This blog entry is brought to you by REM sleep

Here are some thoughts on other people's reactions to the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina. I wasn't originally planning on blogging this, but last night a recurring theme in my dreams was that it was absolutely vital that I get this blogged. (These dreams also had cheat codes and easter eggs, so I'm not sure what that means.)

1. Some people say it's tacky and partisan to go around placing blame on the US government at a time like this. However, I think it's very pragmatic to loudly and vehemently blame any relevant government officials for any shortcomings whatsoever. Why? Because if they get a lot of loud blaming, then they and any future governments will put higher priority on disaster prevention and relief, because they know how much blame they'll get if their response is anything less than impeccable.

2. Some people say it's unreasonable to expect everyone to have been rescued. After all, it's not like they can push a button and instantly deploy resources to rescue hundreds of thousands of people. Again, I think that, pragmatically, people should go on loudly complaining about the slowness of the response and the fact that not everyone was rescued. Complain enough, and they're sure to come up with some way to rescue hundreds of thousands of people at the push of a button.

3. There has been talk of abandoning/relocating New Orleans. Then there have been other people who say that's ridiculous - you don't abandon San Francisco because there's an earthquake. I think this is apples and oranges. The thing about New Orleans is it's underwater! The only reason it isn't normally flooded is because of human-created technology. I haven't been able to find out how it got there in the first place ("Hmmm...this would be a perfect place for a city - we just have to move all this water!") but the fact is it isn't naturally habitable land. San Francisco might be on a fault line, but it's not like people could tell when settling there. However, whoever came to New Orleans first must have noticed it was under water, so it's a far less natural place to settle.

Angst! Drama! Eyewear!

I want big movie-star sunglasses, like is just becoming trendy right now. Unfortunately, there are none of those in my price range.

I want small, subtle, feminine indoor glasses. Unfortunately, the only pair that looks decent on me is too big.

I don't know what I did to get such bad karma.

I am terribly cranky about this. Although that might be because I spent 10.5 hours wearing really high heels (My motto: If you can't be assertive, then be six feet tall) and I haven't had my dinner yet.

Mash-up bunny

Someone should do a mash-up of Abba's Fernando with Cake's Perhaps Perhaps Perhaps (which, I know, is a cover of a Spanish-language song called Quizas Quizas Quizas, but I don't know if the Spanish version is musically compatible).

I don't know if they're in compatible keys, but the section of Fernando that starts with "There was something in the air that night..." reminds me of the section of Perhaps Perhaps Perhaps that starts with "If you can't make your mind up..."

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel by Susanna Clarke

This book is not really compelling enough for its length. It clocks in at 782 pages, but it was quite easy to put down. I didn't mind reading it in situations where I normally read, like on the subway, at lunch, during commercial breaks, in waiting rooms, but I didn't really feel compelled to pick it up at other times. This isn't necessarily a problem, but when a book is almost 800 pages long, the reader should want to know what happens next.

The book is about magicians, and one thing that really bothered me was that the rules of magic weren't clearly definied. I'm used to reading magic in the Potterverse where the rules and limits of magic are quite clear, so it was a bit odd having no idea whatsoever what the magicians might do to resolve a particular problem.

Now that I think about it, it would be cool to see a Harry Potter/Strange & Norrell crossover. The two universes are mostly reconcilable - there's just the tricky use of Faerie in the Strange & Norrell universe. There's a challenge for a fanfic writer: reconcile Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell so that it fits into the Potterverse.

Pelee Island Eco Trail

I don't know why it's called "Eco Trail". It's a blend of Vidal and Pinot Blanc, neither of which I'm terribly familiar with, but I quite enjoy the end result. It's very refreshing - a patio wine. I don't know what's "Eco" about it though.

I think this is the opposite of schadenfreude

Several things are causing me moderate amounts of angst/drama/stress right now. Cumulatively, this puts me in a cystic acne/greying hair/yelling at inanimate objects when I'm alone/trying not to snap at people/tempted to eat salt, fat and sugar and drink an extra glass of wine sort of mood.

The problem is, the situations that are exposing me to these stressful things are all situations that I am quite fortunate to be in. Many people are not this fortunate, and I'm sure that the people I generally confide in would be thinking "Oh, that I should have such problems!" (although they are certainly decent enough not to say it to my face). They are actual stressors - valid concerns and difficult situations, not "Boo hoo, our million-dollar home is on a golf course!" but I still feel that I shouldn't be worrying. I can hear some indefinite nagger saying "Just do something, deal with the outcome, and stop bitching!" Which, of course, makes me more stressed thinking that I shouldn't be feeling stressed.

Nutrition question

Can a person survive on empty calories alone?

For example, suppose you're stranded somewhere with no food, but an infinite supply of, say, high-calorie cola beverages. This will obviously provide for your hydration needs (it's not as good as water, but it isn't 100% diuretic) and it will provide a lot of calories, but no nutrients. So would you still starve to death, or would you survive? I realize eventually you'd get vitamin deficiencies, but would the end result of living only on cola beverages be closer to living on only one type of food, or living on only water?

Help identify the mystery comic strip character!

