I think the major problem in politics today is people who act as though they're automatically right because of who they are, or who treat other parties as though they're automatically in the right because of who they are. I see this in Canadian politics, US politics, Middle East politics, everywhere. So much policy-making is permeated by a sense of "We're the good guys, therefore our opinions in this matter are automatically correct," or "They're the good guys, therefore their actions are automatically virtuous," or "I define myself to be on your side, therefore anything I think of will automatically be to your benefit."
I think it would be a lot better if all our politicos presented every idea as though they had no particular credibility based on who they are or based on their record. All policies and all ideas must stand up on their own merits, and don't get any bonus points even for being thought of by the smartest, most innovative, most virtuous person in the world.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
10
They're talking about lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 10 (right now it's 12).
Now, I distinctly remember how my mind worked at age 10, and I'm certain I had the necessary sense of consequences to be held legally responsible for my own actions. In fact, I thought I was legally responsible for my own actions throughout childhood - I didn't learn about the age 12 threshold until I was already 12 - which made me really uncomfortable in situations where my parents wanted to bend the rules a bit. At any rate, my ten year old self could have handled going to court just as well as my adult self could, I think. (I've never actually been to court IRL, although I sometimes translate court proceedings and have seen a few movies and TV shows.)
However, I'm concerned about the utter vitriol that some people who support lowering the age are spewing. Some commentators seem to think that all kids are evil, vicious little brats and are embracing this as a way to give them the punishment they deserve. Like I said before, I distinctly remember being that age so I know with absolute certainty that they aren't sweet innocent angels, but neither does the entire age group deserve to be punished for some inherent evil. The malicious and punitive attitude coming from the people who support lowering the age makes me wonder whether doing so is at all sound from a criminological and child development perspective. We don't want a situation where the punishment for criminal activity just makes kids into more effective delinquents. I sincerely hope any changes are subject to thorough review by criminology and child psychology experts, to make sure the process actually rehabilitates kids instead of just making things worse. I wholeheartedly support everyone being responsible for their own actions, but we don't want the anger and hatred of the loudest commentators to create a punitive system that just produces hardened thugs.
Also, there is the problem that when you're a kid and the adults around you (even if it's just a very loud minority) act like you're an insolent little brat who deserves to be punished even though you haven't done anything wrong (or anything nearly as wrong as they think you have), you come to think that all adults actively want you to be miserable and therefore are out to get you. This leads you to the realization that adults are not to be trusted, and then you don't confide in adults when you have a real problem that requires adult advice or help. When I was a kid, my father kept saying that he should spank us pre-emptively so we wouldn't be bad when we went out. He never actually did that, that I can recall, and in retrospect it may (or may not) have been some weird attempt at humour, but it didn't feel like that at the time. It felt like he actively wanted us to be miserable and humiliated, like it gave him joy to punish us and he was looking for the slightest excuse, and as a result I told my parents very little. I didn't tell them about most of the bullying I suffered for fear I'd get a lecture that I deserved it. I didn't tell them when I was sexually harrassed for fear they'd punish me for somehow inviting it. I didn't tell them that I lost all my friends at the beginning of grade 9 because they chose to take up smoking, for fear that they'd punish me for knowing people who smoked. Luckily I didn't have any serious problems in these "controversial" areas that would have required adult intervention! In retrospect I don't think they would have punished me for these things (although I'm not absolutely certain about that), but that's the mindset created when a kid thinks that grownups enjoy punishing her. I'm worried that if this ugly, punitive attitude permeats the youth justice system and trickles down to kids through the current media coverage, an entire generation will distrust their grownups the way I distrust mine.
I'm all for personal responsibility for one's actions and natural consequences, and I do think a 10-year-old can deal with that, but this must be done carefully, mindfully, calmly, with input from experts and professionals, and without influence by extremists - either those who think 10-year-olds are sweet innocent angels, or those who think 10-year-olds are evil incorrigible little demon spawn.
Further thoughts:
- There needs to be some kind of mechanism to protect children from the legal consequences of actions they do at the behest of their parents. I don't agree with parents being legally responsible for actions that the children take independently, but if the parent instructs the child to do something illegal, the parent should bear the full legal consequences. My parents never asked me to do anything illegal, but they did ask me to do things that I thought were illegal in my youthful overestimation of what the police would arrest you for, (e.g. my mother would ask me to wait in line with the grocery cart while she ran to grab one item she'd forgotten, and I thought the police would come and arrest me if I got to the register before my mother came back, because I didn't have any money on me to pay for the groceries) and I know that it's very hard for a 10-year-old to deal with a divergence between "being good" by obeying one's parents and "being good" by obeying the law.
- It's kind of. . . inconsistent? (not the exact word I'm looking for, but as close as I can come) to lower the age of legal responsibility while raising the age of consent.
Now, I distinctly remember how my mind worked at age 10, and I'm certain I had the necessary sense of consequences to be held legally responsible for my own actions. In fact, I thought I was legally responsible for my own actions throughout childhood - I didn't learn about the age 12 threshold until I was already 12 - which made me really uncomfortable in situations where my parents wanted to bend the rules a bit. At any rate, my ten year old self could have handled going to court just as well as my adult self could, I think. (I've never actually been to court IRL, although I sometimes translate court proceedings and have seen a few movies and TV shows.)
