My high school English classes focused on two things: writing skills and literary analysis. The problem was that they tried to teach us writing skills by having us write literary analysis essays. For me, this meant that I had trouble focusing on my writing skills because I was struggling to come up with decent literary analysis. (I neither particularly care about nor am very good at literary analysis.) This was compounded by the fact that some teachers would give you better marks for coming up with a creative and unique interpretation and fully justifying and supporting it with the text, while others would give you worse marks for not coming up with the standard interpretation. I never reached the point of giving a moment's thought to "Is the structure of my argument optimal? What questions would the reader be asking at this point?" because I was too busy trying to come up with a thousand words about symbolism.
They did try to teach us stuff about business correspondence and such as well, but the problem here was they taught us all about the structure without any thought as to the content. In Grade 9, they "taught" us how to write a resume by saying..."Your assignment is to write your resume." Problem: I'm in Grade 9. I've never had a job. What do I actually put on my resume? Yeah, they gave us all kinds of inapplicable advice, like "List achievements, such as "increased sales by 30%," but that doesn't help a teenager get their first job. So I put my education and extracurriculars all the right format, and got a decent mark for it because I got the format right. But I still had no idea what I could actually put on my resume to get a job.
I didn't actually learn how to do that properly until well into university, in the English and French writing courses that were part of my tiny and obscure translation program. The way they taught us there was "Find an ad for a job you're qualified for and could totally do. Then prepare a resume and cover letter to apply for that specific job." They did give us some examples of how you might tailor hypothetical resumes to hypothetical situations, but the most valuable thing was working with my own actual personal history and actual real-life ads for jobs that I am in fact qualified to do. I knew all my information and I knew why I met the requirements of the job, I just had to work on presenting it. I didn't have to worry about "What do I write?", so I could focus my energy on "How do I write it?"
One of the humanities courses I took had a similar approach to essay-writing. The prof had clearly found that his students weren't always on even ground in terms of understanding and being able to meet the expectations of university-level essays, so for our first assignment he gave us something that was intended to simply teach us how to meet these expectations. We spent some time in class talking about Goffman's definition of a total institution until we all seemed to more or less grok it. Then we got the assignment: pick something - anything in the world - and write an essay explaining why it meets Goffman's definition of a total institution. We had the definition all set out in our textbook, we had discussed it extensively in class, we all knew the arguments for a few of the standard examples of total institutions (but were free to pick anything else in the world), and since were were all picking our own example of an institution we all believed the argument made in our essay to be true. Since the content was obvious, we could focus solely on structuring our argument. So we did that assignment, got it back, and had a very clear idea of the prof's expectations and how to meet them, which served us well in conducting more in-depth critical analysis later in the course.
I think all English classes should take this approach. Create situations in which the "What do I say?" is obvious, so students can learn to express it well. Then once they've mastered that, you can spend time on literary analysis.
Showing posts with label free ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free ideas. Show all posts
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Canadian figure skating drinking game
There's a figure skating drinking game! (via Ice Charades, found on Xanboni's Twitter feed (a.k.a. the source of all the answers to my bizarre and obscure figure skating questions!))
Problem: it's very US-centric and assumes you're watching US TV.
So I made a Canadian version, at least for those of us watching in English. (Malheureusement, je n'en ai pas regardé assez en français pour créer une version pour celles et ceux de parmi vous qui regardent RDS.)
Drink when:
- The announcers between segments get way over-dramatic about something (e.g. "Heroes and villains!" in ski-jumping)
- Rod Black compares something happening on ice to something experienced by one of the figure skaters in the booth with him. Two drinks if you can think of a better figure-skating analogy.
- Someone falls. (Two drinks if they fall doing something you yourself can reliably do.)
- Someone has the same music as a previous skater. (Five drinks if they have the same dress.)
- Someone's costume has more flesh-coloured fabric than regular fabric.
- The in-rink announcer doesn't use French. (Finish the bottle if they use French but not English.)
- A commentator says "For those of you who are new to figure skating" and then proceeds to explain something that even people who don't watch figure skating know.
- The phrase "the new judging system" is uttered. Two drinks if it's by Jamie Salé or David Pelletier
- The phrase "final flight" is uttered.
- Elizabeth Manley's 1988 silver medal in Calgary is mentioned. (Two drinks if the reference is made by Elizabeth Manley. Finish the bottle if the reference is made by Elizabeth Manley but she isn't even working the booth that day.)
- The audience starts clapping along to the music. Two drinks if the clapping isn't quite in rhythm with the music, or is emotionally/thematically inappropriate.
And every time Therese Rochette is mentioned or alluded to, say a prayer for or send positive vibes to Joannie.
Problem: it's very US-centric and assumes you're watching US TV.
So I made a Canadian version, at least for those of us watching in English. (Malheureusement, je n'en ai pas regardé assez en français pour créer une version pour celles et ceux de parmi vous qui regardent RDS.)
Drink when:
- The announcers between segments get way over-dramatic about something (e.g. "Heroes and villains!" in ski-jumping)
- Rod Black compares something happening on ice to something experienced by one of the figure skaters in the booth with him. Two drinks if you can think of a better figure-skating analogy.
- Someone falls. (Two drinks if they fall doing something you yourself can reliably do.)
- Someone has the same music as a previous skater. (Five drinks if they have the same dress.)
- Someone's costume has more flesh-coloured fabric than regular fabric.
- The in-rink announcer doesn't use French. (Finish the bottle if they use French but not English.)
- A commentator says "For those of you who are new to figure skating" and then proceeds to explain something that even people who don't watch figure skating know.
- The phrase "the new judging system" is uttered. Two drinks if it's by Jamie Salé or David Pelletier
- The phrase "final flight" is uttered.
- Elizabeth Manley's 1988 silver medal in Calgary is mentioned. (Two drinks if the reference is made by Elizabeth Manley. Finish the bottle if the reference is made by Elizabeth Manley but she isn't even working the booth that day.)
- The audience starts clapping along to the music. Two drinks if the clapping isn't quite in rhythm with the music, or is emotionally/thematically inappropriate.
And every time Therese Rochette is mentioned or alluded to, say a prayer for or send positive vibes to Joannie.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
How the former Reform MPs can keep their pensions with the full support of the public
In 1993, MPs from the then-Reform Party (now part of the Conservative Party) spoke out against MPs' pensions and said they would refuse to collect these pensions themselves. It has recently been revealed that 11 of these MPs are now in line to collect six-figure (defined-benefit, indexed) pensions.
Here's how they can keep their six-figure pensions with the full support of all Canadians: create defined-benefit indexed pensions for everyone.
