dglenn's Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
dglenn's CommieJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Friday, July 3rd, 2009 | | 5:25 am |
QotD
"God Bless America, but God help Canada to put up with
them!" -- Anonymous | | Thursday, July 2nd, 2009 | | 12:06 pm |
Semantics, Gender, and 'Cis' An Important Message About Vocabulary
While I do have a particular instance in mind, this
little epistle is really in reaction to several comments,
essays, loaded questions, and diatribes I've seen over
the past three or four weeks in various places (though
I hadn't seen it blow up into a shouting match anywhere
until a couple of days ago). Note that if you don't know
what the verb 'to other' means, or how the umbrella term
'transgender' is used, you may have some homework to do
before getting into this. I expect that most of my readers
already know those concepts.
Folks, 'cisgendered' (or 'cisgender'1)
and 'cisssexual' really are intended to be neutral terms
and will be so until/unless some sort of general stigma gets
attached to the concept of living / identifying / presenting as the
gender society always expected of you because it was on your birth
certificate. I don't see that ever being likely. (I have a
hunch that I'll be responding to a lot of criticisms of this essay
by pointing back to this very pragraph, starting at that "until".)
It's important to note that there's no reclaiming of an
old slur involved, nor repurposing of a word with other
baggage, because 'cisgendered' was coined specifically for
this meaning and this purpose, and wasn't a word before that.
Any baggage the word has now has to have accrued entirely
over the last decade and a half.
('cisgendered', from 'cis-', "on the same side",
+ 'gender'; in contrast to 'trans-', "crossing over"; both
from Latin, and both prefixes used in Chemistry with similar
meanings.)
The reason it feels jarring -- "naming"?
"marking"? -- to you, and gets your hackles up is
quite simply that y'all are accustomed to being the
unmarked class, and giving you any
concise name is going to feel like an imposed label
that, because you're not used to having to acknowledge
a label at all, some of you start to suspect is somehow
insulting or denigrating.
"gender is like underwear: if it fits ya don't
notice. If it doesn't, you can't avoid noticing" --
LaughrioTgirl,
2009-06-30
Stop a minute and ponder for a moment the magnitude
and type of privilege that is contained in not
having to think about or acknowledge a label.
Compare that to TVs, TSes, DQs, DKs, GQs, and all
other subgroups of transgendered people. You don't
like it? Pick and popularize a different label, but
pick one that doesn't stigmatize everybody else
in contrast to it. That you now have a label
doesn't 'other' you; it merely makes you like
everybody else who has a label. If
one group gets to insist on
not having a label, that 'others'
everyone else. If we remove the
"default class" from you, that loss of privilege
you have a gut reaction to isn't because you're
being insulted; it's because the field just got
a tiny (tiny!) bit more level.
(Here's a big hint: 'normal' and 'real' fail the
doesn't-stigmatize-everyone-else condition
spectacularly. Prefixing 'man'/'woman' with 'bio-'
or 'genetic' or 'born' to denote not-trans, 'others'
the rest of us slightly more subtly, but only slightly,
and no less problematically. Either respect us, be an
ally, and use non-othering language; or admit up front
that you don't respect us -- that holding on to
your privilege is more important than supporting us --
so we can classify this as a variation on the "tone
argument" and write you off as Part Of The Problem.)
[1] While I learned 'transgendered' as having
'-ed' on the end to make it an adjective (and applied the
same pattern to 'cisgendered'), within the trans community
you will find many who use 'transgender' and 'cisgender'
as adjectives, without an '-ed' suffix. Some other
time, I'll post a poll about that and solicit grammatical
arguments. For now, if you're not already used to doing
so, just consider the two forms, with and without '-ed',
synonymous when used as the same part of speech.
