Spamalot!

I was expecting it to be fair to middling, to be perfectly honest. I didn't see how something as indie as Holy Grail (I know it's mainstream now, but it was indie when they first made it!) could translate into a major musical. I figured it would hit all the plot points and in-jokes, throw in a few musical numbers, and we'd have a perfectly adequate night's entertainment and some nice royalties for the Python chaps. I was indifferent myself, but some of my friends wanted to go, and I am the resident Torontoise Python fan, so off we went.

Turns out I was way wrong - it was hilarious! It's very tightly packed, with something laugh-out-loud funny happening on stage like every 10 seconds or so. My friend who had never seen Holy Grail (!) was laughing constantly throughout! The delivery and timing were flawless, but not so flawless that it sounded like Python fans quoting the whole thing. The actors alluded to the voices of the original Pythons in their delivery, but again it didn't sound like fan imitation. Plus there were frequently little things thrown in - a gesture or a sound effect or a prop (HAY!) that added an extra layer of humour to the scene without breaking stride, and often took us two beats to realize it was there.

The stagecraft was also very good. Stagecraft was something they could quite easily have phoned in, but in several places we found ourselves remarking "Ooh, that's clever!", and in a few others we found ourselves wondering how exactly they did what they just did. (Hint: the Black Knight scene is there, intact. I could guess at how it was done, but I could well be wrong.)

There were only two things I didn't like. One was the inclusion of Always Look on the Bright Side of Life, which doesn't belong in Holy Grail, it belongs in Life of Brian! The other is the fact that the female cast members never got to do anything funny! Their roles were decorative or functional, but never humourous. I realize the original is essentially an all-male cast, but in a big complex musical number with lots of things going on, you'd think that at least once or twice one of the girls could have gotten to do something funny.

It certainly isn't Holy Grail. It's missing some key scenes, namely the witch and the bridge, and it's about half Holy Grail and half parody of musical theatre. However, it is also the most I have laughed in a two-hour period in recent memory, and I would see it again tomorrow if someone gave me a ticket, especially if the seat number ended in 101.

Overtime

The problem with overtime is that you have to work regular time too. Twelve straight hours of work on any given day isn't that big a deal, but it's a much bigger deal when you still are expected to come into the office early the next morning. I could do a 17 hour day if I could add one more additional day off to my long weekend in exchange, but I can't. (Yes, my employer does allow me to be compensated for my overtime in leave, but all leave is subject to operational requirements and the project requiring overtime is only one of the many things I'm working on so I can't just take a day off right now.)

What do I do now?

Telephone: RING RING RING
Receptionist: Doctor's office
Me: Hi, I'm interested in getting the cervical cancer vaccine. I was wondering if you're doing that yet?
R: The what?
Me: The cervical cancer vaccine?
R: ...
Me: HPV vaccine?
R: ...
Me: Gardasil? It was approved by Health Canada several weeks ago and it was all over the news, and they said it would be available near the end of August and you should ask your doctor?
R: I'm sorry, I haven't heard of anything like that
Me: Ummm...okay...so do you have any idea when would be a reasonable timeframe for me to call back again and see if you have it yet?
R: I have no idea, sorry

SO WHAT DO I DO NOW???? I was totally unprepared for this! I was all prepared to be all proactive, and ask whether there's any testing required before you get the vaccine, and if so whether an internal examination is involved so I can schedule it around my period, and to find out before hand if I need to get the vaccine from the pharmacy myself so I could be a good patient and walk in there all prepared, but what do I do when the receptionist has never heard of it? Does this mean the receptionist is exceptionally ignorant, or does this mean the doctor has never heard of it either? How can I trust these people to manage my health care when they haven't heard of something that is all over the news and I need to get on a somewhat time-sensitive basis? And how can I manage my own health care when any attempt to be proactive gets derailed at the first moment of ignorance?

I have been told that I should call back and insist that she either let me speak with the doctor or speak with the doctor herself and find out for me, but how on earth do I do that politely? I did give my name the first time I called because I thought that was the correct thing to do (it isn't in my little script because I don't want to put it in my blog). So how do I call back and say "Hi, it's me again! I'm right, you're wrong, and I want to go over your head until someone agrees with me!"

I am afraid of bugs, I am afraid of bugs, I am I am I am!

