Coffins

Really, it isn't my intention to talk military every day, it's just that these issues keep coming up.

Now the federal government has banned photographing flag-draped coffins of soldiers, which is really odd because, while the US government did implement a similar ban recently, I hadn't heard anything about it being an issue in Canada.

I have opinions on this, but they don't matter.

The opinions of only two groups of people matter:

1. Families and other survivors of deceased soldiers
2. Soldiers themselves

Does it bother the survivors if their deceased loved-one's coffin is photographed? Would it bother the soldiers if their coffin were photographed after their death?

If so, they shouldn't photograph them. If not, it's fair game as much as any other occurrence.

Some rhetoric is equating photographing the coffin with photographing the mourners. This is not an apt comparison. Consenting to photographs of one is not equal to consenting to photographs of the other.

I can tell you that I would not want my picture taken while mourning, but I would not mind if a picture were taken of my coffin, or if a picture were taken of a loved one's coffin. If the casket were open, I might feel differently, but a flag-draped casket obviously isn't open.

But that's just my opinion, and it counts for nothing here. The issue should be left up to soldiers themselves and their survivors. Not elected officials, not military policymakers, not voters. Just the people directly affected.

Westside Red

This is a California wine, but apparently it was designed to imitate certain European reds of impenetrable geographic names. To my untrained palate, it does this quite well. It's a very attractive bottle, and certainly worth seeking out if you don't feel like remembering the ridiculous names of Rhone wines. Which, I do realize, is quite possibly the stupidest reason ever for choosing a particular wine.

Half mast or not half mast

Apparently the government declared that the flag would no longer be lowered to half mast each time a soldier is killed (instead having all fallen soldiers be memorialized on Remembrance Day), then apparently reversed that proclamation.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I like half-masting because it's noticeable. I like the idea of it being very in-your-face every time someone dies - it keeps the debate alive on whether what they're doing is worth doing rather than having our soldiers shipped off places to warmonger to various degrees while the public sits by complacent. On a personal level, I like it because it's a reminder of when I've been derelict in my keeping-informed duties. If I see a half-mast flag and don't promptly know what it's for, then I know that I should read my newspaper more closely.

On the other hand, I am opposed to anything that glamourizes soldiering. I am of the highly-unpopular "What if they had a war and nobody came?" school of pacifism - I firmly believe that it is every human being's duty to reject all forms of military involvement (Yes, I am aware of the arguments against this position. No, that's not the point right now), and I think that any action that makes people think they'll be Great Big Glamourous Heroes if they get involved in the military is ill-advised in the long term. (This is why I've always been uncomfortable with Remembrance Day ceremonies).

I'm not sure whether a half-mast flag glamourizes combat deaths. I'm not sure whether the good achieved by keeping "OMG! People are dying!" in the forefront of the public mind outweighs any potential glamourization. Personally, based purely on intuition, I think I'd rather have a half-masting for every death and no Remembrance Day, but obviously that isn't feasible.

I don't presume to have any answers today - just a few good questions at best.

Helpful Hint: Cover Girl makeup shades

In Cover Girl makeup colours, if you find that Classic Ivory is too pale, and Natural Ivory is too pale and too pink, and Creamy Natural is a bit too dark, Buff Beige just might be the perfect colour for you.

I must admit, after years of blending multiple shades together for effect, it's rather odd to have just one shade that works perfectly.

Fun fact of the day

The "freshly updated" version of Miss Manner's Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior contains the word "sluts".

Finding the location and context of this word is left as an exercise for the reader.

Not dead or homeless

Please note that there have been no fires whatsoever in my apartment building, and everything is fine over here.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just carry on as normal.

Thoughts from the comics

1. This is how I feel about parents

2. This is how I feel about children

3. "Goodness, Curtis, you've already had three helpings! This is a problem why? Your kid asks for food, you have food, you give your kid food. He's 11 years old! Of course he's going to eat ridiculously!

