Conventional wisdom has it that people need to be employed and/or productive to feel enfranchised (in the broadest sense of the word). Apparently if people are contributing to society, they feel enfranchised and this results in fewer social problems.
But does enfranchisement actually come from feeling like you're contributing to society? As a person who has been on both sides of the employment divide, I'm not sure that it actually has to do with the employed/unemployed person themselves. Rather I think it might have more to do with society's reaction to them.
I was fortunate enough to be hired for a full-time permanent job just over two years ago, and that certainly increased my level of enfranchisement and feeling of belonging in society. But internally I'm still the same person - it hasn't directly changed my own feelings or attitude. Rather, it's changed people's reactions to me.
During my various periods of unemployment or under-employment, I got a sneering attitude from certain quarters. There were individuals who loudly voiced their assumption that I was unemployed or under-employed because I was lazy and simply wanted to be a leech on my family and/or society. There were individuals who loudly voiced the opinion that I was not entitled to call myself an adult or be treated as an adult because I was not working or because I was only working in fast food or because my upkeep was not completely free of parental contributions. If I got involved in a political debate, I was often told that I was not entitled to my opinion because I had a lower marginal tax rate than my interlocuter. In stores, I was still treated like a teenager. When looking for work, the fact that I was unemployed or under-employed was a hinderance.
Because of all this, I felt somewhat put on the defensive. I felt rather dehumanized next to people whose resume showed more contributions to society than mine did. I felt that I always had to justify my existence. While not everyone looked down upon me because of my employment status, enough people did that I felt it was likely that any stranger would respect me less, unless they proved otherwise. For example I was terrified to meet mi cielito's parents because I was certain they'd think I wasn't good enough for their son because of my resume. While this didn't result in me going around burning cars, it did have a negative effect on my attitude towards society in general. Despite the fact that I voted and was politically active, I felt terribly disenfranchised.
When, through a sheer stroke of luck, I started working full-time permanent, people's attitudes towards me suddenly changed. I think a huge part of it is that those who just want to find fault simply can't, as my employment situation is, by all standards, perfectly respectable. Since I'm as much of a taxpayer as anyone, my political opinions can no longer be dimissed on that basis. Also, the general public seems to treat me with more respect when I'm walking around in office clothes, and stores treat me with more respect either because I'm dressed like a grownup, and/or because my purchases reflect my greater disposable income. After being treated with this increased respect for a while, I started getting used to it, and no longer felt the need to justify my existence. So while I do feel more enfranchised and my attitude towards society in general has changed somewhat, it's more because of how people are treating me. My own politics and personality and attitude, independent of how they are affected by how others treat me, remain exactly the same.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Friday, November 11, 2005
Computer tip of the day
From last week's Monday Morning Manager:
I just tried this, and it's so cool!
Computer sharpener: In Windows XP you can dramatically improve the sharpness of text by right clicking on the desktop, selecting Properties, then the tab called Appearance, and pressing the Effects button. In the screen that appears, check the box reading "use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts," and then select Clear Type on the drop-down menu, completing the process by clicking on OK and Apply.
I just tried this, and it's so cool!
How to make me turn into a big gooey pile of mush
The comics strip Mutts is doing a series about a doggie who is rescued from Hurricane Katrina.
I'm not a huge fan of Mutts - I'll read it because it's on the Star's comics page, but I wouldn't go out of my way to seek it out online. Their "Shelter Stories" series doesn't usually have a huge effect on me, probably because the cartoon doggies don't look anything like real doggies. Show me a real doggie and I'll turn into a blubbering idiot; show me a cartoon doggie and I'll move on to see what's going on in Get Fuzzy.
However, Thursday's strip completely melted me, for the simple reason that the doggie is wagging its tail at its rescuers. Logically I know a dog will wag its tail at anything - you say hi and it will wag its tail, you smell interesting and it will wag its tail - but the mental image of this sad, lonely, tired, wet, smelly doggie finally being rescued off the roof and still summoning up the energy to perk up and get all waggy just make me mooshy.
With just three lines and two dots, the cartoonist changed me from "Meh" to "Ooooh, the doggie's wagging his widdle TAAAAIL!!!!!" Now THAT's artistic talent!