Somewhere out there, the great arachnoid conspiracy found my comments about Shelob and felt the need to reassert itself as a force for terror. So today when I got to work, there was a dead you-know-what on my mousepad. Unfortunately, I don't inspect my mousepad every morning (I will from now on!), and I TOUCHED IT WITH MY HAND! My boss found me whimpering with a giant handful of paper towels, trying to summon up the courage to dispose of the corpse, and was kind enough to do it for me. So I've been jumpy and edgy all day now.

Big Questions arising from a repeat viewing of Attack of the Clones

Why would little Anakin Skywalker program a droid for etiquette of all things?

I think I just saw Shelob

I saw an ad for a LOTR disc set, and I think I had a brief glimpse of Shelob. I've been deliberately avoiding even a glance because even the scene in the book freaked me out to the extent that I had to skip to the end of the chapter. But in this brief on-screen glance wasn't as bad as I expected. I certainly could not watch the whole scene, but I saw it for a second - enough to tell me that I had to look away - without any panic symptoms (this is coming from a 100% panic-free state) and only the slightest twinge of nausea. I think it's because it looked very computer-generated. Apart from the shape, something that looked like that would never be crawling across my ceiling in miniature. It was like those arachoid robot thingies in Star Wars - not pleasant, but a glance isn't going to give me extensive nightmares. Good to know. (Of course, the possibility exists that I'm a touch more placid than usual because I've had two glasses of wine today.)

The definitive Python

Everyone knows about singing lumberjacks and dead parrots and knights who say NI and spam. In fact, all these things have gotten so tired and cliche cliche that people who aren't familiar with Monty Python are likely to think it's not that funny, that it's just a bunch of people shouting NI and SPAM and EX-PARROT at each other.

So here, thanks to the magic of YouTube, is a small collection of representative Python sketches for those who aren't very familiar with Python, but think that SPAM SPAM SPAM just isn't that funny any more.

Ministry of Silly Walks
Spanish Inquisition
Four Yorkshiremen
Nudge Nudge (note: this one actually has a punchline)
Self-Defence against Fresh Fruit
Penguin on the Television
Buying a Bed
Dirty Fork
Every Sperm is Sacred
Romans Go Home!
Election Night
Argument Clinic
And, because it was voted their all-time favourite by the Pythons themselves, the Fish-Slapping Dance!

Have I missed any? Feel free to add your own in the comments!

Things They Should Invent: more precise TV content warnings

When I'm watching TV, I sometimes get these warnings: "The following program contains mature subject matter. Viewer discretion is advised."

But they refer to the whole program. When it's on commercial television, the program is divided up into segments by commercial breaks. So why not give warnings just if the next segment contains mature subject matter? (Oh yeah, and also standardize segment length.) The movie I'm watching right now (which is such a bad movie that I don't want to admit what it is) contains mature subject matter in places, but also contains some very decent comic scenes that I would have no problem with showing to any school-aged child*. If they gave me warning for specific segments, (and I were in charge of children), I could turn off the TV just for X minutes for the inappropriate segments, and still let these children I'm mysteriously in charge of watch the funny bits.

*Note: the possibility exists that these aren't, in fact, appropriate for children and this is all just another sign of why I shouldn't be in charge of children

Weird science

There was recently a story all over the news that couples who are more attractive are more likely to have daughters than sons, because it is evolutionarily more beneficial for women to be attractive, and therefore women are getting more beautiful over time.

There's a flaw in that theory:

With the exception of some esoteric cloning science that isn't yet being used on humans, every woman who is born has a mother and a father. Women, and therefore mothers, are getting more beautiful, but the study says nothing about men, so we must assume that they stay the same.

The conception process does nothing to ensure that the baby will receive the most attractive of its parents' genes. The baby receives a random sampling. There is nothing to make the baby receive the best of the available genes. (I'm proof of that! Except for my eye colour, I'm the worst of both worlds.) So even if the parents are attractive, the babies are just as likely to inherit unattractive characteristics from their fathers (who are not growing more attractive) or their less-attractive ancestors.

My doggie paradox

I love dogs! Just seeing a happy doggie walking down the street puts a smile on my face and lowers my blood pressure. I've always wanted a dog, but my sister is allergic so we never had one when I was a kid. But as an adult living on my own, I've been seriously looking into getting one.

My personal ethics dictate that as long as there are dogs in shelters, I must adopt a dog from a shelter. I consider it morally wrong to get a dog from a pet store or a breeder, thus creating demand, when there are dogs in shelters waiting for a home.

However, because I have never owned a dog, I am not a good candidate for a shelter dog. My inexperience would get me screened out from all but the lowest-maintenance dogs*, and very few low-maintenance dogs end up in a shelter.

