Thursday, November 30, 2006
Describing accents
Today, I found myself describing someone's accent as being "like cut glass," because that's the expression that first came to mind when I heard her accent. Then I realized that I don't actually know what the expression means. I've heard it before, as applied to accents, but I couldn't tell you what kind of accent it was being applied to. It occurred to me today when hearing someone speak, but I have no idea whether or not my interpretation of the expression is the same as the common meaning. It's all very intangible. I don't even know what cut glass has to do with the particular accent (like the sound of cutting glass? like the appearance of cut glass? like the sound of cut glass stemware tinkling against each other?), and yet the simile came to mind unbidden. I know what "plummy" means in describing accents, but I have no idea what that actually has to do with plums.
Analogy for monogamy
Imagine you're craving coffee. A new coffee shop just opened up right across the street, so you decide to give it a try. The coffee is exactly what you were craving. It completely meets your needs. You've never had coffee that so perfectly met your coffee needs. It's fresh, it's aromatic, it doesn't have any yucky bitterness to it, it's everything coffee should be and nothing coffee shouldn't be. In fact, you never knew that coffee could be this good. So the next time you're craving coffee, you back to the same coffee shop again. And once again it meets your needs perfectly, so you keep going back again and again.
Now sometimes your tastes vary a bit, but it turns out this coffee can meet your needs even when your tastes vary. When you want something a bit richer, it meets your needs if you add cream instead of milk. If you don't want caffeine, the decaf is perfect. If it's hot out, the iced coffee is exactly what you're craving. Every time you go to the coffee shop to get something you're craving, their products fulfill your craving completely, and you've never found another coffee anywhere that fulfills your cravings nearly as well.
After this goes on for a while, it would simply no longer make sense to try new coffee shops, now would it? You wouldn't feel that it's dull or boring to keep going to the same coffee shop, because their coffee is so unbelievably good compared to any other coffee you've tasted or even smelled. In fact, you'd feel it's a privilege to have such perfect coffee right across the street, and you'd be thankful every day that they're right there.
Now sometimes your tastes vary a bit, but it turns out this coffee can meet your needs even when your tastes vary. When you want something a bit richer, it meets your needs if you add cream instead of milk. If you don't want caffeine, the decaf is perfect. If it's hot out, the iced coffee is exactly what you're craving. Every time you go to the coffee shop to get something you're craving, their products fulfill your craving completely, and you've never found another coffee anywhere that fulfills your cravings nearly as well.
After this goes on for a while, it would simply no longer make sense to try new coffee shops, now would it? You wouldn't feel that it's dull or boring to keep going to the same coffee shop, because their coffee is so unbelievably good compared to any other coffee you've tasted or even smelled. In fact, you'd feel it's a privilege to have such perfect coffee right across the street, and you'd be thankful every day that they're right there.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
"A complete list of things I have seen and not seen is available on my blog"
Seen on Yonge St.: two small white puppies, possibly Bichone Frises, possibly Lhasa Apsos, trying to assert dominance over each other.
Seen on the cover of Cosmo: "The Sexiest Things To Do After Sex" Wassa matter? Sex not sexy enough for you?
Seen in line at the store: Teenage boy says "She's hot!" (with as much enthusiasm as one would expect from a teenage boy). His mother says "Yes, she is" (with more enthusiasm than one would expect from a mother). Not seen: who exactly they were talking about.
Seen in the newspaper: an ad for a TV movie called "Candles on Bay Street". The thing is, in Toronto, Bay St. is the financial district. So to me it sounds as odd as "Candles on Wall Street".
Seen on the cover of Cosmo: "The Sexiest Things To Do After Sex" Wassa matter? Sex not sexy enough for you?
Seen in line at the store: Teenage boy says "She's hot!" (with as much enthusiasm as one would expect from a teenage boy). His mother says "Yes, she is" (with more enthusiasm than one would expect from a mother). Not seen: who exactly they were talking about.
Seen in the newspaper: an ad for a TV movie called "Candles on Bay Street". The thing is, in Toronto, Bay St. is the financial district. So to me it sounds as odd as "Candles on Wall Street".
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Open Letters
Dear blind gentleman in the Eglinton station tunnels around 3:50 pm:
I apologize for not walking you to the station myself when you asked me directions. I'm afraid I was too worried about how to explain the directions without any pointing, so it didn't occur to me to walk you there myself until I was already down on the platform. I'm really sorry, and I hope you found your way okay.
Dear CNIB:
You know those commercials you have, telling us that many of your clients have some sight? I really wish you'd elaborate. What am I supposed to do with this information? How am I supposed to change my behaviour? What action do you expect on my part?
