When I started my pre-HBP read-through, my intention was to blog everything that I thought was interesting or noteworthy or might come up later. Little details, like how on the train home at the end of COS, they're practicing disarming each other, and it's casually mentioned that Harry is quite good at it (foreshadowing his Defence expertise), or all the places where 20/20 hindsight shows us Snape's and Dumbledore's Legilimency skills.
The problem is that the books are so engrossing that I don't want to put them down to blog. And this is the one's I've already read! So then I forget what exactly I was going to say by the time I next find myself blogging.
I had planned to do a chapter-by-chapter blog of HBP as I read it, but I'm not sure whether I will do this now. In my reread I've noticed that chapters tend to end in cliffhangers, and I don't know if I can manage to put down the book at a cliffhanger and blog what I've just read.
On the other hand, doing so might cause me to slow down and savour the story rather than rushing ahead.
Oh, another thing I intended to blog: when Dumbledore intercepts Harry by the Mirror of Erised, he mentions that he has ways to make himself invisible.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
The need to fact-check reader mail
I've been meaning to blog for a while about one of my latest pet peeves: media (especially print media) who don't fact-check letters to the editor and other reader mail. Sometimes I see letters on the letters to the editor page where the reader has a nice bundle of outrage based on something that is just plain wrong. I don't mean the reader's opinion is wrong, I mean the facts on which the outrage is based are incorrect. For example, the reader might take their total tax burden (which includes income tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, and some other taxes I don't know about) but call it their income tax burden. Or they might be outraged about something based on a misconception of, say, how the senate works, when the thing that they're outraged about doesn't actually exist because the senate doesn't work that way. Or they might be complaining about a law that is no longer in effect.
This is problematic, because people are inclined to take what they read in the newspaper as fact. Even when the piece of writing in question is an opinion, readers are likely to accept the facts on which it is based, even if they are incorrect. It's also a disservice to the reader who sent in the letter with the incorrect facts, because it makes them look stupid in public.
Here is a minor example, not as serious as some of the other misinformed reader letters I've seen, but demonstrates the point. A couple of weeks ago, Globe and Mail columnist Karen von Hahn wrote a column about customer service, and readers replied with emails bitching about or defending customer service representatives.
I'm not saying newspapers should make their readers look stupid by printing letters and then refuting them, but perhaps they should make an effort to print only those letters that are factually correct, or arrange it so that misconceptions in reader letters are refuted by other reader letters in the same column. The only possible good that can come of printing a factually-incorrect reader letter is that it will fill up column space, but there's no point in filling up column space if it is only going to spread misconceptions.
This is problematic, because people are inclined to take what they read in the newspaper as fact. Even when the piece of writing in question is an opinion, readers are likely to accept the facts on which it is based, even if they are incorrect. It's also a disservice to the reader who sent in the letter with the incorrect facts, because it makes them look stupid in public.
Here is a minor example, not as serious as some of the other misinformed reader letters I've seen, but demonstrates the point. A couple of weeks ago, Globe and Mail columnist Karen von Hahn wrote a column about customer service, and readers replied with emails bitching about or defending customer service representatives.
Virginia, who thanked me for my "affirming" column about the "daily charade of service," wrote of her recent encounter at a Loblaws checkout counter. The young cashier held up an item of produce and asked, "What's this?" "Now I admit that there are numerous fruits and vegetables in today's supermarkets that I cannot name," she wrote, "but imagine my surprise that I have to answer 'lettuce.'"The problem here, of course, is that there are several kinds of lettuce available, and the cashier needed to know which kind it was so that she could type in the correct code. Perhaps Virginia didn't know this, but by printing her comments without mentioning anywhere that there are different kinds of lettuce, the newspaper is validating what she's saying and implying that there's nothing wrong with it. So now people are going to be running around thinking Loblaws cashiers can't even recognize lettuce, when in actual fact they couldn't identify a specific variety of lettuce when they didn't have the other kinds of lettuce to compare it to.
I'm not saying newspapers should make their readers look stupid by printing letters and then refuting them, but perhaps they should make an effort to print only those letters that are factually correct, or arrange it so that misconceptions in reader letters are refuted by other reader letters in the same column. The only possible good that can come of printing a factually-incorrect reader letter is that it will fill up column space, but there's no point in filling up column space if it is only going to spread misconceptions.
