One of the things I find most unpleasant about parents (and, I would like to emphasize, by "parents" I'm not referring to anyone specifically; I am thinking more of a generalized aggregation of all the parents, real and fictional, with whom I am familiar) is that many of them - or perhaps a very vocal minority - seem to think they deserve an inordinate amount of respect, from their children and from societym just for being their parents.
Of course, everyone deserves a certain amount of respect. We all start at the "basic human respect" level, and then gain or lose points based on our actions. However, some parents don't seem to have an accurate notion of how many respect points they deserve. Therefore, in the shower this morning, I created this handy guide:
Bringing a child into the world: No points by default, although the child has the discretion to grant you as many points as they wish. "But but but..." No. See, the thing is, the child didn't ask to be born. I know that for some people being alive is a great wonderful exciting privilege. If that is the case, I envy you your joyful life. But for others it isn't particularly positive, and may even be negative. A great many people, if asked "How would you feel if you had never been born?" would reply "Well, I really wouldn't care, would I?" So it is possible that you might get points for this, but it is entirely up to your child, so don't depend on it.
Providing a child with the necessities of life: For succeeding in providing the child with all the necessities, you get exactly as many points as you get for providing yourself with all the necessities, because this is simply the most basic of duties, not some great heroic action. However, if you fail to provide the child with all the necessities, you lose more points than you would lose for failing to provide for yourself, because the child has even less control over the situation than you do.
Doing things that are not necessary, but that you think are good for the child: The level of respect you get from society will increase or decrease based on how good society thinks these things are. The level of respect you get from the child will increase or decrease based on how much benefit the child feels they are getting. This means that if the child doesn't like eating a diet completely free of fat or sugar or going on month-long camping trips during mosquito season to build character, you are going to lose respect points from the child, no matter how valuable you believe these actions are.
Actions or parenting policies that lose the child respect from their peers: Society will judge this on a cost-benefit basis, but the child will judge it solely based on what they have to put up with in the playground. I will explain this with an analogy. Several times I have heard people (both parents talking about their children and non-parents talking about their future children) say something along the lines of, "In principle, don't mind the idea of them indulging moderately in various minor controlled substances, but there is the tricky matter of my being held legally accountable for whatever goes on in my own home." Similarly, whatever parenting policies you implement, your child is going to have to pay for on the playground. For example, you might think it's good and frugal to buy clothes only at the discount store, and, after all, your kids should be taught not to set great store by appearances anyway, but the fact remains that if your child's classmates have decided that wearing discount store clothes is a spit-worthy offence, your child is going to be spat on. Their respect for you will decrease accordingly, because they see you as the one who put them into this situation. Society will be a little more lenient, however, and will likely forgive you if you could not reasonably have known.
Teaching your child stuff: This depends on what you are teaching your child. If you are teaching them skills, or stuff that is generally considered by society as a whole to be "good", you gain points - both from child and from society. If you teach them stuff that is generally considered by society to be bad, you lose points for brainwashing your child - and you lose extra points from your child for making them into a social misfit against their will. If you teach your child a skill that they would have been taught anyway, you only get points for the extra period of time that they know this stuff. For example, if you teach your child to read at age 3, but in normal school they would have been taught to read at age 5 anyway, you only get two years' worth of points, rather than a lifetime's worth. But if you teach them a skill they would never have learned otherwise, you gain a lifetime's worth of points. This category also includes situations where you arrange to have your child taught by a trained professional.
Paying for your child's post-secondary education: This really depends on the situation. Any points gained are automatically lost if you use the fact that you are paying for their education to attempt to control the minutiae of your adult child's everyday life. Points are gained if you paid for it unconditionally. However, you gain fewer points - and it moves closer to "providing for the necessities of life" - if you have in any way, intentionally or unintentionally, hindered your kid's ability to pay for it themselves. It then becomes less a source of extra respect and more basic human decency. For example, if you insisted upon taking long family vacations every year and would not allow your kids to stay home over the summer to work, you are then obligated to make up for the difference and chip in yourself. If you make so much money that your child cannot get student loans, you'll have to either co-sign on a private loan or help them out yourself. Intentionally hindering your child's education loses more points than contributing to your child's education gains.