Dear Biore:
Okay, so you're trying to tell me that your products will give me flawless skin. So why use a black and white picture? Everyone looks flawless in black and white. Show me a colour photo! Yes, I know you still have Photoshop so you can make the non-flawless look flawless even in colour. That's precisely why the black and white makes me suspicious. If a professional model + your product + lighting + makeup + photoshop produce flawless skin in colour, why should I buy your product?
I apologize for not walking you to the station myself when you asked me directions. I'm afraid I was too worried about how to explain the directions without any pointing, so it didn't occur to me to walk you there myself until I was already down on the platform. I'm really sorry, and I hope you found your way okay.
Dear CNIB:
You know those commercials you have, telling us that many of your clients have some sight? I really wish you'd elaborate. What am I supposed to do with this information? How am I supposed to change my behaviour? What action do you expect on my part?
Dear Biore:
Okay, so you're trying to tell me that your products will give me flawless skin. So why use a black and white picture? Everyone looks flawless in black and white. Show me a colour photo! Yes, I know you still have Photoshop so you can make the non-flawless look flawless even in colour. That's precisely why the black and white makes me suspicious. If a professional model + your product + lighting + makeup + photoshop produce flawless skin in colour, why should I buy your product?
Best dry-cleaner ever!
I highly recommend Vic-Tone Cleaners in North York. They're at 4866 Yonge St., which is a block north of Yonge & Sheppard (southwest corner of Yonge & Elmhurst).
I had a horrible stain on a new blouse. I already tried to get it out at home, and it wouldn't budge - if anything I'd made the problem worse. My research showed this type of stain may well never come out, so I was very upset. I'd only worn the blouse twice, it was a very flattering cut and colour, and the store I'd bought it from didn't have any more in my size. This was very problematic because the stain demoted the blouse from first choice to last-resort-with-a-jacket. So I decided it's time to shell out for a professional job.
So I took it to Vic-Tone on a purely random guess. They looked at the stain and said they weren't sure whether they could get it out, but they'd try and there would be no charge if they didn't succeed! And then they managed to get the stain out!
I had a horrible stain on a new blouse. I already tried to get it out at home, and it wouldn't budge - if anything I'd made the problem worse. My research showed this type of stain may well never come out, so I was very upset. I'd only worn the blouse twice, it was a very flattering cut and colour, and the store I'd bought it from didn't have any more in my size. This was very problematic because the stain demoted the blouse from first choice to last-resort-with-a-jacket. So I decided it's time to shell out for a professional job.
So I took it to Vic-Tone on a purely random guess. They looked at the stain and said they weren't sure whether they could get it out, but they'd try and there would be no charge if they didn't succeed! And then they managed to get the stain out!
Thursday, November 23, 2006
High-heeled sensitivity training (for men)
Inspired by the guy in Sheppard station yelling at his female companion for descending the stairs so slowly.
The Physics:
In a high-heeled shoe, the wearer's body weight is shifted forwards. In the vast majority of situations, this isn't a problem, and the wearer can walk normally or with a slightly shortened stride. However, when descending stairs or any sort of slope, the change in balance becomes particularly apparent. Stand on a stair (a low stair! and hold onto the railing!) and lean forwards. See how you're suddenly at greater risk of falling? If someone wearing heels walks down the stairs at a normal pace, she will fall. I know this from first-hand experience.
The Experiment:
Take off your shoes if you're wearing any. First, walk around the room a bit, at your normal walking-down-the-street pace, just to remind yourself of what that pace feels like. Next, stand up on your toes, lifting your heels as far off the ground as possible. Now walk around the room at the same pace. See how your stride is shortened, but you can still maintain a decent pace?
Next, go to the nearest staircase. If you have to wear shoes to do this, make sure you pick a pair with a flexible enough sole to let you stand on your tiptoes. First, walk down a few steps at a normal walking-in-public speed, just to get a sense of what you're working with normally. Then go back to the top of the stairs, and stand on your toes. Make sure you hold the railing! Before you descent on your toes, I want you to put one foot down on the stair below you, with your toes at the very front of the tread (i.e. the horizontal part of the stairs). Why? Because our instincts tell us to put our toes in the centre of the tread when descending stairs standing on our toes, but you can't do this in heels because the heels themselves would be in the way. So put your toe at the very front of the tread, and make sure your heel is lifted in a way that it doesn't touch the riser of the stair above it. Got that foot position down? Then grab the railing and walk down the stairs on your toes, with your feet in that position. Try to go as fast as you can. See how precarious it is?