Graduations
In Thursday's For Better or For Worse, John makes a comment rather denigrating the validity of an eighth-grade graduation. Reminds me of something my father would say, although I'm a bit surprised to hear it from John. Some of the posters in rec.arts.comics.strips also seemed a bit derogratory towards the idea of an 8th grade graduation, kind of sneeringly implying that the kids haven't really accomplished anything yet, so they don't deserve a graduation.
Yes, grade eight is not a big deal in the adult scheme of things. A grown adult would not be at all feted for having an eighth-grade education. However, these are not grown adults, they are 13-year-olds, and graduating from grade eight is a perfectly valid accomplishment for a 13-year-old.
One of the things I've learned in my professional life is that the most important ingredient for being able to achieve great things is having experience, and experience is the one thing I cannot expedite. I just have to sit there, do your work, learn as you go, apply what you learn, and accept the fact that I'm not going to be nearly as good as my co-worker with 30 years' experience any time soon. But that doesn't matter, no one expects me to. I just have to be good for an employee with two years' experience, and when I get stuck draw on the vast experience of the senior memebers of my team.
Similarly, you can't hold a 13-year-old to accomplishments by adult standarda, and sneering at them for celebrating age-appropriate accomplishments would be like a senior co-worker sneering at me because I feel proud of having successfully translated a new genre of text that the senior co-worker has translated in hundreds of times. Now that I think about it, the adults who disapprove of graduations for "minor" milestones sound almost insecure in their adulthood, like they feel sub-consciously driven to be competitive with and show that they're better than mere adolescents.
Yes, grade eight is not a big deal in the adult scheme of things. A grown adult would not be at all feted for having an eighth-grade education. However, these are not grown adults, they are 13-year-olds, and graduating from grade eight is a perfectly valid accomplishment for a 13-year-old.
One of the things I've learned in my professional life is that the most important ingredient for being able to achieve great things is having experience, and experience is the one thing I cannot expedite. I just have to sit there, do your work, learn as you go, apply what you learn, and accept the fact that I'm not going to be nearly as good as my co-worker with 30 years' experience any time soon. But that doesn't matter, no one expects me to. I just have to be good for an employee with two years' experience, and when I get stuck draw on the vast experience of the senior memebers of my team.
Similarly, you can't hold a 13-year-old to accomplishments by adult standarda, and sneering at them for celebrating age-appropriate accomplishments would be like a senior co-worker sneering at me because I feel proud of having successfully translated a new genre of text that the senior co-worker has translated in hundreds of times. Now that I think about it, the adults who disapprove of graduations for "minor" milestones sound almost insecure in their adulthood, like they feel sub-consciously driven to be competitive with and show that they're better than mere adolescents.
Friday, July 01, 2005
The amazing disappearing cotton ball
A while ago, I opened a new bottle of Advil, and noticed that there was no giant wad of cotton at the top. I commented that this was strange, took my Advil, and forgot about it.
Today I discovered that the cotton had sunk down about halfway into the bottle of pills. I had to dump about half the pills out to get to it. It's a great big wad, the size of one of the larger cotton balls used for makeup (or like two of the smaller, store-brand ones). It is significantly fatter than the neck of the bottle. I'd assume they usually put the cotton in after they fill the bottle with pills, so I wonder how this one managed to sink halfway down?
Today I discovered that the cotton had sunk down about halfway into the bottle of pills. I had to dump about half the pills out to get to it. It's a great big wad, the size of one of the larger cotton balls used for makeup (or like two of the smaller, store-brand ones). It is significantly fatter than the neck of the bottle. I'd assume they usually put the cotton in after they fill the bottle with pills, so I wonder how this one managed to sink halfway down?
Sins of the father
Tom Tomorrow comments on the tendancy from certain corners to say "He says he supports the war, but I don't see him or his children in combat".
However, neither Tom Tomorrow or the people he linked to mentioned what I find to be the most wrong-headed and illogical aspect of this sort of reasoning. Saying "I don't see him" in combat is one thing, saying "I don't see his children in combat" is quite another.
Whether or not you believe it that a person who supports a war should be involved in military activities themselves, it is completely inappropriate to say that if a person supports a war, they should send their (young adult) children into the military. This is because the children are their own people! They are human beings, with thoughts and feelings and their own political opinions and the basic human right to self-determination. They might not even support a war that their parents support! They are not chattels, they are not vassals, they are not Borg, they are not corporate representatives. Their actions and life choices should not be interpreted as having to reflect their parents' politics because that denies the children's very humanity - their right to self-determination!
