You know those things in the grocery store that are like big metal baskets and have wheels and you push them around and put all your groceries in them?
I call it a buggy.
I think I'm the only person in the world who does that. Everyone else calls it a cart.
I have no idea why I call it a buggy.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Now this is just weird
My superintendents gave me (and all the other tenants, I assume) the most religious xmas card ever.
This is especially weird because they're brand new superindentents. They've been here literally 2 weeks. I've talked to Mrs. Super once, when she knocked on my door to let the guys who were replacing the toilet into the apartment. Our conversation was as follows: "The plumbers are here." "Okay, thanks." We would never even recognize each other walking down the street.
A card from someone with whom I have no relationship whatsoever is a bit odd. A religious card from someone who has no idea what religion I am or am not is rather odd. Put them together, and frankly it's bordering on presumptuous.
This is especially weird because they're brand new superindentents. They've been here literally 2 weeks. I've talked to Mrs. Super once, when she knocked on my door to let the guys who were replacing the toilet into the apartment. Our conversation was as follows: "The plumbers are here." "Okay, thanks." We would never even recognize each other walking down the street.
A card from someone with whom I have no relationship whatsoever is a bit odd. A religious card from someone who has no idea what religion I am or am not is rather odd. Put them together, and frankly it's bordering on presumptuous.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Just one question
For those people who get offended when customer service people and randoms don't greet them with "Merry Christmas":
How are people supposed to be able to tell that you, personally, celebrate xmas?
How are people supposed to be able to tell that you, personally, celebrate xmas?
Silly job interview advice
Job interview advice always says to do research on the prospective employer, but it never says what kind of information they want me to research, or what they want me to do with that research. The example given is always taking something you'd see in the business section of the newspaper and making some kind of question or comment about how that relates to the position you'd be interviewing for, but I've never had a job or interviewed for a job where that advice was relevant. I'd be happy to do any necessary research in preparation for the interview, but I haven't the slightest idea what kind of research they want me to do, and I'm not able to extrapolate from the general advice usually given to figure out what's expected for any specific position I might interview for.
It's like that often-given advice about putting specific achievements on your resume. The example they always give is something like "Increased sales by 30%." I've never had a job where my achievements were so specifically quantifiable, and I've always worked as part of a team, so even if there were specific achievements I can't take credit for them. When I do a good job, it's something like "I did everything I was asked to do in the time I was asked to do it in, and the client was satisfied with my work." (And that's the other thing about translation - generally the best that non-translators can say of a translation is that it is satisfactory. It's fine and there are no problems with it. Non-translators rarely notice the difference between a perfectly serviceable translation and a jaw-droppingly ingenious one. They notice problems, but clever word choices and avoidance of common stylistic traps are simply glossed over - that's the mark of a good translation.)
It's like that often-given advice about putting specific achievements on your resume. The example they always give is something like "Increased sales by 30%." I've never had a job where my achievements were so specifically quantifiable, and I've always worked as part of a team, so even if there were specific achievements I can't take credit for them. When I do a good job, it's something like "I did everything I was asked to do in the time I was asked to do it in, and the client was satisfied with my work." (And that's the other thing about translation - generally the best that non-translators can say of a translation is that it is satisfactory. It's fine and there are no problems with it. Non-translators rarely notice the difference between a perfectly serviceable translation and a jaw-droppingly ingenious one. They notice problems, but clever word choices and avoidance of common stylistic traps are simply glossed over - that's the mark of a good translation.)
Another reason to take xmas out of public space
I think xmas would be far better if it weren't public. This thought is triggered by this article, which points out that media/pulp culture tends to present The Magic of Christmas Solving Everyone's Problems.
With media/culture/marketing/commercial xmas saturation tends to present xmas as this Big Important Thing with huge cultural significance. Which maybe it is, a lot of people celebrate it. But just imagine for a moment what it would be like if the majority of society didn't celebrate xmas at all, and it was just some obscure little tradition in your religion and/or your family.
Wouldn't that be cool? Once a year, in the depths of winter, your little sect gets together at midnight to celebrate the birth of its messiah. Once a year, on the basis of some archaic tradition from the Old Country, your family gets together under one roof for food and catching up, and maybe to exchange presents. You decorate your home with lights and plants and all kinds of bizarre things like that, and sing special songs. But it's just your thing, an esoteric little quirk peculiar to your family or your religion. Only the people who share your cultural background have lights in their windows and trees in their living rooms and carols on their CD player. Everyone else is going about life normally. Wouldn't that be awesome?
As I blogged before, I reached xmas saturation last week. And that was before anything meaningful had even happened! I'm not religious myself, but it's still a sort of family tradition. I get to see all my cousins (who become increasingly fascinating by the year), I get to eat special food that people simply don't make at other times in the year - if this were happening in a vacuum, it would be charming and enjoyable. But I've been bombarded by decorations and carols and greeting cards from people I do business with for a month already, so once I see my parents' decorations and carols and receive my grandmothers' greeting cards, I'm just meh. The meaningless public fracas saturates me before the meaningful private celebration can even begin. If there were no xmas in public space, I would be giddily rejoicing in my parents' lights and carols, maybe even decorating my own home. But as it stands, all the lights and carols in public just leave me wanting a respite.
