Poetry reading

Imagine the poem "This Is Just To Say," by William Carlos Williams, being read aloud by Alan Rickman, using his Severus Snape voice.

Cranes

Do cranes have lightning rods? Right now, the tallest thing in a one-block radius is a crane.

The problem with poor judgement

I hate it when people who are supposed to be smart show poor judgement, because that puts me in a terribly awkward position. You see, I've always found it terribly insulting to be told the obvious, as though I were completely incapable of anticipating natural consequences. "Drive carefully!" Well golly, I never thought of that! Here I was planning to drive recklessly! "Put some ice on it!" Wow, good idea, and to think I was going to fix it by running a marathon! "Drink plenty of fluids and get a good night's sleep!" Oh really? And I always thought the solution was to stay awake and dehydrated!

Because I so dislike being told the obvious, I try my very best not to tell other people things they should already know, unless I am absolutely certain that they don't actually know for whatever reason. It does sometimes occur to me to tell people obvious things, but I try very hard to bite my tongue, as a gesture of respect. In the same vein, whenever someone who I know is smart enough to anticipate the consequences is preparing to do something for which I can see potential negative consequences, I do my very best not to nag them about these consequences, trying instead to assume that, being the intelligent person they are, they have obviously thoroughly assessed the situation and have determined it to be an acceptable risk. I do this because it is how I want other people to treat me, and I don't want to go around treating other people in a manner that I would consider disrespectful if I were treated that way.

Because of all this, I HATE it when someone who is smart and competent and should be able to anticipate and weigh consequences doesn't do so, especially when they're someone who is so smart and competent that I generally should defer to them in everyday matters. This makes me feel like I should have pointed out the consequences, even though I would have considered it insulting to do so. Then, in the future, whenever I see obvious potential consequences to their actions, I'm left wondering if I should point them out. On one hand, they have shown a track record of not being able to anticipate consequences. On the other hand, if they have already anticipated these consequences, I consider it insulting and disrespectful to point them out.

Musings

When I first started my job, three years ago, it seemed impossible. I felt like it would be ages before I could achieve what was expected of me, if ever.

Now I'm doing what's expected of me, and I believe I'm doing it adequately (certainly haven't received any indications to the contrary), but I don't feel like it's anything special.

This would probably indicate that I have more skills than I did three years ago, but I don't feel like I do. I have more experience, more familiarity with common genres, more familiarity with what kinds of situations are likely to cause me to make mistakes, but I'm not doing anything special. And I don't know when it became nothing special. Probably when our team* suddenly shrank - there was no time to fret over how I didn't know how to do anything, the deadlines were piling up and it had to get done. So I just kind of muddled through, did the best I could, and it somehow ended up being satisfactory.

*Aside: my father has this thing, where whenever I use the word team, he keeps trying to convince me that my work team isn't a really a team, via some definition that he read in some book. And apparently if I can't rattle offthat definition word for word, nothing I say about anything counts for anything, and I must defer to him about my team not being a team, despite the fact that he has no idea how things are even done in my workplace. And people wonder why I moved out.

How do you get to be a Starfleet captain when you're missing vital life experiences????

In the episode of TNG when Counselor Troi has a baby, her son gets to play with puppies in the little preschool/daycare thing they have on the Enterprise. Then later he's talking to Captain Picard, and asks him if he's ever played with puppies.

Picard says he hasn't.

HE HAS NEVER PLAYED WITH PUPPIES! HOW do you get to be, what, 50 years old - not to mention a Starfleet captain - without having EVER played with puppies?????

Half-formed thought

Every time there's a slow news day, some media outlet or another publishes an article about how Kids Today (i.e. young adults) aren't "becoming grown-ups" despite the fact that they're legally adults.

Have you ever noticed that the definition of "grown-up" in these articles is increasingly nebulous?

It started out during the 1990s recession, as commentary on the economy more than anything - people aren't able to find jobs that can support them and therefore aren't able to move out of their parents' house. Defining adulthood as self-sufficiency for the purpose of an article on the state of the economy - that does make some sense.