The Government of Canada already has expertise in administering defined-benefit indexed pensions: it's called the Canada Pension Plan. Unfortunately, the CPP pays a maximum of $934.17 a month, which isn't enough to live in with any degree of comfort or security.
So what they have to do (as I've blogged about before) is allow us to access this expertise - which is already being paid for by our tax dollars - by letting us put our RRSPs, contributions from defined-contribution plans, and any other money we care to throw at the problem into a fund from which the government will then guarantee a defined benefit. The defined benefit would be such that if you contribute your full RRSP amount, you get a return commensurate with the benefits you'd receive from a good employer-provided defined-benefit pension plan.
Based on CPP rates, I think this would be feasible. Maximum CPP benefits are $934.17, which works out to $11,210.04 a year. Maximum annual CPP contributions are $2,163.15. From this, we can conclude that the experts at the CPP can give you a pension of about to five times your annual contribution. Since your RRSP amount is 18% of your income, they should be able to get you a return close to your pre-retirement income if you contribute your full RRSP amount every year.
Contributing would be optional - if you think you can do better yourself, you're welcome to do so - but it would be there as an option for those of us who don't have hardcore long-term investing in our skill set. And I seriously doubt Canadians would begrudge a few MPs their pensions if we all had the security of commensurate pensions ourselves.
Added bonus analogy for why we need professionally-administered pensions for everyone:
Think back to when you were about nine years old. You knew intellectually that one day you'd have to get a job and make money to support yourself. You understood that concept perfectly well. However, you didn't know what to do about it. You'd never been employed or employable, so you didn't know how to make yourself employable. If you'd had to make yourself employable single-handedly, it would have been a hit and miss proposition. All you'd have is hearsay about what makes a person employable, and even if you grok and agree with someone else's assessment of what you need to achieve, you wouldn't necessarily know how to go about achieving it.
Fortunately, you didn't have to figure it out yourself. You were in school. People who knew better than you and had already gone through the process of making themselves employable (and acquired extensive training in how to turn children into functional members of society along the way) had a school curriculum all planned out, so all you had to do was keep going to school and work hard and do well. Be a good girl, and the experts will get you where you need to be.
That's what planning for retirement is like. I've never experienced long-term financial planning. Hell, I've never experienced long-term anything. Retirement is over 35 years away, and I haven't even been alive for 30 years (to say nothing of financially aware). I have some hearsay on how to do it, much of which is self-contradictory, but there's too much blind trust, too much guesswork, and even when I understand what I have to do I don't know how to go about doing it.
This is why we need a professionally-administered plan that we can pay into. We need experts who know better than us and are training in turning investments into defined-benefit pensions to make and administer a plan for us, so all we have to do is be good and pay in our designated RRSP contributions. It's simply unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to figure it out themselves, just like it's unrealistic to expect every 9-year-old to be able to figure out how to turn themselves into an employable adult.
Here's how they can keep their six-figure pensions with the full support of all Canadians: create defined-benefit indexed pensions for everyone.
The Government of Canada already has expertise in administering defined-benefit indexed pensions: it's called the Canada Pension Plan. Unfortunately, the CPP pays a maximum of $934.17 a month, which isn't enough to live in with any degree of comfort or security.
So what they have to do (as I've blogged about before) is allow us to access this expertise - which is already being paid for by our tax dollars - by letting us put our RRSPs, contributions from defined-contribution plans, and any other money we care to throw at the problem into a fund from which the government will then guarantee a defined benefit. The defined benefit would be such that if you contribute your full RRSP amount, you get a return commensurate with the benefits you'd receive from a good employer-provided defined-benefit pension plan.
Based on CPP rates, I think this would be feasible. Maximum CPP benefits are $934.17, which works out to $11,210.04 a year. Maximum annual CPP contributions are $2,163.15. From this, we can conclude that the experts at the CPP can give you a pension of about to five times your annual contribution. Since your RRSP amount is 18% of your income, they should be able to get you a return close to your pre-retirement income if you contribute your full RRSP amount every year.
Contributing would be optional - if you think you can do better yourself, you're welcome to do so - but it would be there as an option for those of us who don't have hardcore long-term investing in our skill set. And I seriously doubt Canadians would begrudge a few MPs their pensions if we all had the security of commensurate pensions ourselves.
Added bonus analogy for why we need professionally-administered pensions for everyone:
Think back to when you were about nine years old. You knew intellectually that one day you'd have to get a job and make money to support yourself. You understood that concept perfectly well. However, you didn't know what to do about it. You'd never been employed or employable, so you didn't know how to make yourself employable. If you'd had to make yourself employable single-handedly, it would have been a hit and miss proposition. All you'd have is hearsay about what makes a person employable, and even if you grok and agree with someone else's assessment of what you need to achieve, you wouldn't necessarily know how to go about achieving it.
Fortunately, you didn't have to figure it out yourself. You were in school. People who knew better than you and had already gone through the process of making themselves employable (and acquired extensive training in how to turn children into functional members of society along the way) had a school curriculum all planned out, so all you had to do was keep going to school and work hard and do well. Be a good girl, and the experts will get you where you need to be.
That's what planning for retirement is like. I've never experienced long-term financial planning. Hell, I've never experienced long-term anything. Retirement is over 35 years away, and I haven't even been alive for 30 years (to say nothing of financially aware). I have some hearsay on how to do it, much of which is self-contradictory, but there's too much blind trust, too much guesswork, and even when I understand what I have to do I don't know how to go about doing it.
This is why we need a professionally-administered plan that we can pay into. We need experts who know better than us and are training in turning investments into defined-benefit pensions to make and administer a plan for us, so all we have to do is be good and pay in our designated RRSP contributions. It's simply unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to figure it out themselves, just like it's unrealistic to expect every 9-year-old to be able to figure out how to turn themselves into an employable adult.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
The argument for using the garbage chute for organic waste disposal
I previously blogged that when organic waste collection comes to highrise buildings, the buildings without tri-sorters should use their garbage chutes for organic waste, and have people bring recyclables and landfill waste to the garbage room or the dumpsters. However, this idea doesn't seem to have caught on. I keep reading about allegedly innovative and forward-thinking buildings trumpeting the fact that there's an organics collection bin in the garbage room or out back, as though this is at all pleasant or convenient or going to result in optimal resident behaviour.
So here once again, broken down into simple concepts, is the argument for using the garbage chute for organics.
1. Organics are the most virtuous of all waste. Organic waste comes from healthy, wholesome foods. The better you eat, the more organics you have. Produce results in organic waste. Packaged, processed foods result in regular landfill waste. If logistical realities require disposal options of differing levels of convenience, the more virtuous eating habits should be rewarded with the more convenient disposal method.