I'm not a huge fan of Mutts - I'll read it because it's on the Star's comics page, but I wouldn't go out of my way to seek it out online. Their "Shelter Stories" series doesn't usually have a huge effect on me, probably because the cartoon doggies don't look anything like real doggies. Show me a real doggie and I'll turn into a blubbering idiot; show me a cartoon doggie and I'll move on to see what's going on in Get Fuzzy.
However, Thursday's strip completely melted me, for the simple reason that the doggie is wagging its tail at its rescuers. Logically I know a dog will wag its tail at anything - you say hi and it will wag its tail, you smell interesting and it will wag its tail - but the mental image of this sad, lonely, tired, wet, smelly doggie finally being rescued off the roof and still summoning up the energy to perk up and get all waggy just make me mooshy.
With just three lines and two dots, the cartoonist changed me from "Meh" to "Ooooh, the doggie's wagging his widdle TAAAAIL!!!!!" Now THAT's artistic talent!
Monday, November 07, 2005
You know you're getting old when you don't remember how the adolescent mind works
Last Sunday's Zits demonstrates an unfortunate trend I've seen in this comic strip: Jeremy as blaming his parents for not ensuring that he does something that is clearly his own responsibility. I don't think this is a realistic portrayal of adolescent attitudes. Rather, I think it's a portrayal of a flawed adult conception of what they think adolescent attitudes must be.
When I was 15 (the same age as Jeremy), I wouldn't wake up right away to my alarm and my mother would try to wake me up, but I wasn't depending on her waking me up - in fact, I was rather resenting it. I was fully aware of my tiredness level and what time it was - my alarm was a radio so I could still hear the news and weather and timechecks as I zoned in and out of sleep - and I was taking all these factors into account when deciding when to get out of bed. I really resented my parents completely disrespecting that, as though I was walking through the world completely oblivious to my responsibilities and wouldn't fulfill said responsibilities without constant nagging.
I also resented the fact that my school required a note from parents if students were late - even if we arrived literally 10 seconds after the bell. I understood why it was supposed to be important to be on time so we didn't miss any classes, but again I wanted the liberty to take responsibility for my own actions. I wanted to be able to be late for class and accept the academic consequences if I chose to do so, but I wasn't able to because school policy wanted my parents to take responsibility for my actions.
Actually, now that I think about it, the school was really trying to invent artificial consequences through outsourcing to parents. The official line was that we had to be on time because of the academic consequences of missing class, and the social conseuqences of our teachers and classmates perhaps perceiving our behaviour as disrespectful. However, these consequences are actually negligible, as the consequences of minor lateness generally are in real life. So, to enforce a value that they arbitrarily decided to deem more important than it really is, the school added the artificial consequences of making us get a note from our parents, thus handing some of the responsibility for our actions over to our parents (because they have to go to the trouble of writing a note, and if they think they're expected to justify their kid's actions they'll be more likely to try to manage kid's actions themselves) and preventing us from being able to take responsibility for our own actions.
When I was 15 (the same age as Jeremy), I wouldn't wake up right away to my alarm and my mother would try to wake me up, but I wasn't depending on her waking me up - in fact, I was rather resenting it. I was fully aware of my tiredness level and what time it was - my alarm was a radio so I could still hear the news and weather and timechecks as I zoned in and out of sleep - and I was taking all these factors into account when deciding when to get out of bed. I really resented my parents completely disrespecting that, as though I was walking through the world completely oblivious to my responsibilities and wouldn't fulfill said responsibilities without constant nagging.
I also resented the fact that my school required a note from parents if students were late - even if we arrived literally 10 seconds after the bell. I understood why it was supposed to be important to be on time so we didn't miss any classes, but again I wanted the liberty to take responsibility for my own actions. I wanted to be able to be late for class and accept the academic consequences if I chose to do so, but I wasn't able to because school policy wanted my parents to take responsibility for my actions.
Actually, now that I think about it, the school was really trying to invent artificial consequences through outsourcing to parents. The official line was that we had to be on time because of the academic consequences of missing class, and the social conseuqences of our teachers and classmates perhaps perceiving our behaviour as disrespectful. However, these consequences are actually negligible, as the consequences of minor lateness generally are in real life. So, to enforce a value that they arbitrarily decided to deem more important than it really is, the school added the artificial consequences of making us get a note from our parents, thus handing some of the responsibility for our actions over to our parents (because they have to go to the trouble of writing a note, and if they think they're expected to justify their kid's actions they'll be more likely to try to manage kid's actions themselves) and preventing us from being able to take responsibility for our own actions.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Mashup Bunny: Everybody Raise a Glass to the Paperback Writer
I was listening to the Beatles and chatting online, when the song Master of the House from Les Mis was mentioned in my online conversation. As I tend to do when there's no one around to hear my tonedeafness, I started singing Master of the House. Turns out it goes surprisingly well with the Beatles song Paperback Writer. Someone should mash them up if they're in compatible keys.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Paris is Burning (what an original headline)
Apparently there have been riots in the banlieux of Paris for like 8 straight days.