Then they moved on to more social things, like marriage and children - traditionally associated with adulthood, but not strictly necessary, and also not entirely matters over which one has complete control - all the good planning and responsible behaviour in the world, and a stroke or two of bad luck could still leave you unmarried and/or without children by the time you've reached age 35 or whatever the arbitrary cut-off is.

Then the criteria started getting more materialistic, like house and car ownership. Again, even less necessary for self-sufficiency and independence, and even more easily eliminated by circumstances - to say nothing of personal preference.

Then the criteria started getting ridiculous. I've seen articles declaring that today's young adults are not grownups because they wear sneakers to work or listen to certain music or wear headphones on the subway or enjoy unwinding with a video game. So basically the older generation of adults is now arbitrarily defining the younger generation of adults because their clothing, music, and recreation choices are not identical to those of the older generation - because a noticeable number of younger adults are not behaving in a way that is interchangeable with that of a noticeable number people who are 20-30 years older than them. Because the trappings of one generation are different from the trappings of the next.

What started as an illustration of economic realities had degraded to dissing the generation gap based on the superficial - declaring an entire generation immature based on their footwear, without even looking at the kind of life they were making for themselves.

I wonder if this happened in the past, with other generations? I'm too young to remember myself. But imagine it in the 1950s: "Kids today, with their suburbs and their televisions and their circle skirts - when are they going to grow up?" You know how the parents of the baby boomers are historically known as the greatest generation? I wonder if their parents felt that way?

If I were Lex Luthor...

In Superman I, Lex Luthor has kryptonite.

In Superman II, there are these three bad guys from the planet Krypton, and Lex Luthor has just broken out of jail.

So why doesn't Luthor use his kryptonite to destroy the bad guys from Krypton, and get the powers that be to give him Australia in return? Or did they kryptonite vanish when I wasn't looking?

Things that would be cool

It would be cool if, whenever a real-life person is a character in your dream, they're having the same dream but from their perspective. And when they only play a quick cameo, your paths cross in your dreams and then you both go off on your separate paths.

Pride Day Challenge

Your challenge for today is to use the expression "That is sooooo gay" as many times as possible, but ONLY in obviously non-judgemental contexts where gay means gay. Important: use the same tone of voice and modulation you would use to say "That is sooooo cool!"

Example: "Multi-coloured fruit-flavoured martinis? That is soooo gay!"

Open letter to the Fashion Powers That Be

Dear Fashion Powers That Be:

I'm glad to hear that the Midriff is Out. Really I am. However, the problem is, for my entire adult life the Midriff has been In. Even though I was making every effort to cover my midriff I was limited by the fashions that were commercially available, so I now have a closet full of clothes that reveal my midriff when I stretch or bend or reach. So what am I supposed to do now? This season's colours and shapes aren't particularly flattering on me - I could use more reds, more V-necks, more long shirts that don't looks stupid tucked in and lumpy untucked over pants, fewer pales and neutrals, fewer empire waists, more cuts that can accomodate a short, high waist on an endomorphic body without making me look lumpy or pregnant. I'm certainly not going to buy a whole new wardrobe that is so unflattering to me! And while my midriff is forgiveable when fashion realities make the occasional glimpse inevitable, it isn't nearly pleasant-looking enough to be exposed when midriffs are Out.

I didn't have the opportunity to build up an adult wardrobe that covers the midriff under all circumstances, because the Midriff started being In when I was about 15. So now I'm stuck with a closet full of clothes that exposes a body part that is neither fashionable nor attractive to expose, and a mall full of clothes that are unflattering.

What on earth am I supposed to do now?

Good design

Like many of this season's skirts, the skirt I'm wearing today has two layers: the skirt itself, and a built-in slip. This is very convenient because then you don't have to worry about light shining through your skirt.