2. Disposing of organics is more urgent. We've all had days when we're cold or sick or busy and don't want to go all the way down to the garbage room or outside to the dumpsters. If you leave your organics sitting around in your apartment, they'll attract bugs. If you leave your landfill waste sitting around your apartment, it won't. And bugs will not only affect the apartment where the organic waste is left sitting around, but also the neighbouring apartments. It should be as effortless as possible to properly dispose of the waste that is most likely to attract bugs.
3. The organics bin is the grossest. If any of the bins in the garbage room or dumpsters behind the building are going to smell or have bugs or be oozing mysterious gunk, it's going to be the organics bin. As I mentioned above, putting stuff in the organics bin is the most virtuous method of disposing of the most virtuous category of waste. All this virtue should be rewarded by letting people do it from as far away from the grossness as possible, not by making them touch the gross bin.
4. Organics are best disposed of at night. Most organic waste comes from food preparation, most of which tends to happen at dinner time. People are most likely to want to dispose of it before they go to bed, so it doesn't sit around stinking up the place and attracting creepy-crawlies at night. However, garbage rooms and dumpsters behind buildings are scarier after dark, because nefarious creatures of the two-legged and the six-legged variety are more likely to be skulking about then. The importance of and the unpleasantness of disposing of organics at night is disproportionate when compared with the time-sensitivity of the disposal of other types of waste. People will feel much safer if they can take care of this chore in their own well-light hallway.
5. Some people are going to throw the organics down the chute anyway. Because of the anonymity of garbage chutes, some people are going to throw stuff down the chute just because they don't feel like going out of their way to dispose of it properly. As mentioned above, organics are most urgent to dispose of than other types of waste, the organics bin is the grossest of all the bins, and organics are both best disposed of at night and most unpleasant to dispose of at night. It therefore stands to reason that organics is the category of waste most likely to be thrown down the chute improperly. Why not turn this improper behaviour into optimal behaviour simply by redesignating the purpose of the garbage chute?
So here once again, broken down into simple concepts, is the argument for using the garbage chute for organics.
1. Organics are the most virtuous of all waste. Organic waste comes from healthy, wholesome foods. The better you eat, the more organics you have. Produce results in organic waste. Packaged, processed foods result in regular landfill waste. If logistical realities require disposal options of differing levels of convenience, the more virtuous eating habits should be rewarded with the more convenient disposal method.
2. Disposing of organics is more urgent. We've all had days when we're cold or sick or busy and don't want to go all the way down to the garbage room or outside to the dumpsters. If you leave your organics sitting around in your apartment, they'll attract bugs. If you leave your landfill waste sitting around your apartment, it won't. And bugs will not only affect the apartment where the organic waste is left sitting around, but also the neighbouring apartments. It should be as effortless as possible to properly dispose of the waste that is most likely to attract bugs.
3. The organics bin is the grossest. If any of the bins in the garbage room or dumpsters behind the building are going to smell or have bugs or be oozing mysterious gunk, it's going to be the organics bin. As I mentioned above, putting stuff in the organics bin is the most virtuous method of disposing of the most virtuous category of waste. All this virtue should be rewarded by letting people do it from as far away from the grossness as possible, not by making them touch the gross bin.
4. Organics are best disposed of at night. Most organic waste comes from food preparation, most of which tends to happen at dinner time. People are most likely to want to dispose of it before they go to bed, so it doesn't sit around stinking up the place and attracting creepy-crawlies at night. However, garbage rooms and dumpsters behind buildings are scarier after dark, because nefarious creatures of the two-legged and the six-legged variety are more likely to be skulking about then. The importance of and the unpleasantness of disposing of organics at night is disproportionate when compared with the time-sensitivity of the disposal of other types of waste. People will feel much safer if they can take care of this chore in their own well-light hallway.
5. Some people are going to throw the organics down the chute anyway. Because of the anonymity of garbage chutes, some people are going to throw stuff down the chute just because they don't feel like going out of their way to dispose of it properly. As mentioned above, organics are most urgent to dispose of than other types of waste, the organics bin is the grossest of all the bins, and organics are both best disposed of at night and most unpleasant to dispose of at night. It therefore stands to reason that organics is the category of waste most likely to be thrown down the chute improperly. Why not turn this improper behaviour into optimal behaviour simply by redesignating the purpose of the garbage chute?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Crossover fanfic bunny
Eve Dallas crosses paths with Dexter Morgan, who, it turns out, killed Eve's mother (for perfectly valid, Code of Harry reasons).
Dexter would be about 80 by then, which is well within life expectancy in the In Death universe, and it would be easy to create reasons for him to be wherever Stella was in 2030 and then to be in New York (or for Eve to be in Miami, or for them to both be in the same third location) in 2060.
Dexter would be about 80 by then, which is well within life expectancy in the In Death universe, and it would be easy to create reasons for him to be wherever Stella was in 2030 and then to be in New York (or for Eve to be in Miami, or for them to both be in the same third location) in 2060.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
How to get people more cooperative with police questioning
In the In Death books, a lot of the people who are hesitant to talk to police have done something that's a little bit bad. However, Lt. Dallas is trying to catch a murderer, and it's more important to catch a murderer than to prosecute every little misdemeanour. So she quite often finds herself trying to convince someone that she doesn't care if they've done a little drugs or cheated on their spouse or had sex in an elevator, she just needs to know what they saw so she can stop the murderer.
When I read that Toronto police are canvassing 6,000 homes to try to find clues in Mariam Makhniashvili's disappearance, it occurred to me that - if real life does in fact work like the In Death books in this respect (it's possible it doesn't, because In Death obviously needs the cops to look sympathetic) - they might have an easier time of it if they publicize the fact that they aren't out to get you on minor things that don't really hurt anyone. For example, if they don't care if there's a bong on your coffee table, they should say so. If someone's testimony starts with "Well, I was just buying some cocaine from my dealer and I saw..." then they shouldn't prosecute for the cocaine, and when they go to see if the dealer saw anything they shouldn't prosecute for the dealing.
Perhaps they could also consider not running warrants on people they question unless it's relevant to the investigation. It would really suck if someone is open and cooperative, provides useful information and/or is readily eliminated, and then they run warrants on them and they end up getting arrested for some old shoplifting charge or something. I'm sure the police would get far better cooperation if it were public knowledge that we could trust them not to be hardasses about things that are irrelevant to their investigation.