However, I'm concerned about the utter vitriol that some people who support lowering the age are spewing. Some commentators seem to think that all kids are evil, vicious little brats and are embracing this as a way to give them the punishment they deserve. Like I said before, I distinctly remember being that age so I know with absolute certainty that they aren't sweet innocent angels, but neither does the entire age group deserve to be punished for some inherent evil. The malicious and punitive attitude coming from the people who support lowering the age makes me wonder whether doing so is at all sound from a criminological and child development perspective. We don't want a situation where the punishment for criminal activity just makes kids into more effective delinquents. I sincerely hope any changes are subject to thorough review by criminology and child psychology experts, to make sure the process actually rehabilitates kids instead of just making things worse. I wholeheartedly support everyone being responsible for their own actions, but we don't want the anger and hatred of the loudest commentators to create a punitive system that just produces hardened thugs.
Also, there is the problem that when you're a kid and the adults around you (even if it's just a very loud minority) act like you're an insolent little brat who deserves to be punished even though you haven't done anything wrong (or anything nearly as wrong as they think you have), you come to think that all adults actively want you to be miserable and therefore are out to get you. This leads you to the realization that adults are not to be trusted, and then you don't confide in adults when you have a real problem that requires adult advice or help. When I was a kid, my father kept saying that he should spank us pre-emptively so we wouldn't be bad when we went out. He never actually did that, that I can recall, and in retrospect it may (or may not) have been some weird attempt at humour, but it didn't feel like that at the time. It felt like he actively wanted us to be miserable and humiliated, like it gave him joy to punish us and he was looking for the slightest excuse, and as a result I told my parents very little. I didn't tell them about most of the bullying I suffered for fear I'd get a lecture that I deserved it. I didn't tell them when I was sexually harrassed for fear they'd punish me for somehow inviting it. I didn't tell them that I lost all my friends at the beginning of grade 9 because they chose to take up smoking, for fear that they'd punish me for knowing people who smoked. Luckily I didn't have any serious problems in these "controversial" areas that would have required adult intervention! In retrospect I don't think they would have punished me for these things (although I'm not absolutely certain about that), but that's the mindset created when a kid thinks that grownups enjoy punishing her. I'm worried that if this ugly, punitive attitude permeats the youth justice system and trickles down to kids through the current media coverage, an entire generation will distrust their grownups the way I distrust mine.
I'm all for personal responsibility for one's actions and natural consequences, and I do think a 10-year-old can deal with that, but this must be done carefully, mindfully, calmly, with input from experts and professionals, and without influence by extremists - either those who think 10-year-olds are sweet innocent angels, or those who think 10-year-olds are evil incorrigible little demon spawn.
Further thoughts:
- There needs to be some kind of mechanism to protect children from the legal consequences of actions they do at the behest of their parents. I don't agree with parents being legally responsible for actions that the children take independently, but if the parent instructs the child to do something illegal, the parent should bear the full legal consequences. My parents never asked me to do anything illegal, but they did ask me to do things that I thought were illegal in my youthful overestimation of what the police would arrest you for, (e.g. my mother would ask me to wait in line with the grocery cart while she ran to grab one item she'd forgotten, and I thought the police would come and arrest me if I got to the register before my mother came back, because I didn't have any money on me to pay for the groceries) and I know that it's very hard for a 10-year-old to deal with a divergence between "being good" by obeying one's parents and "being good" by obeying the law.
- It's kind of. . . inconsistent? (not the exact word I'm looking for, but as close as I can come) to lower the age of legal responsibility while raising the age of consent.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Attn: billionaire philantropists, I have a mission for you
The Star mentions in passing that many major drug research companies are kind of quietly hoping someone else discovers an HIV vaccine, because there would be massive pressure to give it away for free.
What would happen if that potential financial disincentive were eliminated? What would happen if an endowment fund were created to throw massive amounts of money at the people who discover an HIV vaccine on the condition that it's distributed for free?
Imagine, for instance, that everyone involved in the team that first discovers a vaccine gets their salary matched for life. Everyone from the CEO to the student lab techs. Every time they earn a dollar, the endowment fund gives them another dollar. Even if they leave their pharmaceutical job. Or if that isn't reasonable, imagine if everyone on the team gets their mortgage paid off (or a home bought for them if they rent) and free university tuition for their entire family. If the economics of the situation also require throwing some money at the company itself, so be it. My general point is to create a situation where discovering a feasible HIV vaccine would lead to significant financial gain for everyone involved, without hindering access to the vaccine.
Mr. Gates? Mr. Buffett? I'm looking at you!
What would happen if that potential financial disincentive were eliminated? What would happen if an endowment fund were created to throw massive amounts of money at the people who discover an HIV vaccine on the condition that it's distributed for free?
Imagine, for instance, that everyone involved in the team that first discovers a vaccine gets their salary matched for life. Everyone from the CEO to the student lab techs. Every time they earn a dollar, the endowment fund gives them another dollar. Even if they leave their pharmaceutical job. Or if that isn't reasonable, imagine if everyone on the team gets their mortgage paid off (or a home bought for them if they rent) and free university tuition for their entire family. If the economics of the situation also require throwing some money at the company itself, so be it. My general point is to create a situation where discovering a feasible HIV vaccine would lead to significant financial gain for everyone involved, without hindering access to the vaccine.
Mr. Gates? Mr. Buffett? I'm looking at you!