Othering And Non-Othering Labels
| Othering |
| |
Not (or Less) Othering |
| Unmarked2 | Marked |
| |
Equally Marked | Equally Marked |
| normal | southpaw |
| |
right-handed | left-handed |
| straight | kinky |
| |
vanilla | kinky
| | straight | queer |
| |
het | gay, lesbian, bi
'queer' sometimes works here as well |
| faithful | poly |
| |
monogamous | polyamorous |
| regular guy | geek |
| |
lay user | techie |
| normal | deaf |
| |
hearing | deaf |
| real woman | tranny |
| |
cis woman |
trans woman |
| bio-man | transman |
| |
cis man | trans man |
[2] I've labelled one member of each row
"unmarked", though they're obviously no longer
completely unmarked in a list like this,
since they have acquired one or more form of
normalcy tag as a result of the 'other' being
talked about. In many situations these are
literally unmarked however, so that the Other
is assumed to be entirely absent unless specifically
mentioned by label.
This table illustrates othering combinations of labels,
and non-othering or at least less othering pairs.
Note that it is generally the name for the unmarked
state, and its implications of being normal/default/good/real, rather
than the name for the marked state, that makes the
unmarked/marked pairings problematical and othering.
'rightie'/'southpaw' would be fine, because the problem
with the first example isn't the word 'southpaw', it's
the claiming of right-handedness as the unmarked state.
The problem with 'normal'/'regular'/'real' should be
obvious; the flaw with 'straight' may be less so. If
that's the case for you, consider how many different layers of
meaning there are on the word 'straight': pure
(unadulterated), honest (not crooked), undamaged
(not bent), sober (not using drugs), clear (not
confusing or obfuscating). Now reconsider what message
you're sending by defining your class as 'straight'
and some other class as not-straight. (I did
not get this myself until a stranger took me to task
for using 'straight' to mean 'het', and even then my
first instinct was to get defensive about it instead of
thinking about what his point was.)
Note also that some of the marked/unmarked pairs have
problems of inaccuracy as well! Many people who do not
identify as polyamourous, are not in explicitly polyamorous
relationships, and even sneer at poly folk for being
immoral, cheat on their partners. And many
members of polyamorous N-ads are faithful to the promises
they've made to each other. A "genetic woman" (an older
usage that I don't hear as often nowadays) usually
only knows her exact chromosomal makeup if something
goes wrong that leads to a test -- we just assume that
babies who look female and grow up to be women are XX
because that's most likely, but we don't check ... and
a few transsexual individuals discover along the way
that they aren't the XX or XY their parents had assumed
they were (for a particularly well known example, see
Caroline Cossey, who is chromosomally XXXY).
Another set of terms, the cumbersome 'FAAB' and
'MAAB' meaning "female-assigned at birth" and "male-assigned
at birth", attempt to sidestep that problem by digging
down to what we usually mean to refer to anyhow: whether
the parents were told, "congratulations, you have a daughter,"
or, "congratulations, you have a son," when the individual
was born. Even "bio-" isn't a very meaningful label, since
all humans are still biological, trans or not. Note that
while 'FAAB' and 'MAAB' are useful in certain contexts when
discussing the ideas of sex and gender abstractly, when used
casually outside of that context they still reveal too much
emphasis on the idea that initially-apparent biology
= destiny, and can be used as sneakier ways of saying "real man"
or "real woman" for cisgendered in order to exclude trans
individuals from gendered spaces.
| Othering |
| |
Not Othering |
| Unmarked | Marked |
| |
Equally Marked | Equally Marked |
| real woman | trans woman |
| |
woman | woman |
| bio-man | transman |
| |
man | man |
Finally, note that in most everyday contexts
-- that is, normal social encounters and conversations
and most policy matters, not specific medical or
research or rights-activism contexts -- an even better
version of the last two rows of the table would look like
this version to the right --->
... but alas, I know there'll be a lot of pushback on
that, from various quarters. Some of which really ought
to know better. (There are some valid concerns there,
and the conflict between different sets of rights and needs
can be tricky to resolve, but more often the opposition
to this idea stems from simple, conscious or unexamined
cissexism.)