When I read that Toronto police are canvassing 6,000 homes to try to find clues in Mariam Makhniashvili's disappearance, it occurred to me that - if real life does in fact work like the In Death books in this respect (it's possible it doesn't, because In Death obviously needs the cops to look sympathetic) - they might have an easier time of it if they publicize the fact that they aren't out to get you on minor things that don't really hurt anyone. For example, if they don't care if there's a bong on your coffee table, they should say so. If someone's testimony starts with "Well, I was just buying some cocaine from my dealer and I saw..." then they shouldn't prosecute for the cocaine, and when they go to see if the dealer saw anything they shouldn't prosecute for the dealing.
Perhaps they could also consider not running warrants on people they question unless it's relevant to the investigation. It would really suck if someone is open and cooperative, provides useful information and/or is readily eliminated, and then they run warrants on them and they end up getting arrested for some old shoplifting charge or something. I'm sure the police would get far better cooperation if it were public knowledge that we could trust them not to be hardasses about things that are irrelevant to their investigation.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Things They Should Invent: real-time live dynamic congestion charges
There is talk of introducing congestion charges in Toronto.
Wouldn't it be cool if they could make congestion charges vary in real time based on how congested the streets actually are? We don't have the infrastructure on hand right this minute to that, but the technology exists. I'm sure there are ways to track how busy the streets are. (Transponders? Car-counting devices in the road? Recognition technology in the traffic cams?) They could use SMS/Twitter etc. to disseminate real-time information on what the congestion charges are and post historical patterns online so people could predict whether it's worth their while.
It would also be cool if the congestion charges went directly to building more transit infrastructure, so the more congestion charges people pay, the more public transit options get built. Not sure how feasible that would be because it would make the funding less predictable and wouldn't provide any operating costs for the infrastructure that it builds, but it would be really cool if it could be made to work that way.
A possible solution to that problem would be for the different levels of government to commit a certain amount of funding, but they get reimbursed from the congestion charges. So the funding is predictable, but the more congestion charges are paid the less comes out of taxpayers' pockets. I wonder how the free marketeers would feel about that? But on the other hand, it doesn't have the incentive value of more congestion charges collected = less need for driving.
I'm also thinking it might be useful (from the perspective of selling congestion charges to drivers) to spin congestion charges as exclusivity or queue-jumping or something. There are people who are willing to pay money not to have to wait in line for things. So spin it as a way to keep Those People, Other People off the road.
Wouldn't it be cool if they could make congestion charges vary in real time based on how congested the streets actually are? We don't have the infrastructure on hand right this minute to that, but the technology exists. I'm sure there are ways to track how busy the streets are. (Transponders? Car-counting devices in the road? Recognition technology in the traffic cams?) They could use SMS/Twitter etc. to disseminate real-time information on what the congestion charges are and post historical patterns online so people could predict whether it's worth their while.
It would also be cool if the congestion charges went directly to building more transit infrastructure, so the more congestion charges people pay, the more public transit options get built. Not sure how feasible that would be because it would make the funding less predictable and wouldn't provide any operating costs for the infrastructure that it builds, but it would be really cool if it could be made to work that way.
A possible solution to that problem would be for the different levels of government to commit a certain amount of funding, but they get reimbursed from the congestion charges. So the funding is predictable, but the more congestion charges are paid the less comes out of taxpayers' pockets. I wonder how the free marketeers would feel about that? But on the other hand, it doesn't have the incentive value of more congestion charges collected = less need for driving.
I'm also thinking it might be useful (from the perspective of selling congestion charges to drivers) to spin congestion charges as exclusivity or queue-jumping or something. There are people who are willing to pay money not to have to wait in line for things. So spin it as a way to keep Those People, Other People off the road.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
How department stores can get my business
Apparently department stores are trying to make a comeback.
Here's how they can get my business: organize the women's clothing section by clothing type, not by brand.
When I'm shopping for clothes, I'm looking for, say, black pants. I don't care which brand, I don't care which line, I don't care which carefully-selected marketing demographic, I want black pants.
The way department stores are currently arranged, they have a section for every brand. This means I have to wander all over the floor, looking at the pants rack in every single section. This is annoying and time-consuming.
Meanwhile, when I wander into Reitman's or Smart Set, I can go to the side of the store with the more career-oriented clothes, look at all the pants in that section, and that's that. Even at Winner's (which I also find annoying to shop because the racks aren't easily scanable), I just have to look through the racks labeled "pants".
So if you want me to shop at your store, put all your career wear in one section, and arrange the displays so they're easily scanable. I want to walk up, take a look, and immediately have an idea of the range of black pants available, regardless of brand. Then I'll happily go through the racks for the specific items that pique my interest.
Here's how they can get my business: organize the women's clothing section by clothing type, not by brand.
When I'm shopping for clothes, I'm looking for, say, black pants. I don't care which brand, I don't care which line, I don't care which carefully-selected marketing demographic, I want black pants.
The way department stores are currently arranged, they have a section for every brand. This means I have to wander all over the floor, looking at the pants rack in every single section. This is annoying and time-consuming.
Meanwhile, when I wander into Reitman's or Smart Set, I can go to the side of the store with the more career-oriented clothes, look at all the pants in that section, and that's that. Even at Winner's (which I also find annoying to shop because the racks aren't easily scanable), I just have to look through the racks labeled "pants".
So if you want me to shop at your store, put all your career wear in one section, and arrange the displays so they're easily scanable. I want to walk up, take a look, and immediately have an idea of the range of black pants available, regardless of brand. Then I'll happily go through the racks for the specific items that pique my interest.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Mashup bunny: Shut Up And Drive My Car
vs.
You'd need to tweak the tempos a bit, but that's doable for people who know how to do that sort of thing.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
How to teach financial literacy in high school without changing the curriculum
A recurring theme during this recession is that they should teach financial literacy in high school. Of course, adding mandatory courses isn't that simple. There's only room for so many courses over the four years, there are all kinds of other courses that people want to be made mandatory, and there still has to be room for people to take electives like French and Physics and History all the way through to Grade 12.
So here's what we do: make every single word problem in the textbooks about a financial literacy concept, whenever mathematically possible.
For example, one thing I learned in one of my high school math classes was the formula for compound interest. M = P(1 + i)^n. I still use it to this day when trying to plan my personal finances. However, every word problem we had on this concept was about earning interest on investments. They could quite easily have made some of the word problems about credit card interest. Same mathematical concept, same word problem, but now you've taught how credit card interest works, which is one of the concepts people are complaining that they don't teach in high school.