In the 75th anniversary Blondie comic strip, who's the blue guy with the yellow nose standing the the left (our left, his right) of Hagar?

He's in the back row of the right-hand group, sort of just over Alexander's shoulder. Look at Blondie, then Alexander, then keep moving your eyes to the right and you see Blue Guy, then Hagar, then Ziggy, etc. Who's the blue guy?

Charming

When people are charming, are they charming intentionally?

I have no idea, because I don't know how to be charming. I don't think I've ever been charming in my life.

But some people can be charming, and sometimes they're only charming some of the time. Is it an intentional decision? "I think I'll be charming now," the same way I might decide "I'm going to act grown up and professional now." Do they have an actual process they follow? "Okay, I'm being charming, so I should shake hands and smile and say such and such." Or is it all intuitive?

Water purification after a flood

How does water purification work? I know there is such thing as water purification tablets. I know there is such thing as portable water purification facilities. But I haven't heard any talk of sending water purification equipment to the areas affected by the hurricane to purify the flood waters for drinking purposes. Is this not possible? What am I missing?

Moral authority

Daou Report has a lot of interesting things to say about US politics and moral authority.

I have something small to add to all this.

The impression I get, as a foreigner watching this from the outside (albeit from ringside seats), is that those in power in the US think they have moral authority because they are Americans. It really seems to me that current US foreign policy is based on the tacit assumption that "Hey, we're the good guys!" It's like they don't feel the need to give any thought to making sure that they maintain moral authority, because, hey, they're the hero of the movie, they're the cowboys in white hats. Of course they're the good guys!

I think they could use a lesson or two on noblesse oblige from Professor Dumbledore.

Other people are poor!

Xoverboard gives words to something I've been trying to articulate for years: some people just don't understand that other people are poor!

This goes beyond just immediate current events into something that's been bugging me my entire life. My father would often go on rants about how a family of four on welfare would get as much money in a month as my mother used in a month for household expenses. I am not in a position to confirm these numbers, and I don't know if the statement is still applicable today, but even if it is true the fact remains that people on welfare don't have assets! My parents have a house with a paid-off mortgage and a paid-off car, a job with pension and benefits, credit cards, a good credit rating, RRSPs, and an unknown (but, judging by empirical evidence, appreciable) amount of investments.

On welfare, you cannot have assets. It's not allowed! You can't have social assistance if you have more than $200 in assets! (And I cannot think of a single place below the tree line where $200 could buy you a month's rent in any sort of accomodation whatsoever).

You simply can't compare $X per month with appreciable assets to $X per month with no assets. There's a huge difference, and this really hit home from me when I realized that I could easily evacuate by hopping on the next plane to anywhere.
When you have assets, you have options. You may live like a monk on a day-to-day basis, but when an emergency occurs, you can throw money at it and make the problem go away. People on welfare can't do that.

When I was in university, my wallet was stolen just before a long weekend. I had no money, no ID, no TTC tokens, no way to get cash, and nowhere near enough food to get through the weekend. So I called my parents. They used their nice, paid-for car to drive an hour to get me and an hour back. I used their computer (bought with a discount through my father's work) and internet access (a benefit of my father's job) to download the appropriate forms to replace my ID. Then their neighbour, who has known me since I was a baby, was kind enough to sign my forms as a guarantor. My mother then handed me $200, in cash, to tide me over until I got my ID and bank cards replaced.

People on social assistance wouldn't have a car, and poor people with a car would have to think long and hard about whether they can afford the gas for an unexpected two-hour trip. They probably would not have a computer - they'd have to go to a public library or wait until the long weekend was over and stand in line at a government office (both of which are hard when your transit tokens are also gone). Unless they live in a really mixed neighbourhood and socialize with people in other buildings, they aren't going to have neighbours who hold jobs that make them suitable guarantors. And that $200 my mother so kindly gave me, probably without even thinking twice? That is all you're allowed to have in the world if you're on social assistance. If she'd handed me another $20, even if there was nothing in my bank account, I would have been considered too rich for social assistance. Things are different when you have assets.

The other thing that better-off people have is stuff. All my furniture came from my parents' house. They both lived independently before getting married, so they had enough extra furniture to furnish my apartment. Therefore, I didn't have to worry about "Can I afford furniture?" Poor people don't have extra perfectly good furniture sitting around. If they did, they'd sell it. So if their furniture breaks, they have to replace it or do without. If their kid moves out, they have to find their own furniture or do without, thus making it that much harder for their kid to achieve adult independence.

Having a decent-paying job, I buy clothes as particular items strike my fancy. Therefore, I have far more clothes than strictly necessary in my closet - many of which I never wear because they have become slightly worn or unfashionable or I have acquired something else I like better. If I had a financial disaster and could not afford to buy new clothes, I would probably be good for at least a year before I started to have gaps in my wardrobe. I would look less fashionable, less attractive, and more threadbare, but I'd have enough clothes to get me through. If my boots become unwearable and I can't replace them, I can always wear my old boots. They're a bit worn out, but I could make do if necessary. Poor people don't have this option. If they have a disaster that eats up what clothing budget they have, and then their boots become unwearable, they'll just have to do without boots. They can't tap into their savings or withdraw a GIC early or wait until their next payday - they simply have no way to get new boots.

