While The Men Watch is a flawed concept

Recently in the news: something called While The Men Watch, which purports to be sports commentary for women who aren't into sports.Some argue that it's sexist because it assumes that men are watching sports and women aren't, but there's an even bigger flaw in its core concept:

The flaw is the idea that you need special programming just because your partner has appointment television that you're not interested in.

Most people are competent adults with more than enough things that they have to do and want to do. If your partner is watching something on TV that you're not into, it's not like you're sitting there twiddling your thumbs. All the things that you have to do and want to do still exist.

For example, yesterday after work I made some very yummy pasta with asparagus and alfredo, watched a couple episodes of HIMYM (I'm catching up on the series lately), read the newspapers, caught up on my twitter feed and my google reader, sent a message of support to Eddie Izzard and checked out what kind of press he's getting after having to abandon his latest marathon challenge, watched the new Springsteen video, chatted with a friend and admired her latest baby videos (My Favourite Little Person, who is now six months old, can eat corn on the cob despite not having any teeth!), stripped the bed and washed the sheets, indulged in some fanfiction, enjoyed a few chapters of the Eve Dallas book I'm currently rereading, and played Sims a bit. No big deal, just a regular at-home evening, unwinding from the workday.

And all of that is exactly what I'd be doing if I had a partner watching a hockey game in my living room. And all of that is perfectly targeted to my needs and interests. Why do they think they can do better? Why do they think we think we need them to?

More information please: why do people who think catechism is inappropriate for children send their kids to Catholic school

Recently in the news: parents who are opposed to a Catholic school brochure that describes homosexuals as "objectively disordered". My (and, likely, many others') first reaction was to roll my eyes. The "objectively disordered" wording comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So my first thought was "If you don't like the teaching of the Catholic church maybe you shouldn't be sending your kids to Catholic school!" But this is a glaringly obvious question - the first one that comes to mind when one recognizes or learns that the objectionable phrase is taken directly from catechism. So why did the reporter not ask that question and put the answer in the article? It does mention in passing that one of the mothers is Catholic, but that actually raises more question than it answers. If she's Catholic, she's more likely to already be familiar with the catechism, which means that she's identifying with this religion despite the fact that it considers her "objectively disordered". But she doesn't consider this teaching of the religion she identifies with appropriate for her kids? What leads a person to lead their life in such a self-contradictory way? It makes the parents look foolish to present these contradictions without explanations, and the Star is doing them a disservice by printing this story without answering these questions.

Random thoughts on Downton Abbey and noblesse oblige

1. Some people have criticized Downton Abbey for having the nobility be kindly and decent towards their servants, saying that this didn't reflect real-life conditions for many servants at the time. However, the Crawleys' sense of noblesse oblige does have an enormous advantage in this work of fiction, in that it allows other stories to be told. A cruel relationship between the nobles and the servants would be the primary conflict, and therefore that story would insist upon being told. And this story would have to be told at the expense of the smaller stories we all enjoy like the courtship of Anna and Bates, Gwen's attempts to become a secretary, or the day Mrs. Hughes' old beau came back and proposed. It wouldn't be Downton Abbey then, it would be Dickens. And if we wanted Dickens, we'd read Dickens.

Harry Potter wouldn't work the way it does if Hogwarts was an abusive boarding school or if Harry hadn't promptly made good friends. Ugly Betty wouldn't work the way it does if Betty's family wasn't supportive. And Downton Abbey wouldn't work the way it does if the Crawleys were cruel to their servants.

2. I previously came up with the idea of teaching noblesse oblige in school. Because presenting it as a Thou Shalt isn't going to work, I suggested that it should be explained as background information to a novel read in class. Downton Abbey isn't a novel, but it is a work of fiction where noblesse oblige could be presented as background information. Of course, the questions remain of how it would fit into the curriculum, and whether there are any characters that would be appealing enough to students for them to want to emulate.

3. The village of Downton has a small hospital, which is funded by the Crawleys. But the Crawleys' estate would be broke if it weren't for the fact that the Earl married a rich American. So if he hadn't been able to find a rich wife ~30 years ago, the people of Downton wouldn't have a hospital today.