Apparently calculus is used in economics similarly to how it's used in physics. I don't know enough about economics to know how this works. (And I find it SO WEIRD that so artificial a concept as economics would follow the mathematical laws of the physical universe.) But they could have taught this quite easily with a sentence or two about how calculus is used in economics, followed by some economics-based word problems. Then everyone who takes calculus will know a bit about economics. They did that with physics - I learned about derivatives and velocity and acceleration in Calculus class before I even took the relevant Physics class - so it shouldn't be any harder to do it with economics.
As an added bonus, it will make mathematics seem more relevant to students, because everyone knows you have to do money stuff when you're a grownup.
It will take some rewriting of textbooks, but that's more painless and possibly faster than rewriting the curriculum.
So here's what we do: make every single word problem in the textbooks about a financial literacy concept, whenever mathematically possible.
For example, one thing I learned in one of my high school math classes was the formula for compound interest. M = P(1 + i)^n. I still use it to this day when trying to plan my personal finances. However, every word problem we had on this concept was about earning interest on investments. They could quite easily have made some of the word problems about credit card interest. Same mathematical concept, same word problem, but now you've taught how credit card interest works, which is one of the concepts people are complaining that they don't teach in high school.
Apparently calculus is used in economics similarly to how it's used in physics. I don't know enough about economics to know how this works. (And I find it SO WEIRD that so artificial a concept as economics would follow the mathematical laws of the physical universe.) But they could have taught this quite easily with a sentence or two about how calculus is used in economics, followed by some economics-based word problems. Then everyone who takes calculus will know a bit about economics. They did that with physics - I learned about derivatives and velocity and acceleration in Calculus class before I even took the relevant Physics class - so it shouldn't be any harder to do it with economics.
As an added bonus, it will make mathematics seem more relevant to students, because everyone knows you have to do money stuff when you're a grownup.
It will take some rewriting of textbooks, but that's more painless and possibly faster than rewriting the curriculum.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
How to decommercialize christmas without sacrificing anything
But after a disastrous Christmas last year and lacklustre sales most of this year, many retailers are desperate to make up the shortfall in the final four months.
Holiday sales can account for as much as 40 per cent of annual sales, more for those who specialize in giftware.
So that's the problem. That's why retailers are so aggressive with the music and the decorations. They've associated huge sales with this season.
So what we as consumers have to do as consumers is make xmas sales unremarkable, and this without fucking up the economy.
Here's how:
In 2010, don't give your xmas presents on xmas. Instead, give your xmas presents (to your family and friends, as well as any employees and service providers to whom you give a xmas tip) on your own birthday. To dissuade retailers from responding by instituting year-round xmas decorations, do not purchase any xmas presents from retailers who have decorations up before November 28, 2010, which is the first day of Advent 2010. Because people tend to give you presents on your birthday, the result will be multiple opportunities to exchange gifts and good wishes throughout the year.
Santa will bring kids their presents on their half-birthday. Q: Why not their birthday? A: As people born in December and early January can attest, when your birthday coincides with xmas you tend to get less than your rightful share of presents (rightful share being determined by observing siblings and peers). This will maintain the common standard of two annual gift-receiving occasions, which is particularly important when you're a kid and can't just buy stuff for yourself. This will also enable Santa to have more consistent workflow management, with elves specializing in different parts of the production process being more steadily employed year-round, and to save in overtime costs. Mrs. Claus also looks forward to spending a quiet Christmas at home, drinking eggnog in front of the fire and reflecting on the true meaning of the season, for the first time in over two millenia.
Santa assures all good little boys and girls that they will receive their presents on their half-birthday regardless of whether a tree and/or stockings and/or milk and cookies are present in the home.
December 25 (or 24 or January 6 or whichever day you use in your particular culture) can, of course, still be used as a religious feast day, a family gathering, and/or a statutory holiday. But the only socially mandated gift-giving that will occur on or marking that day is xmas gifts from and birthday gifts to individuals whose birthday is December 25, and xmas gifts from Santa to children whose birthday is June 25.
In summary, in 2010:
- Give your xmas gifts on your own birthday
- Santa brings kids their xmas gifts on their half-birthday
- Don't buy xmas gifts from retailers who have decorations up before November 28
- Your religion's, culture's, and/or family's customary celebrations can continue to be held on the customary date, but without the exchange of gifts.
Let's all work together to decentralize xmas 2010 and bring some sanity back to what should be a happy occasion.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
What I would write if I were a journalist
If I had access journalist-calibre resources and research skills, I would do a search of as many media sources as humanly possible to find every instance of "Assuming X% interest", "Assuming an X% return" or synonymous in personal financial advice articles written in, say, the past 10 years before the current economic crisis.
Why? Because I have a hunch that the interest rate assumption was most often 10%. I'd conservatively estimate that the average was close to 8%, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if it approaches 10%.
So why is this relevant? Because, since the economic crisis, especially in reference to the Madoff thingy, I've seen commentators saying that people should have seen that something was wrong because returns were so high, citing returns of around 14%. I can google up this Margaret Wente article and distinctly remember hearing it discussed on Metro Morning around the same time (that would be either Andy Barrie or Michael Hlinka), but I know I've seen it elsewhere too.
Now, I would never have invested in the Madoff thingy because I have no risk tolerance and because I wouldn't have understood how it was supposed to have worked. However, I would have considered those factors personal faults, not indications that there was something wrong with the investment. And despite the fact that I'm so excessively cautious about investment, it never would have occurred to me that the 14% return was a sign something must be wrong. Even if I'd known it was significantly exceeding market averages, I would have just assumed that these people know how to invest properly.
Why would I have thought this? Because I've heard the phrase "Assuming 10% interest" bandied about so often. I've seen it casually and thoughtlessly mentioned in so many financial advice articles that I'm always surprised when I see a more sensible (but still higher than I could ever achieve) 7% used instead. In literally every conversation I've ever been in about what we'd do if we won the lottery, someone would mention investing some portion of the winnings at 10% returns and living off that forever. When I've asked people how, exactly, you get 10% returns, my question has been waved off with an implication that if you know how to invest like a proper grownup, it's easy.
Now, I do see that 10% makes the math easy. However, it doesn't appear to be especially realistic. But I wonder if its pervasiveness as an example led people to take on more financial risk than they can handle with the assumption that they should be getting that level of returns?
Why? Because I have a hunch that the interest rate assumption was most often 10%. I'd conservatively estimate that the average was close to 8%, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if it approaches 10%.
So why is this relevant? Because, since the economic crisis, especially in reference to the Madoff thingy, I've seen commentators saying that people should have seen that something was wrong because returns were so high, citing returns of around 14%. I can google up this Margaret Wente article and distinctly remember hearing it discussed on Metro Morning around the same time (that would be either Andy Barrie or Michael Hlinka), but I know I've seen it elsewhere too.