There were more things I wanted to put, but I forgot.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Friday, August 26, 2005
Brilliant Ideas that will Never Work: rapprocher toutes les langues du monde
In order to make it easier for future generations to learn foreign languages, whenever a new object or concept is invented, it should be given the same name in every language. Overcoming the millions of sociopolitical barriers to this policy is left as an exercise for the reader.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
The problem with updating live
Click on the image above to see a screenshot of the CP24 website as it appeared on August 23, 2005, at 12:28 p.m. EDT.
I have not altered the picture at all - any forensic graphics geeks out there can confirm that. I think blogger converted it a .jpg, but I uploaded it as a bitmap.
This shows the problem of updating your website live instead of updating the whole thing then uploading all at once.
(For those who don't follow Toronto current events: the blonde woman is convicted - and recently released - rapist and serial killer Karla Homolka. The caption does not refer to her - it linked to a story about a completely unrelated sexual assault case.)
"I wish I hadn't given it up"
I've heard tell of grownups who took music lessons when they were a kid, then gave it up, and then as grownups were all regretful that they'd given it up. When I was young, I was not allowed to stop taking piano lessons because an aunt or some other random relative regretted having given it up as a kid.
So why don't these grownups just take up music again and stop complaining? It's not that hard - your starter keyboard or guitar can be had for a few hundred dollars, and sheet music is readily available commercially, on the internet, and in public libraries.
So why don't these grownups just take up music again and stop complaining? It's not that hard - your starter keyboard or guitar can be had for a few hundred dollars, and sheet music is readily available commercially, on the internet, and in public libraries.
Philosophizing
Something I was pondering today. While I've tried to phrase it so that it's more universally applicable, I'm afraid my roots are still showing:
Self-control and "good"ness are often associated with each other, the conventional wisdom being that human beings are not naturally "good" and we need to apply self-control in order to be "good". (For the purpose of this example "good" means precisely whatever the reader thinks it does.)
Suppose for a moment there is a person who requires no self-control whatsoever to be "good". They simply wander through life, doing whatever it occurs to them to do at any given time, and the results are entirely, without exception, "good". There's no self-control, no self-discipline, no self-denial, no effort. Everything they do is "good" because it simply does not occur to them to do anything that's considered less than perfectly "good".
Now suppose there's another person who is also "good" for their entire life, every word and every deed. However, this person has to make a continuous, concerted, deliberate, conscious effort to be "good". If they did whatever it occurred to them to do - like the first person does - everything they did would be completely "bad". However, they want, for whatever reason, to be "good", so they exercise self-control, self-discipline, self-denial at every turn, and as a result their actions all end up being "good".
So which of these two people is ultimately more "good"?
Self-control and "good"ness are often associated with each other, the conventional wisdom being that human beings are not naturally "good" and we need to apply self-control in order to be "good". (For the purpose of this example "good" means precisely whatever the reader thinks it does.)
Suppose for a moment there is a person who requires no self-control whatsoever to be "good". They simply wander through life, doing whatever it occurs to them to do at any given time, and the results are entirely, without exception, "good". There's no self-control, no self-discipline, no self-denial, no effort. Everything they do is "good" because it simply does not occur to them to do anything that's considered less than perfectly "good".
Now suppose there's another person who is also "good" for their entire life, every word and every deed. However, this person has to make a continuous, concerted, deliberate, conscious effort to be "good". If they did whatever it occurred to them to do - like the first person does - everything they did would be completely "bad". However, they want, for whatever reason, to be "good", so they exercise self-control, self-discipline, self-denial at every turn, and as a result their actions all end up being "good".
So which of these two people is ultimately more "good"?
Youthful hijinks
In cases where respectable, well-established older/middle-aged people committed minor crimes or misdemeanours (in the general sense of the word) in their youth, these incidents are often casually written off as "youthful hijinks". This is not always unjustified, as I'm sure everyone would agree that decades of positive contributions more than make up for, say, an isolated pre-teen shoplifting incident.
However, there are some problems with this attitude.
The first problem is that the fact that a misspent youth is so easily, so casually written off, that it completely devalues a person's youth itself. So people whose youth was productive and respectable get no credit for it! I'm not saying that we should all live or die by our high school years, but it's got to be frustrating to see, say, your adolescent tormentor get treated as just as much of a good person as you are, despite the fact that they made everyone's life a living hell for 10 years while you put up with that living hell to be a model student and citizen.