There are some people in real life who think public services shouldn't exist and charity should fill the need instead. This is a good example of the flaws in that plan.

How the Levi's ad campaign could have been made to work

I've been reading about the hilarious misfired Levi's ad campaign, and I think I see what they were trying to do and how they could have done it better.

Different people who wear the same size have different builds. For example, some people carry front-to-back, and some people carry side-to-side. Some people have long legs and a short torso, and some people have short legs and a long torso. Some people's hips curve in a smooth and gentle slope from the narrowest point of their waist to where the femur meets the pelvic bone, and some people's hips go straight out to the side at the top of the pelvic bone, slightly back inwards below that where there isn't much going on, then out again where the femur meets the pelvic bone.

I think what Levis was trying to suggest is that these jeans will fit all of these variations, or at least more of them than the average pair of jeans. Which would be useful! And it's possible that the models they use do in fact have these variations in their bone structure. But we can't tell, because of the pose. The pose only highlights their similarities, which makes it laughable.

Here's how they could have done it better:

Get an assortment of people whom the best-selling jeans on the market don't fit well. Make a video of them trying on the best-seller, focusing on the areas where it doesn't fit well. Then show them trying on the new jeans and focus on how they fit better in the problem areas. They could even get several models who all wear the same size jeans but have all different fit problems with the best-seller, and show them each trying on the same single pair of jeans (à la Travelling Pants), handing it from one to the next so the viewer can see that they're actually the same pants. If they don't want to show the models in their underwear, they could be in dressing-room booths with neck-to-knee doors.

The print component of the campaign could consist of a series of ads each highlighting one common fit problem, and include a link to a youtube page where you can see them actually putting on the new pants and comparing them with the old pants, to prove they're not photoshopped etc.

Of course, this ad campaign would only work if the pants actually do what they say they do. But if they do, they deserve to be well-advertised. And if they don't but claim they do, they deserve to be an object of ridicule.

What if your boss goes undercover but you don't want to be on TV?

It seems TTC Chair Karen Stintz went undercover as an ordinary TTC worker as part of a reality TV show called Undercover Boss.

Stintz was introduced to her TTC co-workers as Ruth Bear — her middle name and her mother’s maiden name. To explain the cameras, the TTC employees were told that Stintz/Bear was the subject of a documentary about a woman re-entering the work force.

But what happens if you actually are an ordinary TTC worker (or an ordinary worker in some other workplace) and your boss decides to do something like this, but you don't want to be on TV? Suppose you're assigned to work as part of their team, or you're the person whose job it would normally be to supervise the newbie? If one of your team members is being filmed, it might not be logistically possible to stay out of camera range.

Do they even take this into account? Are people given the option of another assignment if they don't want to be on TV? Or are people forced to be on TV just because someone near them is being filmed?

Kudos to Sesame Street!

Kudos to Sesame Street for a completely non-triggering depiction of a spider! The video is here (not embedding in case there are people who trigger more easily than I do), showing Jim Parsons teaching the audience the meaning of the word "arachnid" with the assistance of a blue muppet spider.

I don't know if this is by design or just a happy coincidence, but nearly everything that triggers visceral fear has been eliminated. It doesn't descend from the ceiling, it walks on from the side. And it doesn't walk on with its eight legs (thus creating that terrifying motion), it enters nondescriptly on invisible legs as most muppets do, with the exact same movement you'd find on Grover or Kermit. It has two eyes and a toothless mouth arranged on as human a face as you'll ever find on a muppet. It's blue. If it weren't for the eight (motionless) legs on its back, it could be a ladybug. Or a hunchbacked anything muppet. I had a brief demi-second of squick when Jim Parsons touched it (because EWW! He TOUCHED IT!). But then the blue guy said "You kind of freak me out" and that made me laugh and the squick was gone. It was far better executed than I'd have thought anything involving an arachnid could possibly be.