Serious question: Why haven't the rioters gotten tired yet? Eight days is a long time to do anything. That's why weekends were invented. You'd think most people would have gone home and had a rest, and maybe stayed in for a day or two to recover. I mean, I can get angry and hold grudges with the best of them, but I cannot fathom being so constantly angry as to sustain a riot for eight days.
Maybe they're really well organized? Maybe they're on shifts? I don't know. It just seriously never occurred to me that a riot wouldn't just peter out.
Serious question: Why haven't the rioters gotten tired yet? Eight days is a long time to do anything. That's why weekends were invented. You'd think most people would have gone home and had a rest, and maybe stayed in for a day or two to recover. I mean, I can get angry and hold grudges with the best of them, but I cannot fathom being so constantly angry as to sustain a riot for eight days.
Maybe they're really well organized? Maybe they're on shifts? I don't know. It just seriously never occurred to me that a riot wouldn't just peter out.
Kangaroo Springs Shiraz
I like this more than most shirazes, because it's more cream and berries and less tannic. It's sort of softer, instead of screaming out "LOOK AT ME! I'M SHIRAZ!" It pairs well with pasta, but I'm not sure how it would do with meat. The conventional wisdom is that you need tannins to go with meat, so it's possible the meat might overpower the wine.
Open Letter to Toronto Cops
Attn: Toronto cops:
I generally support the workers in any labour dispute as a matter of course. As a worker myself, I feel that only good can come from raising labour standards, any labour standards anywhere, even if it's in a profession that I would never work in myself.
However, you have lost any sympathy you might have had from me by bringing firearms to your demonstration last Wednesday.
The main reason the police do not have the full support of all members of the public is that they are seen as thuggishly throwing their weight around, because of racial profiling and that guy who got beaten up by police and got his teeth knocked out, and that woman who was raped by an police officer, and those protestors who were kept in a paddy-wagon for hours and hours and had to pee their pants because there was nowhere to pee.
Taking guns to a demonstration comes across simply as another sign of thuggishly throwing your weight around. This is Canada - people simply do not take guns to demonstrations! If anyone else did, they'd be surrounded by riot police and possibly beaten and thrown into paddy-wagon for hours and left to pee their pants. Taking your guns gives the impression that you think you can get away with stuff that no one else can get away with, simply because you're cops. This makes you look like thuggish bullies, and is not the way to earn the respect and support of the public!
I know it was only a small minority who wore their firearms, but I have no way of knowing which specific cops it was, so they have tainted the entire organization in my eyes.
I generally support the workers in any labour dispute as a matter of course. As a worker myself, I feel that only good can come from raising labour standards, any labour standards anywhere, even if it's in a profession that I would never work in myself.
However, you have lost any sympathy you might have had from me by bringing firearms to your demonstration last Wednesday.
The main reason the police do not have the full support of all members of the public is that they are seen as thuggishly throwing their weight around, because of racial profiling and that guy who got beaten up by police and got his teeth knocked out, and that woman who was raped by an police officer, and those protestors who were kept in a paddy-wagon for hours and hours and had to pee their pants because there was nowhere to pee.
Taking guns to a demonstration comes across simply as another sign of thuggishly throwing your weight around. This is Canada - people simply do not take guns to demonstrations! If anyone else did, they'd be surrounded by riot police and possibly beaten and thrown into paddy-wagon for hours and left to pee their pants. Taking your guns gives the impression that you think you can get away with stuff that no one else can get away with, simply because you're cops. This makes you look like thuggish bullies, and is not the way to earn the respect and support of the public!