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Things They Should Invent: combined dental and manicure services
I went to the dentist today. As I was sitting there getting my mouth poked at, I mentally went through my to-do list for the rest of the day, and remembered that I really should redo my nails today. Then I realized, I'm already sitting still, doing nothing, and being poked at for an hour, so why not have a manicurist poke at me too? It would certainly save me some time! I don't usually get my nails done professionally, but once every six months during time when I'm already doing nothing? I'd splurge for that!
Hezbollah has a lot of rockets
Hezbollah and Israel have been throwing rockets at each other for, what, a couple of weeks now? That's a lot of rockets. It doesn't surprise me that Israel has a lot of rockets because they're a whole country, but how did Hezbollah get all these rockets? Do they have their own arms factories? Do they buy them? If so, how do they get through customs? Or are they all smuggled in? Where do they keep them? What would they do with them if they ever decided to disband? This all never occurred to me before, but after all these days it's obvious that it's not an insignificant number of rockets, and that raises all kinds of questions.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
What are your linking etiquette preferences?
I usually use target=_blank in my links, so they'll open in a new window. I do this because it's my personal preference when I'm clicking on a link from a blog. However, I recently read an article saying that's poor etiquette because it takes control away from the user. As a user, I often tend to click blindly without thinking to open the link in a new window before it's too late, but I don't know if that's typical behaviour. So do you prefer your links to open in new windows, or in the same window?
I'm planning a post that will have quite a few links - anywhere between 5 and 20 - and the links will probably be of more interest to most of you than the things I usually link to. It occurs to me that it could be annoying to have 10 different windows open, especially since some of them might be multimedia. But at the same time, it might also be annoying to have to click back to the blog to see the next link (and it's more likely than usual that you will be interested in looking at all the links.) So what which would you prefer: a) target=_blank, which opens every link in its own window; b) target=_new, which opens the links in a separate window from the blog, but all in the same window, so you have to use your browser's back button to page through all the links, or c) no target, so the links open by default in the same window as the blog unless you intervene?
For the purposes of this link-heavy post, which will probably get put together sometime this weekend, I'll go with any votes y'all have left in the comments here by the time I get around to putting the post together. As for my general linking policy, I'm going to mull it over, taking any comments into consideration.
Note: I use IE and am not terribly familiar with the other browsers as it's been a few years since I've had to keep my web design or tech support skills current. If any of these linking practices have different results in whichever browser you're using, feel free to let me know, along with your preferences.
I'm planning a post that will have quite a few links - anywhere between 5 and 20 - and the links will probably be of more interest to most of you than the things I usually link to. It occurs to me that it could be annoying to have 10 different windows open, especially since some of them might be multimedia. But at the same time, it might also be annoying to have to click back to the blog to see the next link (and it's more likely than usual that you will be interested in looking at all the links.) So what which would you prefer: a) target=_blank, which opens every link in its own window; b) target=_new, which opens the links in a separate window from the blog, but all in the same window, so you have to use your browser's back button to page through all the links, or c) no target, so the links open by default in the same window as the blog unless you intervene?
For the purposes of this link-heavy post, which will probably get put together sometime this weekend, I'll go with any votes y'all have left in the comments here by the time I get around to putting the post together. As for my general linking policy, I'm going to mull it over, taking any comments into consideration.
Note: I use IE and am not terribly familiar with the other browsers as it's been a few years since I've had to keep my web design or tech support skills current. If any of these linking practices have different results in whichever browser you're using, feel free to let me know, along with your preferences.
Something I wish I had thought to do earlier
I wish that, when I was a kid and one of my parents was complaining about work or the Damn Goverment or Those People, I wish I had thought to look at them smugly and say "Well, life isn't fair!" with that self-satisfied "Look at me, I'm imparting wisdom, give me a standing ovation!" look that parents get when they're saying something particularly unhelpful to their children.
Unfortunately the idea didn't occur to me until just now.
Unfortunately the idea didn't occur to me until just now.
Stupidest act of falsification ever!
So apparently some pictures of bombed-out Beirut were doctored before they were sent to Reuters.
The Star has before and after pictures.
What's really sad about this is that, to my civilian and unartistic eye at least, it doesn't change the impact of the photo that much.
My first reaction upon seeing the real photo: "OMG, the whole city is up in smoke"
My second reaction upon seeing the real photo: "Oh wait, it's only coming from that one building and kind of drifting around."
My first reaction upon seeing the doctored photo (without comparing it with the real photo): "OMG, the whole city is up in smoke"
My second reaction upon seeing the doctored photo: "Oh wait, it's only coming from that one building and kind of drifting around."
My third reaction upon seeing the doctored photo: "Funny pattern that smoke is travelling in..."
I wouldn't have identified it as a photoshop job myself, I would have just assumed it's some property of bombed-building smoke that I don't know about, but I'm far from an expert. The only people in the world who would be less skilled at identifying a photoshop job than I am would be people who have never used photoshop. (I've only dabbled unsuccessfully, and casually lurked around Fark and Worth1000.)
But the big issue is that the photoshopping doesn't add anything to the picture. It doesn't make it worse, it doesn't change the impact or lack thereof, it's not going to change anyone's opinion or emotional response. It's just more smoke added to a picture that already shows a lot of smoke. So why do it in the first place?
The Star has before and after pictures.
What's really sad about this is that, to my civilian and unartistic eye at least, it doesn't change the impact of the photo that much.
My first reaction upon seeing the real photo: "OMG, the whole city is up in smoke"
My second reaction upon seeing the real photo: "Oh wait, it's only coming from that one building and kind of drifting around."