I'm sure it's difficult to have your child be in a war and devastating to have your child killed in a war, but it is always more difficult for the child, who is actually in the war! It is simply incorrect to say that war-mongerers should "make the sacrifice" of having their own children be in the military, simply because it's not the parents' sacrifice to make! Ultimately it is the soldiers themselves who are making the sacrifice, and to imply that it is the parents' sacrifice completely trivializes what the soldiers are going through.
It is especially strange that this is happening in the US, which traditionally sets great store by self-determination. You'd think the American public would be the first to acknowledge that even if the parent is a hawk, the child still has every right to be a dove, or a chicken, or any other bird metaphor you can come up with, and should not be forced into a particular life course because of who their parents are.
If this isn't convincing, try wrapping your brain around it another way: think about your parents. Think about your parents' opinions about things. Think about your parents' opinions on political policy, on how a person should live their life, on what makes an appropriate romantic partner, on what music a person should listen to, on what job a person should have, where a person should live, how a person should dress, what a person's family situation should be, what a person should do in their spare time. Think of everything your parents have ever expressed an opinion on. Now imagine that you were required to live your life in precise accordance with your parents' opinions about everything. How would that make you feel?
However, neither Tom Tomorrow or the people he linked to mentioned what I find to be the most wrong-headed and illogical aspect of this sort of reasoning. Saying "I don't see him" in combat is one thing, saying "I don't see his children in combat" is quite another.
Whether or not you believe it that a person who supports a war should be involved in military activities themselves, it is completely inappropriate to say that if a person supports a war, they should send their (young adult) children into the military. This is because the children are their own people! They are human beings, with thoughts and feelings and their own political opinions and the basic human right to self-determination. They might not even support a war that their parents support! They are not chattels, they are not vassals, they are not Borg, they are not corporate representatives. Their actions and life choices should not be interpreted as having to reflect their parents' politics because that denies the children's very humanity - their right to self-determination!
I'm sure it's difficult to have your child be in a war and devastating to have your child killed in a war, but it is always more difficult for the child, who is actually in the war! It is simply incorrect to say that war-mongerers should "make the sacrifice" of having their own children be in the military, simply because it's not the parents' sacrifice to make! Ultimately it is the soldiers themselves who are making the sacrifice, and to imply that it is the parents' sacrifice completely trivializes what the soldiers are going through.
It is especially strange that this is happening in the US, which traditionally sets great store by self-determination. You'd think the American public would be the first to acknowledge that even if the parent is a hawk, the child still has every right to be a dove, or a chicken, or any other bird metaphor you can come up with, and should not be forced into a particular life course because of who their parents are.
If this isn't convincing, try wrapping your brain around it another way: think about your parents. Think about your parents' opinions about things. Think about your parents' opinions on political policy, on how a person should live their life, on what makes an appropriate romantic partner, on what music a person should listen to, on what job a person should have, where a person should live, how a person should dress, what a person's family situation should be, what a person should do in their spare time. Think of everything your parents have ever expressed an opinion on. Now imagine that you were required to live your life in precise accordance with your parents' opinions about everything. How would that make you feel?
Now I can't even figure out character motivation in the COMICS
So...9 Chickweed Lane.
Just last Saturday, Edda tells Amos, "I know I'll always want you, I'm just not ready to have you yet." This says to me that she intends to have a romantic relationship with him in the future, and that she loves him romantically, just doesn't feel grown-up enough to deal with that yet.
Today, she seems to be on a date with some anonymous guy. (Yes, she fell asleep in the middle of it, but she's still on a date, and went through all the trouble of making/accepting a date and putting on a dress and wearing her hair differently, all while she was really tired from dancing and working out all day.) And this is the second or third time she's been on a date with an anonymous guy since moving to New York (although the first one before she told us that she is definitely going to want to be with Amos in the indefinite future.
So why is she going on dates with people who aren't Amos? She knows she's going to want to be with Amos eventually. So if this date does work out and lead to a relationship, she's going to have to end the relationship when the time comes for her to be with Amos. Why would she go through all the trouble of attempting to build a relationship when she knows she's going to have to end it eventually? Why would she do something so cruel as to date someone when she's can say to herself with certainty, "I am going to have to leave him when..."
We know Edda isn't stupid. We know she's a bit clueless, but she certainly isn't cruel, she has a definite sense of the long-term consequences of hurting someone in a relationship as a result of her father leaving her mother, and she has the good sense to reject the biggest cads outright.