What you can do to help:
"Okay," you're saying, "now I understand why descending stairs in heels is problematic. So how can I, as the chivalrous gentleman I am, help my lady friend through this ordeal?"
First of all, understand that stairs are slower and don't nag when she slows down. If she falls, that will just slow you both down even more, as well as getting in more people's way. If there is a choice, opt for an escalator or elevator if your lady friend is wearing higher heels than she usually wears.
If you want to be actively chivalrous, you can offer her your arm or you can walk in front of her. Offering your arm is appropriate only in places where you can walk two abreast without getting in anyone's way. It is, by far, the better option if the stairs have no railing for some reason. However, in crowded places where walking two abreast is a problem, the best thing you can do is walk in front of her, so you can catch her, break her fall, or help her if she does fall. Walking in front of her is also particularly helpful in places like subway stations, if you find yourself moving against a large sea of pedestrian traffic. That way, you're making a path for her lady friend, so all she has to worry about is staying on her feet. Do NOT "ladies first" down the stairs if there's a huge wave of people coming up the stairs.
The Physics:
In a high-heeled shoe, the wearer's body weight is shifted forwards. In the vast majority of situations, this isn't a problem, and the wearer can walk normally or with a slightly shortened stride. However, when descending stairs or any sort of slope, the change in balance becomes particularly apparent. Stand on a stair (a low stair! and hold onto the railing!) and lean forwards. See how you're suddenly at greater risk of falling? If someone wearing heels walks down the stairs at a normal pace, she will fall. I know this from first-hand experience.
The Experiment:
Take off your shoes if you're wearing any. First, walk around the room a bit, at your normal walking-down-the-street pace, just to remind yourself of what that pace feels like. Next, stand up on your toes, lifting your heels as far off the ground as possible. Now walk around the room at the same pace. See how your stride is shortened, but you can still maintain a decent pace?
Next, go to the nearest staircase. If you have to wear shoes to do this, make sure you pick a pair with a flexible enough sole to let you stand on your tiptoes. First, walk down a few steps at a normal walking-in-public speed, just to get a sense of what you're working with normally. Then go back to the top of the stairs, and stand on your toes. Make sure you hold the railing! Before you descent on your toes, I want you to put one foot down on the stair below you, with your toes at the very front of the tread (i.e. the horizontal part of the stairs). Why? Because our instincts tell us to put our toes in the centre of the tread when descending stairs standing on our toes, but you can't do this in heels because the heels themselves would be in the way. So put your toe at the very front of the tread, and make sure your heel is lifted in a way that it doesn't touch the riser of the stair above it. Got that foot position down? Then grab the railing and walk down the stairs on your toes, with your feet in that position. Try to go as fast as you can. See how precarious it is?
What you can do to help:
"Okay," you're saying, "now I understand why descending stairs in heels is problematic. So how can I, as the chivalrous gentleman I am, help my lady friend through this ordeal?"
First of all, understand that stairs are slower and don't nag when she slows down. If she falls, that will just slow you both down even more, as well as getting in more people's way. If there is a choice, opt for an escalator or elevator if your lady friend is wearing higher heels than she usually wears.
If you want to be actively chivalrous, you can offer her your arm or you can walk in front of her. Offering your arm is appropriate only in places where you can walk two abreast without getting in anyone's way. It is, by far, the better option if the stairs have no railing for some reason. However, in crowded places where walking two abreast is a problem, the best thing you can do is walk in front of her, so you can catch her, break her fall, or help her if she does fall. Walking in front of her is also particularly helpful in places like subway stations, if you find yourself moving against a large sea of pedestrian traffic. That way, you're making a path for her lady friend, so all she has to worry about is staying on her feet. Do NOT "ladies first" down the stairs if there's a huge wave of people coming up the stairs.
Educated
I don't feel educated. By most standards I am, by a few standards I'm not. I've had job interviewers who didn't give me jobs tell me I have a lot of education. (Job interviewers who did give me jobs never commented on it.) But internally? I don't feel anything special. Yes, I've spent most of my life in a classroom, but that would have happened even if I had the minimum education legally permissible. My mental library is what it is.
I don't feel smart either. I've been told I am. (I've also been told I'm not.) The requisite IQ test and years of good grades sit in a dusty old school file somewhere. But I don't feel it. My brain often (but not always) does what I need it to do, but that doesn't feel particularly special or anything - most of what I need my brain to do is fairly mindless.
I wonder if anyone feels educated or smart? I wonder if people who are not educated or smart can feel it? I wonder if the smarter you are, the more your brain does what it needs to do, or if it somehow works differently?