About Neutral vs. Non-Neutral Terms:
This started off with my observation of some
same-gender-the-delivery-room-doctor-thought-they'd-be
people's objections to being called 'cisgendered', and
complaining that it felt like a pejorative term (and one
they hadn't chosen for themelves). So let's compare some
value-neutral terms to some negative ones.
Value Neutral or pretty close |
Disparaging Or Worse |
| gay man, lesbian | fag, dyke, pansy, lezbo |
| heterosexual, het | breeder |
| parent | breeder |
| person of color | [I'm sure we can all come up with
far more examples to go here than
we need, and I really don't even
want to type most of those words] |
| indigenous peoples | savages |
| Arab | towel-head |
| Christian | Jesus freak, God-botherer |
| fundamentalist Christian | funnymentalist, Bible-thumper |
| fundamentalist with OT emphasis | Levitican |
| atheist, apathist | Godless heathen |
| Republican | Repug, Rethuglican |
| left-winger | moonbat |
transgendered person, trannsgender person, transsexual |
tranny3, shemale, he-she, it |
cisgender person, cisgendered person, cis person |
cissie or cissy4 |
[3] N.b.! There is ongoing debate within the
T* community over the use and attempted reclaiming of this
word by trans men. Many trans women feel that since the
negative use has mostly been directed at trans women and
also used against any woman the speaker deemed
"not femmy enough" (or in at least one case that comes to
mind, for just being wrongheaded and mean-spirited despite
being gender-conforming), it is therefore not trans men's
word to reclaim.
[4] I've never heard these in the wild. And,
significantly, the only real sting in them comes from
being homophones of 'sissy' -- by suggesting a meaning
very different from their actual root!
The examples I'm giving here may become dated as language
shifts, and may even already be subject to differences in
regional usage. There is a sort of euphemism treadmill for some terms
so that the more-polite phrase gradually accrues all the
negativity of the original epithet and needs to be discarded
for a new euphemism; and there's 'reclaiming', by which some
terms lose their stigma and become mostly neutral
barring tone-of-voice cues. (Also, at least with the T*
community, when the community was much younger and still
discovering/inventing apropriate and useful language, it
embraced terms that were later realized to be troublesome.
So if you read older texts, you may see trans folk casually
phrasing things in ways that would attract flames today. We
were -- are -- still learning and evolving.) Bear in mind that
even some of the neutral terms can be suspect if used when there was
no reason to bring them up in the first place. But in my dialect at this
time, I think this is a useful illustration.
Here's the thing: if we meant to be insulting or
disparaging in our choice of word for people who are not
transgendered/transgender, you'd know. It wouldn't be this
nagging discomfort over finding yourself in a marked class
and worrying about having a label at all for a change. It'd
be a proper insult. (And as people have noted elsewhere,
expressing exasperation with an individual member of a class
does not make the name for that class into a derogatory term.
It's possible for a T* person annoyed at a cis person's
abuse of cis privilege to call them a thickheaded, bigoted
cis person without making 'cis' the insult; it's the adjectives
that are negative, not the noun. In the same way, someone can refer
to "an evil man" without making 'man' into a derogatory term,
because the negativity is in 'evil', not 'man'. So just
because you've heard a trans person complain about a cis
person, that is not enough to serve as an example that "'cis' is
used pejoratively".)
Similarly, I've seen plenty of men try to argue that a woman
who has said anything negative about one man or an identified
subset of men must hate all men (therefore her opinion can be
ignored), white people who've cried 'reverse racism' when a
person of colour has called them on their bullshit (therefore
PoC are "just as bad" and their complaints can be disregarded),
and countless cases of would-be allies complaining they feel
attacked when a disprivileged person has complained about
specific actions of some members of the group the would-be
ally is a member of (and therefore the minority group is about
to "lose an ally" because they were "mean"). Tone Argument,
"it's all about me", and strawman "you people are just as bad",
are
derailing. Fifteen yards and loss of down.
Don't go there.
And yes, some of the negative words can be used by members of the
communities they're applied to, either as an early stage of
reclaiming or because they have different connotations when
used ironically by people who have a stake in those words.