With media/culture/marketing/commercial xmas saturation tends to present xmas as this Big Important Thing with huge cultural significance. Which maybe it is, a lot of people celebrate it. But just imagine for a moment what it would be like if the majority of society didn't celebrate xmas at all, and it was just some obscure little tradition in your religion and/or your family.
Wouldn't that be cool? Once a year, in the depths of winter, your little sect gets together at midnight to celebrate the birth of its messiah. Once a year, on the basis of some archaic tradition from the Old Country, your family gets together under one roof for food and catching up, and maybe to exchange presents. You decorate your home with lights and plants and all kinds of bizarre things like that, and sing special songs. But it's just your thing, an esoteric little quirk peculiar to your family or your religion. Only the people who share your cultural background have lights in their windows and trees in their living rooms and carols on their CD player. Everyone else is going about life normally. Wouldn't that be awesome?
As I blogged before, I reached xmas saturation last week. And that was before anything meaningful had even happened! I'm not religious myself, but it's still a sort of family tradition. I get to see all my cousins (who become increasingly fascinating by the year), I get to eat special food that people simply don't make at other times in the year - if this were happening in a vacuum, it would be charming and enjoyable. But I've been bombarded by decorations and carols and greeting cards from people I do business with for a month already, so once I see my parents' decorations and carols and receive my grandmothers' greeting cards, I'm just meh. The meaningless public fracas saturates me before the meaningful private celebration can even begin. If there were no xmas in public space, I would be giddily rejoicing in my parents' lights and carols, maybe even decorating my own home. But as it stands, all the lights and carols in public just leave me wanting a respite.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Silly serving sizes
I just noticed that a brick of cheese in my fridge describes the serving size as "per 1.5 cm slice."
But the cheese is a rectangular prism! The faces come in three different sizes, so a 1.5 cm slice could be any one of these three different sizes! I doubt it's the largest one, but I honestly don't know which size they mean.
But the cheese is a rectangular prism! The faces come in three different sizes, so a 1.5 cm slice could be any one of these three different sizes! I doubt it's the largest one, but I honestly don't know which size they mean.
An observation
I make a lot of humorous comments in everyday speech, probably more than most people. By "humorous comments", I don't necessarily mean things that are laugh-out-loud funny or require any kind of amused reaction, just comments that have some element of humour or wit in them.
If I take all my interlocutors and organize them by gender and sexual orientation, gay men are most likely to laugh at my humour, followed closely by straight women. Straight men are least likely to laugh at my humour, although more likely than the other groups to repeat it elsewhere (to my knowledge at least - I have no way of knowing what is getting repeated behind my back). (The number of lesbians I interact with on a regular basis is negligible, so I can't really comment on them.)
Of course, this is strictly anecdotal and I don't presume to draw any conclusions.
If I take all my interlocutors and organize them by gender and sexual orientation, gay men are most likely to laugh at my humour, followed closely by straight women. Straight men are least likely to laugh at my humour, although more likely than the other groups to repeat it elsewhere (to my knowledge at least - I have no way of knowing what is getting repeated behind my back). (The number of lesbians I interact with on a regular basis is negligible, so I can't really comment on them.)
Of course, this is strictly anecdotal and I don't presume to draw any conclusions.
How to ensure that politicans raise salaries for the greater good only
When politicians vote themselves a salary increase, there should be a sort of backwards grandfather clause: the salary increase will apply to anyone elected to that position in the future, but will not apply to any of the current members involved in voting in the increase. That way, they have nothing to gain from it either way.
The problem with academic projects
Thoughts from the shower: One thing I've always hated in school is when we had to think of our own projects. If the teacher told me to write an essay or do a presentation on a specific topic, I was fine. If they told me to pick something from a limited list of specific topics, I was fine. The problem was when they told me to do just anything, or something from an extremely broad category. "Do an ISU on some element of French or Francophone culture." "Write a computer program." "Document a technology." Except in the rare cases when I was especially interested in something, I found it brutal to pick a topic. It was even worse when the choice of topic was ridiculously broad, but the project requirements were ridiculously specific. "Pick a subject, any subject. Now make a bibliography on that subject. You have to include X encyclopedia articles, Y articles from academic journals, Z articles from the media, and N monographs." "Pick a topic, any topic. Now read three fictional novels on that topic, write a comparative essay, and do a class presentation." I could never tell whether my topic was suitable to meet all those specific project requirements, and half the time the teacher didn't even give the specific project requirements until we'd picked the topic. Assuming the assignment reasonably reflects the course material, I can do a good assignment on any appropriate topic. But I just suck at thinking of appropriate topics!