4. B.D. left a leg on the battlefield. Literally? Are there all kinds of limbs lying around on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and Sudan and wherever else battles occur, or do they clean up afterwards?

The This and The That

This one word from this one Seinfeld episode has been bothering me for some time. I just couldn't hear it clearly, and the online scripts didn't seem to get it either. Today I watched that episode with the captions on, and I GOT IT!

Jerry: Now here's another little rule. When we see each other now, we retire to our separate quarters. But sometimes, when people get invloved with that, they feel pressure to sleep over. When that is not really sleep. Sleep is separate from that. And I don't see why sleep got all tied up and connected with that.


Elaine: Okay, okay. Spending the night is optional!


Jerry: Well now we're gettin' somewhere.


Elaine: What about the kiss goodnight?


Jerry: Tough one. You're call.


Elaine: It's brug-wa (?).

According to the closed captions, and I agree with this upon hearing it "brug-wa" = BOURGEOIS! Mystery solved!

Property taxes

The federal and provincial governments can collect income taxes and sales taxes. However, municipal governments cannot do this. They can only collect property taxes. (Yes, I realize there are other, smaller, revenue streams at all three levels, but I'm sure you'll agree that these are the main sources that affect our daily lives).

Why are municipal governments stuck with this annoying revenue source that is not at all tied to the taxpayers' ability to pay and is very difficult to change when new revenue is required? I know it's some kind of law, but what were they thinking when they made it law?

Headline of the day

This is one of the strangest things I've ever heard.

Things They Should Invent: sealed recycle container for apartments

I recycle the vast majority of my recyclables. Newspapers, cardboard, fine paper that does not contain personal information, wine bottles, plastics, coffee cans, and any food container that has a lid. However, I do not recycle cans that contained food.

Why? Because my building doesn't have a chute for recyclables. We have to take our recyclabes out to the dumpsters in the back of the building. I have a blue box (acquired through unofficial channels - apartments are not issued blue boxes) in my front hall, and I dump all my recyclables in there. When it gets full, about once a week, I take it out back and sort the stuff into dumpsters. Obviously, I don't want food cans, still containing food residue, just sitting there for days, practically in my living room. So instead I throw the cans away with my usual food garbage, which goes in a plastic bag in a lidded garbage can, and is thrown down the chute every night before I go to bed.

Why not wash the cans? Because the edges are too sharp to wash them thoroughly enough for my satisfaction. Why not take the recyclables out every day? Apart from my innate laziness, it is not always feasible to go to the back dumpsters every single day. Sometimes it is too dark and late to be hanging around dumpsters behind buildings, sometimes the weather is not suitable (putting paper and light, empty containers in tall dumpsters in 70 km/h winds = bad idea), sometimes the dumpsters are overflowing and nothing else will fit in. Yes, if I were the very most perfectest being in the world I'd go way out of my way and the cans would get recycled, but I'm not, I'm only human, as are most people. So here's what they need to invent to address this problem:

It's a resealing sort of container. You open the top, put your recyclables in, and then it closes and seals itself again. It keeps the smell in so your apartment doesn't get smelly and bugs don't come following the smell of food. When the time comes to empty it, you open it somehow, take out an inner bag, and dispose of the contents throught environmentally correct channels. I was once informed that a device very much like this exists for baby diapers, so it shouldn't be that hard to adapt it for recyclables. They could even use a similar device for organics once they've perfected organic waste collection for large, multi-unit buildings. The technology exists, let's get it adapted.

Bad advice of the day

This lady writes into Dear Margo with an alcoholic 16 year old son. Margo ends her advice with "Tell your son he is going to A.A. for young people or he can live on his own."