My first reaction upon seeing the doctored photo (without comparing it with the real photo): "OMG, the whole city is up in smoke"
My second reaction upon seeing the doctored photo: "Oh wait, it's only coming from that one building and kind of drifting around."
My third reaction upon seeing the doctored photo: "Funny pattern that smoke is travelling in..."
I wouldn't have identified it as a photoshop job myself, I would have just assumed it's some property of bombed-building smoke that I don't know about, but I'm far from an expert. The only people in the world who would be less skilled at identifying a photoshop job than I am would be people who have never used photoshop. (I've only dabbled unsuccessfully, and casually lurked around Fark and Worth1000.)
But the big issue is that the photoshopping doesn't add anything to the picture. It doesn't make it worse, it doesn't change the impact or lack thereof, it's not going to change anyone's opinion or emotional response. It's just more smoke added to a picture that already shows a lot of smoke. So why do it in the first place?
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Thoughts from Enterprise
1. Vanishing Point resolves by stating that Hoshi has lost her fear of using the transporter, based on the fact that she stepped on the alien transporter platform at the end of her hallucination.
But that doesn't prove anything! From Hoshi's perspective, she has already died and demolecularized, plus now the ship is about to blow up. The transporter cannot possibly make things worse! However, since this didn't really happen and was all a vivid and horrific hallucination, she now has a tangible reason to fear the transporter IRL - she might get stuck in the pattern buffer and in a psychological nightmare again!
2. Whenever they find a promising-looking uninhabited M-class planet, the crew always wants to go have R&R on it. They want to go camping and rafting and climbing and who knows what else. That's really bizarre if you think about it - imagine if the aliens came to earth with the goal of going scuba-diving or something!
But that doesn't prove anything! From Hoshi's perspective, she has already died and demolecularized, plus now the ship is about to blow up. The transporter cannot possibly make things worse! However, since this didn't really happen and was all a vivid and horrific hallucination, she now has a tangible reason to fear the transporter IRL - she might get stuck in the pattern buffer and in a psychological nightmare again!
2. Whenever they find a promising-looking uninhabited M-class planet, the crew always wants to go have R&R on it. They want to go camping and rafting and climbing and who knows what else. That's really bizarre if you think about it - imagine if the aliens came to earth with the goal of going scuba-diving or something!
Monday, August 07, 2006
Question I am currently pondering
It's 1929. You are 30 years old. At the very nadir of the Great Depression - the very bottom point in that big economic chart I'm sure we've all seen - you invest some money in the stock market. Your stock choices are typical and representative - you have no particular great insight except that you're sure the economy has no where to go but up. You sit on your portfolio for 35 years until you retire at age 65, when your portfolio provides you with enough income to live at an average middle-class standard of living until you die at age 100.
Is this a feasible situation? How much money would you have to have invested initially? How much would that be in today's dollars?
Is this a feasible situation? How much money would you have to have invested initially? How much would that be in today's dollars?
Annihilated
I've been familiar with the word annihilated for years and years, but I only just now associated the pronunciation with the spelling. I always mentally read the I's as short instead of long, and sort of subconsciously imagined them as two separate words.
Attn: Toronto municipal candidates
If you're a candidate in the Toronto municipal election, listen up! Here's how to optimize your chances of getting my vote:
Somewhere on your website, state explicitly and neutrally how exactly your platform differs from that of your opponents, and do this without dissing your opponents.
I'm neither particularly supportive of nor particularly opposed to my current city councillor. I agree with about half of what he does, and disagree with the other half. As a challenger, you could be better or you could be worse. However, both of your platforms sound pretty much the same right now, so that just isn't helpful to me at all. I don't feel that it's imperative to overthrow the incumbent, but none of you have shown me any particular reason why you deserve my vote over and above the other candidates.
Federal and provincial politics are party-based, so I can make my decisions based on the values demonstrated by each party. However, municipal candidates are not associated with any parties. You're just random individuals and, unless you're an incumbent, I have no basis on which to judge you except the information on your website. So tell me why you're different! I don't want to hear you defaming the other candidates, I can do that myself. I just want to know why your platform is better, what you have to offer me that the other guys don't. Then I can decide for myself whether that corresponds with my priorities or not. Don't be vague and indefinite in an attempt to not lose my vote. Be bold, be specific, tell me what you stand for!
Last time around, I was not able to vote for a city councillor because I could find no information on one of the two candidates' platforms. I would very much like to vote for a councillor this time around, but I don't know what I'm going to do if I don't see any difference between the platforms.
Any media people reading this? If so, I'd love to see a comparison of all the candidates' platforms that emphasizes the differences!
Somewhere on your website, state explicitly and neutrally how exactly your platform differs from that of your opponents, and do this without dissing your opponents.
I'm neither particularly supportive of nor particularly opposed to my current city councillor. I agree with about half of what he does, and disagree with the other half. As a challenger, you could be better or you could be worse. However, both of your platforms sound pretty much the same right now, so that just isn't helpful to me at all. I don't feel that it's imperative to overthrow the incumbent, but none of you have shown me any particular reason why you deserve my vote over and above the other candidates.
Federal and provincial politics are party-based, so I can make my decisions based on the values demonstrated by each party. However, municipal candidates are not associated with any parties. You're just random individuals and, unless you're an incumbent, I have no basis on which to judge you except the information on your website. So tell me why you're different! I don't want to hear you defaming the other candidates, I can do that myself. I just want to know why your platform is better, what you have to offer me that the other guys don't. Then I can decide for myself whether that corresponds with my priorities or not. Don't be vague and indefinite in an attempt to not lose my vote. Be bold, be specific, tell me what you stand for!