So what's she doing dating when she already knows who she is in love with for the long-term? If she needs an escort to an event or for appearances or to avoid being hit on, either Amos or Seth or, I'm sure, one of her other male co-workers who is as harmless as Seth would be willing to help her out. If she needs a good snog, I'm sure Amos would be more than willing to help her out there. If she's just socializing, surely she can do that without the expectations of eventual romance. So does she not love Amos as much as she says/thinks she does? But why would she do that to her best friend? Does she have this random idea that "People date. That's what we do. Therefore I have to go on dates with people."? If so, why not go on dates with Amos? Is she going to run around repeatedly breaking Amos' heart until she's ready for a nice safe husband? But why would she emulate her father like that? Or has she just been reading Dear Ellie?
Just last Saturday, Edda tells Amos, "I know I'll always want you, I'm just not ready to have you yet." This says to me that she intends to have a romantic relationship with him in the future, and that she loves him romantically, just doesn't feel grown-up enough to deal with that yet.
Today, she seems to be on a date with some anonymous guy. (Yes, she fell asleep in the middle of it, but she's still on a date, and went through all the trouble of making/accepting a date and putting on a dress and wearing her hair differently, all while she was really tired from dancing and working out all day.) And this is the second or third time she's been on a date with an anonymous guy since moving to New York (although the first one before she told us that she is definitely going to want to be with Amos in the indefinite future.
So why is she going on dates with people who aren't Amos? She knows she's going to want to be with Amos eventually. So if this date does work out and lead to a relationship, she's going to have to end the relationship when the time comes for her to be with Amos. Why would she go through all the trouble of attempting to build a relationship when she knows she's going to have to end it eventually? Why would she do something so cruel as to date someone when she's can say to herself with certainty, "I am going to have to leave him when..."
We know Edda isn't stupid. We know she's a bit clueless, but she certainly isn't cruel, she has a definite sense of the long-term consequences of hurting someone in a relationship as a result of her father leaving her mother, and she has the good sense to reject the biggest cads outright.
So what's she doing dating when she already knows who she is in love with for the long-term? If she needs an escort to an event or for appearances or to avoid being hit on, either Amos or Seth or, I'm sure, one of her other male co-workers who is as harmless as Seth would be willing to help her out. If she needs a good snog, I'm sure Amos would be more than willing to help her out there. If she's just socializing, surely she can do that without the expectations of eventual romance. So does she not love Amos as much as she says/thinks she does? But why would she do that to her best friend? Does she have this random idea that "People date. That's what we do. Therefore I have to go on dates with people."? If so, why not go on dates with Amos? Is she going to run around repeatedly breaking Amos' heart until she's ready for a nice safe husband? But why would she emulate her father like that? Or has she just been reading Dear Ellie?
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Harry Potter thoughts for the day
1. When Hagrid took Harry into the Leaky Cauldron for the first time and everyone wanted to shake his hand, a witch named Doris Crockford kept coming back to shake his hand time and time again. I think we'll see another cameo from Doris Crockford.
2. Suppose a person manages to become an Animagus before they hit puberty. Would their Animagus form be a not-yet-fully-grown animal? Does the Animagus form age along with the person?
3. I think I'm beginning to agree with the fandom theory that the place with the boat that we see on the back of the book cover is the same place as the boats that take the first-years to Hogwarts land.
2. Suppose a person manages to become an Animagus before they hit puberty. Would their Animagus form be a not-yet-fully-grown animal? Does the Animagus form age along with the person?
3. I think I'm beginning to agree with the fandom theory that the place with the boat that we see on the back of the book cover is the same place as the boats that take the first-years to Hogwarts land.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
I guess I should give everyone fair warning...
I started my Pre-HBP-Release Harry Potter Reread today, so Harry Potter-related posts are going to be much more frequent between now and the time I finish reading and absorbing HBP. I'll still be blogging about other stuff, but there's going to be far more Potter than usual. So if there's anyone out there who doesn't want spoilers for the first five books, you'd do well to stop reading until at least July 18, and those of you are repulsed and repelled by the thought of a grown woman extensively theorizing about Harry Potter might want to visit less frequently for the next month or so.
Also, I think Dumbledore's watch will show up again :)
Also, I think Dumbledore's watch will show up again :)
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror by Richard A. Clarke
This book is a description of the events leading up to Sept. 11, by the former White House Counterterrorism Director.
