I've been making a point of consuming as little American media as possible over the past few months, but yesterday I decided to watch a movie on US network television. The cultural difference is quite apparent when you compare commercials! I can't quite put my finger on it, but the commercials on the US stations seem to be intentionally alienating me. Sometimes on Canadian networks there are commercials where I'm not the target audience, but I get the impression that they don't mind if I sit in. But the US commercials make me feel like they actively don't want me there. Maybe it's because the American commercials seem to assume more strongly that the viewer is suburban and has a family of their own, I'm not quite sure yet. Also, they are positively infested with patronizing anti-drug commercials that trivialize the complexity of the problem.

What's the opposite of a dry martini? It can't be a wet martini...

Fun with the English language!

It occurs to me that the source of the main structural differences between English and French is that English verbs more willingly.

I have lost nine socks since I moved in here last April. That doesn't include any complete pairs I might have lost.

They should invent window blinds that are also solar panels.

I fucked up today. My boss was talking to me, and I misinterpreted a tonal modulation and thought she was asking me a question when she was in fact giving me a compliment. So I answered with a rather apathetic affirmative acknowledgement (nodding head, half-hearted "mm-hmm" equivalent) when I should have answered with my trademark slightly embarrassed, brief-modest-lowering-of-eyes thank you.

Last night I had a dream that I was at my university graduation (BA) and in my package of stuff there was an acceptance to the MA program. Interesting.

There were some people on TV trying on wedding dresses. Some of these dresses were of the type that most people couldn't try on without good supportive undergarments selected with that particular dress in mind. But I doubt most people would buy their undergarments before they buy their dress. So do they sell lingerie at bridal stores too? Or is that why everyone on that show was incredibly skinny (by which I mean incredibly skinny, not just smaller than me).

On a side note, am I the only person in the world who thinks that there is no garment in the world that is more flattering strapless than it would be with straps?

Went to bed way early last night because I was exhausted and got 10 hours of sleep. Now I feel like I'm coming down with something - I'm thirstier than usual, and not as well-rested as I should feel after 10 hours. Time to OD on supplements and hydrate the whole day - I'm so lucky I have a job that lets me do that at work! All I have to do is hold out until Friday, then I get a nice long weekend since I'm taking Monday off.

I was reading a thing about the quotative "like" that is prevalent in youth speech (e.g.: He was like "Oh my god, EW!") and I realized that when I use "like" this way, it takes on certain characteristics that other synonyms of "said" do not.

First the obvious one, it is only used in speech. I would never write a quotative like (unless for the purpose of emulating a certain register of speech).

Secondly, while it is quotative in function, it implies that what I'm about to quote is not necessarily a direct quote, but may be my own wording of the speaker's intent. So when he was like "Oh my god, EW!", he might not have actually said "Oh my god, EW!" he might have said something else or just made a face of disgust.

Finally, when I use the quotative like, I am, if only to some small extent, acting out the role of the speaker. I might modulate my voice, wave my arms about, make faces, etc. I'll often do this rather subtly because not all the places I have conversations are conducive to acting out every character, but the implication is that from the time I utter the word "like" to the time I finish quoting, I "become" the person I'm quoting.

Since a lot of people reading this are of similar demographic and probably use the quotative like themselves, I'm wondering if it has the same characteritics and connotations when you use it, or is this just something personal to me?

Any Human Heart by William Boyd is the first book I've ever read in which I had no sympathy or empathy whatsoever for the protagonist. This is particularly interesting since the conceit is that this book is the protagonist's collected journals. The character is a writer, he got to tell his own story in his own words, and he still came across as completely unsympathetic. I wonder if the author did this on purpose?

My latest wine is Talus Zinfandel. It's very complex, possibly the most complex one I've had so far. Initially it tastes almost creamy, like chocolate or vanilla (picture the taste element that chocolate and vanilla have in common), and then it tastes spicy. Very much an acquired taste - it was almost overwhelming at first, but after a few separate tries it got less noticeable. I still don't know if I like it or not. I wouldn't take it to someone as a gift because it's not quite what people would expect.

Extremely bizarre dream. This occurred as I was waiting to fall back asleep after an early-morning trip to the loo. I was lying in shavasna (no, I don't know how to spell any yoga positions), and fell into a lucid dream. My dream-self was also lying in bed in shavasna, waiting for sleep to overtake her, when she heard a key in the door. Since there's only one person who has a key to my apartment, my dream-self tried to call mi cielito's name, but she couldn't. She tried to open her eyes to see him, but she couldn't. Then she realized that it wasn't mi cielito and tried to see who it was, but she couldn't get her eyes all the way open. My conscious self realized it was a dream, and forced me to wake up. It was extremely bizarre because when I woke up the room looked exactly like it did in my dream, only it was like someone had adjusted the tint setting on a TV - the colours were a bit off.