The second problem is that writing off the behaviour of youth of the past also writes off the value of youth of the present. The tacit assumption of the "youthful hijinks" excuse is "they didn't know what they were doing because they were young." This then leads to the assumption that young people in general don't know what they are doing, thus immediately devaluing the actions and thoughts and ideas and goals of young people. If someone's youthful criminal record can be dismissed with a wave of the hand as inconsequential because they didn't know what they were doing, then a young person's desire to start a business or get married or pursue an unorthodox career path can be dismissed just as readily, as a young person who doesn't know what they're doing. Just a phase.
The result of these two problems is that it disenfranchises the youth of today. They see that by the time everyone is 35 nothing they did will "count" any more, and they see that anything they do now will be written off as "they don't know what they're doing". So why make the effort? People with a very active desire to be a good person and a good citizen will still make the effort - although they might not get the credit for it that they should - but people who favour the path of least resistance certainly have no motivation to better themselves.
However, there are some problems with this attitude.
The first problem is that the fact that a misspent youth is so easily, so casually written off, that it completely devalues a person's youth itself. So people whose youth was productive and respectable get no credit for it! I'm not saying that we should all live or die by our high school years, but it's got to be frustrating to see, say, your adolescent tormentor get treated as just as much of a good person as you are, despite the fact that they made everyone's life a living hell for 10 years while you put up with that living hell to be a model student and citizen.
The second problem is that writing off the behaviour of youth of the past also writes off the value of youth of the present. The tacit assumption of the "youthful hijinks" excuse is "they didn't know what they were doing because they were young." This then leads to the assumption that young people in general don't know what they are doing, thus immediately devaluing the actions and thoughts and ideas and goals of young people. If someone's youthful criminal record can be dismissed with a wave of the hand as inconsequential because they didn't know what they were doing, then a young person's desire to start a business or get married or pursue an unorthodox career path can be dismissed just as readily, as a young person who doesn't know what they're doing. Just a phase.
The result of these two problems is that it disenfranchises the youth of today. They see that by the time everyone is 35 nothing they did will "count" any more, and they see that anything they do now will be written off as "they don't know what they're doing". So why make the effort? People with a very active desire to be a good person and a good citizen will still make the effort - although they might not get the credit for it that they should - but people who favour the path of least resistance certainly have no motivation to better themselves.
"It's just a phase!"
Parents say this all the time about children, and the implication is that the things that are important to the child shouldn't be taken seriously because the child might outgrow them. Sometimes the implication is even that it's wrong for the child to be interested in something because they won't necessarily be interested in it forever.
That's utterly ridiculous. Just because a person won't be AS enthusiastically interested in something for their entire life doesn't mean that it's of no value right now!
Think of the music you listened to in high school. Think how important it was to you then, how much it contributed to your life, how much value it had. Is that same music still as important to you right now? Maybe, maybe not. But if it isn't, that doesn't negate the fact that it was important back in high school. Just because your musical needs were different then doesn't negate the fact that certain music filled those needs.
Grownups go through phases too. My father goes through phases about what beverage he drinks with his meals. For a while he drank milk, then orange juice, then tomato juice, then water...I don't know what he's drinking now because I no longer live with him, but in general he drinks one thing exclusively for a while, then changes. I'm sure that if he asked for a glass of water no one would say "Pshhh! That's just a phase!" in a tone that implies that he really shouldn't be asking for a glass of water because when he's older he's going to want something else to drink with his meal. Even if he never feels like a glass of water again in his life, that does not negate the fact that he would like one right now.
That's utterly ridiculous. Just because a person won't be AS enthusiastically interested in something for their entire life doesn't mean that it's of no value right now!
Think of the music you listened to in high school. Think how important it was to you then, how much it contributed to your life, how much value it had. Is that same music still as important to you right now? Maybe, maybe not. But if it isn't, that doesn't negate the fact that it was important back in high school. Just because your musical needs were different then doesn't negate the fact that certain music filled those needs.