There is a parenting theory wherein, to prevent children from developing a fear of creepy crawlies, you talk to them about how good and interesting they are and try not to show any fear yourself. During the brief time between when my parents started doing this and when I had my first phobia incident (story is #3 here), it seemed kind of phony and artificial, as though they knew something and weren't telling me. But Sesame Street actually achieves this, by doing something that's completely natural within the Sesame Street universe and portrays the spider as harmless and friendly (and this despite the fact that Jim's first reaction is to scream), without using any imagery or elements that would trigger a congenital phobia like mine.

As an easily-triggered arachnophobic, I appreciate how incredibly difficult a balance this is and I wouldn't have thought it possible to do well, so kudos to Sesame Street for pulling it off!

(Props to @BroadwayProfe for knowing me well enough to know I'd appreciate this despite the subject matter, and for presenting it carefully enough that I could make an informed decision to watch and take precautions to avoid triggering.)

Your Federation Station

I was saddened to hear of the passing of CityTV's Mark Dailey at the too-young age of 57. Like everyone, I know him as The Voice from the CityTV announcements. But what is strongest is my memory is is the "Your Federation Station" tagline.

It was the early 90s, I was a shy, awkward, dorky preteen, and a consummate Trekkie. Star Trek was my first fandom (although I didn't know the word yet), and the Enterprise was my happy place. I mentally wrote fanfic (although I didn't know the word yet) starring a curly-haired ensign Mary Sue (although I didn't know the word yet) who maybe sometimes got to kiss Welsey Crusher. It made me very happy.

However, the rest of the world had a problem with it. My classmates mocked me endlessly for being a Trekkie, and whenever I got too excited about something fannish, my parents would give me a lecture on how it isn't real.

On CityTV, Star Trek often aired right after Fashion Television. We'd see the last couple minutes of FT with models walking on the runways and Jeanne Becker talking to us like we know who Karl Langerfeld is. Then we'd get a quick shot of something mildly interesting happening on the streets of Toronto, Mark Dailey would say "You're watching CityTV: Your Federation Station." Then it was Star Trek time.

I found that all mildly validating. The TV station was acknowledging that Star Trek was appointment programming, and people cool enough to work for a TV station knew enough about Star Trek to namedrop the Federation. They segued smoothly from runway fashion to the bridge of the Enterprise via a brief shot of Toronto street life, without making a great big fuss over the fact that they're going from something cooler than I'll ever be to something that gets me mocked. As though it's completely unremarkable to have these two things next to each other. Familiarity with Star Trek juxtaposed with city life and fashion - two things that my bullies aspired to, that I didn't dare even think about aspiring to because I wasn't cool enough. It gave me a glimmer of hope that maybe what I was doing wasn't so bizarre after all.

Now that I've escaped to a bigger and better world where watching Star Trek, wearing fashion, and living in the city are all utterly unremarkable, I can see that it was just marketing. They're the channel with Star Trek, there is an audience for Star Trek, so they market that fact. Most people (including, actually, my bullies) do have enough of a passing familiarity with Star Trek that for a marketing team to come up with "Federation Station" is unsurprising. But even though it was marketing, it was the only validation I was receiving. In a world of mockery and lectures, the positioning of Star Trek as a good thing, as appointment TV, as something with which people on TV were familiar, as of interest to people for whom urban life is relevant, as not incompatible with fashion, all made me think that maybe there's nothing wrong with curling up on the couch to escape to the bridge of the Enterprise for an hour. And maybe, just maybe, the problem was with the people who gave me shit for it. It's a small thing, but small things can be important when you live in a small world and deal with small people.

And so, I mourn the loss of the man whose voice gave my child-self that flicker of reassurance.

What's missing from Remembrance Day

Last week, I saw a young vet selling poppies. He was definitely under 40, might even have been younger than me. (I can't tell age well in men, his head was shaved, and he was wearing the blue jacketed vet uniform that I'm used to seeing on elderly men.)

What is missing from Remembrance Day is acknowledgment that this is not okay!