Is that supposed to help? If I were the kid, that would be a no brainer. "I can move out? COOL!" I've never been an alcoholic, but I have been 16 and had my parents getting on my case about the stuff that I most wanted to do. If given the choice between living with my parents and having to stop drinking (and probably being subject to constant, annoying supervision), and moving out on my own where I can drink all I want without anyone nagging me, I would move out in an instant! I don't know about this kid, but at 16 it never occurred to me that moving out was an option, but if someone presented it to me as an option I would have been all "Brilliant idea!" At 16, especially considering the kind of political rhetoric I was exposed to as a child, I fully believed that it was perfectly possible to support oneself flipping burgers or scrubbing floors if one only budgeted properly, and I was sick of being guilt-tripped about being spoiled. I would have jumped at the chance to live away from my parents in bohemian poverty, feeding my addition without anyone getting on my case. I seriously doubt the so-called "threat" of having to move out would get a 16 year old to say "No, I think I'll live with my parents and stop drinking and be a good little boy."

Ordinary Wolves by Seth Kantner

This book could do with more in the way of plot, but it's certainly worth reading because of the sheer exoticness of the subject matter. It follows the story of a boy living in the wilds of Alaska, to an aboriginal village (the book uses the word Eskimo, but as a 21st century Canadian I don't feel right using that word, and I don't know if the Inuit classification extends to Alaska), to an Alaskan city, and back to the wilds where he grew up, all while dealing with the whole world changing around him (late 20th century setting) and being from the only white family in the area.

I know that this description makes it sounds like one of those horrid coming of age novels with a boy and his dog and he's considered a loner even though he has a loyal best friend and he somehow has the freedom to run around wherever he wants without parental supervision, but it isn't like that at all. There are coming of age elements, there is a boy, but his dogs pull his sled instead of being his best friend, he is an actual loner without a close friend, and the reason he has the freedom to run around wherever he wants is because there is, quite literally, no one out there. It is so far removed from my urban life, but it doesn't feel like it's trying to make me feel guilty for it. It's simply different, and quite interestingly so.

I'd recommend any urbanite get this book from the library, just for a taste of a completely different life, but I wouldn't say it's worth buying because it doesn't have very much extraordinary in the way of plot.

Things They Should Invent: comprehensive comparison of all the ways of dying

I want someone to make a website with the pros and cons of every possible way of dying - how painful they are, how long they take, how long they cramp your style for, how undignified they are - so that the general public can make an informed decision of whether they want to reduce the risk of a particular illness or accident.

This idea came about when I realized that the vast majority of health advice out there has the ultimate aim of reducing the risk of heart disease (i.e. you should exercise, you should reduce salt, fat and cholesterol, you should watch your weight, etc.), but I don't actually know anything about how bad heart disease is. I'd imagine a heart attack involves pain, but then what? Either you have some pain and you die, or you live, and...what? If you've survived a heart attack, are you still able to live normally? Can you go back home? Can you go to the bathroom by yourself? Google tells me that there are certain medications or lifestyle restrictions, but are those just to stop you from having another heart attack, or are they for something else? It seems to me that a heart attack is not the worst possible way of dying - Alzheimer's or MS would certainly be worse, and cancer might be worse but I don't have enough information to know for sure. If I had a family history of Alzheimer's, maybe I wouldn't want to reduce my risk of heart disease, so I could die of a heart attack at 60 in a quick burst of pain rather than literally lose my mind at 80.

But there are lots more ways of dying, most of which I know very little about. That's why I want someone to put all this information together in one place - so people can make informed decisions. It seems a bit over-optimistic for everyone in the world to forego life's pleasures to achieve the goal of dying in their sleep at age 100. That will certainly work for some people, but we can't reasonably expect it to be applicable to everyone. The rest of the world should have the information they need to make an informed decision, if they choose, so they don't have to give up their favourite foods or activities or whatnot to prevent a less-unpleasant death, only to die a more-unpleasant death later.

Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: if you don't use your vote, you have to give it away

Some people don't vote because they believe their vote will not make a difference.

People who feel that way should be forced to cast their vote for whichever candidate the first person who asks them on election day wants them to vote for. After all, if your vote will not make a difference, it wouldn't matter who you'd give it to, right?