Grownups go through phases too. My father goes through phases about what beverage he drinks with his meals. For a while he drank milk, then orange juice, then tomato juice, then water...I don't know what he's drinking now because I no longer live with him, but in general he drinks one thing exclusively for a while, then changes. I'm sure that if he asked for a glass of water no one would say "Pshhh! That's just a phase!" in a tone that implies that he really shouldn't be asking for a glass of water because when he's older he's going to want something else to drink with his meal. Even if he never feels like a glass of water again in his life, that does not negate the fact that he would like one right now.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Cool thing about Sims 2
In Sims 2, if a child gets taken away from a family by a social worker, then another family asks to adopt a child, they'll get the kid that was taken away from the first family!
Monday, August 22, 2005
Because I like this quiz
You are Samwise Gamgee
A brave and loyal associate full of optimism, you remain true to your friends and their efforts, to whatever end.
But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer.
Samwise is a character in the Middle-Earth universe. You can read more about him at TheOneRing.net.
Ethical dilemmas
1. Living alone and eating out for five meals a week, I cannot eat a head of lettuce before it goes bad. Is it more ethical to buy salad in a bag, thus increasing my ecological footprint and creating demand for imported and packaged produce, or to buy lettuce in heads and end up throwing away food on a regular basis?
2. In the summer, I close my curtains so that the sunlight doesn't warm my apartment. However, sometimes I need light to see what I'm doing. Is it better to open my curtains, thus causing my apartment to heat up and creating more work for the air conditioner, or to turn on a light, thus using electricity by having a light on in the middle of the day?
3. Sometimes I can't finish a library book by the due date, and the overdue fine amounts are painless to me. Does the fact that I am giving money to the library - a very worthy cause! - compensate sufficiently for the inconvenience I am causing to my fellow citizens by keeping books too long? Is there a threshold number of days/amount of money at which this changes?
4. I have distributed computing software on my computer that is working to cure cancer. Does this justify the increased environmental footprint of leaving the computer on when I'm not using it? Is there a threshold in the balance between electricity demand and computing power where this changes?
5. I've injured my foot slightly. It's basically the minimum injury that would cause me to take care of it and attend to it - any less injury and I would be blithely ignoring it. However, the injury hasn't done much damage to my pace - I'm still passing the majority of the able-bodied people I'm sharing the sidewalk with. The only visible manifestations of my injury are a slight limp and the fact that I'm wearing runners instead of heels. However, I do need to take care of my foot so it doesn't get worse. Does this make me more entitled to a seat on the subway than the average able-bodied person?
2. In the summer, I close my curtains so that the sunlight doesn't warm my apartment. However, sometimes I need light to see what I'm doing. Is it better to open my curtains, thus causing my apartment to heat up and creating more work for the air conditioner, or to turn on a light, thus using electricity by having a light on in the middle of the day?
3. Sometimes I can't finish a library book by the due date, and the overdue fine amounts are painless to me. Does the fact that I am giving money to the library - a very worthy cause! - compensate sufficiently for the inconvenience I am causing to my fellow citizens by keeping books too long? Is there a threshold number of days/amount of money at which this changes?
4. I have distributed computing software on my computer that is working to cure cancer. Does this justify the increased environmental footprint of leaving the computer on when I'm not using it? Is there a threshold in the balance between electricity demand and computing power where this changes?
5. I've injured my foot slightly. It's basically the minimum injury that would cause me to take care of it and attend to it - any less injury and I would be blithely ignoring it. However, the injury hasn't done much damage to my pace - I'm still passing the majority of the able-bodied people I'm sharing the sidewalk with. The only visible manifestations of my injury are a slight limp and the fact that I'm wearing runners instead of heels. However, I do need to take care of my foot so it doesn't get worse. Does this make me more entitled to a seat on the subway than the average able-bodied person?
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Zonin Terre Palladiane Soave
This is the first Soave I've ever tried. I read that the word Soave means "smooth" in Italian. The wine is mostly smooth, but it has a bit of a taste at the end that I can only describe as "nutty" - nutty in the way Swiss Cheese is nutty, not nutty like actual nuts. It's pretty decent, but I didn't find it really superlative.
Sleep poll
This is a poll. Please respond in the comments. Anonymous comments are welcome in polls.
Apparently, it takes the average person seven minutes to fall asleep. I find this difficult to believe.
How long does it take you to fall asleep?
It takes me like 2 hours.
Apparently, it takes the average person seven minutes to fall asleep. I find this difficult to believe.
How long does it take you to fall asleep?
