A Recommended View from Salem

I have a hard time keeping up with television. Maybe it's an attention deficit problem; maybe it's the fact that most stories I experience are in games, and are more interactive. All I know is that, with a few exceptions, I struggle to keep up with more than one or two television shows,and don't watch very many movies. As a result, most of my "entertainment" comes from adding random interesting videos to my YouTube "Watch Later" list and letting them play on a second monitor while I play a game.

About a week ago, someone at Google with more conservative viewpoints than the average "Googler" (seriously, they actually call themselves that) posted on the company's internal social network a memo that cited scientific sources to explain why Google is struggling with its internal 'diversity', suggestions on how to address it more effectively, and noting that thinking outside of the accepted norm is discouraged and feels like it could possibly lead to being fired... so Google fired him for thinking outside of the accepted norm. The press jumped on this quickly, labeling it an "Anti-PC, Anti-Diversity Screed" and running the author's name through the mud.

What do these things have in common? Well, I really don't have much to contribute this week. My mind is elsewhere, and I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by life at the moment. I'll put it simply:

• YouTube is run by Google. 
• My Watch Later list is made up of videos from all over the political spectrum. Far Left, Far Right, In-Between, and completely unaffiliated. 
• Google has recently announced they'll be setting loose an algorithm to police "extremist" content on YouTube which has the aims of moving "controversial" content into a sort of limbo where they won't be recommended, can't be voted or commented on, and will get no exposure. 

I worry that Google has, in pursuit of being "good", has lost sight of it's old motto of "Don't Be Evil." I worry that they might be planning to infringe upon my right to listen, and I say that knowing full well they aren't a government organization. It seems that as soon as people started trying to protect their First Amendment rights, crazy people started trying to get corporations to enforce censorship when they realized government couldn't.

Simply put, I want to make the decision about what thoughts I listen to. I don't want Google deciding for me. If this turns south, for all the good it will do, I'm jumping ship from Android and getting an iThing of some sort.

I'll let someone who is much more experienced in the YouTube world than I am explain it to you better than I could. Yes, this video is roughly 30 minutes long. That's no big thing for me; I regularly listen to lectures and debates that are 2+ hours, but it explains my concerns well. Put aside any nationalistic or idealistic differences you may have with the speaker and listen for me.

 

The DM's Lament

I need 6 more hours in my day in order to get stuff done. Can anyone tell me where I can go to get a 30 hour day? Maybe start a petition at Whitehouse.gov or Moveon.org?

At any rate, this has been another typical week of being tired and working hard with little to show for my efforts. I'm even late in posting a silly little video that I should have done on Wednesday night.

Not only is this funny and fits within my experience as a DM, but the tone of tired frustration nicely matches how I feel in Real Life.

Big GRPC 2017 News

If you're one of my Facebook friends, you saw this last Monday.

If you listen to GunBlog VarietyCast Radio, you heard my announcement in this week's podcast.

But just in case you've been living under a rock, yet somehow can still read blog posts, here is the formal announcement:

I'm going to be speaking at this year's Gun Rights Policy Conference in Dallas, Texas.

I don't yet know what day or time I'll be speaking; I'm going to guess Sunday afternoon, because I'm just not that important.

I also don't know which panel I'll be on, or how much time I'll have to talk (but probably not very long), or what I'll be speaking on (although the smart bet is on "Something related to Operation Blazing Sword and/or LGBTQ and Guns".)

People keep telling me I shouldn't be so down on myself, so I'm pleased to announce that while this invitation caused me to freak out, not once did I think inviting me was a horrible mistake.

If you'll be in the area, come by and say hi!

Gun Blog Variety Podcast #155 - RINO Hunting

"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know." - Groucho Marx

• Beth and her husband went to Shootrite Academy in Alabama. They discuss what it’s like to train as a married couple, and Beth learned an important lesson about defensive pistol use in 101 degree heat.
• Sean has a doozy of a Felons Behaving Badly segment featuring five, count 'em, FIVE suspects involved in a kidnapping. You're going to need a score card to figure out who is related to whom!
• Barron is on assignment and will return soon.
• We're all supposed to grow up, not just grow older, but some people miss the maturity bus. Miguel tells us what to do when you run into an alleged adult who throws a childish temper tantrum in public.
• Sean went RINO hunting with the pro-gun group Grass Roots North Carolina. There were people dressed in Rhino pajamas, a rhino mask, and more Sergeants-at-Arms than you can shake a pro-gun banner at.