Now, I would never have invested in the Madoff thingy because I have no risk tolerance and because I wouldn't have understood how it was supposed to have worked. However, I would have considered those factors personal faults, not indications that there was something wrong with the investment. And despite the fact that I'm so excessively cautious about investment, it never would have occurred to me that the 14% return was a sign something must be wrong. Even if I'd known it was significantly exceeding market averages, I would have just assumed that these people know how to invest properly.
Why would I have thought this? Because I've heard the phrase "Assuming 10% interest" bandied about so often. I've seen it casually and thoughtlessly mentioned in so many financial advice articles that I'm always surprised when I see a more sensible (but still higher than I could ever achieve) 7% used instead. In literally every conversation I've ever been in about what we'd do if we won the lottery, someone would mention investing some portion of the winnings at 10% returns and living off that forever. When I've asked people how, exactly, you get 10% returns, my question has been waved off with an implication that if you know how to invest like a proper grownup, it's easy.
Now, I do see that 10% makes the math easy. However, it doesn't appear to be especially realistic. But I wonder if its pervasiveness as an example led people to take on more financial risk than they can handle with the assumption that they should be getting that level of returns?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
How to teach English lit: make the students read poorly-written fanfiction
I had a lot of trouble with English lit class. I read just fine (in the days before the internet I was a voracious reader) but the subject as a whole annoyed me. Why should that green light be symbolic? Why should that gun on the mantlepiece be important? Why should every word of dialogue be important? Life just doesn't work that way!
Of course, we all know that while all the business of everyday life does happen in the fictional universe, only the parts that are important to the plot or the characterization make it onto the page. Otherwise, the book is boring or just doesn't work.
I didn't understand literary analysis until I entered the Harry Potter fandom, where people were using literary analysis to try to figure out what was going to happen in the last three books. In school, we'd always do the analysis after we finished reading the book, at which point I didn't care. In Harry Potter, the story was still ongoing, so we were looking for clues! I could have done way better in school if I'd had an opportunity like that.
Similarly, I didn't understand how only the important stuff makes it onto the page (is there a literary term for this concept?) until I started reading fanfiction. Many fanfic authors do get this point, but when you encounter one who doesn't it's arduous to read! For example, I recently saw a fic where the general plot was "OMG, long lost relatives!" At least a dozen characters and their intricate degrees of relation to the protagonist were painstakingly introduced. And then nothing was done with them. The author just wanted to give the protagonist a big extended family.
So English teachers should make their students read a few things like that, dull and arduous fanfics that demonstrate what happens in the complete absence of the literary techniques being discussed.
Then compare that with the Harry Potter series, specifically in terms of the first three books and the revelations at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban.
Then they'll be prepared to buckle down and discuss symbolism and foreshadowing and plotting and characterization.
Of course, we all know that while all the business of everyday life does happen in the fictional universe, only the parts that are important to the plot or the characterization make it onto the page. Otherwise, the book is boring or just doesn't work.
I didn't understand literary analysis until I entered the Harry Potter fandom, where people were using literary analysis to try to figure out what was going to happen in the last three books. In school, we'd always do the analysis after we finished reading the book, at which point I didn't care. In Harry Potter, the story was still ongoing, so we were looking for clues! I could have done way better in school if I'd had an opportunity like that.
Similarly, I didn't understand how only the important stuff makes it onto the page (is there a literary term for this concept?) until I started reading fanfiction. Many fanfic authors do get this point, but when you encounter one who doesn't it's arduous to read! For example, I recently saw a fic where the general plot was "OMG, long lost relatives!" At least a dozen characters and their intricate degrees of relation to the protagonist were painstakingly introduced. And then nothing was done with them. The author just wanted to give the protagonist a big extended family.
So English teachers should make their students read a few things like that, dull and arduous fanfics that demonstrate what happens in the complete absence of the literary techniques being discussed.
Then compare that with the Harry Potter series, specifically in terms of the first three books and the revelations at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban.
Then they'll be prepared to buckle down and discuss symbolism and foreshadowing and plotting and characterization.
Friday, June 26, 2009
The argument for sterilization before marriage
One of the barriers people face in getting sterilized is "But what if you get into a relationship with someone who wants kids?" As we CFers know, that's a deal-breaker. We don't want to be in a relationship with someone who wants kids, period.
But, as we also know, some breeder types think we can be talked out of or are going to grow out of being childfree (we're not) so might enter into a relationship with a CFer anyway, only to write angsty letters to Dear Abby years later when they find we were telling the truth.
Therefore being sterilized before you've found your life partner is a good idea, because it serves as an automatic breeder filter. Even if your future reproductive plans don't come up in conversation early on (You can't exactly do "Hey, do you, um, want to go get a cup of coffee or something?" "Sure, but I'm not going to bear your children."), it will come up in the birth control conversation. ("I've had Essure, but we'll need condoms at least until we both get tested.") No one will ever be under the impression that you could be convinced to breed, and it will therefore save everyone a lot of angst.
But, as we also know, some breeder types think we can be talked out of or are going to grow out of being childfree (we're not) so might enter into a relationship with a CFer anyway, only to write angsty letters to Dear Abby years later when they find we were telling the truth.
Therefore being sterilized before you've found your life partner is a good idea, because it serves as an automatic breeder filter. Even if your future reproductive plans don't come up in conversation early on (You can't exactly do "Hey, do you, um, want to go get a cup of coffee or something?" "Sure, but I'm not going to bear your children."), it will come up in the birth control conversation. ("I've had Essure, but we'll need condoms at least until we both get tested.") No one will ever be under the impression that you could be convinced to breed, and it will therefore save everyone a lot of angst.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Umbrellas
I recently switched to a larger purse, so I bought a larger umbrella. (Don't worry, it's not one of those huge ones that takes up the whole sidewalk.) My previous umbrella folded up nice and small, but it was a bit smaller than I'd have liked when open.
Today I was walking through a sudden cloudburst and thinking that maybe I should have put my old umbrella in my purse too, then I could give it to one of these people running around with no umbrella. Yeah, it's a bit small, but it's far better than nothing.
I've also been wanting to get one of those rainbow umbrellas that were all over Pride last year, but I'm not seeing them around anywhere this year.
So these thoughts converged to come up with the following:
Find yourself a nice homophobic community. Get a bunch of rainbow umbrellas - the size that can fold up into a purse. On a rainy day, send people out on foot with one (not necessarily rainbow) umbrella to protect themselves from the rain and a few rainbow umbrellas in their purse. Then they should offer their "spare" umbrellas to random umbrellaless people, just as good samaritans.