I know the next logical step is to volunteer to walk dogs at the Humane Society, but my inexperience could still prove a problem. The Humane Society rates its dogs on a scale of Green (easiest), Yellow, Orange, and Red (hardest), and newbies can only walk Green dogs. However, the Humane Society does not necessarily have any Green dogs at any given time. I'd say the majority of the times I've looked at their site, there have been no Green dogs whatsoever. So either they'd refuse me as a dog-walker, or they'd have me doing stuff other than walking dogs, but at any rate it wouldn't be getting me any closer to having a doggie of my own!

However, suppose I threw my ethics out the window, walked down the the pet store, asked for the most adorable, floppy-eared puppy they have, and handed over my credit card. Then I could have a dog, just like that. I would be betraying my ethics, creating demand for puppy mills, and being irresponsible by getting a puppy as my first dog, but I would have a dog. And then in 10 or 15 years when the first dog passes away, I could go down to the Humane Society, tell them I have 10/15 years experience with dog ownership, and I would be far more likely to be eligible for a dog.

If I do something that I consider morally wrong, I will be considered a better candidate for adopting a dog. If I stick to my principles, I will continue to be considered unsastisfactory.

*The ideal dog for me, established in consultation with a Humane Society person: an adult, possibly a senior, who has already been house- and obedience-trained and is able to live happily in an apartment. This dog has no behavioural problems or difficult history, most likely having come to the shelter because its people couldn't take care of it due to their own health or lifestyle changes. It currently does not have any health problems or require palliative care (I am certainly willing to provide for my dog's health or palliative care, but it would be better for me to get used to having a dog - and for it to get used to having me - before dealing with complicated medical issues.) Sounds very picky, true, but some of my neighbours have successfully adopted dogs taht meet this description, so I'm not giving up hope.

Dogger!

There is currently a doggie wearing a birthday hat in the Blogger logo. Apparently this is because Blogger is seven years old, and one dog year equals seven people years. Whatever, I like doggies and any excuse to have more doggies is a good thing!

Post your printer recommendations here

I want a new printer. Mine is seven years old, loud, big, awkward, and runs out of ink at the slightest provocation. I want a quiet, unassuming printer that is efficient enough that I can print whenever the fancy strikes me, without worrying about whether the print job is worth using up the ink.

Anyone have any thoughts?

As usual, Rebecca Eckler misses the point

The problem is not that people are finding parenting boring (This link takes you to a Google page. Click on the URL link provided under "If the URL is valid, try visiting that web page by clicking on the following link" to see a Globe and Mail article).

The problem is that the people who find parenthood boring are talking about it in the media and on the internet, using their own names or their "real life" internet names. This means that when their children are old enough to google, if they aren't already, they will google their parents (and you know that it will eventually occur to them to google everyone they know) and find these comments by their parents about how they're boring. And when they do this, they'll still be young enough that "raising kids is boring" will sound exactly like "my kids are boring people" and that will be enough to seriously hurt the kid's feelings. Not to mention what will happen if one of their peers stumbles upon it first!

Everyone has the right to find anything as boring or interesting as they want. Boredom isn't something you can control, and you aren't evil for getting bored. However, it is very cruel to announce to the whole world that your kids are boring (and that is how your kids will interpret it when they find it, and they will find it). If the thought of parenting sounds so boring that you just can't keep your boredome to yourself, don't have kids. It's that simple.

Monkey monkeys!

Telus is using the monkey monkeys in its ads again! I love the monkey monkeys!

Advice for parents

Here's something I overheard today. It's remembered and then translated and then paraphrased un peu so as not to be too ponderous in English, but I think the message is a good one:

Every time you feel like taking credit for your child's achievements or virtues, don't. Instead, take it as an opportunity to praise your child for their achievements or virtues.

Open letter to Google

Dear Google:

You should be honoured. Website names rarely get verbed. The only other ones I can think of are EBay, LiveJournal, and YouTube. Your predecessors, Yahoo and Altavista, didn't get to be verbs. Blogger doesn't get to be a verb because blog was already a verb when it was created. Even the venerable Amazon doesn't get to be a verb. Every person who verbs your name is another person who has you linked inextricably with search. It's free marketing, and testament to your permanent impact on society as a whole. Besides, there's no room for language police in the English language.

Things They Should Uninvent: Ad hominem (self-)righteousness

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.

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.

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!