• Tiffany is on assignment and will return soon.
• Erin finishes up her series on Surviving Survival with a double-length segment on successful coping strategies.
• The One and Only Anti-Gun Podcast brings on a researcher to talk about research and the anti-gun agenda. Weer’d listens so that you don't have to!
• And our Plug of the Week is for the PHLster Flatpack Tourniquet Holder. 

Thank you for downloading, listening, and subscribing. You are subscribed, right? We are available on iTunes, Stitcher Radio, and Google Play Music!

Listen to the podcast here.

Read the show notes here.

Thanks to LuckyGunner and Remington for their sponsorship, and a special thanks to Firearms Policy Coalition for their support.

Blue Collar Prepping Transcript -

Surviving Survival

For the past two months, I’ve been talking about what trauma is and why our brains respond it the way that they do, and giving suggestions on how to manage anger, fear, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. This week I conclude this series by giving general strategies for getting past the traumatic event and getting on with your life. In other words, how to survive the rest of your life once you’ve survived the emergency, tragedy, disaster or trauma. 

There are six strategies that lead to successful outcomes. Of these, the most effective strategy -- contrary to all expectations -- is Suppression. In other words, Put it out of your mind. Just don’t think about it. Think about other things instead.

In the paper titled Study Of Adult Development, psychiatrist George Vaillant found that simply suppressing a traumatic experience and getting on with life is, quote, "the defensive style most closely associated with successful adaptation". Suppression is straightforward, practical, and best of all, it works. "Of all the coping mechanisms," Vaillant writes, "suppression alters the world the least and best accepts the terms life offers." 

However, not everyone can simply stop thinking about things that trouble them. This is a problem which I have; when something bothers me, I end up chewing on it over and over, like a cow with its cud. For those of you who end up ruminating on your problems like I do, here are other successful strategies:

Sublimation - Do something to channel anger, energy and anxiety into something productive. This is engaging the seeking pathway, and I went into this in detail in episode 148. Sublimation is another form of suppression, because seeking pathway overrides the rage pathway of rumination. 

Altruism - Do something kind for someone else. This helps you twice: first by occupying your mind with the task, and the second with the chemical reward that comes with positive emotions when your gift makes its recipient happy. 

Anticipation - See the future and prepare for it. Like studying for a test so hard that you score a 100% on it, if you over-prepare then the actual event is a nonissue. This is an excellent strategy for things which have a definite end goal, such as a diagnosis of cancer. If you’re a prepper, you are constantly using this technique. 

And finally Humor - Being able to laugh at yourself is healing. It has been said that you “Can’t be laughing and worrying at the same time,” and I’ve found this to be true, which is why I always try to make a joke to lighten the mood when things seem horrible. 

The best coping mechanism of all, if you can manage it, is to combine suppression with laughter. Laugh about the good things in life and don’t think about the terrible things -- or laugh AT the terrible things, to rob them of their power. A thing you mocking is not a thing to be feared. 

There are 12 steps for successful survival, whether you are in the middle of a disaster or you are dealing with the aftermath. 

1. Perceive & Believe - Recognize the reality of the situation. Don’t deny it is happening; accept it and deal with it. 
2. Remain Calm - acknowledge whatever fear, rage, or sadness you have, but don’t dwell on them. Instead, use that energy to be productive by engaging the seeking pathway. 
3. Think, Analyze, Plan - Know what you have and what you want. Once you have a realistic assessment of your resources and predicament, set achievable goals. Tell yourself “OK, this bad thing has happened. Now what?” Look to future instead of ruminating on the past or what could have been. 
4. Act on that plan - This is sublimation, and it effectively directs negative emotions outward into productive effect. Do something other than dwelling on pain and trauma. 
5. Celebrate success once action is taken - This creates a dopamine reward within your brain, which makes you feel better and causes you to want to keep progressing forward. This is a “virtuous circle”. 
6. Count your blessings - This results in gratitude, which calms negative emotions. 
7. Play - Have fun, which is part of living a healthy happy life. Without joy, you aren’t living, you’re merely existing. 
8. See the Beauty - Focus on positive, ignore the negative. This binds you to the world so you want to keep living. 
9. Believe you can influence events - Believing that you will succeed is the attitude of the survivor, not the victim. Do not wait for rescue; rescue yourself. 
10. Surrender - Don’t let your fears hold you back; let go of them and move forward.
11. Do whatever is necessary to make that move happen - By this point, you should know, deep within yourself, that you have the will and skill to accomplish what is needed for healing or rescue. Do not let obstacles keep you from your goal. 
12. Never give up - You’re still alive. That means you can always improve your situation. 