Today I was walking through a sudden cloudburst and thinking that maybe I should have put my old umbrella in my purse too, then I could give it to one of these people running around with no umbrella. Yeah, it's a bit small, but it's far better than nothing.
I've also been wanting to get one of those rainbow umbrellas that were all over Pride last year, but I'm not seeing them around anywhere this year.
So these thoughts converged to come up with the following:
Find yourself a nice homophobic community. Get a bunch of rainbow umbrellas - the size that can fold up into a purse. On a rainy day, send people out on foot with one (not necessarily rainbow) umbrella to protect themselves from the rain and a few rainbow umbrellas in their purse. Then they should offer their "spare" umbrellas to random umbrellaless people, just as good samaritans.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Mashup bunny: Dion vs. Dion
From the retro files, someone should mash up The Wanderer vs. Runaround Sue
If they wouldn't work as a mash, you could totally tweak the tempo (and the key if necessary) and combine them in an a capella or barbershop arrangment.
If they wouldn't work as a mash, you could totally tweak the tempo (and the key if necessary) and combine them in an a capella or barbershop arrangment.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
To do next time I encounter abortion protesters
A couple of years ago, I encountered an abortion protest (my first as a pedestrian) where they had giant pictures of dismembered babies. I used this opportunity to fulfill a longstanding if childish goal of acting like they gave me the idea of getting an abortion.
But now that I think about it, the dismembered fetuses on their posters were really neatly dismembered. They were like broken dolls - arms detached at the shoulders and legs detached at the hips. I think their heads were even still attached.
If the procedure does cause the fetus to be dismembered (and I have no idea whether it does or not), you'd think it wouldn't be as neat. Maybe the foot would come off at the ankle or part of the arm would come off at the elbow. Maybe its head would come off. Maybe its brain would explode or its eyeballs would come out.
Also, they were really neat and clean for having just passed through the birth canal and been dismembered. I know a miscarriage looks like a big messy menstruation. I know newborn babies are born covered in gunk. So you'd think an aborted fetus would look like one or the other or some average between the two. If I remember correctly, this one was sort of generally wet, but it wasn't covered in any bodily fluids of any sort. They weren't bleeding where the arms had come off
So I think if I ever encounter these people again, I'll ask them about the pictures. What method of abortion was used? How far along was fetus and how big was it? Why did it dismember? Why did it dismember so neatly? Why didn't it explode? Why is it so clean? Where did all the uterine lining and placenta and amniotic fluid and whatever else is in the uterus go? Under what circumstances was it possible to photograph the fetus?
If anyone should ever have this opportunity before me, I'd appreciate a report.
But now that I think about it, the dismembered fetuses on their posters were really neatly dismembered. They were like broken dolls - arms detached at the shoulders and legs detached at the hips. I think their heads were even still attached.
If the procedure does cause the fetus to be dismembered (and I have no idea whether it does or not), you'd think it wouldn't be as neat. Maybe the foot would come off at the ankle or part of the arm would come off at the elbow. Maybe its head would come off. Maybe its brain would explode or its eyeballs would come out.
Also, they were really neat and clean for having just passed through the birth canal and been dismembered. I know a miscarriage looks like a big messy menstruation. I know newborn babies are born covered in gunk. So you'd think an aborted fetus would look like one or the other or some average between the two. If I remember correctly, this one was sort of generally wet, but it wasn't covered in any bodily fluids of any sort. They weren't bleeding where the arms had come off
So I think if I ever encounter these people again, I'll ask them about the pictures. What method of abortion was used? How far along was fetus and how big was it? Why did it dismember? Why did it dismember so neatly? Why didn't it explode? Why is it so clean? Where did all the uterine lining and placenta and amniotic fluid and whatever else is in the uterus go? Under what circumstances was it possible to photograph the fetus?
If anyone should ever have this opportunity before me, I'd appreciate a report.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Why students should be encouraged to use Wikipedia
A lot of people tell students they shouldn't use Wikipedia when researching stuff for school.
I think they're missing out on a golden opportunity to teach critical thinking.
Wikipedia is hugely helpful. Even in my professional life, I find it's quite frequently the best resource for quickly and easily getting a general overview of a topic. However, it is of varying quality and is sometimes edited by people who have agendas.
Students should be taught how to how to identify good information vs. questionable information vs. propoganda in Wikipedia. They could, for example, take an article on a topic that interests them and analyze its quality. Go to the sources to see if they check out, do linguistic analysis for biais and spin, look at the discussion page and history and see if there are any edit wars going on and describe how that affects the current state of the article.
It's a live, real, and immediately applicable tool for not only teaching critical thinking, but showing students its importance.
Then, once they've learned all that, they shouldn't be discouraged from using it for research; they should be expected to understand that it isn't the alpha and the omega, and marked accordingly.
I think they're missing out on a golden opportunity to teach critical thinking.
Wikipedia is hugely helpful. Even in my professional life, I find it's quite frequently the best resource for quickly and easily getting a general overview of a topic. However, it is of varying quality and is sometimes edited by people who have agendas.
Students should be taught how to how to identify good information vs. questionable information vs. propoganda in Wikipedia. They could, for example, take an article on a topic that interests them and analyze its quality. Go to the sources to see if they check out, do linguistic analysis for biais and spin, look at the discussion page and history and see if there are any edit wars going on and describe how that affects the current state of the article.
It's a live, real, and immediately applicable tool for not only teaching critical thinking, but showing students its importance.
Then, once they've learned all that, they shouldn't be discouraged from using it for research; they should be expected to understand that it isn't the alpha and the omega, and marked accordingly.
How to promote safer teen sexual behaviour: put the clitoris on the map
The sex ed I received in school was thorough and very informative, but it was focused entirely on preventing pregnancy and STD transmission, with no information about sexual pleasure. As a result, I didn't come away with any knowledge of specific sex acts, and I didn't learn about the clitoris there.
My parents had the good judgement to give me a book about "your changing body" that included slightly more sex ed information, including the location and function of the clitoris. It was quite the revelation, but I'm not sure if it was common knowledge among my peers. I remember in Grade 12 a classmate did her World Issues presentation on female genital mutilation, and she did think it was necessary to briefly mention in passing what the clitoris actually is. She most likely had a larger sample size than I did from which to determine how fluent in the geography of the vulva our classmates would be, so it is likely that a significant number of people did not know about the clitoris. Obviously everyone learns about it eventually, but it seems that a significant number of people spent several years of their sexually-aware life without knowing about the clitoris, and this was at the same age where the general social goal is to reduce risky sexual behaviour.