So then, satisfied that there was no one in the apartment, I closed my eyes and went back to sleep. Same thing happened again. Dream-self heard a key in the door. Tried to call out, but couldn't. Tried to force her eyes open, but this time my sister was standing there beside my bed. Conscious self said "This is ridiculous!" and forced me awake.

I rolled my eyes at the stupidity of this dream, then closed my eyes and fell back into my dream state. Same thing. Key in door. Can't call out. Try to pry eyes open. This time my dream-self can't pry my eyes open at all, but I know that it's A Bad Guy. Conscious self says "That's why you can't open your eyes, you can never see Bad Guys in your dreams." Conscious self then promptly ends the dream.

I wake up, look around (no Bad Guys), and ponder why I keep having these dreams. Since I'm still in shavasna and my dream-self was in shavasna, I decide to roll over onto my side. I then slept three more hours undisturbed by bad dreams.

Helpful hint: glitter nailpolish is extremely hard to remove.

A very interesting idea from Tony Clement, of all people!

I am certainly not qualified to evaluate whether this is economically feasible or a good idea, but a couple of thoughts occur to me.

First, there needs to be some contingency for sudden reductions in income. Suppose a person works at a reasonably-paying professional job for many years, then gets suddenly downsized in their late 40s or early 50s, just as their kids are about to head off to university. People that age often have more difficulty finding jobs, and even though their old pension plan would give them some coverage, this likely wouldn't kick in for another ten years or so. So they likely cash out a few investments to give them some money to get by with, or perhaps they have a small income fund set up at this point, but this money, of which they desperately need every cent, is being taxed at the highest tax rate just because they managed to earn a sum total of one million dollars over their lifetime. The higher taxation rate wouldn't be that much of a burden when they're working, but it could be downright punitive to a family trying to live off their savings.

There's also the issue of whether pension income would be taxed at the highest rate just because the pensioner worked their whole life. I find that idea rather distasteful.

The other problem is that I don't think this plan would accomplish what Mr. Clement is trying to accomplish. It's no secret that he's proposing this to make a Conservative party under his leadership more attractive to younger voters. Notwithstanding the fact that anyone who could vote for this couldn't benefit from it because it would only apply to people who are currently underage, young people don't pay that much tax to start with. Before I graduated from university, I paid about $50 in income tax that wasn't refunded to me, and that was due to a surfeit of scholarship that wouldn't be taxed as much under current tax law. Every other dollar of income tax, and most sales tax, that I paid as a student was refunded to me because of my low income. Even now, income tax doesn't present any burden whatsoever. If someone walked in here right now and handed me a cheque for all the tax I've ever paid that hasn't been refunded yet, it would not improve my lifestyle in any way whatsoever. The money would probably go into the condo fund, but it wouldn't bring me any more than a few months closer to condo ownership (and the ETA for the condo fund is 8-10 years). Being tax-free over many years would make a more significant contribution to the condo fund of course, but it simply isn't enough to make me change my voting patterns. And since most Conservative voters are older and have more years of work behind them, therefore being subject to the highest tax rate, I doubt this would appeal to the party's core.

Still, it is a very interesting idea!

Poll: at what age did you first start having sex ed in school?

I ask because G&M had this article about how they're starting to teach sex ed at a younger age, like grade 6, or even, *gasp* grade 4! At my school we started sex ed in grade 5 (this was in 1990), so I'm wondering if this was a fluke.

One of the biggest problems I have in French is reading things that are misspelled, handwritten poorly, or where the writer mixes up homophones. I was taught perfect, academic, textbook French, and never developed the ability to handle such mistakes as a francophone would make (although I can easily process anglo mistakes, for obvious reasons).

It occurs to me that netspeak might be solving this problem for future generations. If kids spend time in online communities where a language other than their first is spoken (frequent with European kids hanging out in English-language communities, or using English as a lingua franca), and if netspeak is used in these communities, even if only occasionally, it might help them develop whatever mental abilities are necessary to process bad spelling.

Sample questions from the grade 10 literacy test (PDF).

The first reason I object to this test is because I don't think standardized testing is an effective evaluation tool. The second reason is that it's redundant - a person needs basic literacy to get as far as grade 10, and if people are reaching grade 10 without basic literacy there are bigger problems that need a better solution than throwing a standardized test at it.

But all that notwithstanding, there are some flaws in this test.