That's really a large enough matter on its own to warrant a
separate essay. For our purposes here, consider uses of the
words by a random cashier, cop, or passer-by who is not a member
of the described group and isn't already a friend of the listener
who is a member of that group. If you pull out the "Well, I heard
some _____ people saying ______ once so it doesn't belong on the
bad list," in this context, that'll be a five yard
penalty for distraction. That is, it'll put you farther away from
making your case, not closer. We can have the discussion
specificaly about that phenomenon elsewhen.
(I should probably note discussions elsewhere regarding
'person with attribute' vs. 'adjectived person' vs. 'just a noun'
labelling styles -- e.g. "person of colour" vs. "coloured
person" vs. "black" (or other 'racial' marker used as a noun); or
"person with diabetes" vs. "diabetic person" vs. "diabetic". Even
a cursory examination of that topic would be too much of a
distraction right here, but it's something that folks preparing to
discuss labels should at least be aware of.)
If this sounds like I'm saying you have to agree with me
to be allowed to speak, do a Google search for
privilege bingo card and see how many of these
"clever" arguments have been used so many times, regarding
sexism, racism, ablism, poverty, and pretty much every other
topic that involves a group struggling to be treated decently,
that the very existence of these tactics has become a
bitter joke. The rule isn't that you have to agree
with me; it's that you have to fight fairly and argue in
intellectually honest ways, rather than adopting the tactics
of oppressors while claiming to be on my side.
A Significant Distinction:
"wtff?
"Now can het people jump in and declare they are
insulted by being called 'het' or 'straight?' or can i
cay 'i never really agreed to be called 'white' so it's
insulting? and if not, what's the fucking difference?"
-- maevele,
2009-06-29
An argument I've heard is that since we transgendered
people get to tell others what labels to use for us and
which words are unacceptable, cisgendered people should
not have a label forced upon them. But we never
got to choose whether to have a label; we only
got to argue about which labels we didn't find insulting.
The 'cis' debate appears (so far) to be about whether cis-folk
should be given a label at all, which is hard
to see as anything other than default-class privilege.
You don't get to hold on to being "just plain
[unmarked] men" and "just plain [unmarked] women"
and not have a label for your class, because that
continues to promote the idea that trans men and
trans women aren't really men and women.
I sure hope that you can understand why trying to
stop that meme is important enough to risk
pissing off some folks we'd been on good speaking
terms with before they started insisting on turning
back the clock.
"I'm giving up on using the words man and male because
in a patriarchy, it's the default assumption behind human,
just as cissexual/cisgender is the default assumption behind
man and woman. "So, instead of men and women,
we'll have humans and women. "There, now we can
avoid offending men, er, I mean humans." --
timberwraith,
2009-06-29
So here's the deal. I obviously do not speak for
transgendered people as a whole -- to be precise, I
speak for nobody but myself -- but if instead of
complaining about having a label, you propose
a label you like better than 'cis'/'cisgender', a
label that doesn't start with 'a-', 'an-', 'un-',
'non-', or 'im-' and doesn't simply translate as
"real" or "normal", and you get a significant portion of
the not-transgendered people who are engaged in
conversations with trans folk about language to agree
that the word is a candidate worth discussing
(I'm not asking for a majority of that group,
just enough that we're not having the same conversation
eighty zillion times with a different word that has
only one supporter each time), I'll
listen, and I think some other T*people will as
well -- we I may
still have criticisms of the label you choose, and/or
helpful feedback; I may wind up pointing out that
you've still left in 'othering' aspects that demean
trans people; but I'll listen and discuss and you
really do have a shot at convincing me to try to get
others in the community to use your word instead of
'cis' if it really is a neutral term (i.e.,
not just a sneakier way to reassert cis privilege).
Oh, there'll be pushback from some quarters
even if its a great word, because some people just
hate having to learn new words and habits (just look
at the number of people who've used, "we don't need a
new word" as an excuse to oppose 'cisgendered' over
the years! Or to step back farther in time, the men
who used similar excuses for not wanting to use 'Ms.'
when asked to), but bring labels you find respectful and
acceptable that don't just go back to denigrating trans
folk in contrast, that don't cast us as 'other' to your
'real', and there'll be a real conversation and maybe -- I
hope -- a meeting of the minds.