I know it was only a small minority who wore their firearms, but I have no way of knowing which specific cops it was, so they have tainted the entire organization in my eyes.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Helpful hint of the day
If you have astigmatism and arachnophobia, a stucco ceiling is not a good thing. All that will come of a stucco ceiling is a lot of jumping at shadows, and more places for icky things to hide.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Creepy dream
I had a dream where my grandmother attempted suicide, so I called 911. They told me that it's not possible for her to have attempted suicide because statistically her demographic does not engage in suicidal behaviour. They then transferred me to an outside contractor who could supply the ambulance, but instead of sending an ambulance, the ambulance dispatcher gave us extremely complex instructions on how to get her to the hospital. Part of this involved a rule that she had to be accompanied by either eight or ten people. For some reason, there were nine people in the house at the time (I can't think who they were), and no one wanted to stay behind, but there was no possible way that she could receive medical care if nine people accompanied her. Then the dream merged into another plotline and this one was never resolved.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Initial thoughts on the Gomery report
Despite Gomery's exoneration of Paul Martin, certain factions are still pointing fingers at him, saying that, as Minister of Finance at the time, he should have known what was being done with the money.
This is the position that I expected from those factions, given their previous track record, but I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. Federal expenditures are over $100 billion, according to the first Google search result, and I don't think it's reasonable for one person to know where every dollar actually goes.
I've never been in charge of people, and the most money I've ever been in charge of professionally is a cash register with a $100 float, but here's the impression I get taking what I know about public sector finance, adding logic, mixing thoroughly, and baking at 350 for 30 minutes.
I think it is reasonable to expect the Minister of Finance to know (or be able to look up) to which cost centres every dollar is allocated. That is essentially his job.
I also think it is reasonable to expect the Minister of Finance to be aware of any anomalies found by any audits that may have been conducted (at least on a "Yes, I heard about that, let me check my records and I can give you more details" basis), and to take action to correct said anomalies.
It may or may not be reasonable to expect every dollar of every year's expenditure to be audited. I have no idea what audit standards are like or how complex a process it is, so I'm not going to presume.
However, I do not think it is reasonable to expect that the Minister of Finance would be aware that and where and how and what quantity of funds are being misappropriated.
Why? Two reasons:
1. If you were misappropriating funds for personal gain, wouldn't you take every measure to avoid tipping off the person ultimately responsible for allocating funds?
2. If you were misappropriating funds on behalf of a political party, wouldn't you want as many people in that party as possible to have plausible deniability? And what better plausible deniability is there than actually not knowing?
There could have been no benefit to the Minister of Finance knowing that funds were being misappropriated, but there could have been several benefits to him not being aware of it at all. Therefore, if the miscreants had any sense, they would have taken every measure to prevent him from finding out, perhaps even to cover it up. Since keeping perfect track of $100 billion worth of even perfectly transparent spending is rather a tall order for one person, I don't think he should be held cupable for not being immediately aware that maybe 0.1% of that amount was not accounted for.
This is the position that I expected from those factions, given their previous track record, but I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. Federal expenditures are over $100 billion, according to the first Google search result, and I don't think it's reasonable for one person to know where every dollar actually goes.
I've never been in charge of people, and the most money I've ever been in charge of professionally is a cash register with a $100 float, but here's the impression I get taking what I know about public sector finance, adding logic, mixing thoroughly, and baking at 350 for 30 minutes.
I think it is reasonable to expect the Minister of Finance to know (or be able to look up) to which cost centres every dollar is allocated. That is essentially his job.
I also think it is reasonable to expect the Minister of Finance to be aware of any anomalies found by any audits that may have been conducted (at least on a "Yes, I heard about that, let me check my records and I can give you more details" basis), and to take action to correct said anomalies.
It may or may not be reasonable to expect every dollar of every year's expenditure to be audited. I have no idea what audit standards are like or how complex a process it is, so I'm not going to presume.
However, I do not think it is reasonable to expect that the Minister of Finance would be aware that and where and how and what quantity of funds are being misappropriated.
Why? Two reasons:
1. If you were misappropriating funds for personal gain, wouldn't you take every measure to avoid tipping off the person ultimately responsible for allocating funds?
2. If you were misappropriating funds on behalf of a political party, wouldn't you want as many people in that party as possible to have plausible deniability? And what better plausible deniability is there than actually not knowing?
