Tuesday, October 18, 2005
An idea, free for the taking
If you happen to be female, and you ever find yourself in a situation where someone who happens to be male calls you any intending-to-be-derogratory name based on the physical attributes of being female, the correct response is "Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were gay!" This must be delivered in whatever tone of voice you would use if you had honestly mistaken someone's sexual orientation and are honestly sorry about it. The logic here is that a straight man would be stupid to use a reference to female genitalia as an insult, but the kind of straight man who would do so is more likely to take offence at the suggestion that he might be gay. And if he does turn out to be gay, hey, no harm done.
Monday, October 17, 2005
I'm PROROW (or: IMBY!)
I support the boycott of businesses that oppose the St. Clair streetcar.
I have been a big fan of rapid transit ever since I was first exposed to it. As a child, I was greatly impressed by the hop-on-hop-off ease and convenience of the London Underground, and wished my own home and all my potential destinations were served by a subway. It seemed to me the ultimate freedom, even more so than a car. As an adult, I deliberately arranged my life in this way, so that the vast majority of my travels would, in fact, be by subway. As such, I greatly support building rapid transit anywhere and everywhere, as my vision of the ideal Toronto is like a super-efficient city in the original Simcity: you can get anywhere by train alone.
I have never lived or worked on Spadina, but I have had to visit there a few times for various reasons, and each time I was highly impressed by the streetcar service. Because of the quality service provided on Spadina's dedicated right-of-way, a trip down Spadina is no more of an expedition than a subway trip. Generally, if I need to do an errand, I think first "How can I do this in my immediate neighbourhood?" and then "How can I do this using only the subway?" Going down Spadina feels the same as using only the subway. Going down St. Clair does not. I rarely have any reason to go down St. Clair, but I know that if the street had a dedicated streetcar right-of-way, I would consider a trip along St. Clair to be no more difficult than a subway trip. I might even use the St. Clair streetcar to cross over from the Yonge line to the Spadina line when my intention is to go back north. (I currently find crossing over via the Bloor line takes up no more time than crossing over by bus, so I tend to ride down to Bloor since I can read on a train but not on a bus.)
If St. Clair doesn't want ROW, I would like to humbly suggest that they consider building it at Eglinton. I, personally, would welcome it enthusiastically, although I can only speak for myself. IMBY!
I have been a big fan of rapid transit ever since I was first exposed to it. As a child, I was greatly impressed by the hop-on-hop-off ease and convenience of the London Underground, and wished my own home and all my potential destinations were served by a subway. It seemed to me the ultimate freedom, even more so than a car. As an adult, I deliberately arranged my life in this way, so that the vast majority of my travels would, in fact, be by subway. As such, I greatly support building rapid transit anywhere and everywhere, as my vision of the ideal Toronto is like a super-efficient city in the original Simcity: you can get anywhere by train alone.
I have never lived or worked on Spadina, but I have had to visit there a few times for various reasons, and each time I was highly impressed by the streetcar service. Because of the quality service provided on Spadina's dedicated right-of-way, a trip down Spadina is no more of an expedition than a subway trip. Generally, if I need to do an errand, I think first "How can I do this in my immediate neighbourhood?" and then "How can I do this using only the subway?" Going down Spadina feels the same as using only the subway. Going down St. Clair does not. I rarely have any reason to go down St. Clair, but I know that if the street had a dedicated streetcar right-of-way, I would consider a trip along St. Clair to be no more difficult than a subway trip. I might even use the St. Clair streetcar to cross over from the Yonge line to the Spadina line when my intention is to go back north. (I currently find crossing over via the Bloor line takes up no more time than crossing over by bus, so I tend to ride down to Bloor since I can read on a train but not on a bus.)
If St. Clair doesn't want ROW, I would like to humbly suggest that they consider building it at Eglinton. I, personally, would welcome it enthusiastically, although I can only speak for myself. IMBY!