But as long as what I'm hearing is, "Waah, I
don't want to have to have a label," or,
"I don't like 'cis' but won't suggest something
better," you can shut the [expletive] up. Because
that's not a polite request for the right to choose
your own nomenclature, it's just incredibly
privileged whining about suddenly being treated like
everybody not of the default class. And clinging to your
privilege at my sisters' expense doesn't make you much of an
ally. And my transgender brothers and sisters (and
bi-gendered, agendered, and polygendered siblings-in-arms)
can hear that too, and most aren't just going to roll over
and say, "Oh sure, unmarkedclass, we'll other
ourselves just because you say it's impolite to
try to be equally valid to you." While y'all are
feeling butthurt about being handed an adjective
(and not knowing which pocket to put it in), there are
a lot of trans people busy just trying to get consistently
recognized as human instead of being considered
piñatas/targets, fetish objects, scapegoats, and comedy
props.
Bring it. Bring the suggestions. Get a real
conversation about this rolling. Until then, I'm
going to continue using 'cisgendered' unapologetically
unless someone can show me why it really is offensive
beyond existing as a label at all. This essay is a rant
rather than a conversation, a shout at a bunch of
whiners-for-privilege, but it's also an invitation to
start a conversation if there really is a
meaningful conversation to be had. I'm not saying,
"Here's your label, like it or suffer" -- rather,
I'm saying "If you don't like it, suggest something
better." Show me there is a real basis for a
conversation. Or quit complaining. Either way works
for me.
Some people will read this who have already progressed
beyond this stage, with or without input from me. You should
be able to figure out whether you're one of the people I'm
yelling at or not. If you're offended because I yelled at
all, then even if I wasn't yelling at you when I started,
I might be once I find that out. | | 5:25 am |
QotD
( the start of the scene, for context ) |
|
Martha Rodgers: |
|
News flash: she already has body-image issues.
It's an intrinsic part of being a woman. Every woman in the
world has some part of herself that she absolutely hates --
her hands are too small, her feet are too big, her hair is
too straight, too curly, her ears stick out, her ...
[turns to look in a mirror] ... oh God,
her butt's too flat, her nose is too big ... And you know,
nothing you can say will change how we feel. What men
don't understand is, the right clothes, the right shoes, the
right makeup, just, it hides the flaws ... we think
we have. They make us look beautiful. To ourselves.
That's what makes us look beautiful, to others. |
| |
|
Rick Castle: |
|
Used to be, all she needed to feel beautiful was a pink
tutu and a plastic tiara. |
| |
|
Martha Rodgers: |
|
We spend our whole lives trying to feel that way
again. |
| |
| ( last little bit of the scene ) |
-- from the ABC television program,
Castle (
ABC, IMDB
); episode, "A Death in the Family", written by Andrew
W. Marlowe and Barry Schindel, directed by Bryan Spicer, aired
2009-05-11 | | Wednesday, July 1st, 2009 | | 5:25 am |
QotD
"Canadians have an abiding interest in surprising those
Americans who have historically made little effort to learn about
their neighbour to the North." -- Peter Jennings
[Happy Canada Day to my friends in or from Canada!] | | Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 | | 7:38 pm |
Whoops :-( Crap. Social thing I wanted to go to half an hour drive from
here starts at 19:30, and it got to be 19:20 before I managed to
get my head unstuck from the project I was working on (for a small
amount of money, not just one of my notions, but I'd still meant
to take a little break from it), and I still need to shower
before I'm fit to be around others (warm day, not running AC,
planned to rinse off right before leaving). Feh. Not feeling
great, but feeling well enough to drive, so this one
I did to myself by losing track of time, rather than having my
body screw me up.