There could have been no benefit to the Minister of Finance knowing that funds were being misappropriated, but there could have been several benefits to him not being aware of it at all. Therefore, if the miscreants had any sense, they would have taken every measure to prevent him from finding out, perhaps even to cover it up. Since keeping perfect track of $100 billion worth of even perfectly transparent spending is rather a tall order for one person, I don't think he should be held cupable for not being immediately aware that maybe 0.1% of that amount was not accounted for.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Isonzo del Friuli i Feudi di Romans Merlot
Unfortunately my Italian isn't good enough to know what the name of this wine means. Beppi Crosariol in the Globe and Mail described it as a merlot for that guy in the movie Sideways who hates merlot. I'm not quite sure why - it seems like a standard merlot to me - but then I'm not sure why anyone would hate merlot in the first place. Besides, wasn't that character like an adulterer or something? I would take great pride in having my taste in wine be the polar opposite of an adulterer's. Anyway, it's good merlot.
Manholes
Conventional wisdom has it that manhole covers are round because that's the only shape that won't fall down the through the hole.
I don't think this is true, because subway grates are rectangular, and those grates found in the gutters of suburban streets are square, and they don't fall down. Just thinking it through in my mind, it wouldn't be that hard to create a ledge around the inside of a square (or triangular or hexagonal) hole to stop the cover from falling down.
I think the reason manhole covers are round is because manholes are round.
So why are manholes round?
Because they're made of sewer pipes, and sewer pipes are round.
I don't think this is true, because subway grates are rectangular, and those grates found in the gutters of suburban streets are square, and they don't fall down. Just thinking it through in my mind, it wouldn't be that hard to create a ledge around the inside of a square (or triangular or hexagonal) hole to stop the cover from falling down.
I think the reason manhole covers are round is because manholes are round.
So why are manholes round?
Because they're made of sewer pipes, and sewer pipes are round.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Angst! Drama! Telecommunications!
Dear Look Communiations,
I am very disappointed in your decision to introduce a package system for your television service. I chose Look in the first place because you had one flat rate for all the channels. I stood loyally by through two failed installation attempts because I believed so strongly in this flat rate policy. I recommended you to other people out of sheer principle, because I thought it was so important to have an alternative to the exploitive package system. And now you've gone and turned away from the very policy that drew me to you in the first place.
If I continue to use your service, it will be simply because you are the cheapest. I feel used, exploited and betrayed, and have no loyalty to Look any more.
-------------------
Dear Rogers,
I recently found myself disgruntled with my television service provider, so I went to your website to see if you had a better offer for me. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the information I was looking for.
I wanted to see a list of your packages that stated the channels available in each package and the cost of each package. I could not find this. I could find packages specially designed for sports-lovers and movie-lovers and owners of leaky dogs, but I find this all rather patronizing. I am familiar with the available television channels, and I know which channels I need. I simply want to know how much it costs. It felt almost like your website didn't want to tell me upfront which channels were in each package, which seems highly suspicious to me.
You have therefore lost a potential customer. If I can't find what I'm looking for when I come to your website disgruntled with your competitor, credit card in hand, hoping to switch, how can I expect you to give me the help or information I need when I'm locked into a contract and owe you money for two years no matter what?
-------------------
Dear Bell ExpressVu,
I recently found myself disgruntled with my television service provider and considering switching. Unfortunately, because I have had so much trouble getting Bell and Sympatico to tell me how much money I owe and when it's due and what my account number is so I can pay said amount, I am not even going to consider using ExpressVu. Keep your call centre open 24/7 (or at least evenings and weekends) and empower your employees to help your customers find the information they need rather than responding to them like robots, and then we'll talk.
I am very disappointed in your decision to introduce a package system for your television service. I chose Look in the first place because you had one flat rate for all the channels. I stood loyally by through two failed installation attempts because I believed so strongly in this flat rate policy. I recommended you to other people out of sheer principle, because I thought it was so important to have an alternative to the exploitive package system. And now you've gone and turned away from the very policy that drew me to you in the first place.
If I continue to use your service, it will be simply because you are the cheapest. I feel used, exploited and betrayed, and have no loyalty to Look any more.
-------------------
Dear Rogers,
I recently found myself disgruntled with my television service provider, so I went to your website to see if you had a better offer for me. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the information I was looking for.
I wanted to see a list of your packages that stated the channels available in each package and the cost of each package. I could not find this. I could find packages specially designed for sports-lovers and movie-lovers and owners of leaky dogs, but I find this all rather patronizing. I am familiar with the available television channels, and I know which channels I need. I simply want to know how much it costs. It felt almost like your website didn't want to tell me upfront which channels were in each package, which seems highly suspicious to me.