I'm certain the people who first created Remembrance Day would be devastated that, nearly 100 years later, a young man - possibly a great-grandson of a WWI vet - is a war veteran!

This is not nothing. We shouldn't be scanning over without noticing it. We need to be acknowledging, at the very very least, that this is suboptimal.

Media coverage of Remembrance Day often mentions, with a tinge of sadness, that WWI and WWII veterans are dying out. I don't think that tinge of sadness is appropriate. Not that I want all my elders to die, but rather that if all the living veterans eventually die out, it will mean that we've succeeded in creating the peace and freedom that they all thought they were fighting for. If we're making more veterans, then we have failed and their sacrifices were in vain.

The remaining mystery of the Toronto municipal election

One of the councillor candidates in Ward 22 was one Elizabeth Cook. I couldn't find any information about her. Her profile on the City of Toronto election site didn't include a website or even a campaign office phone number. She received no media coverage that I could find (with some media outlets even saying they weren't able to get in touch with her), and was not present at any of the candidates' debates. I put quite a bit of effort into looking, but the only evidence I could find of her existence was the fact that her name was on the candidates' list.

But she somehow got 1,900 votes. And what's even weirder is that she came in third out of the four candidates! And the fourth-place finisher, William Molls, had a website and a platform and attended all the debates and was mentioned in the media a few times, and even talked to people on twitter!

So I'm still super curious about who is this Elizabeth Cook? Did she have an actual campaign that I didn't see and couldn't find (and media outlets couldn't find either)? Who voted for her and why?

I am not happy with media coverage of the Toronto election

I am not at all happy with how the media has been handling this Toronto election.

I think the electioneering started far too early, and I'm not happy with how the media was complicit in this by scheduling televised debates seven fricking months before election day.

I'm not happy with how the media has deemed the candidates of its choosing frontrunners and then practically ignored all other candidates. We have 40 mayoral candidates, and I have only seen 8 of their names in my newspapers, with only 5 of them treated like serious candidates! My ward has 4 city council candidates, and what little media coverage we've gotten has arbitrarily deemed only 2 of them viable.

I am not happy with how the media has allowed the candidates rather than the people to define the issues and narrative. Nearly every day for the better part of this year I've opened the newspaper to find someone trying to win my vote by lying to my face about what I want and need from my city.

I'm not happy at all with how the media has given me absolutely no information whatsoever to help me make an informed vote for my school board trustee. There are no current, past, or future TDSB students in my household. I don't even actually know what the issues are, and the media has done nothing to help me in this area.

What I want from the media is extensive objective information. I want all candidates and their platforms profiled and given equal space, and to be allowed to decide for myself which ones are viable. I want newspapers to track down that one candidate in my ward who doesn't have a website and profile her just like all the other candidates, not completely ignore her. I want an objective overview of the issues, as defined by the people, not the candidates. I want factual information readily available - What does the city's budget currently look like? What are the cost and capacity per kilometre of LRTs vs. subways? - and zero spin. I want objective primers on how to decide how to vote for people who haven't voted in Toronto or in their ward before, or are otherwise unfamiliar with mayoral/councillor/trustee issues. And I don't want any of this to start before Labour Day.

I can make snap judgements based on the loudest elements of candidates' reputations myself. I can ignore candidates I've never heard of myself. I can sit passively by as the candidates define the issues and take their every statement at face value myself. If I wanted to do this, I wouldn't need the media. I'm going to the media because I want more than I can do myself. And it's time for them to step up and deliver.

Journalism wanted

I have a number of questions about recent G20 happenings. In more or less chronological order:

1. On June 16, it was announced that health cards wouldn't count as ID for the security zone. Why not? What does this achieve from a security perspective? What aspect of health cards makes them inadequate as ID? Why did they announce this too late for anyone to acquire ID that was considered acceptable in time for the summit? The nature of health cards hasn't changed. Why didn't they know they would be unacceptable earlier? What do they want people who don't have a driver's licence or a passport but do legitimately need to access the security zone to do? What are the intentions of the people who made this rule?