It's quite interesting, and brought up a lot of things that I didn't know. For example, I didn't know that al-Quaeda was so new. I didn't know that the US dropped so many bombs in the 1990s (I knew about some, but not all), and I didn't know that they had very specific intelligence that led them to drop bombs where they did, as well as very specific intelligence about the 9/11 attacks, and other previous terrorist threats that were averted. I did hear some talk in the 1990s about terrorists who wanted to attack the US, but it just sounded all paranoid to me.
I don't know what's to blame for this ignorance on my part. It could be the fact that I don't read every article in the newspaper - I just skim headlines and read only what's interesting to me. It could be the particular newspapers to which my parents chose to subscribe. It could be the media's distraction with Clinton's sex life. It could be the fact that I didn't consume any American media at all during that time, except for the occasional newscast teaser while watching sitcoms on a US channel. It could be that the fact they were able to get such specific intelligence was classified at the time. I could play the "But I was just a teenager!" card, but frankly my ability to follow current events was just the same then as it is now, except that now I get to choose the newspapers to read and the newscasts to watch, and now the internet is bigger. But really, I was operating without all the facts in the 1990s, which is kind of embarrassing.
Another thing that I found kind of disturbing was the fact that apparently the US had/has a "snatch" program, where they'd send agents in to grab suspected terrorists and put them into custody (or possibly kill them, if necesssary). I feel conflicted about this. On one hand, the thought has occurred to me that sending in a special agent to kill key enemies of the state is preferable to starting a war. On the other hand, the fact that they didn't even seem to care that this is inviolation of international law disturbs me. It makes me think that if someone randomly one day decides I'm a suspect for something, agents might come in the night and abduct me and take me away, and if they aren't respecting international law they might not care for keeping me under Geneva conditions or giving me a fair trial or remanding me to Canadian custody. Yet another example of where US foreign policy operates under the assumption that they are The Good Guys and everyone sees them as such.
There were a few annoyances, such as Mr. Clarke's (and his editor's) apparent inability to differentiate between the words "insure" and "ensure", and the fact that it never seems to cross anyone's mind that dropping bombs is an act of war. But it's still worth reading just for the sake of hearing the story from an insider's perspective. Just do keep in mind that the author is likely to have certain biases because of the field which he has been working for so long.
It's quite interesting, and brought up a lot of things that I didn't know. For example, I didn't know that al-Quaeda was so new. I didn't know that the US dropped so many bombs in the 1990s (I knew about some, but not all), and I didn't know that they had very specific intelligence that led them to drop bombs where they did, as well as very specific intelligence about the 9/11 attacks, and other previous terrorist threats that were averted. I did hear some talk in the 1990s about terrorists who wanted to attack the US, but it just sounded all paranoid to me.
I don't know what's to blame for this ignorance on my part. It could be the fact that I don't read every article in the newspaper - I just skim headlines and read only what's interesting to me. It could be the particular newspapers to which my parents chose to subscribe. It could be the media's distraction with Clinton's sex life. It could be the fact that I didn't consume any American media at all during that time, except for the occasional newscast teaser while watching sitcoms on a US channel. It could be that the fact they were able to get such specific intelligence was classified at the time. I could play the "But I was just a teenager!" card, but frankly my ability to follow current events was just the same then as it is now, except that now I get to choose the newspapers to read and the newscasts to watch, and now the internet is bigger. But really, I was operating without all the facts in the 1990s, which is kind of embarrassing.
Another thing that I found kind of disturbing was the fact that apparently the US had/has a "snatch" program, where they'd send agents in to grab suspected terrorists and put them into custody (or possibly kill them, if necesssary). I feel conflicted about this. On one hand, the thought has occurred to me that sending in a special agent to kill key enemies of the state is preferable to starting a war. On the other hand, the fact that they didn't even seem to care that this is inviolation of international law disturbs me. It makes me think that if someone randomly one day decides I'm a suspect for something, agents might come in the night and abduct me and take me away, and if they aren't respecting international law they might not care for keeping me under Geneva conditions or giving me a fair trial or remanding me to Canadian custody. Yet another example of where US foreign policy operates under the assumption that they are The Good Guys and everyone sees them as such.