Finally, there is happiness, which is what everyone wants in life. I’m going to conclude this series with three key thoughts on happiness and the pursuit thereof:

“It’s possible to lead a healthy happy life even in the aftermath of trauma. Perhaps more importantly, happiness is not a matter of avoiding trouble; it’s a matter of how you deal with it.”

“Happiness as a goal is a recipe for disaster. Happiness as a byproduct of living your life is a great thing.”

To make your live more complete, and therefore help you achieve happiness:

1. Do something you love.
2. Do something for someone who needs you.
3. Be with people who care about you.

I can’t stress that last one enough: Be with people who care about you.

Take care of yourself, folks.

• Surviving Survival: The Art and Science of Resilience – http://amzn.to/2sE9o2G
• Study of Adult Development - http://www.hms.harvard.edu/psych/redbook/redbook-family-adult-01.htm

'Comic Fans' Don't Have To Be Your Audience. 'Comic Fans' Are Over.

Wow, that title sounds familiar. I wonder where I've heard something like that before? 

When I spoke previously about the Exponential Outrage Theorem, I had no idea it would become relevant again so quickly, and in such a ludicrous manner. Several years ago, I commented that Marvel was playing a long game in diversity, and it was working for them; they were introducing new characters while promoting legacy characters to keep them around, which respected both new and legacy characters, and DC was making some very public and messy mis-steps.

Since DC's Rebirth event, they've become wildly popular amongst comic fans, and the diehard Marvel purists (as well as more casual fans) are starting to turn away from Marvel due to creative decisions such as the disrespect shown the character of Thor, turning the ev0l cis-het white male Captain America into a 'Nazi', and the introduction of a black girl who got her start by stealing things from MIT as the new Iron Man lead. Sales have slumped a bit in comparison to DC, who is not only overtaking them in comics sales and popularity, but also just had their first broadly-accepted cinematic universe movie in the fantastic Wonder Woman (which despite having a female lead and a female director, was devoid of any out-of-place identity politics).

Last week, an innocent Marvel editor took some of her co-workers to Ben & Jerrys, and posted a selfie getting milkshakes. This innocent act earned her a deluge of abuse, harassment, and threats, which were detailed on such sites as Bleeding Cool, Upworthy, The Mary Sue, and talkradio.co.uk, who went so far as to label this the "new Gamergate." OH! That explains the title. I was wondering where I got that from. So these articles went on, as they always do, to display the requisite six nasty tweets the editor...

...what? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm being informed that they did not display the six requisite tweets from literal nobodies. Bleeding Cool supplied 5 mild tweets from literal nobodies, Upworthy only 3, and both sites showcased a literal deluge of support from industry insiders, fellow co-workers, and assorted random people. The Mary Sue supplied no negative tweets at all. No screenshots were provided of the alleged DMs from anyone. Most of the coverage consisted of this same pattern: a small example of mildly rude tweets, then easily 3-4 times as many pictures of random people with milkshakes supporting the editor and her friends. This hardly paints a picture of hostility. In fact, The Mary Sue even went so far as to respond to the criticism of their coverage with what can only be described as plugging their ears and shouting "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I??" This is quite possibly the most juvenile piece I think I've ever seen on their site, and that speaks volumes.

With all due respect (that being very little) to talkradio.co.uk, the only way in which this seems to be a 'new Gamergate' is in that an enthusiast press is attacking its audience for what seems to be a minor slight at most, all the while celebrating what good people they are. I've seen far too many overblown outrages over the last few years to take anything at face value anymore, and the evidence is getting flimsier and flimsier each time it happens. This is, by far, the most exaggerating instance I've seen. It's so exaggerated that someone did some preliminary math over in Reddit's r/comicbooks and, basing the number of Marvel readers (conservatively) on the number of issues of their biggest book sold (roughly 225,000) against the 7 negative tweets they found (reminder that Redditors, at least most of them, are not paid to do the work that journalists don't bother to do), they came up with the fact that three-thousandths of one percent of Marvel readers objected to the milkshake picture in any form.

I am tired. I am very tired. This tires me. But I will not stop pointing out the sheer BS that happens every time something even remotely controversial gets drummed up in entertainment press. This is by far the worst offender so far, as it's provided the least actual coverage of the alleged wrong-doings and wasn't even based on an announcement or change or anything like that, but just a selfie.