2. Why were the new laws not announced and widely publicized before the first person was arrested under them? What is the security/law enforcement benefit to doing this? Presumably laws are made because they want people to follow them, and to get people to follow them they have to tell people about them. If this is not the case, why not? What were their intentions?

3. I have heard a number of reports from actual journalists (including the Toronto Star's G20 blog and Steve Paikin's twitter feed) that police were banging their batons against their shields. What is their intention in doing this? I'm not in the crowd in question, but it seems like the sort of thing that could escalate.

4. Who exactly are these black bloc people? What are their goals? Why do they think their goals are best achieved through violent action? Why did they choose to take violent action in a way that would be detrimental to the safety and reputation of peaceful demonstrators? Are they opposed to what the peaceful demonstrators stand for? I would very much like to see an extensive interview with some black bloc people, and I think protecting the sources' anonymity if necessary would be appropriate. We have a right to know at the very least the reasoning, goals, and intentions of the people who are hurting our city's body, soul and reputation and setting legitimate activism back decades.

5. What was the ratio of black bloc people to legitimate demonstrators to police? How does this compare to demonstrator/police ratios at demonstrations? I've heard reports that the police weren't doing anything to stop the black bloc people from destroying property. Is this true? If so, were the ratios such that it would not have been possible to do so? Is there another law enforcement reason? Where else were the police deployed and why?

6. I've heard from a number of eyewitness sources via twitter that the police seemed to be attempting to rather aggressively drive protesters out of Queen's Park. But Queen's Park is the designated protest area. What's the story here? Did something change? Why wouldn't you want to keep protesters inside the protest area? What triggered the aggressiveness?

I have a couple more things that are really more ideas for long-term research rather than journalism, so I'll be making another blog post either tonight or tomorrow.

I'll close with a conspiracy theory. If you're just tuning in to this blog, I like to make conspiracy theories - it's a bit of a hobby. (Maybe I should give them their own blog category?) I tend not to actually believe the conspiracy theories I make, I just find it an entertaining intellectual exercise to assemble the elements of a situation in a way that produces a good conspiracy theory.

So here's my conspiracy theory for today's events: the black bloc people are ultimately operatives/tools of the powers that be, sent into today's protests for the express purpose of making the unprecedented security measures look justified, and perhaps also to distract from what the G20 actually is or is not doing.

I'm sure no one involved likes that conspiracy theory. I'm sure even those not involved want it to be false. Therefore, I hope everyone will be absolutely scrupulous in disclosing and reporting all the facts and all the truth in order to disprove me beyond any doubt, and the unanswered questions won't be left to slide just because the barricades have come down and the rainbow flags have gone up.

Justin Suarez

On Ugly Betty, it was a big deal that the Suarez family was nothing but supportive when Justin came to the realization that he's gay.

But on top of that, they were nothing but supportive of a 14-year-old having a romance! Think back to 14. Can you imagine? No over-supervision, no trying to frighten or intimidate your partner, no trying to keep you from spending time together on the pathetic excuse that it could hurt your grades, no Talks, none of that stupid "It's not you we don't trust" bullshit. Your parents see you snogging, and they're just happy you've found someone who makes you happy. At 14!!! Wouldn't that be awesome?

Journalism wanted

Unlike most articles about the "$100,000 club", this one actually acknowledges (in the last couple of paragraphs) the fact that the value of $100,000 has changed over the years, so the absolute number of people earning over $100,000 isn't fully informative.

But it would be great at this point if they could do the research and analysis necessary to make the data fully informative.

What would the threshold be if you indexed it for inflation? How many people would be above the threshold then? What percentage of the public service is over the threshold, and how has that number evolved over time? How does the growth in the number of public servants over the threshold compare with population growth in Ontario as a whole? How does it compare with the number of people in the private sector over the threshold? How does it compare with the number of people below the poverty line?

I'll get you started. Public Sector Salary Disclosure was introduced in 1996. According to the Bank of Canada inflation calculator, $100,000 in 1996 dollars is equal to $131,214.53 in 2010 dollars. Of the first 10 names on the first list, only 3 earned more than $131,214.53.