You have therefore lost a potential customer. If I can't find what I'm looking for when I come to your website disgruntled with your competitor, credit card in hand, hoping to switch, how can I expect you to give me the help or information I need when I'm locked into a contract and owe you money for two years no matter what?
-------------------
Dear Bell ExpressVu,
I recently found myself disgruntled with my television service provider and considering switching. Unfortunately, because I have had so much trouble getting Bell and Sympatico to tell me how much money I owe and when it's due and what my account number is so I can pay said amount, I am not even going to consider using ExpressVu. Keep your call centre open 24/7 (or at least evenings and weekends) and empower your employees to help your customers find the information they need rather than responding to them like robots, and then we'll talk.
In Defence of Yonge & Eglinton
Paved pointed out this Ask Metafilter thread where someone asked for opinions about whether they should move to Midtown or the West End. I was very surprised to see no one speaking up to sing the praises of Midtown, because I cannot fathom why anyone would want to live anywhere else. I'm not a Metafilter member, and I'm not going to join just so I can get in a pissing match with people who are dissin my hood. Oh no no no. That's what blogs are for!
So, ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Yonge & Eglinton
It isn't hip, it isn't trendy, it isn't edgy.
It is easy, it is comfortable, it is convenient.
Yonge & Eg has everything. Every single product or service you could possibly want is available here, all within walking distance. I can go to the drug store, bank, library, post office, LCBO, and grocery store, all on foot, and be back home within an hour. I can do my errands on the way to or from work without going more than a block out of my way.
To travel north-south, we have the Yonge subway line. To travel east-west, we have about 10 bus routes. If you aren't going too far east-west you can get on just about any bus, so you don't have to wait more than 2 minutes for a bus.
My commute to work is 17 minutes, door-to-door. I can leave the apartment at 5:45 for a 6:10 class, and have time to do my homework on the subway and before the prof arrives to class. I can leave the apartment at 1:00, and be on a GO bus departing Union station at 1:30.
Despite its location in the dreaded "north of Bloor", this neighbourhood hasn't surrendered to the seductive charms of the car. You can do your shopping without ever having to walk across a parking lot. You can walk straight into stores from the sidewalk. Even the stores in the Yonge-Eglinton Centre have outside storefronts. There are enough chain stores to be convenient, and enough small independent stores to keep things interesting.
Despite its location at the intersection of two major arteries, the neighbourhood still retains the best aspects of its former life as a suburban bedroom community. On small, quiet, tree-lined side-streets, you can find detached houses, duplexes, townhouses, low-rise apartments and high-rise apartments, for rent or for sale. You can step out your front door and see a familiar neighbour walking their dog, then walk two more minutes and be in a subway station. I feel perfectly safe walking down the streets at night because there are so many businesses open that I could just duck inside a pub or restaurant if things got weird. There are so many people out and about at all hours - not just people going to and from bars and clubs, but people walking dogs and jogging and going out for a late-night coffee run - that I'm never walking alone along a dark street.
This is a neighbourhood for people who want to spend their time doing whatever they want, whenever they want, instead of spending their time getting there. That may not be what everyone is looking for in a neighbourhood, but that's why I love it here.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Yonge & Eglinton
It isn't hip, it isn't trendy, it isn't edgy.
It is easy, it is comfortable, it is convenient.
Yonge & Eg has everything. Every single product or service you could possibly want is available here, all within walking distance. I can go to the drug store, bank, library, post office, LCBO, and grocery store, all on foot, and be back home within an hour. I can do my errands on the way to or from work without going more than a block out of my way.
To travel north-south, we have the Yonge subway line. To travel east-west, we have about 10 bus routes. If you aren't going too far east-west you can get on just about any bus, so you don't have to wait more than 2 minutes for a bus.
My commute to work is 17 minutes, door-to-door. I can leave the apartment at 5:45 for a 6:10 class, and have time to do my homework on the subway and before the prof arrives to class. I can leave the apartment at 1:00, and be on a GO bus departing Union station at 1:30.
Despite its location in the dreaded "north of Bloor", this neighbourhood hasn't surrendered to the seductive charms of the car. You can do your shopping without ever having to walk across a parking lot. You can walk straight into stores from the sidewalk. Even the stores in the Yonge-Eglinton Centre have outside storefronts. There are enough chain stores to be convenient, and enough small independent stores to keep things interesting.