(Then again, I also need to go to rehearsal an hour away
tomorrow night, and being unable because I spent all my spoons
tonight would be bad. But I still wanted to go. Might
just show up late, depending on how much sense that seems to
make once I'm clean and dressed. In light of message
from hostess, will scramble to get there as soon as I can.
So evening not entirely blown.)
I've been getting way more blogspam in the last two weeks
than I used to, by a factor of twenty or so, and a surprising
number of the attempted spam comments (they're getting screened,
so y'all don't see 'em) are coming to one particular entry
(mostly the DW copy of it, but a couple other sites as well).
It's
QotD for 2009-06-22. I wonder whether that one is
extra-Googlable or something. | | 5:25 am |
QotD
"[T]here are many reasonable human beings who disagree
with me - but they're opponents. No, this is The Enemy, who
says I'm not human." --
Zoe Brain,
2009-06-14 | | Monday, June 29th, 2009 | | 2:38 pm |
Thinking About Power On Too Little Sleep [Alternate title: "Didn't Sleep, So Footnotes Ate Me"]
Managed to get one hour of sleep before leg cramps woke me;
haven't managed to get back to sleep since. Not expecting this
to be one of my better days.
But I did manage to post an
explosive photo to Flickr last night, so that's
something.1
Confirmed (alas) that when you use about three times as much
virtual memory as there is physical RAM in the system, a Mac
with a gig and a quarter gets really sluggish, much the way a
less memory-full Windows or Linux system does when you get to a
little over twice as much VM as RAM. Bleah. (Okay, okay, not
the least bit surprising, I know. Nonetheless: bleah.)
Still, it takes longer for me to get that far into
torture-the-hardware mode on this computer than on any others in
the house. And once I get a couple of the projects I'm in the
middle of to easy "save, quit, and come back later" points, the
machine will be nice and zippy again.
Also may have figured out why the Mac wouldn't charge from
the inverter in the car (which is also the inverter I use at
Pennsic2). It turns out that the
reason the little square box with ears on it that gets so
disturbingly hot does get so disturbingly hot is that it's
rated for 127-182 VA according to the decal on the side,
and the inverter's sticker says it only puts out 100 W
(and ISTR that being a peak value, with a continuous rating
more like 85 W, but that info was on the original
packaging which I no longer have). I'm a little fuzzy on
exactly how to convert between VA and W, but I can see
that 100 is enough lower than 127 that if the Mac's power
supply has a power factor as high as the first Google hit on
"convert W to VA" found me suggests, 100 W is just
not enough. Feh.
Oh, but wait, a decal on another side of
the power ... (do I still call it a 'brick' if it's not brick
shaped but still has cords on both sides?3)
... declares that it's a 65 W unit. Oh, right, that's
probably the output after subtracting all the power that goes
into making Very Warm White Square Thingie so very warm.
(Hmm. 24.5 V @ 2.65 A = 64.925 W, so okay, I'm not
entirely brain-scrozzled from only sleeping
one [expletive] hour [whiiiiine].) So I
guess I need a slightly bigger inverter or a DC-DC converter
that can go from 12 V to 24.5 V more efficiently than the
12 VDC --> 115 VAC --> 24.5 VDC route. Uh, or I
can take the Vaio with XP on it and try not to bore my
campmates with whining about how XP isn't OS X. I'll
make that an all too likely 'plan C' due to financial
constraints.
(Uh ... putting two 12 V lead-acid batteries in series
and sticking a voltage regulator between the battery
battery4
and the computer ... good idea, bad idea, or "might be a
good idea if Glenn knew enough electronics to get the regulator
right but a bad idea under the actual circumstances"?)
Okay, let's see whether I can at least get a nap, or
convince myself I'm alert enough to get something useful
done despite the brain-fuzzies.
[1] Yes, I know about the deflagration/detonation
distinction. :-þ And yes, it's closer to black than
silver under normal light, but it's also very, very shiny
and I used a flash.