It takes me like 2 hours.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Things They Should Invent: Partial Marriage Contracts
The institution of marriage has a lot of different aspects. There's the romantic aspect. There's the forever aspect. There's the fact that spouses are automatically each other's next of kin. There's the fact that they are to be treated as a unit, legally and socially. There's the fact that they live together. There's the fact that they often have children together.
However, sometimes a person might be in a relationship that has some of these aspects, but not all. This kind of relationship, even though they are likely the most important relationship in the person's life, has no legal or social status. You might want to share a home or raise a child with someone, but not want a romantic relationship with them. You might want to be legally considered a household unit, but not want the obligation of "forever." You might fully intend to love someone forever, forsaking all others, but the two of you just cannot manage to live together.
So what we need is legally binding contracts that involve only some of the aspects of marriage. For example:
The common-law contract: I use the word common-law because this most resembles the concept currently described as common-law marriage. However, the problem with common-law marriage is that a cohabiting couple are automatically considered common-law after a certain period of time. So if you've been together romantically for 10 years but only moved in together last week, you don't get any of the benefits of common-law marriage. Conversely, if you've been living together for a year (I think it's 1 year - if not, insert the appropriate period of time) then you are automatically considered common-law married, whether you like it or not. The alternative I propose is that two people living together sign a contract that makes them "partners". They are then considered a family-style household, rather than roommates, with all the related legal benefits. Perhaps there could be a temporary version and a permanent version, with the permanent version requiring a "divorce" and splitting of assets if the relationship comes to an end. The common-law contract would not have the implication of a romantic relationship, although the couple is certainly free to have a romantic relationship if they choose. They would be considered equal to a married couple under etiquette, so they'd be invited to weddings etc. together. A couple doesn't have to live together for a certain period of time - they can sign the common-law contract on the very day they move in together, if they so choose.
The next-of-kin contract: This is a public declaration of a certain person as your next of kin. I am aware of the existence of living wills, but if no one can find your living will (or you're unconscious and can't tell them where it is) then your next living relative will be considered your next of kin, even if you want it to be your best friend or your roommate or your longtime lover. With this contract, your next of kin will be as much a matter of public as your spouse.
The non-cohabiting marriage contract: I know a number of couples who love each other forever, but simply are not compatible to live together. The stress of living together would ruin their relationship, so they live apart. By all rights they should get to enjoy the benefits of marriage, but their marriage would be considered null and void in our society, which makes living apart for a prolonged period of time grounds for divorce. Under this contract, a couple would get all the benefits of marriage, with the implications of romance and forever, but they would be permitted to maintain separate households. Under etiquette and "morality" they are considered a married couple, so they are invited to social events together, and it is just as acceptable for them to share a bed as it is for a cohabiting married couple.
The co-parenting contract: Suppose you want to have a child, but you do not have an appropriate romantic partner with whom to have a child. But suppose you know someone who would be the perfect co-parent, they just aren't appropriate to be a romantic partner. They might be an incompatible sexual orientation, or they might be a blood relative, or they just might be someone with whom you are not romantically compatible. Under this contract, two people can legally be considered primary custodial parents of a child without the other implications of marriage. They may live together or apart (although logistically they would probably have to live at least close to each other), and they can share the other legal benefits of marriage. They can be considered a couple socially, or they might prefer not to - it's up to them. I am aware of adoption, but this system is specifically designed to normalize the concept of two roommates parenting a child together.
However, sometimes a person might be in a relationship that has some of these aspects, but not all. This kind of relationship, even though they are likely the most important relationship in the person's life, has no legal or social status. You might want to share a home or raise a child with someone, but not want a romantic relationship with them. You might want to be legally considered a household unit, but not want the obligation of "forever." You might fully intend to love someone forever, forsaking all others, but the two of you just cannot manage to live together.