Last time around, I was not able to vote for a city councillor because I could find no information on one of the two candidates' platforms. I would very much like to vote for a councillor this time around, but I don't know what I'm going to do if I don't see any difference between the platforms.
Any media people reading this? If so, I'd love to see a comparison of all the candidates' platforms that emphasizes the differences!
New word!
I hereby coin the word Doppelnamer, to mean someone who has the same name as you. (Yes, I have checked, and it doesn't require an umlaut, unless I've forgotten some rule of German.)
Sunday, August 06, 2006
A note on body language
I can't find a picture of this leg crossing position, so you'll have to act it out yourself (unless you're wearing a short skirt and there's someone else in the room): Put your left foot flat on the floor. Now rest your right ankle on top your left knee. Your right calf should be perpendicular to your left thigh and parallel to the floor.
I just read that crossing your legs in this position means you're feeling competitive and argumentive.
I would like the world to know that, even though I sit like this all the time, it is not a sign of being competitive and argumentive. Rather, it's a sign that I'm knock-kneed and have snapping hip syndrome, and this position is the most comfortable way for me to sit for long periods of time without my joints getting stiff.
I just read that crossing your legs in this position means you're feeling competitive and argumentive.
I would like the world to know that, even though I sit like this all the time, it is not a sign of being competitive and argumentive. Rather, it's a sign that I'm knock-kneed and have snapping hip syndrome, and this position is the most comfortable way for me to sit for long periods of time without my joints getting stiff.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Open Letter to the Globe and Mail's David MacFarlane
Dear Mr. MacFarlane:
As, apparently, a member of your target demographic, I feel qualified to respond to your column.
First, I want you to ask yourself a question - seriously reflect on it: What, exactly, do you hope to accomplish by complimenting strangers? Because I can't imagine it achieving anything except making the lady in question uncomfortable. You claim you want to say something nice, but you do seem to be aware that it will likely make the subject of your attentions uncomfortable. So why do you still want to say it? Instead of saying something nice, why not do something nice and not make her uncomfortable? What is it that compels you to completely disregard the fact that you do not think she would appreciate your compliment, and instead barrel away on the cocky presumption that she should appreciate your compliment because...because you think she should? I'm not sure why. Seriously, why, in any social interaction, would you so callously disregard your best guess at how the interlocutor would respond, and why would you persist in labelling a statement that you anticipate would make her uncomfortable as "nice"?
Speaking as a member of your target demographic, when I am beautiful (which I sometimes am and sometimes am not), I know that I'm beautiful. I am perfectly aware of it. And when I am not beautiful, I am also perfectly aware of it. Telling me I'm beautiful will not make me feel any better about myself under any circumstances. If I am beautiful at the time, it will not give me any new information but might make me feel uncomfortable. If I am not beautiful at the time, I will know you're bullshitting me, and I will also feel like strange old men read me as someone so pathetic and desperate that she'd be grateful for any compliment. This, in turn, will make me feel uncomfortable and insecure, and I will raise my shields even higher so as to avoid coming across as an easy target.
Compliments on my appearance are only worth anything to me when they come from people who see me regularly and are familiar with my range of appearance. My base appearance is something over which I have no influence, so compliments on it are meaningless. However, I can influence my appearance with clothing and cosmetic and hairdressing choices, so a compliment from someone who sees me regularly on a specific aspect of my appearance is appreciated, because then I know what I'm doing right. The opinions of strangers who have never seen me before simply do not make me feel good, under any circumstances.
So how can you be "nice" to a strange young woman? The single best thing you can do is respect my reality. You seem to be aware of it, because you are aware that your attempt to compliment could be taken the wrong way, so now respect it. You know that I get unwanted attention, you know that you're most likely not my first choice of person I want attention from, you know that I have the burden of not leading anyone on and there are a significant number of men who are extremely easily led on, so simply respect and understand that that's where I'm coming from. Backing off at the first sign that your attentions are unwanted or that you're making me uncomfortable is an excellent way to show goodwill. If you don't back off, you leave me no choice but to assume your motives are impure. And don't sit there saying "But I'm just trying to be nice!" You are, by your own admission, old enough to be my father, you are a columnist for a major national newspaper, so you are obviously worldly enough to know that a common tactic of cads and predators is to try to make their target feel guilty for not obeying her instincts. As the initiator of an unnecessary and likely unwanted social interaction, the onus is upon you to make it clear to your interlocutor that your intentions are pure, and you don't do that by trying to guilt her into accepting unwanted and uncomfortable attention. Even Miss Manners will attest to the fact that it is rude to try to force anything upon anyone when they have attempted to gracefully opt out.
Let me give you some examples of middle-aged men with whom I came into contact involutariliy, but who I still thought were nice. Perhaps you can see the common thread:
- The guy who came into my apartment to replace my kitchen floor. He moved the stove for me (building management had told me that I was responsible for moving it, but I'm not strong enough) and told me that it was no problem, even though that wasn't part of his job and I'm sure his union would have encouraged him to refuse. Then he went about replacing my floor in a perfectly businesslike manner, allowing me to go about my morning routine without interruption. He put the stove back, made sure the floor was perfectly clean, and left my apartment in a timely manner. He was perfectly polite but never once acted the slightest bit entitled to my attention. He never once gave my body or any part of the apartment except the floor that he was fixing an assessing glance. I felt comfortable enough with him in the apartment that I would have changed clothes behind a closed bedroom door if necessary (albeit standing next to the door so that my body would have prevented it from opening.)