I don't feel smart either. I've been told I am. (I've also been told I'm not.) The requisite IQ test and years of good grades sit in a dusty old school file somewhere. But I don't feel it. My brain often (but not always) does what I need it to do, but that doesn't feel particularly special or anything - most of what I need my brain to do is fairly mindless.
I wonder if anyone feels educated or smart? I wonder if people who are not educated or smart can feel it? I wonder if the smarter you are, the more your brain does what it needs to do, or if it somehow works differently?
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Sick
For me, the slang meaning of the word sick has always been "disgusting".
In current adolescent parlance, the meaning of the word sick is something along the lines of "awesome"
About 80% of the time, this is fine. I'm familiar with the new meaning, even though it isn't part of my active vocabulary, and you can usually tell by context.
The problem is those few times when you can't tell by context. This happens especially often on the internet, particularly when the word is being used by someone a bit younger than me, who would likely have both meanings in their active vocabulary. (I don't know whether or not Kids Today use sick to mean disgusting, but I doubt someone 3-5 years younger than me would be unfamiliar with the that meaning.) If someone says, without elaboration, in response to something like a dirty joke "OMG, that's SICK!" it could really go either way.
In current adolescent parlance, the meaning of the word sick is something along the lines of "awesome"
About 80% of the time, this is fine. I'm familiar with the new meaning, even though it isn't part of my active vocabulary, and you can usually tell by context.
The problem is those few times when you can't tell by context. This happens especially often on the internet, particularly when the word is being used by someone a bit younger than me, who would likely have both meanings in their active vocabulary. (I don't know whether or not Kids Today use sick to mean disgusting, but I doubt someone 3-5 years younger than me would be unfamiliar with the that meaning.) If someone says, without elaboration, in response to something like a dirty joke "OMG, that's SICK!" it could really go either way.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Things I wish I could say without sounding all judgeosaurus
The vast majority of human discourse occurred before I got here, so the vast majority of words and expressions have taken on certain connotations beyond their strict denotations, and I wasn't consulted on any of it.
This is a problem, because sometimes I want to say something perfectly harmless and innocuous, for completely benign reasons, but when I put together the simplest, most plain-language combination of words that denotes my intended message, it takes on connotations that I don't mean, because of what people did with the language generations before I came along.
For example:
"That's not funny" Sometimes something just...isn't funny. It simply doesn't have any humour value. Like a Marmaduke cartoon. Sometimes context compels me to say that I don't think something is funny. The problem is when you say "That's not funny," it implies that you were offended, that you think an intended joke crossed the line into cruel or sick or hateful. It's very difficult to simply say that something isn't funny without these further connotations. I encountered this dilemma today, when Scott Adams posted a Dilbert cartoon that he had decided not to run. A lot of the commenters found it funny. I didn't find it funny. But if I posted "That's not funny," people would think I found it offensive. My point wasn't that I found it offensive - I didn't think that far. My point was simply that there's insufficient humour, so it was a good decision to pull the cartoon. But I just can't work out how to say that in a forum full of strangers without implying that I found it offensive. Even if I said "I wasn't offended, but it's just not funny," it would sound like I was offended but I'm just saying I'm not so they don't dismiss my opinion as a prude.
"What was she wearing?" Sometimes, when a crime occurs, I want to know the circumstances. What was the victim wearing? Was it a crowded street or was there no one around? What kind of locks were on the door? I'd like to know these things so I can make better-informed decisions about my own safety. However, long before I entered into discourse, people used comments like this to blame the victim, and now they are inappropriate because the "blame the victim" connotation was too strong. But I don't want to blame the victim, I just want to use the clues available to assess the perp's mentality. For example, the more information I learned about Paul Bernardo, the more I was able to accurately judge that I was in fact at risk. He was specifically after my demographic, so I was able to use that information to be wary of strangers without worrying about being rude. (And, because it was so widely publicized, well-intentioned strangers would probably understand why I was being so standoffish.) Conversely, the more information I learned about the Toronto shootings in the past couple of years, the more certain I became that I'm at low risk of being shot, since I'm not involved in or near gang or drug activity. So if there's, say, a perverted groper man stalking the subway, I'd be interested in knowing what the victims were wearing. Not because I want to blame them, but because I want to make informed decisions about my own wardrobe and behaviour. If perverted groper man is going after women wearing skirts and heels, then I'm okay today. If he's going after women wearing trousers and boots, maybe I'll sit near the guard, or head for the subway at the same time as a more-intimidating co-worker, or ask mi cielito to go a bit out of his way and escort me home instead of saying "I'll be fine." But there's no way to ask for that information without sounding like you're making unpleasant insinuations.
I had a third example, but I can't seem to remember it now. I'll edit later if it comes to me.
