Things They Should Invent: bra-length camisole

Currently, it is socially and sartorially acceptable to wear an exposed camisole under a low-necked top. (Future generations, or even I myself in five or ten years, may laugh at this, but it is what we have to work with at the moment.) If the top of the camisole shows, even if it is a wee bit lacy in an aesthetic allusion to lingerie, the area under the camisole is still considered to be "covered" for modesty purposes.

However, one disadvantage to camisoles is they are long - they cover the entire torso. This can be problematic if, due to environmental or aesthetic considerations, the wearer simply doesn't want two layers.

If you don't want two layers, you'd think a bra would serve the purpose of providing additional coverage, but for reasons that are inarticulable yet unanimously agreed-upon, exposed bra cups are trashy and/or slutty.

So what we need is a garment that looks like a camisole, perhaps by not having two distinct cups, but only goes as far down as the bra elastic. Perhaps it could even fulfill a support function, so the wearer doesn't have to wear a bra AND a demi-cami. I have seen the odd bra like that, but we really do need more that are designed in a way that is acceptable to expose

Am I supposed to meddle with homeless people? If so, how?

Walking home from the grocery store today, I saw a (presumably) homeless guy lying on the sidewalk. This was unusual because it's raining, and he was lying in a completely unsheltered area, despite the fact that there's a great big overhang on the building across the street. He was moving enough that I could tell he was alive and didn't appear to have any physical injuries, but clearly something was wrong - if he'd been in his right mind, he'd at least be across the street under the overhang.

What I'm not clear on is what I'm supposed to do. I wasn't going to approach him directly myself, because I'm a weak young woman walking around by myself (and there were fewer people in the vincinity than usual because it's raining) and he's a big, strong-looking man who's clearly not in his right mind. If he had been a clean-cut man in an Armani suit exhibiting the same behaviour, I would not have approached him directly either (although, I'll admit, I might be more likely to call 911.)

But is there someone I should call? I don't think it was a 911 emergency because he was alive and conscious and uninjured, he was just lying on the sidewalk in the rain. I don't think it was a police issue, because he wasn't doing anything illegal or threatening anyone, he was just lying on the sidewalk in the rain. I know there's a number you're supposed to call when you find homeless people during a cold alert, but is there someone you're supposed to call when you find a homeless person behaving unusually by area homeless standards during a non-emergency situation?

If he had been lying under an overhang or in tunnel, I would have just left him to his nap. If he had been lying on the sidewalk out in the open during more pleasant weather, I would have thought "Huh, that's unusual," but left him to his own devices once it was clear that he did not require medical attention. If I had found him there at night, I might have assumed that he was just sleeping for the night. But flat on his back, midafternoon, raining and not under an overhang, all makes me think there was something wrong. Thing is, I have no idea what I was supposed to do about it...

Being a grownup

I found this story while googling for something unrelated.

The first part (until it gets into knitting) is presented by the author as a story of why she hates being a grownup. However, for me, that story epitomizes why I love being a grownup. To wit:

- I never have to go camping! At all! Ever!
- I don't have to go on long ridiculous bike rides! I can take a train or a cab or stay home instead!
- If I do decide to go on a long ridiculous bike ride, I can stop the moment I get tired rather than having to stick to someone else's schedule.
- If my plans suddenly become too unpleasant due to rain or scary cobweb-like phenomena, I can call a cab and tell them to take me to the nearest hotel rather than being completely dependent on someone else who has all the money and therefore gets to make all the decisions.
- My parents are no longer operating under the assumption that I'm living in luxury or comfort just because I'm not doing the more difficult or unpleasant chores of everyday life that I couldn't do anyway because I'm just a kid. Or if they are thinking this way, they have the good sense to keep it to themselves in light of the fact that I am working and paying all my own bills and maintaining my own household.

Today it is raining, so I slept a ridiculously long time this morning and enjoyed quite a few sexy dreams. The I woke up, had a nice long shower in which I shampooed and conditioned and soaped and moisturized and exfoliated using the army of bottles that I get to keep around the edge of the bathtub at all times, and put on my bathrobe and made a cup of coffee, which I'm sipping on now as I type this.

If I were a kid today, I would have had to get up early to be dragged along on my parents' shopping expedition. I would have spent the morning fighting off carsickness and my sister, then standing around bored in stores that don't sell anything interesting and I wouldn't get to buy anything even if they did. Then when I got home I'd have time to do my chores and homework, but not to relax or enjoy a computer game or a TV show (or, if I did have time, someone else would more than likely be using the computer or the TV.)

Essentially, the joy of being a grownup is that your life doesn't just get arbitrarily hijacked whenever your parents get the idea of doing something.

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.