- The backup superintendant, who had to come to my apartment on an urgent basis because of a leaking pipe. Again, he went straight down to business, explained things to me, never once looked at me anywhere but in my eyes or at my apartment anywhere but the toilet (which he was fixing), accepted my inexperience with plumbing as a reasonable basis for my possibly calling him for a non-emergency but didn't use it as a tool to make me feel stupid (in fact, he treated me like my actions were laudable when we found that the leak was in fact something that could have developed into an emergency). I felt comfortable around him that when we needed to move two packages of feminine hygiene products to access the toilet tank, it didn't make me feel awkward or embarrassed at all.
- My supervisor at my previous job. It was clear to me that he was well aware that I was an attractive female university student in an otherwise all-male office and that this made the office's dynamics different than if it had been gender-balanced or all male, but he handled the situation admirably. There were a couple of instances where I had to be treated differently because of my realities (in one case, I didn't want to do a resnet installation in the private residence room of a (male, extremely tall, extremely strong, no sense of personal space) student who creeped me out, and in other cases there was some equipment that I simply could not lift, but all the guys could) but he didn't make a big deal of it, he just assigned me to different work and in no way used it as an excuse to question my overall competence. He was perhaps a touch too chivalrous at times, but he made up for that by recognizing that I had been in the office longer and knew How Things Are Done, and I returned this respect by giving him the information he needed to make decisions, but deferring to him for the actual decisions.
In none of these cases did any of these gentlemen ever comment on my appearance, and there has never been a situation in my life where a strange man has commented on my appearance and it made me think that he's nice.
As, apparently, a member of your target demographic, I feel qualified to respond to your column.
First, I want you to ask yourself a question - seriously reflect on it: What, exactly, do you hope to accomplish by complimenting strangers? Because I can't imagine it achieving anything except making the lady in question uncomfortable. You claim you want to say something nice, but you do seem to be aware that it will likely make the subject of your attentions uncomfortable. So why do you still want to say it? Instead of saying something nice, why not do something nice and not make her uncomfortable? What is it that compels you to completely disregard the fact that you do not think she would appreciate your compliment, and instead barrel away on the cocky presumption that she should appreciate your compliment because...because you think she should? I'm not sure why. Seriously, why, in any social interaction, would you so callously disregard your best guess at how the interlocutor would respond, and why would you persist in labelling a statement that you anticipate would make her uncomfortable as "nice"?
Speaking as a member of your target demographic, when I am beautiful (which I sometimes am and sometimes am not), I know that I'm beautiful. I am perfectly aware of it. And when I am not beautiful, I am also perfectly aware of it. Telling me I'm beautiful will not make me feel any better about myself under any circumstances. If I am beautiful at the time, it will not give me any new information but might make me feel uncomfortable. If I am not beautiful at the time, I will know you're bullshitting me, and I will also feel like strange old men read me as someone so pathetic and desperate that she'd be grateful for any compliment. This, in turn, will make me feel uncomfortable and insecure, and I will raise my shields even higher so as to avoid coming across as an easy target.
Compliments on my appearance are only worth anything to me when they come from people who see me regularly and are familiar with my range of appearance. My base appearance is something over which I have no influence, so compliments on it are meaningless. However, I can influence my appearance with clothing and cosmetic and hairdressing choices, so a compliment from someone who sees me regularly on a specific aspect of my appearance is appreciated, because then I know what I'm doing right. The opinions of strangers who have never seen me before simply do not make me feel good, under any circumstances.
So how can you be "nice" to a strange young woman? The single best thing you can do is respect my reality. You seem to be aware of it, because you are aware that your attempt to compliment could be taken the wrong way, so now respect it. You know that I get unwanted attention, you know that you're most likely not my first choice of person I want attention from, you know that I have the burden of not leading anyone on and there are a significant number of men who are extremely easily led on, so simply respect and understand that that's where I'm coming from. Backing off at the first sign that your attentions are unwanted or that you're making me uncomfortable is an excellent way to show goodwill. If you don't back off, you leave me no choice but to assume your motives are impure. And don't sit there saying "But I'm just trying to be nice!" You are, by your own admission, old enough to be my father, you are a columnist for a major national newspaper, so you are obviously worldly enough to know that a common tactic of cads and predators is to try to make their target feel guilty for not obeying her instincts. As the initiator of an unnecessary and likely unwanted social interaction, the onus is upon you to make it clear to your interlocutor that your intentions are pure, and you don't do that by trying to guilt her into accepting unwanted and uncomfortable attention. Even Miss Manners will attest to the fact that it is rude to try to force anything upon anyone when they have attempted to gracefully opt out.
Let me give you some examples of middle-aged men with whom I came into contact involutariliy, but who I still thought were nice. Perhaps you can see the common thread:
- The guy who came into my apartment to replace my kitchen floor. He moved the stove for me (building management had told me that I was responsible for moving it, but I'm not strong enough) and told me that it was no problem, even though that wasn't part of his job and I'm sure his union would have encouraged him to refuse. Then he went about replacing my floor in a perfectly businesslike manner, allowing me to go about my morning routine without interruption. He put the stove back, made sure the floor was perfectly clean, and left my apartment in a timely manner. He was perfectly polite but never once acted the slightest bit entitled to my attention. He never once gave my body or any part of the apartment except the floor that he was fixing an assessing glance. I felt comfortable enough with him in the apartment that I would have changed clothes behind a closed bedroom door if necessary (albeit standing next to the door so that my body would have prevented it from opening.)