This is a problem, because sometimes I want to say something perfectly harmless and innocuous, for completely benign reasons, but when I put together the simplest, most plain-language combination of words that denotes my intended message, it takes on connotations that I don't mean, because of what people did with the language generations before I came along.
For example:
"That's not funny" Sometimes something just...isn't funny. It simply doesn't have any humour value. Like a Marmaduke cartoon. Sometimes context compels me to say that I don't think something is funny. The problem is when you say "That's not funny," it implies that you were offended, that you think an intended joke crossed the line into cruel or sick or hateful. It's very difficult to simply say that something isn't funny without these further connotations. I encountered this dilemma today, when Scott Adams posted a Dilbert cartoon that he had decided not to run. A lot of the commenters found it funny. I didn't find it funny. But if I posted "That's not funny," people would think I found it offensive. My point wasn't that I found it offensive - I didn't think that far. My point was simply that there's insufficient humour, so it was a good decision to pull the cartoon. But I just can't work out how to say that in a forum full of strangers without implying that I found it offensive. Even if I said "I wasn't offended, but it's just not funny," it would sound like I was offended but I'm just saying I'm not so they don't dismiss my opinion as a prude.
"What was she wearing?" Sometimes, when a crime occurs, I want to know the circumstances. What was the victim wearing? Was it a crowded street or was there no one around? What kind of locks were on the door? I'd like to know these things so I can make better-informed decisions about my own safety. However, long before I entered into discourse, people used comments like this to blame the victim, and now they are inappropriate because the "blame the victim" connotation was too strong. But I don't want to blame the victim, I just want to use the clues available to assess the perp's mentality. For example, the more information I learned about Paul Bernardo, the more I was able to accurately judge that I was in fact at risk. He was specifically after my demographic, so I was able to use that information to be wary of strangers without worrying about being rude. (And, because it was so widely publicized, well-intentioned strangers would probably understand why I was being so standoffish.) Conversely, the more information I learned about the Toronto shootings in the past couple of years, the more certain I became that I'm at low risk of being shot, since I'm not involved in or near gang or drug activity. So if there's, say, a perverted groper man stalking the subway, I'd be interested in knowing what the victims were wearing. Not because I want to blame them, but because I want to make informed decisions about my own wardrobe and behaviour. If perverted groper man is going after women wearing skirts and heels, then I'm okay today. If he's going after women wearing trousers and boots, maybe I'll sit near the guard, or head for the subway at the same time as a more-intimidating co-worker, or ask mi cielito to go a bit out of his way and escort me home instead of saying "I'll be fine." But there's no way to ask for that information without sounding like you're making unpleasant insinuations.
I had a third example, but I can't seem to remember it now. I'll edit later if it comes to me.
Monday, November 20, 2006
How many times do I have to go over this?
Once again, they're talking about reinstating the draft as an anti-war measure, because lawmakers wouldn't want their children to be sent to war.
Okay people, pay close attention this time, because I'm getting tired of going over it again and again:
The problem with this plan is that it completely neglects the fact that the potential draftees are human beings in their own right. They aren't their parents' chattels that you can threaten to damage or destroy to coerce or threaten the parents, they are human beings in their own right, with their own lives to live, and with little or no influence over their parents' politics.
Do people really not understand this? How old do you have to be before you lose the ability to understand that people's kids are separate human beings with their own thoughts and feelings and human rights?
Okay people, pay close attention this time, because I'm getting tired of going over it again and again:
The problem with this plan is that it completely neglects the fact that the potential draftees are human beings in their own right. They aren't their parents' chattels that you can threaten to damage or destroy to coerce or threaten the parents, they are human beings in their own right, with their own lives to live, and with little or no influence over their parents' politics.
Do people really not understand this? How old do you have to be before you lose the ability to understand that people's kids are separate human beings with their own thoughts and feelings and human rights?
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Powerful software
I've become very wary of the adjective "powerful" when used to describe software. It seems the more the word "powerful" is used, the harder a time I have convincing the software to do something simple without extensive RTMFing. I can appreciate that some software is made to do far more complicated things than I'll ever need to do, but can't they make the very simplest functions a wee bit intuitive?
Excuse me, ma'am, but how exactly do you cover your greys?
Since before I even started going grey, I've wanted to somehow colour my grey hairs some random third colour, like bright crayon red, while not affecting the natural colour of the hair that hasn't gone grey yet. Today on the subway I saw a lady who had achieved that very effect. It was a crowded train and I was standing right above her, so I had a chance to inspect the top of her head with impunity. Most of her hair was naturally black and did not appear to have been coloured at all, but about a dozen individual hairs were this beautiful shade of copper. When I visually followed the path of the copper hairs up to the roots, I noticed that they suddenly became silver about half an inch from the scalp. Clearly some kind of artificial colour applied to the grey hairs only - exactly what I've always wanted!