The main skirt (i.e. the outer layer) is cut very full, so it spins out when I twirl (yes, I twirl on a regular basis) and creates an aesthetic allusion to the 1950s. The slip (i.e. the inner layer) is not cut nearly as full, so if it were its own skirt it wouldn't twirl nearly as well as the outer layer.

Today I realized this has an excellent practical function: when an unexpected gust of wind or a poorly designed subway station results in the Marilyn Monroe effect, the bottom layer doesn't lift up nearly as high as the top layer. So I can enjoy the effect of my skirt swirling about and imagine that if I jump off the stair I'll float into the air like Mary Poppins, all without compromising my modesty or horrifying the masses with my unattractive undergarments.

Queer

This article in the Star's ethics column has me perturbed:

Q: I'm a Protestant minister. I'm pretty well known in my church for my outspoken advocacy and actions on behalf of marginalized people — street folk, the mentally challenged, and members of the queer community.

Recently I was approached by a political party to run in the next provincial election. I'm intrigued by the possibility, but wondering about ethical implications. Comments?

A: First off, you're going to have to stop using the word "queer" if you plan to get elected. We haven't quite come full circle on that one yet in mainstream society.
[...]

Is this true? I always thought anyone can use queer. I am aware that:

- queer has been (and still can be, with certain context, intent, and presentation) used as a slur
- queer has undergone or is undergoing a reclamation process
- during a reclamation process, not everyone can rightfully use the word being reclaimed - the circle of people who can use the word widens steadily until it encompasses all of society, but it's not like just anyone can wander in and start using the word.

But I thought queer had undergone enough of a reclamation process that anyone can use it with benign intentions and a proper understanding of the scope of the word's benign use. It was even used in the title of a mainstream TV show! Was I wrong about this? Besides that, it's quite a convenient word - the scope is broader than any other individual word that I can think of, although the level of language is rather low. I don't find I use it terribly often, but when I do use it it's the best possible word, and there's no other word that will do.

Abstract discussion points: who is and is not allowed to say queer and why?

Concrete discussion points: am I allowed to use the word queer? If not, what should I say when I need to communicate that concept?

Weird voicemail spam

I got this message on my voicemail today - I don't know if it was a legit phone call or voicemail spam because it arrived while I was at work - that sounded very unprofessional. The guy was saying "Um, I was wondering if you or anyone you know was planning to move within the next six months?" The message was very vague, unclear, and unprofessional, filled with ums and ahs and broken, heavily accented English. (Normally I don't judge imperfect English, but if they're approaching me apropos of nothing I'm not going to make an effort to understand).

I can see two possibilities:

1. It's a hook. The unprofessional-sounding script was designed specifically to sound that way, so people wouldn't think it's voicemail spam or something, I'm not sure why.

2. They really are that inept.

Further meditations on being Childfree

People who try to talk CFers into having children usually use the argument "But it's so rewarding!" The thing they fail or refuse to understand is that a childfree person does not feel that they're missing any "reward" from their life. The detractor is proposing a solution to a problem, but the CFer doesn't feel that there is a problem.

In other words, imagine if someone tells you "I have the solution to your problem. However, it entails:

- permanently and irrevocably changing your and your partner's lives, with which you are already satisfied
- permanently and irrevocably affecting every aspect of the life of an innocent third party
- making the potential consequences of every decision you and your partner make from now on far more serious
- decreasing the likelihood that you will be financially self-sufficient, and increasing the likelihood that you will require social assistance (in the broadest, generic sense of the term)
- increasing the size of your environmental footprint
- reducing your ability to be there for the people in your life who sometimes need you to be there
- quite possibly permanently and irrevocably affecting the lives of your families
- at least temporarily inconveniencing your and your partner's employers and co-workers, which may result in some bitterness or make you a less valued employee, thus decreasing your job security, which is now far more serious than it was before (see item 3)
- permanently and irrevocably accepting a new person as one of your intimates without first knowing who they are or what they're like"

...and you don't even feel that you have a problem in the first place.