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Terra Barossa Eden Valley Pinot Grigio
This is breadier than the other pinot grigios that I've sampled lately, but not unpleasant. The breadiness makes it go well with various foods (I guess like bread goes well with various foods?), which is good to know and keep in mind.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Hogue Pinot Grigio
Very smooth for a pinot grigio - tastes almost like a chardonnay. I quite enjoy it, but I think it might be overwhelmed by some types of food.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Persepolis 2: The Story of a Return by Marjane Satrapi
I didn't like this book as much as the original Persepolis. I think this is because the original book dealt more with the socio-political situation in Iran, while this sequel dealt more with the author's personal coming-of-age story. While it is perfectly valid for an autobiographical story to deal with the author's coming of age, it's just not as interesting for me personally. Nothing against the book - it's still perfectly decent - I just happen to prefer the first one.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Case Histories by Kate Atkinson
I enjoyed almost all of this mystery novel, right up until the ending. The gloriously interlocking plots were all resolved satisfactorily, but the resolution happened off-screen and the reader was kind of told about it later. I would have preferred to be shown the denouement, not told about it.
There were also two subplots that didn't seem to contribute anything to the rest of the book. They sort of vaguely touched the other plots, but they didn't progress or resolve or add anything.
Despite these problems, the process of reading the book was quite enjoyable. I knew the plots were going to intertwine and I had fun reading along and guessing what would happen next (I guessed some things but not everything, and my correct guesses came along early enough that I felt smart, but late enough that I didn't feel cheated.) I just would have enjoyed seeing more of the resolution rather than being told about it after the fact.
There were also two subplots that didn't seem to contribute anything to the rest of the book. They sort of vaguely touched the other plots, but they didn't progress or resolve or add anything.
Despite these problems, the process of reading the book was quite enjoyable. I knew the plots were going to intertwine and I had fun reading along and guessing what would happen next (I guessed some things but not everything, and my correct guesses came along early enough that I felt smart, but late enough that I didn't feel cheated.) I just would have enjoyed seeing more of the resolution rather than being told about it after the fact.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Someone confiscate Lynn Johnston's sledgehammer!
Usually I enjoy For Better or For Worse, but today's plot device just made me gag.
We're supposed to believe that Elly managed to drive away without noticing that she didn't have her sunglasses? Prescription sunglasses are FOR driving! That's why she needs them! She would have noticed the instant she sat down in her car, if not within an hour or two of driving.
If Lynn Johnston seriously cannot come up with a better way to get Elizabeth to meet this police officer guy, she should have at least had Elly mention in passing that it was raining the entire way home or something, to justify her not having noticed the lack of sunglasses. This is like having the metaphorical gun tucked away in a drawer instead of sitting on the mantlepiece.
(Not to mention that they have either John's home email address or Elly's webmail address in their computer, and not to mention that there is only one school in Mtigwaki so they could have just called up the school to talk to Elizabeth. Gah!)
We're supposed to believe that Elly managed to drive away without noticing that she didn't have her sunglasses? Prescription sunglasses are FOR driving! That's why she needs them! She would have noticed the instant she sat down in her car, if not within an hour or two of driving.
If Lynn Johnston seriously cannot come up with a better way to get Elizabeth to meet this police officer guy, she should have at least had Elly mention in passing that it was raining the entire way home or something, to justify her not having noticed the lack of sunglasses. This is like having the metaphorical gun tucked away in a drawer instead of sitting on the mantlepiece.
(Not to mention that they have either John's home email address or Elly's webmail address in their computer, and not to mention that there is only one school in Mtigwaki so they could have just called up the school to talk to Elizabeth. Gah!)
How to stop the violence
This past summer, Toronto had an unprecedented heat wave, and an unprecedented number of shooting deaths.
I think I have the solution.
Provide free air conditioning in all the apartments housing at-risk individuals.
This will serve the dual purpose of soothing hot tempers (it's amazing how much a hot, sticky, sleepless night can put one in a bad temper) and making the thought of hanging around outside (which various authorities peg as part of the problem, although I'm not sure I agree) less tempting.
I think I have the solution.
Provide free air conditioning in all the apartments housing at-risk individuals.
This will serve the dual purpose of soothing hot tempers (it's amazing how much a hot, sticky, sleepless night can put one in a bad temper) and making the thought of hanging around outside (which various authorities peg as part of the problem, although I'm not sure I agree) less tempting.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Corten Pinot Grigio
This wine is from Moldova, which I hadn't even heard of before, but they were kind enough to include a map on the label showing that it's on the Black Sea, and is possibly a former Soviet republic.