- The backup superintendant, who had to come to my apartment on an urgent basis because of a leaking pipe. Again, he went straight down to business, explained things to me, never once looked at me anywhere but in my eyes or at my apartment anywhere but the toilet (which he was fixing), accepted my inexperience with plumbing as a reasonable basis for my possibly calling him for a non-emergency but didn't use it as a tool to make me feel stupid (in fact, he treated me like my actions were laudable when we found that the leak was in fact something that could have developed into an emergency). I felt comfortable around him that when we needed to move two packages of feminine hygiene products to access the toilet tank, it didn't make me feel awkward or embarrassed at all.
- My supervisor at my previous job. It was clear to me that he was well aware that I was an attractive female university student in an otherwise all-male office and that this made the office's dynamics different than if it had been gender-balanced or all male, but he handled the situation admirably. There were a couple of instances where I had to be treated differently because of my realities (in one case, I didn't want to do a resnet installation in the private residence room of a (male, extremely tall, extremely strong, no sense of personal space) student who creeped me out, and in other cases there was some equipment that I simply could not lift, but all the guys could) but he didn't make a big deal of it, he just assigned me to different work and in no way used it as an excuse to question my overall competence. He was perhaps a touch too chivalrous at times, but he made up for that by recognizing that I had been in the office longer and knew How Things Are Done, and I returned this respect by giving him the information he needed to make decisions, but deferring to him for the actual decisions.
In none of these cases did any of these gentlemen ever comment on my appearance, and there has never been a situation in my life where a strange man has commented on my appearance and it made me think that he's nice.
My morning adventure
I woke up this morning to a bizarro noise. I looked out the window, and saw that there were pigeons on my balcony. This is unusual because I have a bird net, and these guys had somehow gotten BEHIND the bird net and were now trapped on my side. There were two on the balcony, and a third on the outside of the bird net squawking frantically at the other two. They were obviously quite scared, so I figured I had to something about it.
So I grabbed a piece of bread (to distract the pigeons) and a stick (to wave them away if necessary), and went out on the balcony fresh out of bed: ugly sleepwear, greasy hair, bad breath, dirty glasses, maybe a trace of yesterday's mascara around my eyes - the pigeons were terrified! I threw a piece of bread to the far end of the balcony to keep them away from me, but I needn't have - they ignored the bread, huddled closely together, alternating between looking fearfully at me and looking longingly through the small space between the front and side balcony wall. I'm alternating between feeling sorry for them and desperately wanting them not to poo.
So I speak soothingly to them while trying to lift up a section of the bird net. However, I am faced with the conundrum that they don't want to go near me, but the bird net can only be lifted if I'm near it. I briefly consider pushing them through the small space through which they are desperately peering, but I figure that would be dangerous since they can't spread their wings while going through that space. So I take my stick and try to use it to lift up a section of the net that's above the pigeons' heads.
Apparently this was the scariest, most threatening thing I could possibly have done. The pigeons looked at me, briefly conferred among themselves, and then decided that rather than spend any longer in this horrifying situation, they'd take a life-or-death leap through the too-small space where they'd have to jump without being able to spread their wings. They cooed at each other briefly, possibly saying something along the lines of "If we don't make it, please know that I'll always love you," and made the leap. They swooped, spread their wings, soared, and ended up on the roof of a nearby building. I collected my stick and untouched bread, and decided that I'll tied down the bird net better after I've gotten myself less terrifying-looking.
If this happens again, I'm just pushing them off through that little space.
So I grabbed a piece of bread (to distract the pigeons) and a stick (to wave them away if necessary), and went out on the balcony fresh out of bed: ugly sleepwear, greasy hair, bad breath, dirty glasses, maybe a trace of yesterday's mascara around my eyes - the pigeons were terrified! I threw a piece of bread to the far end of the balcony to keep them away from me, but I needn't have - they ignored the bread, huddled closely together, alternating between looking fearfully at me and looking longingly through the small space between the front and side balcony wall. I'm alternating between feeling sorry for them and desperately wanting them not to poo.
So I speak soothingly to them while trying to lift up a section of the bird net. However, I am faced with the conundrum that they don't want to go near me, but the bird net can only be lifted if I'm near it. I briefly consider pushing them through the small space through which they are desperately peering, but I figure that would be dangerous since they can't spread their wings while going through that space. So I take my stick and try to use it to lift up a section of the net that's above the pigeons' heads.
Apparently this was the scariest, most threatening thing I could possibly have done. The pigeons looked at me, briefly conferred among themselves, and then decided that rather than spend any longer in this horrifying situation, they'd take a life-or-death leap through the too-small space where they'd have to jump without being able to spread their wings. They cooed at each other briefly, possibly saying something along the lines of "If we don't make it, please know that I'll always love you," and made the leap. They swooped, spread their wings, soared, and ended up on the roof of a nearby building. I collected my stick and untouched bread, and decided that I'll tied down the bird net better after I've gotten myself less terrifying-looking.
If this happens again, I'm just pushing them off through that little space.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Why do people live in the suburbs?