Based on this initial, unskilled perusal, it seems like a more in-depth analysis may well be informative. It would be really helpful if some journalists, who no doubt have the ability and resources to find and contextualize all the data, could make sense of it all for us.

Question Ugly Betty needs to answer

What happens to Hilda's fetus?

They had an ultrasound that found the baby didn't have a heartbeat. So no baby for Hilda. But there's still a dead fetus in her uterus. What happens then? Does it come out by itself? Do they need to D&C it out? Even if they don't show this on screen, they should at least mention it in passing, because it's a great big question mark for people like me who have no experience with pregnancy.

(Also, Betty, Ignacio, and Babydaddy (I forget his name) were all in the ultrasound with Hilda, and the ultrasound technician makes some comment to the effect that she's never seen that many people in the ultrasound room before. Surely it's not THAT uncommon for a patient to bring in her babydaddy and her own parents (and maybe babydaddy's parents too) to get a first look at the baby? Or for the patient to bring the baby's biological father and the baby's future adoptive parents? Or her spouse and children? I mean, I'm sure in most cases it's just the baby's bio-parents, but I seriously doubt three support people is so uncommon that a tech would never have seen it before and would feel the need to common on it.)

How to end Ugly Betty

1. Betty hooks up with Claire Mead's adopted-out son
2. Claire Mead hooks up with Betty's father
3. Connor Owens is Amanda's biological father
4. Marc and Cliff get back together
5. Justin becomes Daniel's new assistant.

Add your own!

The problems with the Test The Nation IQ test

1. The time limit is per question. In real IQ tests, the time limit is for the section or for the whole test, so you can speed through the easy questions and take your time on the harder ones.

2. Because you're taking the test at home on your computer, you can talk out loud, which is completely unlike real IQ tests. I have an auditory memory, so this is enormously helpful to me. As a result I got 49/50 questions right, which places my IQ at 144 (on a scale that goes up to 150).

Oddly, the question I got wrong was in the Memory: Images section, in which I was certain I'd gotten everything right. I look forward to the answers being posted so I can see which one I got wrong.

Of course, the main reason I did so well in the memory sections (other than being able to talk through the scenes out loud) is that I've taken enough of these tests that I know exactly what kinds of questions they might ask. Really all this proves is I have good test-taking skills.

(The test is here.)

Open Letter to the Toronto Star

Dear Toronto Star:

How come an article that gets a graphic content warning on your website appears on the front page, above the fold, with no content warning in your print edition? What is your reasoning here? What scenarios did you have in mind when imagining that online readers might require a content warning but print readers would not?

Sincerely,

A reader who prefers to avoid graphic content at the breakfast table

The weird thing about Casablanca

I'm watching Casablanca on TV. It's a well-known piece of trivia that when they started filming they didn't yet know how the movie would end. I just realized that, because the move was released in 1942, they also didn't know how WWII would end!

That was something that really struck me as I was reading Suite Française - the author didn't know, and never would know, how WWII ended. But when they made Casablanca they didn't know either. And there's probably some other books or movies written during WWII and set in WWII where they didn't know how the war would end. That is so weird!

Why hasn't the climate map received North American media coverage?

Recently I saw an item on Google News about how some scientists had made an interesting and interactive map of how a 4 degree increase in world temperature will affect different parts of the world. Fascinating!

However, it didn't turn up in any of my usual news sources, which was odd. So today I searched in Google News, and I can't find any evidence that this story has been picked up in North America, not even once.

So what's up with that? Have you seen the climate map mentioned in North American media?

Open Letter to Toronto media

Dear Toronto and Toronto-based media:

I'm sure we can all agree that the Toronto Sun is very good at sensationalism. No one does it better. And everyone knows this - people who want sensationalism go straight to the Sun.

So why don't we leave all the sensationalism to the Sun and their affiliates, and the rest of you can focus on sensible, intelligent, nuanced reporting and commentary? Everyone will be happy that way.