[2] Yeah yeah, I know, but a computer comes in
handy for the photography, and gives me something to do
on the days when I'm not feeling well enough to get out of
my tent and up the hill. I'm also more likely to want it
for transcribing/arranging music during Pennsic than any
randomly selected other fortnight of the year.
[3] I feel funny calling it a wall-wart even though
I know it can be configured as one, because I don't have the
little folding plug module that replaces the AC power cord,
so at present, this one isn't a wall-wart.
[4] Intentional, though if I were feeling more
obscure I could've just said 'battery' and let folks
wonder whether the singular was accidental or I was
thinking of the two heavy black boxes as one 24-cell
battery; and if I were feeling less smartassy I
could've just said 'batteries'. But then I wouldn't
have this excuse for yet another footnote, would I? | | 5:25 am |
QotD
"Just talked to a girl named Alison. When it first started
she went up to a cop and said thank you for coming out to keep us
safe. This is a rough neighborhood. He said that's not why we
are here. She asked why they were there and he said a disgruntled
employee had said that the bar was overserving people. She told
him she had been drinking but that she had a designated driver.
He told her that she was fine. She said they only arrested men
and seemed to be targeting effeminate men" -- Tammye Nash,
1969-06-28 (whoops, my bad, but I'm
sure you can understand my mistake)
2009-06-28, regarding
a raid on a gar bar just coincidentally on the 40th
anniversary of
that more famous gay-bar raid
More at
ONTD-politics,
Daily Kos, and, of course,
Twitter
I had a different quote in mind for today, before news
of this weekend's raid came across Twitter. | | 4:35 am |
| | Sunday, June 28th, 2009 | | 5:25 am |
QotD
From the
Quotation of the day mailing list, 2008-02-02:
"The story of English spelling is an improbable one in
every sense. It is a tale of a process of evolution that
contains so many curious accidents and bizarre twists of fate
that the end result -- how we spell English today -- must be
regarded as one of the most absurd, ridiculous, and protracted
(1,500 years and counting) accidents of human culture.
"Yet no matter how accidental and ridiculous the story of
English spelling is, and no matter how many suggestions have been
made for "improving" English spelling (which is normally taken to
mean making it more consistent), the ridiculous accident of
English spelling has continued on its merry path much as before,
and it's the would-be reformers who have, largely, been
forgotten." -- James Essinger: Spellbound - The
Surprising Origins and Astonishing Secrets of English
Spelling. (submitted to the mailing list by
thom newlin) | | Saturday, June 27th, 2009 | | 5:25 am |
QotD
"The great thing about Photoshop is that you can senselessly
butcher your models for the sake of composition without getting
blood all over the place." -- Cosmo7, Photoshop Disasters,
2009-04-28 [site as a whole
pointed out by
sabotabby] | | Friday, June 26th, 2009 | | 5:25 am |
QotD
| Charlie Rose: |
"What would you choose if you were designing
the [national health care]
program?" |
| |
| Dr. Atul Gawande: |
"I would choose the plan we can find a
compromise agreement on. As a physician
who has had to deal Medicare and had to
deal with Medicaid and had to deal with
private insurers, they all drive me crazy.
But even worse are my uninsured patients.
[...]" |
[Story of a young cancer patient facing diffucult choices
follows.]
-- from the PBS television program, Charlie Rose,
2009-04-01 | | Thursday, June 25th, 2009 | | 8:19 pm |
Feeling Especially American Today[*] Someone posted some questions to the abcusers mailing list,
that had the side effect of alerting me to a tool I have a use
for. First problem: I can't get it to work for any chords
that have sharp signs in their names (either as the root or
as an added bass note; e.g., F#m7, E/G#). Second
problem: while the file has extensive comments, including
an explanation of the syntax to use, the comments and the
(Postscript) variable names are all in a language I don't
know. I think it's Italian.(Babelfish seems
to think it's Portugese) So there's a pretty good chance
I just need to RTFM, but Google Translate didn't help.
(I'll try Babelfish next.) (Got an intelligible translation but
the clues I sought are not in the documentation.)