So what we need is legally binding contracts that involve only some of the aspects of marriage. For example:
The common-law contract: I use the word common-law because this most resembles the concept currently described as common-law marriage. However, the problem with common-law marriage is that a cohabiting couple are automatically considered common-law after a certain period of time. So if you've been together romantically for 10 years but only moved in together last week, you don't get any of the benefits of common-law marriage. Conversely, if you've been living together for a year (I think it's 1 year - if not, insert the appropriate period of time) then you are automatically considered common-law married, whether you like it or not. The alternative I propose is that two people living together sign a contract that makes them "partners". They are then considered a family-style household, rather than roommates, with all the related legal benefits. Perhaps there could be a temporary version and a permanent version, with the permanent version requiring a "divorce" and splitting of assets if the relationship comes to an end. The common-law contract would not have the implication of a romantic relationship, although the couple is certainly free to have a romantic relationship if they choose. They would be considered equal to a married couple under etiquette, so they'd be invited to weddings etc. together. A couple doesn't have to live together for a certain period of time - they can sign the common-law contract on the very day they move in together, if they so choose.
The next-of-kin contract: This is a public declaration of a certain person as your next of kin. I am aware of the existence of living wills, but if no one can find your living will (or you're unconscious and can't tell them where it is) then your next living relative will be considered your next of kin, even if you want it to be your best friend or your roommate or your longtime lover. With this contract, your next of kin will be as much a matter of public as your spouse.
The non-cohabiting marriage contract: I know a number of couples who love each other forever, but simply are not compatible to live together. The stress of living together would ruin their relationship, so they live apart. By all rights they should get to enjoy the benefits of marriage, but their marriage would be considered null and void in our society, which makes living apart for a prolonged period of time grounds for divorce. Under this contract, a couple would get all the benefits of marriage, with the implications of romance and forever, but they would be permitted to maintain separate households. Under etiquette and "morality" they are considered a married couple, so they are invited to social events together, and it is just as acceptable for them to share a bed as it is for a cohabiting married couple.
The co-parenting contract: Suppose you want to have a child, but you do not have an appropriate romantic partner with whom to have a child. But suppose you know someone who would be the perfect co-parent, they just aren't appropriate to be a romantic partner. They might be an incompatible sexual orientation, or they might be a blood relative, or they just might be someone with whom you are not romantically compatible. Under this contract, two people can legally be considered primary custodial parents of a child without the other implications of marriage. They may live together or apart (although logistically they would probably have to live at least close to each other), and they can share the other legal benefits of marriage. They can be considered a couple socially, or they might prefer not to - it's up to them. I am aware of adoption, but this system is specifically designed to normalize the concept of two roommates parenting a child together.
Things I don't understand
One thing I really don't understand is people with absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for complaining/bad moods.
This seems to be primarily an internet phenomenon. Someone in a blog or an online community or a character in work of fiction being discussed complains about something or is having a hard time or is anything other than bright and cheerful and amusing, even for a moment, and someone is jumping down their throat telling them to stop moaning and complaining and be fun and amusing again. (Which I, personally, find more annoying than the original complaining - and I haven't even had this happen yet when I was the one complaining!)
I find myself wondering what it's like to be in that kind of brain, because I really cannot wrap my mind around being so pissed off that someone is in a bad mood that you feel the need to reprimand them. I have had situations where I found someone's bad mood tiring, but my instinct is to help them if I can, and then back off until I and they get into a place where their mood does not exhaust me. I cannot fathom a grown adult having so little patience and/or empathy and/or tact that they feel the need to scold people who are in a bad mood or having a difficult time for not being completely cheerful.
This seems to be primarily an internet phenomenon. Someone in a blog or an online community or a character in work of fiction being discussed complains about something or is having a hard time or is anything other than bright and cheerful and amusing, even for a moment, and someone is jumping down their throat telling them to stop moaning and complaining and be fun and amusing again. (Which I, personally, find more annoying than the original complaining - and I haven't even had this happen yet when I was the one complaining!)
I find myself wondering what it's like to be in that kind of brain, because I really cannot wrap my mind around being so pissed off that someone is in a bad mood that you feel the need to reprimand them. I have had situations where I found someone's bad mood tiring, but my instinct is to help them if I can, and then back off until I and they get into a place where their mood does not exhaust me. I cannot fathom a grown adult having so little patience and/or empathy and/or tact that they feel the need to scold people who are in a bad mood or having a difficult time for not being completely cheerful.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Focusing on one's career
I don't like it when people say that I'm "focusing on [my] career." I find that phrase is kicked around a lot to mean "not married/not breeding", but the thing is, I'm NOT focusing on my career. Yes, I have a job. I go to work and I earn money to support myself, because I am not independently wealthy. But "focusing on one's career" sounds cold, calculating, driven, Slytherin, as though I'm trying to manoeuvre my way to the top or into some desirable position, which I'm not.