I was reading a chat on the Globe and Mail site about the suburbs, and was somewhat surprised to see all the focus on making them less car-dependent and giving them more amenities like stores and doctors. Don't get me wrong, I like car-free living and convenient local amenities. That's why I moved to Midtown. But do suburbanites actually value those things?
When I was a kid, I once heard my father said, in response to a proposal to run a bus line near our house, that it was a waste to do so because people who lived in our area obviously aren't going to take the bus - if they had wanted to take the bus, they wouldn't have moved somewhere that required a car. (That's an extremely disheartening thing to hear when you're in your early teens and just starting to like the idea of maybe going places without your parents having to drive you!) This makes me think that the people who choose to move to the suburbs (as opposed to their dependent children and aging parents) might not value other lifestyles.
So let's think: why would you move to the suburbs?
1. Because you like the lifestyle
2. Because it's not your lifestyle of choice, but it's the best you can do with the resources you have
The people who fall under category 1 obviously aren't going to want public transit or the amenities that come with density, or, like my father said, they would have chosen to live elsewhere. As for category 2, there are two possibilities: (a) instead of the suburbs, they value a rural environment, and (b) instead of the suburbs, they value an urban environment.
If they value a rural environment, what would drive them to the suburbs? Not money, but possibly convenience - the commute from the countryside to wherever they have to work (statistically more likely to be in an urban area) is just too far. So would someone in this situation appreciate more amenities and transit? It's likely that they wouldn't, since it would make their environment even less rural. (I know that sounds strange, but it was long a cornerstone of urban planning that housing should be separate from commercial areas, so there must be people out there that value that.)
And if they value an urban environment, what would drive them to the suburbs? Money, pure and simple, as urban property values are especially ridiculous. These people, I can see why they would enjoy more transit and amenities. But I can't really see why people in the other categories would.
So the big question: what percentage of suburbanites would rather be urbanites?
When I was a kid, I once heard my father said, in response to a proposal to run a bus line near our house, that it was a waste to do so because people who lived in our area obviously aren't going to take the bus - if they had wanted to take the bus, they wouldn't have moved somewhere that required a car. (That's an extremely disheartening thing to hear when you're in your early teens and just starting to like the idea of maybe going places without your parents having to drive you!) This makes me think that the people who choose to move to the suburbs (as opposed to their dependent children and aging parents) might not value other lifestyles.
So let's think: why would you move to the suburbs?
1. Because you like the lifestyle
2. Because it's not your lifestyle of choice, but it's the best you can do with the resources you have
The people who fall under category 1 obviously aren't going to want public transit or the amenities that come with density, or, like my father said, they would have chosen to live elsewhere. As for category 2, there are two possibilities: (a) instead of the suburbs, they value a rural environment, and (b) instead of the suburbs, they value an urban environment.
If they value a rural environment, what would drive them to the suburbs? Not money, but possibly convenience - the commute from the countryside to wherever they have to work (statistically more likely to be in an urban area) is just too far. So would someone in this situation appreciate more amenities and transit? It's likely that they wouldn't, since it would make their environment even less rural. (I know that sounds strange, but it was long a cornerstone of urban planning that housing should be separate from commercial areas, so there must be people out there that value that.)
And if they value an urban environment, what would drive them to the suburbs? Money, pure and simple, as urban property values are especially ridiculous. These people, I can see why they would enjoy more transit and amenities. But I can't really see why people in the other categories would.
So the big question: what percentage of suburbanites would rather be urbanites?
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
I have a new skill
Take something softish and handfull-sized, like a beanbag or a foam ball or a koosh or a wadded-up facecloth. Toss it gently from hand to hand.
Dead easy.
Now do the same thing with your eyes closed.
Can you do it?
I can!
I have no idea whether this is a normal thing to be able to do or not. From a purely logical perspective, it seems like it shouldn't be humanly possible. Although if I can do it, most people probably can. In general I'm spectacuarly uncoordinated.
Dead easy.
Now do the same thing with your eyes closed.
Can you do it?
I can!
I have no idea whether this is a normal thing to be able to do or not. From a purely logical perspective, it seems like it shouldn't be humanly possible. Although if I can do it, most people probably can. In general I'm spectacuarly uncoordinated.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Smells like piano lessons
5:25 p.m. on the hottest day of my life so far. I'm sitting in my office finishing up some quality control work when one of the cleaning people comes in. This is normal for this time of day, so I pay little attention, going about my business as she goes about hers, until she walks past my cube and suddenly I smell something I haven't smelled in a good seven years: piano lessons.
The cleaning lady smells like piano lessons.
She must be wearing the same perfume as my piano teacher did.
I took piano lessons for 12 years, and never realized that my piano teacher actually wore perfume. The whole time I thought that was just what her house smelled like. I haven't seen her at all in the 21st century, but I can still instantly identify her perfume.
That makes me want to wear perfume. It would be kind of cool if, years later, random people suddenly caught a whiff of something and thought it smelled like me. Wait, that didn't come out quite right...
The cleaning lady smells like piano lessons.
She must be wearing the same perfume as my piano teacher did.
I took piano lessons for 12 years, and never realized that my piano teacher actually wore perfume. The whole time I thought that was just what her house smelled like. I haven't seen her at all in the 21st century, but I can still instantly identify her perfume.
That makes me want to wear perfume. It would be kind of cool if, years later, random people suddenly caught a whiff of something and thought it smelled like me. Wait, that didn't come out quite right...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)