The sex ed I received, both at school and at home, was very reproduction-focused. It started with where babies come from, and moved on into birth control and STDs in a broader context of how to manage your changing body. That did make sense - my 10-year-old self who still thought boys were yucky didn't need to know much more than if a penis goes in your vagina you might get pregnant. However, because of this necessary focus on penises going into vaginas, and the tacit and societal implication that sex is like the ultimate in pleasure, we came away with the idea that penile-vaginal intercourse is the ultimate in pleasure. (I know this is all very heterocentric, but that's how my sex ed was. And because I'm extrapolating from my childhood sex ed, this blog post as a whole is probably going to come out heterocentric.)
However, as we all know, you can have a lot of fun stimulating the clitoris and for many women it is more pleasurable than vaginal penetration. And we also know that penetrative sex acts are higher risk than non-penetrative sex acts. So if sex ed gives people the idea that the ultimate in pleasure is a non-penetrative act, they will be more likely to go for that non-penetrative act instead of higher-risk penetrative acts.
So here's how to do it: include the clitoris on the diagram. In my sex ed, we had to memorize diagrams of the male and female reproductive organs and learn the function of each part. Simply include the clitoris on the female diagram, say that its purpose is to provide physical pleasure, and leave it at that. Yes, it's not immediately related to reproduction, but neither are the prostate or the vas deferens or the labia majora or the fallopian tubes, and we had to learn all those. No need to go into great detail, just mention it in passing like you do the vas deferens, along with the idea that it's the place to go for sexual pleasure, all before most of the kids have started experimenting sexually.
Then when they do start experimenting sexually, they're going to want to spend some time on the clitoris. Not all time is going to be spent on the clitoris, obviously, because the boys are still going to want the odd orgasm, but girls who are after orgasms and the boys who want to be sex gods (as opposed to the boys who just want to stick their penis in something) are going to go stampeding towards the clitoris. And as teens tend to have more limited time and opportunity to spend on sex, the more time that is spent on the clitoris means less time will be spent on penetration.
There is a school of thought whereby penile-vaginal penetration is not to be engaged in before marriage but other sex acts are acceptable, and this overlaps a school of thought wherein people are not to be taught how to protect themselves from STDs. Mentioning the clitoris here would be particularly beneficial, because unprotected cunnilingus and frottage and manual stimulation are much lower-risk activities and are certainly safer than unprotected saddlebacking.
Simple knowledge of the existence and function of the clitoris will get a large portion of teens interested in engaging in low-risk sexual behaviours when they do have the inclination and opportunity for sexual activity. There's no need to change sex ed, no need to talk about technique, no need to change whatever values are conveyed. Just make sure that this one part of the human anatomy is included and labelled on every anatomical diagram, just like the vas deferens, and nature will take its course.
My parents had the good judgement to give me a book about "your changing body" that included slightly more sex ed information, including the location and function of the clitoris. It was quite the revelation, but I'm not sure if it was common knowledge among my peers. I remember in Grade 12 a classmate did her World Issues presentation on female genital mutilation, and she did think it was necessary to briefly mention in passing what the clitoris actually is. She most likely had a larger sample size than I did from which to determine how fluent in the geography of the vulva our classmates would be, so it is likely that a significant number of people did not know about the clitoris. Obviously everyone learns about it eventually, but it seems that a significant number of people spent several years of their sexually-aware life without knowing about the clitoris, and this was at the same age where the general social goal is to reduce risky sexual behaviour.
The sex ed I received, both at school and at home, was very reproduction-focused. It started with where babies come from, and moved on into birth control and STDs in a broader context of how to manage your changing body. That did make sense - my 10-year-old self who still thought boys were yucky didn't need to know much more than if a penis goes in your vagina you might get pregnant. However, because of this necessary focus on penises going into vaginas, and the tacit and societal implication that sex is like the ultimate in pleasure, we came away with the idea that penile-vaginal intercourse is the ultimate in pleasure. (I know this is all very heterocentric, but that's how my sex ed was. And because I'm extrapolating from my childhood sex ed, this blog post as a whole is probably going to come out heterocentric.)
However, as we all know, you can have a lot of fun stimulating the clitoris and for many women it is more pleasurable than vaginal penetration. And we also know that penetrative sex acts are higher risk than non-penetrative sex acts. So if sex ed gives people the idea that the ultimate in pleasure is a non-penetrative act, they will be more likely to go for that non-penetrative act instead of higher-risk penetrative acts.
So here's how to do it: include the clitoris on the diagram. In my sex ed, we had to memorize diagrams of the male and female reproductive organs and learn the function of each part. Simply include the clitoris on the female diagram, say that its purpose is to provide physical pleasure, and leave it at that. Yes, it's not immediately related to reproduction, but neither are the prostate or the vas deferens or the labia majora or the fallopian tubes, and we had to learn all those. No need to go into great detail, just mention it in passing like you do the vas deferens, along with the idea that it's the place to go for sexual pleasure, all before most of the kids have started experimenting sexually.
Then when they do start experimenting sexually, they're going to want to spend some time on the clitoris. Not all time is going to be spent on the clitoris, obviously, because the boys are still going to want the odd orgasm, but girls who are after orgasms and the boys who want to be sex gods (as opposed to the boys who just want to stick their penis in something) are going to go stampeding towards the clitoris. And as teens tend to have more limited time and opportunity to spend on sex, the more time that is spent on the clitoris means less time will be spent on penetration.
There is a school of thought whereby penile-vaginal penetration is not to be engaged in before marriage but other sex acts are acceptable, and this overlaps a school of thought wherein people are not to be taught how to protect themselves from STDs. Mentioning the clitoris here would be particularly beneficial, because unprotected cunnilingus and frottage and manual stimulation are much lower-risk activities and are certainly safer than unprotected saddlebacking.
Simple knowledge of the existence and function of the clitoris will get a large portion of teens interested in engaging in low-risk sexual behaviours when they do have the inclination and opportunity for sexual activity. There's no need to change sex ed, no need to talk about technique, no need to change whatever values are conveyed. Just make sure that this one part of the human anatomy is included and labelled on every anatomical diagram, just like the vas deferens, and nature will take its course.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
How to end prostitution
Antonia Zerbisias has been writing about decriminalization of prostitution.
Some people want to make prostitution go away completely.
Luckily, I know how:
Improve general labour conditions so it's more worthwhile for workers to do something else.
Why would you stand on a street corner waiting to blow strangers if you could earn the same money plus dental standing on a street corner handing out flyers?
Some people want to make prostitution go away completely.
Luckily, I know how:
Improve general labour conditions so it's more worthwhile for workers to do something else.
Why would you stand on a street corner waiting to blow strangers if you could earn the same money plus dental standing on a street corner handing out flyers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)