I'm focusing on mi cielito and my friends and loved ones and on becoming a well-read, well-rounded individual. I am not yet married because of my youth, combined with various circumstances beyond my control, and I am not breeding because I don't want to. My career has nothing to do with it. It's just a job where I exchange my expertise for financial security, is all.
I'm focusing on mi cielito and my friends and loved ones and on becoming a well-read, well-rounded individual. I am not yet married because of my youth, combined with various circumstances beyond my control, and I am not breeding because I don't want to. My career has nothing to do with it. It's just a job where I exchange my expertise for financial security, is all.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer
I am in love with the protagonist of this book. He is my soulmate. Unfortunately, he's only nine years old. And fictional.
He's an eccentric, eclectic little boy, possibly with Asperger Syndrome. His father died in the World Trade Centre, and he's on a mission to find the lock that belongs to a key left behind by his father. But this summary hardly does justice to the story. It's beautiful and tragic and bittersweet and better than the sum total of thoughts I'll ever have in my life. And the author's only three years older than me. (Insert brief OMG I'll never amount to anything angst here).
This book is on par with Life of Pi or The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. Read it now!
He's an eccentric, eclectic little boy, possibly with Asperger Syndrome. His father died in the World Trade Centre, and he's on a mission to find the lock that belongs to a key left behind by his father. But this summary hardly does justice to the story. It's beautiful and tragic and bittersweet and better than the sum total of thoughts I'll ever have in my life. And the author's only three years older than me. (Insert brief OMG I'll never amount to anything angst here).
This book is on par with Life of Pi or The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. Read it now!
The weather, the weather, let's blog about the weather
Today was awesome!
The storm was so bad around 3-4 that we had literally zero visiblity out the windows of the office! Thunder was rumbling constantly! Unfortunately my cube doesn't have a window, so I didn't get the full visual effect.
I had the good sense to take the bus home from the subway, so I only had to walk one very short (urban residential) block, but I got - literally! - soaked to the skin! I was wearing long pants and a 3/4-sleeve blouse and carrying an umbrella, but I got so wet that when I got home I had to change all my clothes - even my underthings! I was wearing shoes with about a 2-inch platform, but the rivers of water flowing along the roads were well up to my ankle. There was even water bubbling up out of manholes!
My balcony is a swimming pool despite the fact that its walls are solid concrete and it's completely overhung by the balcony above, my purse is soaked through despite the fact that it's scotchguarded leather, and i had to towel off my calves and feet because they were so wet, despite the fact that i was wearing long pants.
Now THIS is weather!
The storm was so bad around 3-4 that we had literally zero visiblity out the windows of the office! Thunder was rumbling constantly! Unfortunately my cube doesn't have a window, so I didn't get the full visual effect.
I had the good sense to take the bus home from the subway, so I only had to walk one very short (urban residential) block, but I got - literally! - soaked to the skin! I was wearing long pants and a 3/4-sleeve blouse and carrying an umbrella, but I got so wet that when I got home I had to change all my clothes - even my underthings! I was wearing shoes with about a 2-inch platform, but the rivers of water flowing along the roads were well up to my ankle. There was even water bubbling up out of manholes!
My balcony is a swimming pool despite the fact that its walls are solid concrete and it's completely overhung by the balcony above, my purse is soaked through despite the fact that it's scotchguarded leather, and i had to towel off my calves and feet because they were so wet, despite the fact that i was wearing long pants.
Now THIS is weather!
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Technical difficulties
When I try to access www.theweathernetwork.com and www.sitemeter.com, I get an HTTP 400 Bad Request error. I have disconnected and reconnected my DSL, and it persists. I'm using Sympatico.
I don't expect any good to come of this post - it's just Google fodder.
I don't expect any good to come of this post - it's just Google fodder.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
My brain hurts
There are fish in Lake Ontario.
There are fish in Lake Erie.
Lake Ontario is connected to Lake Erie by Niagara Falls.
So how did the fish get up and/or down the falls?????
There are fish in Lake Erie.
Lake Ontario is connected to Lake Erie by Niagara Falls.
So how did the fish get up and/or down the falls?????
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)