The wine itself is described on the label as crisp and dry, but it also has a sort of warm tartness to it, which is kind of a strange thing to say but is the best way I can describe the taste. The colour of the bottle makes the wine appear slightly greenish, like certain Sauvignon Blancs, but in the glass it is a warmer yellow, which is a more appropriate colour for a Pinot Grigio. I think this wine could stand up nicely to food containing onions, and I intend to test it out on Thanksgiving stuffing as soon as I have some on hand.
The wine itself is described on the label as crisp and dry, but it also has a sort of warm tartness to it, which is kind of a strange thing to say but is the best way I can describe the taste. The colour of the bottle makes the wine appear slightly greenish, like certain Sauvignon Blancs, but in the glass it is a warmer yellow, which is a more appropriate colour for a Pinot Grigio. I think this wine could stand up nicely to food containing onions, and I intend to test it out on Thanksgiving stuffing as soon as I have some on hand.
Wherein I take it upon myself to define a nebulous concept
The definition of "cheating" in a romantic relationship is not really about any particular limit of physical activity. It's more about doing something that denies your partner something they need or deserve by giving your attentions to someone else.
So having sex with someone else instead of with your partner is cheating.
Going out with someone after work and having a long, intimate conversation with them when your partner is at home wishing you were there to share a long intimate conversation is cheating.
But what you're taking away from your partner doesn't have to be the same thing you're giving the other party.
For example, having sex with someone else when your partner is physically incapable of having sex because she's just given birth, but still badly needs you to come home and watch the baby so she can have a shower and eat something is cheating.
Looking at porn while your partner is lying in bed wanting to be cuddled is cheating.
The thing you take away from your partner doesn't even have to be tangible or direct attention.
For example, having sex with someone else denies your partner the trust and security of monogamy.
Being seen "canoodling" (as the tabloids say) with someone else in public denies your partner the dignity of a respectful relationship that presents a strong united front to the world.
So having sex with someone else instead of with your partner is cheating.
Going out with someone after work and having a long, intimate conversation with them when your partner is at home wishing you were there to share a long intimate conversation is cheating.
But what you're taking away from your partner doesn't have to be the same thing you're giving the other party.
For example, having sex with someone else when your partner is physically incapable of having sex because she's just given birth, but still badly needs you to come home and watch the baby so she can have a shower and eat something is cheating.
Looking at porn while your partner is lying in bed wanting to be cuddled is cheating.
The thing you take away from your partner doesn't even have to be tangible or direct attention.
For example, having sex with someone else denies your partner the trust and security of monogamy.
Being seen "canoodling" (as the tabloids say) with someone else in public denies your partner the dignity of a respectful relationship that presents a strong united front to the world.
Linguistics poll!
Consider the following two sentences:
1. Not all of these ideas are good
2. Not all of these ideas are bad
Which sentence describes the situation with the higher percentage of good ideas? Approximately what percentage of the ideas are good in each situation?
Anonymous comments are welcome, but please indicate if English is not your first language
1. Not all of these ideas are good
2. Not all of these ideas are bad
Which sentence describes the situation with the higher percentage of good ideas? Approximately what percentage of the ideas are good in each situation?
Anonymous comments are welcome, but please indicate if English is not your first language
The Common Theme That Shall Not Be Named
1. Pet stores really really do NOT need to be decorated for Halloween.
2. What happens if you spray Peter Parker with Raid?
2. What happens if you spray Peter Parker with Raid?
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Thoughts and value judgements from the commute home
1. There is a hemorrhoid (thank you Blogger spellcheck) product called Anusol. This amuses me greatly, despite the fact that I don't usually go in for toilet humour.
2. There's something a bit...I don't know...trashy? tacky? cheap? about going to a supermarket and buying just once single lemon.
3. My biggest public transit pet peeve is people who try to shove past people who are going in the same direction. Like they're trying to get off the train, so they try to shove past other people who are getting off the train. Or they're trying to get up the stairs, so they try to shove past other people who are going up the stairs. And it doesn't even seem like they're in a hurry - they just don't seem to grasp the concept that these other people are going in the same direction too rather than standing around trying to be obstacles.