Worst case, I dive into debugging in a programming language
I only almost kindasorta know, with cryptic-to-me
variable names and no readable-by-me comments. Best case,
the file's author pops up on the mailing list and tells me
a really simple fix before I get into the headache zone.
Had a plan for the day, until I stayed awake all night
tossing and turning nd trying to uncramp my right calf and
finally crashed at 9 AM. Slept a few hours at last, but
not enough, so I'm not at my clearest-headed this evening.
Big plan for tonight: try to manage to sleep at such a
time that tomorrow I'll be awake during the hours when
folks at City Hall answer the phone. Big plan for next
year: be well enough (and be able to afford) to go to
Baitcon and Conterpoint (unless their dates overlap), and
more than one evening of Balticon.
In the meantime, I'm already focussed on not letting
Pennsic get screwed up for me.
If I'm going to bother shaving my legs, I need to get some
shorter skirts. (Or lose enough weight to fit into the short
skirts I used to wear, tens of pounds ago.)
[1] The European riddle goes, "If someone who speaks
two languages is bilingual and someone who speaks three
languages is trilingual, what do you call someone who speaks
one languge?" -- and the expected answer is, "American".
I know a few phrases in Greek and can make a little sense
of really simple written Greek on a good day, et je parle
Francais un petit peu,, but today I'm feeling painfully
stereotypical-American. | | 5:25 am |
QotD
"There are so many people under repressive regimes for whom
filesharing and the Internet is the link to the rest of the world
that inspires, gives hope and makes it endurable to fight for human
rights and democracy. The state's control system is expanding. We
used to heavily criticize the intrusions of privacy and control
systems in place behind the Iron Curtain, but now we are building
this ourselves."
-- Akko Karlsson, member of the Swedish Green Party's executive
board, "Filesharing is not theft" [editorial published in
two Swedish newspapers, I don't have a link to a copy of the
entire editorial], as reported on TorrentFreak
2008-02-09 | | Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 | | 7:24 pm |
From square one I'll be watching all sixty-four I have "The Arbiter", from Chess, stuck in my brain.
HCB rehearsal will probably knock it out though. | | 5:25 am |
QotD
"The typical left-wing person knows as much about weapons
as the typical right-wing person knows about being nice to
people not of his own kind." --
fidhle
(aka
fidhle), 2009-06-20 (private
conversation, quoted with permission)
[Happy birthday to
starmalachite!] | | Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009 | | 7:03 pm |
Weeoo Thumpa Thumpa Weeoo Thumpa Thumpa Weeooo Earlier, I heard a THUMPA THUMPA car stereo go by, and from
as near as my ears could tell the same direction, moving at the
same rate (higher than the speed limit), a siren.
So I wondered which is more likely: a cop trying to pull
over a speeder with a big-ass car stereo, or was it a cop with
too-big subwoofers in his or her cruiser, groovin' on some
tunes on the way to a call?
Alas, I couldn't see, so I have to guess. | | 5:25 am |
QotD
"When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder I can think at all
And though my lack of education hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall"
-- from "Kodachrome" by Paul Simon
(b. 1941-10-13), on There Goes
Rhymin' Simon, 1973
[My big question: will I manage to scrape
up the money to get my last several rolls of Kodachrome
developed before Kodachrome processing
entirely goes away? The clock is ticking.] | | Monday, June 22nd, 2009 | | 5:25 am |
QotD
"Standing up to your government can mean standing up for
your country." --
Bill Moyers
(b. 1934-06-05), 2005-05-15, speech at the
National Conference on Media Reform
[via
WikiQuote] | | Sunday, June 21st, 2009 | | 5:25 am |
QotD
From the
Quotation of the day mailing list, 2008-03-10:
"Once a government is committed to the principle of
silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and
that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until
it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a
country where everyone lives in fear." -- Harry Truman, U.S.
President, from his Special Message to the Congress on the
Internal Security of the United States, delivered August 8,
1950.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=836&st=&st1=]
(submitted to the mailing list by BK Read)
[Happy Solstice, and happy Fathers Day!] |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|