you can't be Y gender. Or is it different? I quite honestly don't know. I just know I was the ungirly girl, but I never thought, "Hey! I must really be a man inside!"
Hmm.
And, just so you know, I was left-handed once. But thanks be to my parents, I have seen the light, and am now unequivocally right-handed. And I thank God for their guidance, because they increased my life expectancy by about 10 years or so.
But you know why I'm not so bothered about lefty-handy folk? They're not trying to telll me that it's 'normal', they're not trying to force my kids to see if they're left- or right-handed, and they're most definitely not forcing companies to accommodate their strange and unusual practices.
btw, it really was true, I was left-handed when I was young. My Mum had to tie my hand behind my back and force me to write with my right hand. I'm fine now. Honest. But I do more typing than writing.
And to try to answer your facetious question seriously, or semi-seriously, Atilla, it would probably be much, much better for left-handed people if there really was a procedure that would turn them into right-handed people. Southpaws tend to die younger, because this world is adapted for right-handed folk. Not that I'd force them, but the option would be a good one.