4. It is far too hot out for October.
2. There's something a bit...I don't know...trashy? tacky? cheap? about going to a supermarket and buying just once single lemon.
3. My biggest public transit pet peeve is people who try to shove past people who are going in the same direction. Like they're trying to get off the train, so they try to shove past other people who are getting off the train. Or they're trying to get up the stairs, so they try to shove past other people who are going up the stairs. And it doesn't even seem like they're in a hurry - they just don't seem to grasp the concept that these other people are going in the same direction too rather than standing around trying to be obstacles.
4. It is far too hot out for October.
Monday, October 03, 2005
America: The Book by Jon Stewart
The book was generally witty and made me laugh out loud an average of twice a chapter, but any enjoyment I might have gotten from the book was negated by two unpleasant attitudes the kept cropping up:
1. The writers seem to believe that having sex with someone is some kind of ultimate way to insult or degrade them, and they were using this metaphorically throughout the book. While I think this strange attitude would be excellent fodder for psychology research, it's just bizarre and vaguely unpleasant in a comedy book.
2. The writers (all male) had a strange attitude towards women. I don't want to use the word misogyny because that's a bit strong - it's more that it appears to never have occurred to them that someone reading this book might a) be female and b) be a human being with thoughts and feelings. In some parts it felt like they were deliberately trying to be as unpleasant as possible for the express purpose of making me stop reading the book, like you sometimes hear that workers in mostly-male workplaces do to push out female co-workers (something I've heard of but never experienced).
Now these two attitudes weren't 100% pervasive, it's just that they kept popping up here and there, frequently enough to make reading the book a not entirely fun experience. I don't quite understand why they did this. I watch The Daily Show somewhat regularly and I don't find these attitudes are present on TV. I know the writers are smart, and they are, after all, writers, so they should be able to easily make the text not feel exclusionary to the reader. The fact that neither the writing team nor the editing team chose to make the few editorial changes necessary to make the book not feel exclusionary rather ruined the experience for me.
Again, the vast majority of it was amusing, and it was only a few ill-chosen words, phrases, images and "jokes" that felt exclusionary, but it was enough to alienate me and, consequently, make me think twice about whether I should watch The Daily Show or just go straight to bed.
1. The writers seem to believe that having sex with someone is some kind of ultimate way to insult or degrade them, and they were using this metaphorically throughout the book. While I think this strange attitude would be excellent fodder for psychology research, it's just bizarre and vaguely unpleasant in a comedy book.
2. The writers (all male) had a strange attitude towards women. I don't want to use the word misogyny because that's a bit strong - it's more that it appears to never have occurred to them that someone reading this book might a) be female and b) be a human being with thoughts and feelings. In some parts it felt like they were deliberately trying to be as unpleasant as possible for the express purpose of making me stop reading the book, like you sometimes hear that workers in mostly-male workplaces do to push out female co-workers (something I've heard of but never experienced).
Now these two attitudes weren't 100% pervasive, it's just that they kept popping up here and there, frequently enough to make reading the book a not entirely fun experience. I don't quite understand why they did this. I watch The Daily Show somewhat regularly and I don't find these attitudes are present on TV. I know the writers are smart, and they are, after all, writers, so they should be able to easily make the text not feel exclusionary to the reader. The fact that neither the writing team nor the editing team chose to make the few editorial changes necessary to make the book not feel exclusionary rather ruined the experience for me.
Again, the vast majority of it was amusing, and it was only a few ill-chosen words, phrases, images and "jokes" that felt exclusionary, but it was enough to alienate me and, consequently, make me think twice about whether I should watch The Daily Show or just go straight to bed.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Church politics again. Yawn
So apparently the Catholic church is considering denying communion to politicians who support laws that are contrary to Church doctrine. (I like this article from the Star better, but CTV has one you can access without a log-in/bugmenot.
I think the Church is shooting itself in the foot with this proposal, because it will ultimately lead to a complete absence of practising Catholics in the political sphere.
Why? Because of conflict of interest rules. After all, if it's a conflict of interest for a politician to work on an issue from which they may stand to gain financially, it's certainly a conflict of interest for a politician to work on an issue where they could ultimately be condemned to hell if they don't do what the pope wants them to. Even if a politican is perfectly capable of not being influenced by this, there will still be a perceived conflict of interest - not only for practising Catholics, but for the many people who were baptized Catholic but don't practise any more.