Stop trying to paint your readership as monsters. Stop trying to fit your customers into a little 'basket of deplorables' and expecting them to thank you for being good people when you do. It doesn't work like that.

Arcane Recovery

I need a break from talking about gender dysphoria and the military, so here's a little thing that I took from 5th edition D&D and turned into a Pathfinder Feat.

For those who don't know, 5e grants the Arcane Recovery ability to wizards at first level:

Arcane Recovery

You have learned to regain some of your magical energy by studying your Spellbook. Once per day when you finish a Short Rest, you can choose expended Spell Slots to recover. The Spell Slots can have a combined level that is equal to or less than half your wizard level (rounded up), and none of the slots can be 6th level or higher.

For example, if you’re a 4th-level wizard, you can recover up to two levels worth of Spell Slots. You can recover either a 2nd-level spell slot or two 1st-level Spell Slots.

In 5e, a Short Rest is defined as "a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds."

Since my 2nd level PCs were still struggling with resource management, and because the wizard had never used his Scribe Scroll feat, I gave him the opportunity to replace scribe scroll with the new Arcane Recovery feat.

He took it, saying "Given at 2nd level I've only got 3 first level spells per day, that one extra spell is like 33% extra. And that round up makes it neater at level 3."

I'm not even sure why 1st level wizards even get Scribe Scroll. It takes 250 gold to create a 1st level spell scroll, and starting gold for wizards is at most 120 gp. By the time they have the gold to create scrolls, they're likely 2nd or 3rd level.

Coincidentally, 3rd level is a feat level, so my PC still wants Scribe Scroll, he can take it then.

Anyway, if you like to use Hero Lab, here is Arcane Recovery.user for your downloading pleasure.

Words Have Meaning, So Use the Right Ones

Erin, is this post about yourself, or is it more about the 'Transgender Military Ban"?

Both, actually. I've realized that a lot of the confusion stems from people not using the proper terminology (either due to ignorance, or confusion, or conversational shorthand) and making certain assumptions based on those terms. So I'm going to explain things as best I can so that we can all get on the same page and then have constructive discussions rather than destructive arguments about the situation.

First, I'm going to talk about me and my transgender journey, where I explain why I use a different term for myself now than I did when I first came out. Not only will it clear up some confusion, it's also a handy reminder to old readers and an important notification to new ones that when I talk about the difficulties involved in being transgender, I'm not pulling "facts" out of my nether regions but rather talking about life experiences (either mine, or those of a friend. I have more than a few transgender friends).

Then I will give some useful definitions regarding gender and sexuality. You might not think this is important, but it is; someone actually got upset at me on Facebook for telling them the word for "non-transgender", as if I'd created the term wholecloth. If we all use the same words and we all know what they mean, we won't have that level of confusion muddying the issue.

Once that's done and we're all on the same page, I will be able to talk about hat much-touted RAND report and everyone will be able to understand me. I'll have to do that in a follow-up post because this one has become too long.

Genderqueer vs. Transgender
When I first came out, I told everyone that I was genderqueer. I picked this word for a few reasons:

1. I was under the impression that unless I was planning to get sexual reassignment surgery, I could not consider myself a proper male-to-female transgender. 
2. Because my plumbing was one of the few body parts I was okay with, I felt that saying I was transgender was inappropriate because it gave the wrong impression.
3. I also didn't live full-time as a female, due to living with family (for financial reasons) to whom I was not "out".

I went with genderqueer, even though it wasn't a perfect fit,  because it seemed more honest, more "I'm not as female as I'd like to be but please don't gender me as male, thank you kindly." than transgender. And there are times, -- a lot of them -- when I want to be treated as female, but for whatever reason I can't look that way. For example, it's an involved, 3-hour process to hide my stubble and look female, and I have to repeat it every morning, and by the afternoon the stubble is still growing back in and starting to texture my face, and I just feel like "FML", to use the vernacular.

So I called myself genderqueer, and I ended up explaining what it meant again, and again, and again, and I just got sick of it because it always brought conversations to a screeching halt because I had to keep explaining how it was different from being transgender. Eventually I just started calling myself transgender because at least people knew what that word meant. I figured that technical inaccuracy that served to get a conversation moving to the important teachable moments was acceptable.