I only wish there was some way to politely ask a stranger on the subway, "Excuse me, ma'am, but how exactly do you cover your greys?"
I only wish there was some way to politely ask a stranger on the subway, "Excuse me, ma'am, but how exactly do you cover your greys?"
Thursday, November 16, 2006
How For Better or For Worse could have been much improved
Last spring, For Better or For Worse had Elizabeth suddenly wanting to move back down south. I didn't like this and thought it was out of character. Then she coerced Paul into applying for a transfer south, AFTER he's already applied for a transfer to be near her in Mtigwaki, which really made the her character look flighty and unsympathetic. Then, once she arrived, she moved back in with her parents, which, again, didn't look good on the character.
So now she's been back in 905 for a few months, but things aren't going as planned. Her grandfather has had a stroke, she isn't teaching much because she's been subpoenaed as a witness for Howard's trial, she's living with her parents, and she's missing Paul.
But if the plot required her to be in 905 and/or living with her parents and/or away from Paul, either the subpoena or the stroke could have done that. She could have come for the subpoena and stayed for the stroke, and it wouldn't have reflected poorly on her character at all. She wouldn't have looked flighty and inconsiderate of Paul's feelings because she would have had no choice in responding to the subpoena. It wouldn't have seemed immature and uncharacteristic to have her staying with her parents, because she was south only for an indefinite temporary period of time. If their separation is intended to end her relationship with Paul, this could still have happened if she had come south because of a subpoena rather than because of a sudden whim. If Paul is intended to eventually come south, he could still do that - but of his own accord, not because he was coerced by Flighty!Liz. If Elizabeth is intended to eventually go back up north, she could do that once the trial is over and her grandfather's health is stabilized, instead of appearing flighty.
Just eliminate Elizabeth's sudden desire to move back south, and you could tell the exact same story, but with a more sympathetic character.
So now she's been back in 905 for a few months, but things aren't going as planned. Her grandfather has had a stroke, she isn't teaching much because she's been subpoenaed as a witness for Howard's trial, she's living with her parents, and she's missing Paul.
But if the plot required her to be in 905 and/or living with her parents and/or away from Paul, either the subpoena or the stroke could have done that. She could have come for the subpoena and stayed for the stroke, and it wouldn't have reflected poorly on her character at all. She wouldn't have looked flighty and inconsiderate of Paul's feelings because she would have had no choice in responding to the subpoena. It wouldn't have seemed immature and uncharacteristic to have her staying with her parents, because she was south only for an indefinite temporary period of time. If their separation is intended to end her relationship with Paul, this could still have happened if she had come south because of a subpoena rather than because of a sudden whim. If Paul is intended to eventually come south, he could still do that - but of his own accord, not because he was coerced by Flighty!Liz. If Elizabeth is intended to eventually go back up north, she could do that once the trial is over and her grandfather's health is stabilized, instead of appearing flighty.
Just eliminate Elizabeth's sudden desire to move back south, and you could tell the exact same story, but with a more sympathetic character.
Surreal moment of the day
I was sitting in the subway, just behind the front door of the front car, engrossed in my book as usual, when the train stopped in the middle of a tunnel. I fretted about being late for work for a microsecond, but my fascinating book pushed that thought aside. Then I noticed the door next to me was opening. "Oh, are we in a station? I thought we were in a tunnel!" I look up to see we are in a tunnel, and a group of men in hard hats and reflective vests is climbing into the train. One of them closes the doors using some tool, they thank the driver, and off we go.
I've never seen that before!
I've never seen that before!
Income splitting
What surprises me most about income splitting is that it occurs to people in the first place. True, I currently have a one-person household, but I've been thinking in terms of an eventual marriage for almost the entire 21st century, and it never once occurred to me that it's unfair to tax each income the usual way. In fact, if you asked me in a vacuum to name what's unfair in the way couples are taxed as compared with singles, I'd most likely come up with the idea that singles should get a tax break, since they have more living expenses per potential earner!
If I were married and earning enough money to support two people single-handedly, I would feel twice lucky. Just as I do now, I would be rejoicing every day that I have a bit more money than strictly necessary, and I would also be rejoicing every day that I get to be married to mi cielito. It would simply never occur to me to feel cheated or put out or discriminated against. And yet, every long-married couple I know thinks it's an egregious injustice that each earner is taxed at their own marginal tax rate.