A student needs to pass this test to graduate. It is not tied to any specific English course. This should mean that it tests the most basic literacy needed to function in the adult world; if a student doesn't pass this test, they are too illiterate to function in the adult world and should be forceably educated until their literacy improves. Now most questions on this test evaluate this basic literacy, but some do not. For example:

1. In the first story about camping, there are two questions that ask about characters' motivations (7 & 8) and a third (5) that could also be interpreted as being about motivation. Now understanding motivation is very important for English and literature studies, and contributes greatly to the thorough appreciation of any plot-based literature or media. However, it is NOT part of basic literacy. A person can function in society as an adult and not be able to imagine what fictional characters might be thinking. (Their people skills might be a bit off, but that isn't literacy). A high school student should have a basic understanding of character motivation, but if they don't it should be reflected in their English mark, not in a test that determines if they can read well enough to finish high school.

2. In the second reading selection about the train, students are asked if this paragraph makes them want to take this train, and why or why not. This does not test reading comprehension so much as it tests whether the student has formulated an opinion. One would generally assume that after a person reads something they would formulate an opinion about it, but a person could conceivably read and understand the whole thing and not care either way. While the question does have a reading comprehension element to it, there are better ways to test reading comprehension without penalizing people who really don't care either way about this stupid train and aren't up on their BS skills.

3. The museum pamphlet has two question (4 & 6) about graphics and visual design. This has nothing to do with literacy either! It is important in some areas of life and should reflect in a student's mark in Art or Design or whatever they call the class that's responsible for the yearbook and the school newspaper, but it is quite possible for a person to be able to read perfectly well and have a poor sense of design.

4. In the selection about trial by jury, question 5 asks the student to incorporate their own ideas. While applying one's own thoughts to an article is important, it is not an element of basic literacy. The student may have never thought about trial by jury before or may have no opinion, and again they should not be judged as having substandard literacy because of it. If the student is unable to apply their own thoughts to a text, this should be reflected in their English mark, not here.

5. The writing section asks for a precis of the article, (although they call it a summary). I don't know if the people who are marking this want a formal precis, but if they do, this would only be appropriate if a formal precis was taught in grade 9. When I was in high school it was taught in OAC (and not all schools did so). If this has changed and it's now taught in grade 9, this exercise is appropriate. If not, they'd better not be expecting a formal precis!

I might sound rather picky with these issues, but my experience with this kind of standardized test is that people can be marked too low for reasons that have nothing to do with the purported reason for the test. For example, I took a similar test in grade 9. Now in grade 9 my reading ability was the same as it is now, but I was marked as 2/5 or 2/6 on my reading ability because test assessed reading ability by asking students to write a letter to the main character in the short story. Now this was problematic for me because the story was simple, straightforward, and self-explanatory, so there was nothing in there that was worthy of comment; I had nothing to say to the main character at any point in the story, and if they were someone I knew in real life and we were discussing the story face to face, I would still have very little of substance to say. Also, when I write letters, I'm either answering questions in the other person's letter, or telling them stuff from my end. I don't really go around commenting extensively on their lives unless they have specifically asked for advice or something, so if this character was actually my friend, a letter to her would not deal with the event in the story at all! This might be a good writing exercise, but it is certainly not a way to test a student's reading comprehension!I fear that students taking this grade 10 test might have their reading comprehension underevaluated simply because in a high-pressure test situation they can't think of anything to say about the permanence of t-shirts!

Since this test is so important, determining whether students can graduate from high school, the reading part should strictly judge basic reading comprehension. Can this student read and understand English text? That's all. Deficiencies in analyzing and deriving personal opinions should be addressed in the relevant classes, but they certainly aren't a reason to keep a person from finishing high school!

From the Brilliant Ideas that will Never Work file: Suicide Place

This place is kind of like a hospital or mental institution, except people go there to commit suicide. It provides a controlled environment where they make sure the suicide goes as smoothly as possible for all involved, so we don't have people jumping off bridges and messing up perfectly good ravines, or landlords finding their tenants hanged and half-rotted when the rent is late.

When you want to commit suicide, you check into the Suicide Place. First there's an initial interview, where they ask you why you're committing suicide. They aren't judgemental, they don't try to talk you out of it, but if it's a resolvable problem they'll take that information and see if they can fix the situation for you. After the interview, they show you to your room. There's a waiting period of one week (or whatever would be a reasonable period) between when you check in and when you can commit suicide. In the meantime, clients stay in a hotel/resort like environment with nice rooms and amentities and activities.

Mostly you can do whatever you want (except kill yourself) during the waiting period, but there is one rule: you have to put your affairs in order. Suicide Place has some lawyers and trained experts on staff to help you do this. You have access to psychiatric care if you feel like it, and you can have visitors during your waiting period if you want, and they will also keep visitors away if you don't want to see anyone.

Basically they go out of their way to do whatever is needed to make your last few days pleasant, as well as to resolve whatever problems are driving you to suicide (all while not judging your right and choice to commit suicide). After a week if you still want to die, they provide you with some pills that will give you a quick painless death, put you in a special Dying Room, and off you go. If at any point you decide you don't want to die any more, you are free to leave.