Other people are poor.

It's really quite humbling to think about.

Variations on the theme of looting

Interesting point on language use. I'll have to watch that in media coverage in the future.

I don't think the word "looting" should apply to taking food, water, batteries, and other necessities for oneself and one's dependents (in the functional sense of the word rather than the legal sense). That should be forgiven. Ideally one should anonymously send a bit of cash and an apologetic explanation to the store owner afterwards, but even if one doesn't it's easily forgiveable. This is "finding."

Then we need another level called "taking". This is for things that aren't necessities, but are quite important to help in the crisis. One of those solar/crank-powered radios, deodorant, a toy or book to amuse the kids, even a toy or book to amuse yourself if you're in a position where you have nothing else to do but wait. To do this in a civilized manner, you shouldn't break and enter (enter somewhere that's already broken into and don't do any further property damage) and make sure to leave some money or send some money as soon as possible. And, of course, if any stores are open, you should buy from them in the normal manner.

The word "looting" should only count when taking something for pure profit or to take advantage of the situation. Home electronics, jewelry, designer clothing that is not strictly needed, huge quantities of food or other necessities with the intent to set up a black market, etc. This one should be looked upon shamefully.

It's one thing to steal necessities when all the stores are closed and there's no way to buy them legitimately. It's quite another thing to approach a natural disaster with the attitude "How can I profit from this?"

How to evacuate in style

Hurricane Katrina has me wondering what I'd do if I had to evacuate the city. Neither I nor any of my friends in the city have cars, and I really can't see hitchhiking.

Then I realized I'm going about it all wrong.

Assuming there's a day or two warning, I would pack a suitcase, grab my emergency credit card, and head straight to the domestic terminal of the airport. I would then get on the first available flight to anywhere. Land in some city, check into a decent hotel for a couple of nights, and wait out the storm with movies and room service.

Yes, I know not everyone has the means to do that, but now this is off my "to worry about" list.

Killed and injured or wrongfully detained?

In a Letter to the Editor in the Globe and Mail, one Teck Yap asks: "Would you rather see some people wrongfully detained or many people killed or injured?" [That is the entire text of the letter as it appeared in print.]

I cannot answer that question unless someone can first clearly demonstrate to me that this is an either/or situation - that detaining people without full proof etc. actually does prevent people from being killed an injured. Then it's a question of the details of how many people are detained vs. killed and injured, and the exact conditions of the detentions, deaths and injuries.

However, I can tell you that I, personally, would rather be killed or injured than wrongfully detained.

Why? Well, if I were wrongfully detained it is quite likely that I would be sexually humiliated, maybe even sexually assaulted, and kept in a cell where bugs would crawl all over me, all this for an indefinite period of time. I would come out permanently damaged psychologically, unable to support myself or contribute effectively to society, and would spend the rest of my days looking for an opportunity to commit suicide, if I were not tortured to death during my wrongful detention.

I would find it a much more desireable fate to come to a quick and painless end, or even a bloody and dirty end without ever having to be sexually humiliated, sexually assaulted, or have bugs crawl all over me.

Academic year conspiracy theory

I think universities begin their school year in early September because the campuses are still lush and green and the weather is quite pleasant. One can sunbathe and enjoy the outdoors and sit on patios into the long evenings enjoying one's newfound right to imbibe freely.

Then the air becomes cool and crisp and the leaves turn, invoking cultural nostalgia for archetypal academia - sweaters, coffee, stimulating intellectual discussion. The very act of going to a lecture or writing a paper seems somehow glamorous.

Then, by the time the leaves fall and daylight savings time ends and the cold drives students from the lush, manicured campus grounds into their tiny, bleak res rooms, it is too late to drop the whole thing and get one's money back.

Questions arising from New Orleans

1. Apparently the roads heading out of New Orleans are all gridlocked. Question: How, logistically, does that happen? Everyone is trying to go a very long distance in the same direction at the maximum speed possible. So how does that lead to everyone being stuck?

2. When a city must be fully evacuated, is there some provision for people who don't have cars?

It's not a bridge!

We (or at least the Torontonians among us) have all seen the picture of that section of Finch Ave. that collapsed during that crazy rainstorm a couple weeks back.

I always thought the collapsed section was a bridge.

Turns out it wasn't a bridge! Check out these before, during and after photos! It may have been a culvert, I'm not sure, but from the perspective of someone standing on the street, it looked like perfectly ordinary street that was level with the ground!

I never thought I'd have to worry about apparently solid ground collapsing beneath my feet like a bridge!

How much I hate radio commercials

Despite the huge drop in programming quality resulting from the CBC lockout, I still find it a better radio station to listen to in the morning simply because it doesn't have any commercials! I can't stand radio commercials! I'm not sure whether it is ethical for me to be listening to it during the lockout (I'm a union member myself and I don't want to scab), but I have listened to it a few times, and despite the sheer mediocrity and lack of the usual interesting and informative programming, it is still far better than the aggravation of listening to the commercials on commercial radio.