There were a few annoyances, such as Mr. Clarke's (and his editor's) apparent inability to differentiate between the words "insure" and "ensure", and the fact that it never seems to cross anyone's mind that dropping bombs is an act of war. But it's still worth reading just for the sake of hearing the story from an insider's perspective. Just do keep in mind that the author is likely to have certain biases because of the field which he has been working for so long.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Harry Potter fandom theory pet peeves
My biggest pet peeve about Harry Potter fandom theories is that it has practically become fanon that a) Metamorphmagi cannot morph into someone of the opposite sex, and b) Polyjuice Potion cannot turn you into someone of the opposite sex.
Magic can turn a person into a rat or a cat or a dog, make a person or thing vanish into thin air, let a Phoenix die and be reborn from the ashes, and put Hogwarts letters inside eggs. Why on earth would it not be able to turn a penis into a vagina or vice versa? Even Muggle medicine can do that!
Magic can turn a person into a rat or a cat or a dog, make a person or thing vanish into thin air, let a Phoenix die and be reborn from the ashes, and put Hogwarts letters inside eggs. Why on earth would it not be able to turn a penis into a vagina or vice versa? Even Muggle medicine can do that!
St Urbans-Hof Riesling
This is the featured white at Vintages this month, and it's quite good. It's very bright and a bit minerally - reminds me of lemon-flavoured Perrier - and quite refreshing when well-chilled. The only problem is the bottle is ridiculous. It's long and skinny, making it far too tall for my fridge, so I have to wedge it into the door shelf sideweays. Luckily I have room to do that, but it could be a deal-breaker for someone with a full fridge.
New template
I got tired of the big giant space and changed my template. Let me know what you think of the font size, please. It looks a bit to big to me, but I stubbornly insist upon keeping my screen resolution at 800x600 (I know, I know, that's dirty and shameful and disgusting and scandalous and a reprehensible way to treat an LCD monitor and I should go to bed without my dinner) so it might be fine for people who have a more 21st-century resolution.
Oh no! Not a FENCE!
Just when Charles and Pauline Sammut thought their six-year war with the Islington Golf Club was over, a new battle with the private course has emerged over its proposed solution to stop a flurry of golf balls from hitting the retired couple's $1 million home.Wow, I wish my biggest problem was that someone was building a tall fence near my million-dollar home. And I wish I had had so few problems in my life that I thought a tall fence being built near my home was outrageous enough to go to the media.
Today, the exclusive club plans to begin construction of a fence nearly 7 metres high in the Sammuts' front yard. The chain-link barrier will be built on the city-owned road allowance off Fairway Rd., just 9 metres from the Sammuts' front door. It will stretch from the course boundary off the third hole to within 2 metres of the couple's driveway.
The golf club calls it a reasonable solution. The Sammuts call it a farce.
"I'm peeved and mad," said Charles Sammut, 75, upon hearing of the proposed solution. "I do not want a 22-foot fence in front of my house. It's going to make us feel encaged. I don't even think it's going to stop the balls."
[...]
The golf club was given permission by the City of Toronto to build the fence, DeSaverio said. That decision upset Charles Sammut, who moved into the home with his wife, Pauline, in 1999.
"I can't understand how anybody could get a permit to build this kind of a fence in front of a house," he said. The department responsible for issuing building permits in Toronto could not be reached for comment.
The lawyer representing the Sammuts called the golf club's proposition "unreasonable" and said he plans to ask Justice Stewart whether or not the fence complies with her court order.
"It doesn't sound like a very common-sense solution," said John Ritchie. "We put a man on the moon. We should be able to resolve a problem with some golf balls."
[...]
Picturesque Islington Golf Club was incorporated in 1923 at a time when homes near the course were scarce.
Since 1999, there has been increased residential development on the land just east of the course.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Blog template and the Giant Space
For the record, this blog template is called Split Pea. I tried reinstalling the template, and it still gapped. I tried comparing my template line-by-line with the sample provided, and the best I can tell is that it's the same except for font size changes I made months ago (although I don't have software to do a line-by-line comparison for me).
I emailed the blogger people so I'll give them a couple of days to see if they can respond. If not, I'm going to have to change the template. This just doesn't make any sense...
I emailed the blogger people so I'll give them a couple of days to see if they can respond. If not, I'm going to have to change the template. This just doesn't make any sense...
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Inclusive and neutral language
My earlier post about racial slurs got me thinking:
What constitutes inclusive and neutral language is always changing, as we make a conscious and deliberate effort to eliminate inadvertent negative connotations from our daily discourse. So sometimes people don't know that if they use a particular word in a particular context, it could be interpreted as offensive, exclusionary, or otherwise give the impression that their intent is not benign.