I wonder how many years a couple has to be together before they stop rejoicing and start feeling cheated?
If I were married and earning enough money to support two people single-handedly, I would feel twice lucky. Just as I do now, I would be rejoicing every day that I have a bit more money than strictly necessary, and I would also be rejoicing every day that I get to be married to mi cielito. It would simply never occur to me to feel cheated or put out or discriminated against. And yet, every long-married couple I know thinks it's an egregious injustice that each earner is taxed at their own marginal tax rate.
I wonder how many years a couple has to be together before they stop rejoicing and start feeling cheated?
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
To keep in mind when talking about municipal voter turnout
On paper, using the numbers that everyone uses to calculate voter turnout, my own immediate family looks like it has 50% voter turnout. In reality, we have 100% voter turnout. That's because my sister and I have both moved out of our parents' house and now live in other municipalities, but still appear on their voter registration card. We have not yet figured out how to get us off their voter card.
On paper, we look like two responsible parent types, and two Kids Today who are too damn lazy and apathetic to bother to vote. In reality, we are four enfranchised adults who have fulfilled their civic duty after gaining the self-sufficiency to establish their own households.
The numbers don't tell the whole truth.
On paper, we look like two responsible parent types, and two Kids Today who are too damn lazy and apathetic to bother to vote. In reality, we are four enfranchised adults who have fulfilled their civic duty after gaining the self-sufficiency to establish their own households.
The numbers don't tell the whole truth.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
The Accidental by Ali Smith
The basic premise is quite intriguing. A girl shows up in a family's vacation house. Everyone assumes that she's there with another member of the family, so she just kind of hangs around and affects them all. I quite enjoyed that premise, but I didn't find the book itself too compelling. I didn't care that much about the main family, and if, at any point in my reading, you had taken the book away from me and told me that I could never find out what happened next, I wouldn't have cared.
Until like six pages before the very end of this book, I was irritated by two unresolved questions. Then one of them was suddenly and cleverly addressed. It wasn't answered or resolved, but it was addressed and in a way that made me go "Cool!" The other was left unresolved though, which bothered me.
What's interesting about this book is it's set just a couple of years ago - in 2003, I think. There are passing references to current events, which I recognize, but I don't know whether people will recognize them in 10 years. (For example, a description of the Abu Graib photos, mentioned in passing as being on a newspaper page without any explicit identifiers.) I guess it's a risk on the part of the author, but it will be interesting to see whether these things hold up.
Until like six pages before the very end of this book, I was irritated by two unresolved questions. Then one of them was suddenly and cleverly addressed. It wasn't answered or resolved, but it was addressed and in a way that made me go "Cool!" The other was left unresolved though, which bothered me.
What's interesting about this book is it's set just a couple of years ago - in 2003, I think. There are passing references to current events, which I recognize, but I don't know whether people will recognize them in 10 years. (For example, a description of the Abu Graib photos, mentioned in passing as being on a newspaper page without any explicit identifiers.) I guess it's a risk on the part of the author, but it will be interesting to see whether these things hold up.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Election results
The three races that I voted in have been called. The incumbent won for city councillor by a vast, vast margin, which surprises and perplexes me. One thing about the incumbent that always bothered me was his opposition to density and the trappings of density. That position simply doesn't make sense here in this neighbourhood, because it's a very dense neighbourhood - right in the geographical centre of Toronto. And that's why I chose it - because I enjoy the convenience and amenities that can only be the result of density. The high-rises have been here for 30 years, so you'd think that everyone who opposes density would have moved out by now, and all the residents would be, like me, specifically seeking density.
So then this challenger comes up who supports intelligent development and other trappings of density, as well as many other perfectly sensible positions. This is a breath of fresh air to me - I'm certainly not about giving corporations free reign, but if any neighbourhood is prime for further development it's this one. More housing = increased supply = slows down the rise of local housing costs, enabling everyone who lives here to continue living here. More commercial = more amenities for us. I was very glad to have a viable challenger, and was looking forward to a good race.
But the incumbent won by a longshot. Is that because that's the way people around here feel, or is that because the challenger had trouble getting the word out? I'd be very surprised if such a majority of the riding was so strongly opposed to density. As I mentioned above, the density has been here for decades, and we're all benefitting from it. Is this riding really full of assholes who are sitting there enjoying the fruits of density while trying to prevent anyone else from enjoying it? Or is it just that the challenger didn't get the word out? The challenger did have a website (there was another challenger who didn't have a website or answer any media requests, so he doesn't count), but I only got one flyer, and that was from the incumbent. The flyer was a very well-targeted outline of his position on tenant issues (the challenger had nothing about tenant issues on his website), so I could see how that might sway people in this tenant-heavy neighbourhood, but it also seems to me like the very people who would be swayed by that would support density. So maybe people just weren't getting the challenger's message because he didn't manage to actively reach us. I just hope it's because of poor targeting and the fact that many people don't actively seek out their candidates' positions so they take what information arrives on their doorstep. I'd hate to think that those hundreds of people whose apartment windows I can see out of my 14th storey window are sitting there saying "High-density? Nooooo, we don't want that! It would ruin the character of the neighbourhood!"