You don't go to all the trouble and smell of repainting your home when you're happy with the current paint job, just because some random person likes some other colour better. You don't go to all the trouble of moving house when you're perfectly satisfied with your current home, just because some random person is more happy in a different home. So why on earth do people think a CFer would have a child when they're perfectly satisfied without?

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001

I would highly recommend that Americans read this book. It's a slow, labourious read (I poked at it over a period of months, while reading other things in between), but it shows you how the CIA essentially created the conditions for the Taliban and al Qaeda. I do find myself wondering if they didn't see this coming at all, or if they did see it coming and simply thought it negligible compared with the threat of communism (which they were attempting to fight at the time). I do wish the author had elaborated on his statement that Taliban fighters wear eye-liner (or at least showed a picture), but apart from that, a difficult read, but an important one for Americans.

Concealed weapons

On TV, a guy is trying to rob some people by either holding a gun in his pocket or pretending he has a gun in his pocket. I've heard of people doing this before.

Why would someone do this? I can see how it's an effective way to pretend that there's a gun in your pocket if you don't really have one, but if you really did have a gun, why would you keep it in your pocket? Wouldn't it be more effective to show them the gun? Obviously there's some precedent for people doing robberies this way, so there's something that makes people think a robber might actually have the gun in his pocket instead of taking it out. So why would this be beneficial to the robber to hide the gun while conducting the robbery?

Wherein a lowly prole blithely tells Stephen Hawking he's wrong

Dear Mr. Hawking:

Today you said that humanity must colonize space in order to survive.

That is wrong.

True, it is probably factually correct that, at some point in the future, humanity will be wiped out if our habitat is limited only to earth. But it would be morally wrong to attempt to colonize space.

We have no way of knowing who or what is living on other planets. True, we can probably detect whether carbon-based, air-breathing, 3+1 dimensional lifeforms are on a planet before we go about colonizing it, but why on earth should life in space be limited to that? It could be, say, cobalt-based, and seven-dimensional. Or it occupies the same time continuum as us, but travels in the other direction. Or it could breathe water and hydrate itself with nitrogen. We have no way of knowing that, and we have no way of knowing what kind of damage we'd do to the aliens' habitat, or how pissed off they'd get at us.

If humanity fucks up badly enough that we make our own planet uninhabitable, then it would be pretty damn cocky to assume we're entitled to start taking over other planets. Let's go extinct with dignity instead.

For if you want to watch Enterprise from the beginning

I'm currently watching what appears to be the final episode of Enterprise. This would suggest that they're going to start showing the series from the beginning tomorrow. So if you're in Canada and want to watch Enterprise from the first episode, it's on Space at 9 pm on weekdays.

Liberal leadership

The weird thing about the Liberal party leadership race is that there is no way that every single one of the candidates can possibly think that they are the best person for the job or that they bring something unique to the job that the others don't have.

Party leadership races differ from regular job competitions in that the candidates all know who all the other candidates are (or who all the other potential candidates might be), so they can reasonably assess whether they are the best person for the job. Everyone's professional qualifications are a matter of public record, so why would you even put your hat in when it's clear you're nothing special?

Party leadership races differ from elections in that the candidates in each riding are affiliated with different parties. It doesn't matter of a particular candidate is not the single most qualified individual in the world, because they represent a larger party which contains a lot of people with different strengths. They only need to be competent, represent their party's platform, and be different from the other parties. But in a leadership race, everyone has essentially the same politics. I'm not sure, but I believe policy is set by the party in general, so it's not like the leader is just a person representing a certain policy platform. The leader needs to be exceptional, not just competent.

There is no way all 10(?) of the leadership candidates are exceptional or are without question the best person for the job. Quite a few of them have shortcomings that even I can see. There is no clear winner as yet so it does make sense for a number of people to run, but some of these people I don't understand why they're running. If I were a member of the Liberal party I'd be emailing them all to ask them why they think they're the best choice, but I'm not a member of any parties so this isn't something I need to take action on.