Funny enough, it was only years later, when I became more active in the LGBTQ because I was outspoken about who I am,  that I discovered that I could be a transwoman without having my penis removed. My reaction was a mixture of incredulity and relief: "Wait, I can DO that? That's actually a thing I can do in this community and I won't be denounced for it? Really?"  It felt like a weight had been lifted from me, because I realized I could legitimately refer to myself as trans without feeling like a filthy liar or tourist. I still feel like a proper transwoman would do things like presenting as female 24/7, up to and including dressing in femme-but-range-appropriate-attire for MAG40 class, but I am me and I do the best I can, and no one but me gets to dictate how I live my life.

Now that you've seen how even I could get hung up on what "transgender" actually means, it's no surprise that a lot of other people do. So let's cure that.

Definitions!
Let's start with the ones we all think we know. 

Sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their inherent biological & chromosomal characteristics and reproductive functions. 

Gender: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with a particular sex. This is sometimes called "gender identity". 

So your biological identity is determined by your sex but your emotional and psychological identity is determined by your gender. For most people their gender matches their sex, and life is good. Other people don't have it so good, and they suffer from Gender Dysphoria.

Gender Dysphoria: the condition of having one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex. As this is an actual psychological diagnosis per the DSM-5, one needs to be diagnosed as gender dysphoric by a professional before one can get assistance with transition. 

However, this doesn't mean that if you're a man who wears dresses (aka "The Klinger Argument") that you're gender dysphoric. You can be perfectly happy with your biology and still enjoy dressing as the opposite sex.

Transvestite: a person (usually a man, usually heterosexual) who derives comfort and/or sexual satisfaction from wearing the clothing of the opposite sex. Also called cross-dresser; not to be confused with drag queen (q.v.). 

Drag Queen: a man (female version: "drag king") who dresses as the opposite sex as part of a performance or public persona. Usually homosexual, but not always. 

Since how one dresses is not biologically linked to one's sex or sexual preference, we have a special term for this:

Gender Expression: the way in which a person expresses gender identity, typically through their appearance, dress, and behavior. It does not have to match a person's sex, although it usually does. 

A woman with a masculine gender expression might have short hair, wear t-shirts and jeans, and not use makeup or perfume. A man with a feminine gender expression might wear makeup or crossdress. It doesn't make them gay or straight or gender dysphoric.

"Gender Is a Social Construct": While I can't speak for everyone who uses this phrase, what most people mean by it is "Sex is a measurable biological quality whereas gender is not. You cannot determine the gender expression of a person through a medical test and therefore you cannot tell which gender (not the same thing as sex, see above) that person is."

Since gender is not biological, it must be sociological. Our society determines what behavior is masculine and what is feminine. Example: in Western cultures, men wear trousers, and wearing clothing which does not separate the legs is seen as effeminate (unless kilts are involved. I don't understand how or why kilts get the exception, but they do and it's glorious). However, in many Eastern cultures, what we would consider a skirt is perfectly normal male attire:

From Wikipedia:
"Javanese men often wear sarongs during religious
or casual occasions. Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia."

Are these Javanese men considered effeminate for wearing skirts? In Indonesia, no. In America or other Western countries, they likely would be. 

With that said, we can now get to the actual definition of transgender and explain why it doesn't mean what some people assume it means.

Trans: across; beyond; on the other side of. From the Latin word for "across." Example: Trans-Siberian Railroad, Transatlantic. 

Transgender: denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex. This term has become a blanket term to describe anyone who is not cisgender (q.v.).

Transsexual: a person who has undergone or is undergoing treatment in order to acquire the physical characteristics of the opposite sex, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and/or sexual reassignment surgery (SRS). Read this Wikipedia article for a more in-depth explanation. 

Cis: on this side. Contextually, on the side nearest to the speaker. From the Latin word for "on this side of." Example: cislunar, cisalpine. 

Cisgender: denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex.

Cissexual: someone who is biologically male or female. 

So using me as an example, Erin Palette is technically a transgender cissexual male (or cismale) with a feminine gender expression. Clear as mud, right?

So Here's the Problem
It's quite simple, actually: when folks hear or read "transgender people in the military" they think is means "transsexual people" - possibly having SRS, almost certainly on HRT - when I have a suspicion that what most of the military means by transgender is "gender dysphoric".

Gender dysphoria used to be a disqualifying condition in the military, just as homosexuality was. But so long as someone who is gender dysphoric does not begin taking hormones, they still maintain operational readiness.

I'll go into greater detail on this in my next post, when I discuss that RAND report everyone's talking about.