Despite its location at the intersection of two major arteries, the neighbourhood still retains the best aspects of its former life as a suburban bedroom community. On small, quiet, tree-lined side-streets, you can find detached houses, duplexes, townhouses, low-rise apartments and high-rise apartments, for rent or for sale. You can step out your front door and see a familiar neighbour walking their dog, then walk two more minutes and be in a subway station. I feel perfectly safe walking down the streets at night because there are so many businesses open that I could just duck inside a pub or restaurant if things got weird. There are so many people out and about at all hours - not just people going to and from bars and clubs, but people walking dogs and jogging and going out for a late-night coffee run - that I'm never walking alone along a dark street.
This is a neighbourhood for people who want to spend their time doing whatever they want, whenever they want, instead of spending their time getting there. That may not be what everyone is looking for in a neighbourhood, but that's why I love it here.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Things They Should Invent: a search function for the Sims
Sometimes when I'm playing a large or complex house in the Sims, I can't find things. Did little Arthur not get any homework today, or did he just leave it somewhere other than in the usual place? Is there a newspaper in the house, or do we have to wait until tomorrow to find a job? Do we still have a Thinking Cap around here somewhere, or did it burn out? It would be rally convenient if I could do a search for these things, and the game would point out their location for me.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Deen De Bortoli Vat 7 Chardonnay
This is a bit more melony than your average chardonnay, which doesn't work that well since I'm not fond of melony flavours. It does acquit itself at the end with a smooth creamy ending, but really I've had better chardonnays that don't make me go "huh?" at all.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
I'd rather not be welcome, thanks
"Thank you"
"No problem!"
For some reason this response really bothers some people, and I don't understand why. I know that "You're welcome" is the standard answer, but it doesn't really have any meaning to me. When I say it, I'm saying "Insert standard answer here." When I say "No problem!" I'm really being more effusive. It's shorthand for "Oh, that is so NOT a problem whatsoever, it's no trouble, I'm happy to do it, please don't go around feeling you've imposed on me!" I have a friend who communicates this with a non-verbal noise and a dismissive wave of the hand, and it certainly makes me feel more "welcome" than the words "You're welcome."
I find that in general when I use standard formulae, I'm doing so because it's socially required. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - it isn't begrudging or anything - but what I mean when I use standard formulae is "I am asking" or "I have been received a favour" or "Someone has thanked me". However, when I use variations on standard formulae, that means I'm putting some thought into my response, which means I'm actually feeling what I'm saying.
If I say, "Could you pass me that pencil please?" is standard, so I'm just using the "please" because it's required. If I say, "Um, I was wondering if you would possibly be able to do me a big favour and help me with changing my vacuum bag? I'm sorry, I know this is a strange thing to ask and a bit of an imposition, but I think the bag is full and I really am not able to change it myself, and I just don't know who else to ask," I'm obviously asking in a more deferential way. I'm not even saying "please" here, but my sentence structures and tone of voice indicate proper deference to the fact that I am asking a bigger favour to which I am not at all entitled. I could stick "please" in anywhere, and that wouldn't make it any more deferential.
When someone passes me the salt or the cashier hands me my change, I simply say "Thank you!" This is the standard formula, and is appropriate for such small niceties. If someone does me a bigger favour, I'd say something more along the lines of "OMG, thank you SO much, I really do appreciate it!" But I can also communicate effusive thanks without ever saying the words "Thank you." For example, if someone does me a surprise favour: "OMG, you ROCK!" For something extremely kind: "Oh wow, this is like the nicest thing anyone has ever done for me!" (said on the verge of tears). For a really good gift, I could be effusive about the gift itself. I did this once when I was a kid and my aunt gave me this little light for reading in bed. "Oh wow, it's so tiny, but it makes so much light! Like I took it into the bathroom and turned off the lights and it lit up the WHOLE ROOM! But you can't see it through the covers! This is so cool!" My mother then came along and nagged reminded me to thank my aunt, and my aunt said that I'd already thanked her several times. I never once actually uttered the words "Thank you," but my sheer enthusiasm for the gift made my aunt feel thoroughly thanked.