This rule would only apply to people who aren't voting because they think they're vote won't make a difference. It doesn't apply to situations where the would-be voter has a good reason for not voting. Examples of good reasons include: the voter is eligible to vote on paper, but no longer considers themselves a member of the community having the vote (e.g.: Italy); the platforms of the candidates are not available to the voter; the voter considers themselves incompetent; the voter is unexpectedly indisposed on election day.

Enough rain to make your hair curl

I got caught in the rain today. For the most part I looked like a drowned rat, but those little pieces of hair around my face - you know, the first ones to fall down as a hairdo loses structural integrity - seem to be curling in a quite graceful and attractive manner.

This has literally never happened before in my life. I wonder why? My hair has never been one to respond to humidity in any way except by looking limp and flat. If getting wet in the rain and then air-drying causes curls, then, logically, showering and air-drying, like I do every day, should also cause curls. But it doesn't! Maybe there's hair perm chemicals in the rain?

Best commercial ever!

Mmmmm...bibliothèque!

I love Google! I typed French baguette commercial into Google, and not only did the first result find the video I was looking for, but the it found it from a website run by someone with the same birthday as me.

I AM SO SMRT!

Harry Potter fans may be interested to know that I got an O on my W.O.M.B.A.T.! YAY!

Everyone else will probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

Crossing the floor analogy

My MP's weekly chat touched on whether a by-election should be required after an MP crosses the floor. One participant proposed that having a by-election every time someone crossed the floor is like requiring a referendum on every single issue. His logic was that you choose the individual to represent you, and they should represent their constitutents no matter what. Moments after the chat ended, I thought of a mostly-apt analogy to counter this point. It's a bit weak in places, but it communicates the general point.

Affiliation with a political party is giving a pre-arranged set of positions on issues. When a candidate is affiliated with a particular party, you don't have to find out their position on every issue on an ad-hoc basis - you can just look at their party platform. For some people, the individual representative may be more important, but others consider this set of positions on issues to be more important.

Think of a cable TV company. The party's position is like a channel bundle. It shows you the kind of messages you can expect to receive. Obviously you don't know the exact shows you'll get because TV lineups are changing all the time, but it gives you a general idea. The TV company also offers regular and high-definition broadcasting.* The type of broadcasting is like the individual you vote for. It is the medium through which the message is communicated.

Now imagine you call up your TV company.

"I would like to subscribe to the News and Documentary bundle, so I can get all the latest current events, and documentaries on all kinds of interesting subjects," you say. "And I just got a brand new high-definition TV, so I would like to get a high-definition signal, so I can see terrorist attacks and lions eating zebras in vivid detail."

The TV company says, "Yes, that's perfectly fine, we can do that. You will have the News and Documentary bundle in high definition."

Then, a few days later, you turn on the TV and your news and documentary channels are gone. In there place, you have all kinds of sports channels. You call up your cable company and ask what's up.
"Oh, we decided to switch you to the Sports bundle. It's far more popular," they tell you.

"But I specifically requested the News and Documentary bundle!" you say.

"I know," they say, "But with the Sports bundle you can get all the hockey and baseball games, plus World Cup soccer and even cricket matches from India!"

"But I don't want to watch those things, I want to watch news and documentaries!"

"But the Sports bundle will make much better use you for HDTV. More sports are broadcast in HDTV, so you can enjoy the colour and clarity of your brand new set. After all, you watch TV for its technical quality, not for its content."

Now I know some people do prioritize technical quality over content, but you can at least see why content is important. Similarly, while some people do vote for an individual, you should be able to see why party platform is important, and it's disrespectful to the voters for their elected representatives to go switching on them, as though party affiliation is negligible.

*(I know broadcasting isn't the correct word for distribution of high-definition TV signals, but I forget the correct term and it's really beside the point. Feel free to give me the correct term in comments)