Aside: Hazel McCallion has been mayor for 28 years, and has just been elected for another 3 or 4 years. Thirty-plus years. That's an entire career. She's has one job for an entire career. I don't think that happenes to anyone anymore. It does make me wonder how in touch with reality she can be. She's held the same elected office for an entire career's-worth of time. How could she possibly identify with someone who has been or lives in fear of being downsized?
So then this challenger comes up who supports intelligent development and other trappings of density, as well as many other perfectly sensible positions. This is a breath of fresh air to me - I'm certainly not about giving corporations free reign, but if any neighbourhood is prime for further development it's this one. More housing = increased supply = slows down the rise of local housing costs, enabling everyone who lives here to continue living here. More commercial = more amenities for us. I was very glad to have a viable challenger, and was looking forward to a good race.
But the incumbent won by a longshot. Is that because that's the way people around here feel, or is that because the challenger had trouble getting the word out? I'd be very surprised if such a majority of the riding was so strongly opposed to density. As I mentioned above, the density has been here for decades, and we're all benefitting from it. Is this riding really full of assholes who are sitting there enjoying the fruits of density while trying to prevent anyone else from enjoying it? Or is it just that the challenger didn't get the word out? The challenger did have a website (there was another challenger who didn't have a website or answer any media requests, so he doesn't count), but I only got one flyer, and that was from the incumbent. The flyer was a very well-targeted outline of his position on tenant issues (the challenger had nothing about tenant issues on his website), so I could see how that might sway people in this tenant-heavy neighbourhood, but it also seems to me like the very people who would be swayed by that would support density. So maybe people just weren't getting the challenger's message because he didn't manage to actively reach us. I just hope it's because of poor targeting and the fact that many people don't actively seek out their candidates' positions so they take what information arrives on their doorstep. I'd hate to think that those hundreds of people whose apartment windows I can see out of my 14th storey window are sitting there saying "High-density? Nooooo, we don't want that! It would ruin the character of the neighbourhood!"
Aside: Hazel McCallion has been mayor for 28 years, and has just been elected for another 3 or 4 years. Thirty-plus years. That's an entire career. She's has one job for an entire career. I don't think that happenes to anyone anymore. It does make me wonder how in touch with reality she can be. She's held the same elected office for an entire career's-worth of time. How could she possibly identify with someone who has been or lives in fear of being downsized?
Weird Salon letters
1. First, someone wrote to Cary Tennis saying that her friend's boyfriend didn't want her to go on the bus in going-out clothes. What I found weird about the letters is how many people seem to think that buses are So Very Very Dangerous. That's simply not my experience. I mean, I'm not going to count my money or change my shirt on a bus, but I feel quite safe. There are always multiple groups of people around, there's the driver, you're on camera at all times, it's well-lit - it's simply no more of a problem than any other element of public life. The only potential area of concern is waiting for the bus, which I did find sometimes iffy in my pre-Toronto life. But these people are talking about being on a bus, and that's not nearly as much of a problem as the commenters make it out to be.
2. Then there's this guy who wants permission to hit on women who already have boyfriends. What I find odd about the letters is that there are so many more men commenting on what women do/don't want than women commenting on what they'd want in that situation. There were even a couple of men who commented that all women are up for grabs until they're married, despite the fact that I and a couple of other women had previously posted that we specifically do NOT want to be pursued when we're in a relationship. Frankly, I take offence. It's pretty damn cocky for random third-party to presume to overrule my declarative statement about my personal standards! Ladies, if you ever meet one of these guys in real life, please go Lysistrata on his ass!
2. Then there's this guy who wants permission to hit on women who already have boyfriends. What I find odd about the letters is that there are so many more men commenting on what women do/don't want than women commenting on what they'd want in that situation. There were even a couple of men who commented that all women are up for grabs until they're married, despite the fact that I and a couple of other women had previously posted that we specifically do NOT want to be pursued when we're in a relationship. Frankly, I take offence. It's pretty damn cocky for random third-party to presume to overrule my declarative statement about my personal standards! Ladies, if you ever meet one of these guys in real life, please go Lysistrata on his ass!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)