What I don't understand is people who, upon learning that a certain word is not or is no longer appropriate and being told an acceptable alternative, stubbornly insist upon their right to continue using it. I'm not talking about using it in contexts where they intend to give offence or other contexts where they wish to include or allude to the negative connotations for a specific semantic reason - I'm talking about neutral contexts, where the strict denotation of the word is all that is intended to be communicated. But instead of using the word that they now know to be neutral, some people insist upon continuing to use the old word and insist that other people should simply not read into it the negative connotations that it bears.
Why, upon learning that a particular word could cause offence and that using it could give the impression that the speaker's intent is to cause offence, would a person beligerently insist upon continuing to use it? Do they know that this makes them look like assholes? Do they know that this gives the impression that they are deliberately and passive-aggressively attempting to cause offence? Why would a person who does not want to cause offence not immediately alter their linguistic choices to the words that are the most neutral and benign possible? What are they hoping to achieve?
What constitutes inclusive and neutral language is always changing, as we make a conscious and deliberate effort to eliminate inadvertent negative connotations from our daily discourse. So sometimes people don't know that if they use a particular word in a particular context, it could be interpreted as offensive, exclusionary, or otherwise give the impression that their intent is not benign.
What I don't understand is people who, upon learning that a certain word is not or is no longer appropriate and being told an acceptable alternative, stubbornly insist upon their right to continue using it. I'm not talking about using it in contexts where they intend to give offence or other contexts where they wish to include or allude to the negative connotations for a specific semantic reason - I'm talking about neutral contexts, where the strict denotation of the word is all that is intended to be communicated. But instead of using the word that they now know to be neutral, some people insist upon continuing to use the old word and insist that other people should simply not read into it the negative connotations that it bears.
Why, upon learning that a particular word could cause offence and that using it could give the impression that the speaker's intent is to cause offence, would a person beligerently insist upon continuing to use it? Do they know that this makes them look like assholes? Do they know that this gives the impression that they are deliberately and passive-aggressively attempting to cause offence? Why would a person who does not want to cause offence not immediately alter their linguistic choices to the words that are the most neutral and benign possible? What are they hoping to achieve?
Everything is soooo gay today
Is it Pride everywhere today, or just in Toronto? I'm wondering because non-local entertainment media seems to be focusing on its various queer plots. For example, tonight's Simpsons is supposed to be the same-sex marriage one, and 9 Chickweed Lane chose today to come the closest it ever has to making Seth's sexuality an "issue" (before it has been either just there, or a convenient plot device). Is this a coincidence, or is today as Pride Day more global than I thought?
Disingenuity
I know very few racial slurs, and I don't know the meaning of the majority of the racial slurs that I do know. (I picked most of them up from Monty Python's "Never be Rude to an Arab" song. (Warning: this song contains racial slurs, obviously)) I rarely hear racial slurs in my day-to-day life, of course, but they do come up once in a while in certain irregular social contexts.
Therefore, I have decided to take it a step further, and pretend to be completely ignorant of any and all racial slurs that I might hear or read in a social context. I will give the impression that I've never heard the word before (which in most cases I haven't), ask what it means (because in most cases I don't know), if it's rather far removed from the proper term I will ask about its origins or if it's perhaps in another language, and then I will politely inquire as to in which contexts or situations one might choose to use this word rather than the proper term. If someone explicitly says it's a racial slur, I'll say, "Oh really? I've never heard one before!" (I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've heard them in an actual conversation.)
This approach is extremely close to reality, and is consistent with what reality should be in the 21st century, and it should work with every racial slur, with the possible exception of one that people would expect me to have encountered in literature.
Therefore, I have decided to take it a step further, and pretend to be completely ignorant of any and all racial slurs that I might hear or read in a social context. I will give the impression that I've never heard the word before (which in most cases I haven't), ask what it means (because in most cases I don't know), if it's rather far removed from the proper term I will ask about its origins or if it's perhaps in another language, and then I will politely inquire as to in which contexts or situations one might choose to use this word rather than the proper term. If someone explicitly says it's a racial slur, I'll say, "Oh really? I've never heard one before!" (I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've heard them in an actual conversation.)
This approach is extremely close to reality, and is consistent with what reality should be in the 21st century, and it should work with every racial slur, with the possible exception of one that people would expect me to have encountered in literature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)