"I'm sorry" is the standard apology, and it's appropriate for normal incidents of crowd navigation or conversation interruption, but a real apology requires something more. "Oh no, I am SO sorry! I had NO idea that would happen, it was totally not what I intended to do! I really did not mean to cause any trouble for you! Please tell me what I can do to make it better!" The words "I'm sorry" sort of have more need to be uttered during an apology, but you can do it without. Wide eyes, hand covering mouth, gasp, "OH NO!" "Oh wow, I had no idea..." For smaller offences, a suitably self-effacing "Oops" and an attempt to figure out how to not make the same mistake again can be effective. Again, the use of the words "I'm sorry" need to be inserted here more than "please" and "thank you" do above, but it's the rest of the context that really communicates the speaker's remorse.
So back to "You're welcome." You're in the coffee shop, the person behind the counter hands you your coffee and your change:
You: "Thank you"
Worker: "You're welcome. Have a nice day."
Compare this with:
You: "Thank you"
Worker: "No problem! Enjoy your weekend!"
Isn't the second one better, even though the words "You're welcome" are never uttered?
"No problem!"
For some reason this response really bothers some people, and I don't understand why. I know that "You're welcome" is the standard answer, but it doesn't really have any meaning to me. When I say it, I'm saying "Insert standard answer here." When I say "No problem!" I'm really being more effusive. It's shorthand for "Oh, that is so NOT a problem whatsoever, it's no trouble, I'm happy to do it, please don't go around feeling you've imposed on me!" I have a friend who communicates this with a non-verbal noise and a dismissive wave of the hand, and it certainly makes me feel more "welcome" than the words "You're welcome."
I find that in general when I use standard formulae, I'm doing so because it's socially required. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - it isn't begrudging or anything - but what I mean when I use standard formulae is "I am asking" or "I have been received a favour" or "Someone has thanked me". However, when I use variations on standard formulae, that means I'm putting some thought into my response, which means I'm actually feeling what I'm saying.
If I say, "Could you pass me that pencil please?" is standard, so I'm just using the "please" because it's required. If I say, "Um, I was wondering if you would possibly be able to do me a big favour and help me with changing my vacuum bag? I'm sorry, I know this is a strange thing to ask and a bit of an imposition, but I think the bag is full and I really am not able to change it myself, and I just don't know who else to ask," I'm obviously asking in a more deferential way. I'm not even saying "please" here, but my sentence structures and tone of voice indicate proper deference to the fact that I am asking a bigger favour to which I am not at all entitled. I could stick "please" in anywhere, and that wouldn't make it any more deferential.
When someone passes me the salt or the cashier hands me my change, I simply say "Thank you!" This is the standard formula, and is appropriate for such small niceties. If someone does me a bigger favour, I'd say something more along the lines of "OMG, thank you SO much, I really do appreciate it!" But I can also communicate effusive thanks without ever saying the words "Thank you." For example, if someone does me a surprise favour: "OMG, you ROCK!" For something extremely kind: "Oh wow, this is like the nicest thing anyone has ever done for me!" (said on the verge of tears). For a really good gift, I could be effusive about the gift itself. I did this once when I was a kid and my aunt gave me this little light for reading in bed. "Oh wow, it's so tiny, but it makes so much light! Like I took it into the bathroom and turned off the lights and it lit up the WHOLE ROOM! But you can't see it through the covers! This is so cool!" My mother then came along and nagged reminded me to thank my aunt, and my aunt said that I'd already thanked her several times. I never once actually uttered the words "Thank you," but my sheer enthusiasm for the gift made my aunt feel thoroughly thanked.
"I'm sorry" is the standard apology, and it's appropriate for normal incidents of crowd navigation or conversation interruption, but a real apology requires something more. "Oh no, I am SO sorry! I had NO idea that would happen, it was totally not what I intended to do! I really did not mean to cause any trouble for you! Please tell me what I can do to make it better!" The words "I'm sorry" sort of have more need to be uttered during an apology, but you can do it without. Wide eyes, hand covering mouth, gasp, "OH NO!" "Oh wow, I had no idea..." For smaller offences, a suitably self-effacing "Oops" and an attempt to figure out how to not make the same mistake again can be effective. Again, the use of the words "I'm sorry" need to be inserted here more than "please" and "thank you" do above, but it's the rest of the context that really communicates the speaker's remorse.
So back to "You're welcome." You're in the coffee shop, the person behind the counter hands you your coffee and your change:
You: "Thank you"
Worker: "You're welcome. Have a nice day."
Compare this with:
You: "Thank you"
Worker: "No problem! Enjoy your weekend!"
Isn't the second one better, even though the words "You're welcome" are never uttered?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)