Practising Catholics will have to report this as a real/perceived conflict of interest, and then they will likely be instructed to recuse themselves from working on any issue that's associated with Church doctrine. Since Church doctrine can be interpreted as being rather broad, they might even be forced to resign. The result will be that there are few or no practising Catholics in politics, ultimately because the teachings of their church is preventing them from acting in accordance with general ethical principles.
Non-practising Catholics will also have a perceived conflict of interest that they'll have to report, although they may be able to satisfy the ethics authorities by formally and/or publically dissociating themselves from the Catholic church. I wonder if Catholicism actually has a mechanism to do this with? I know that just anyone can search the baptismal records of my hometown church and find that I was baptized and even had a first communion, so they might conclude from that that I'm Catholic. But there's no written record of the fact that I haven't attended church in almost 10 years except for my grandfather's funeral, and the only public record of my atheism comes from this anonymous blog and other people's testimony. Is there some way that I can get myself stricken from church records, or have them amend my file to show that I'm no longer Catholic?
This also raises another question I've been wondering about for some time: what are the theological consequences of taking communion if it's forbidden to you? I'd assume you're going to hell anyway, because being forbidden communion means you'll die without last rites. So really, what they gonna do about it?
I think the Church is shooting itself in the foot with this proposal, because it will ultimately lead to a complete absence of practising Catholics in the political sphere.
Why? Because of conflict of interest rules. After all, if it's a conflict of interest for a politician to work on an issue from which they may stand to gain financially, it's certainly a conflict of interest for a politician to work on an issue where they could ultimately be condemned to hell if they don't do what the pope wants them to. Even if a politican is perfectly capable of not being influenced by this, there will still be a perceived conflict of interest - not only for practising Catholics, but for the many people who were baptized Catholic but don't practise any more.
Practising Catholics will have to report this as a real/perceived conflict of interest, and then they will likely be instructed to recuse themselves from working on any issue that's associated with Church doctrine. Since Church doctrine can be interpreted as being rather broad, they might even be forced to resign. The result will be that there are few or no practising Catholics in politics, ultimately because the teachings of their church is preventing them from acting in accordance with general ethical principles.
Non-practising Catholics will also have a perceived conflict of interest that they'll have to report, although they may be able to satisfy the ethics authorities by formally and/or publically dissociating themselves from the Catholic church. I wonder if Catholicism actually has a mechanism to do this with? I know that just anyone can search the baptismal records of my hometown church and find that I was baptized and even had a first communion, so they might conclude from that that I'm Catholic. But there's no written record of the fact that I haven't attended church in almost 10 years except for my grandfather's funeral, and the only public record of my atheism comes from this anonymous blog and other people's testimony. Is there some way that I can get myself stricken from church records, or have them amend my file to show that I'm no longer Catholic?
This also raises another question I've been wondering about for some time: what are the theological consequences of taking communion if it's forbidden to you? I'd assume you're going to hell anyway, because being forbidden communion means you'll die without last rites. So really, what they gonna do about it?
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
One-upped by Dilbert
I recently thought of a witty response to that most annoying of job interview questions:
Unforunately, Wally from Dilbert came up with a much better response today.
Q: What is your greatest weakness?
A: I don't interview well.
Unforunately, Wally from Dilbert came up with a much better response today.
Monday, September 26, 2005
The Last Honest Man : Mordecai Richler: An Oral Biography by Michael Posner
Whenever I read a biography of an author, I end up finding the author to be an unpleasant person - not the kind of person I'd want to know IRL. This book was no exception. Richer wrote columns for one of the newspapers my parents subscribed to and I generally found these columns interesting and not unpleasant, but the accounts of the man himself in this book paint a portrait of someone I wouldn't care to know.
The book itself is not terribly interesting either. It was really a chore to finish it more than anything else. It would be useful for academic research, but doesn't quite stand up to general interest reading.
The book itself is not terribly interesting either. It was really a chore to finish it more than anything else. It would be useful for academic research, but doesn't quite stand up to general interest reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)