That just doesn't reflect reality. In every job I've ever had, I was given specific duties. My clients say "Translate this text," not "Find something to translate and then try to sell it to me. Oh, and by the way, the end result needs to be a 12,000 word annual report." When I did tech support, it was "Solve my problem," or "Pick a problem from the queue and solve it," not "Think of any problem in the world, then solve it and implement the solution for all affected users. Oh, and by the way, it needs to affect at least 50 users and not require any hardware upgrades."
I think this is the main reason why I'm hesitant to do my MA. I've been looking at course outlines, and there seems to be a lot of "Pick something and do a big-ass project on it" type work. Want me to research something? Tell me what it is! Want me to translate something? Tell me what it is! I'm not always actively interested in any topics that are relevant to the course, so sometimes I just can't think of anything to do an assignment on, but I can do good work on any suitable topic that you care to assign, even if I'm not interested in it. That should be an asset, not a liability - especially for a translator!
That just doesn't reflect reality. In every job I've ever had, I was given specific duties. My clients say "Translate this text," not "Find something to translate and then try to sell it to me. Oh, and by the way, the end result needs to be a 12,000 word annual report." When I did tech support, it was "Solve my problem," or "Pick a problem from the queue and solve it," not "Think of any problem in the world, then solve it and implement the solution for all affected users. Oh, and by the way, it needs to affect at least 50 users and not require any hardware upgrades."
I think this is the main reason why I'm hesitant to do my MA. I've been looking at course outlines, and there seems to be a lot of "Pick something and do a big-ass project on it" type work. Want me to research something? Tell me what it is! Want me to translate something? Tell me what it is! I'm not always actively interested in any topics that are relevant to the course, so sometimes I just can't think of anything to do an assignment on, but I can do good work on any suitable topic that you care to assign, even if I'm not interested in it. That should be an asset, not a liability - especially for a translator!
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Elected representatives' salaries: factors to consider
Ontario MPPs recently voted themselves a raise. Some factions think this is important so that they can continue to attract quality people. Others think it's reprehensible since they already make far more money than the average Ontarian.
I don't feel particularly qualified to comment on the appropriateness or lack thereof of this raise, but I have noticed that a few factors are missing from public debate on this issue, so I'm just going to list those factors here and allow people to do what they want with them:
- Running for office represents a gap in your regular career. Most employers require that employees take an unpaid leave of absence to run for political office, and they probably have to resign from their normal job if they win. There are ethical rules that prevent politicians from networking effectively for personal gain while in office. They can't do a bit of part-time work on the side. They have to put their business in a blind trust. While you can apply for several normal jobs concurrently and there's very little wrong with rejecting a job offer, if you're elected to public office you have to accept; this means that it's very difficult, if not impossible, for a politician to apply for other jobs as a backup while running for re-election. Conflict of interest rules probably also limit what kinds of work a politician can accept for a period of time after they have been defeated for re-election.
- Politicians (and their families) have to live in the public eye. I don't know about you, but if the make of my shoes, the quality of my dye job, the size of my gut, the stylishness of my glasses, and the way in which I greet my loved ones in public were all subject to media scrutiny, I would expect to be compensated accordingly. If I had children who would be also be subject to this scrutiny, I would expect to be paid even more.
- Elected officials don't work only when Parliament/legislature/whatever is sitting. They also sit on committees, do constituency work, deal with the media and have to attend all manner of public events. Which brings me to...
- Politicians can't just refuse an invitation. If I am invited to a civic event, I can just say no.
Friend: "Hey, want to go to Pride?"
Me: "Nah, it's too hot out and I'm not that into parades."
See, no problem.
But if a politician declines to go to Pride, it's seen as an anti-gay gesture. Multiply that by every event at all ever, all of which they can possibly decline for a prior commitment, but not just to stay at home with a good book and a glass of wine.
So do they already get paid in a way that reflects all these things? Maybe, maybe not. I couldn't tell you. I just want people to take these things into account when calculating how much politicians should get paid.
I don't feel particularly qualified to comment on the appropriateness or lack thereof of this raise, but I have noticed that a few factors are missing from public debate on this issue, so I'm just going to list those factors here and allow people to do what they want with them:
- Running for office represents a gap in your regular career. Most employers require that employees take an unpaid leave of absence to run for political office, and they probably have to resign from their normal job if they win. There are ethical rules that prevent politicians from networking effectively for personal gain while in office. They can't do a bit of part-time work on the side. They have to put their business in a blind trust. While you can apply for several normal jobs concurrently and there's very little wrong with rejecting a job offer, if you're elected to public office you have to accept; this means that it's very difficult, if not impossible, for a politician to apply for other jobs as a backup while running for re-election. Conflict of interest rules probably also limit what kinds of work a politician can accept for a period of time after they have been defeated for re-election.
- Politicians (and their families) have to live in the public eye. I don't know about you, but if the make of my shoes, the quality of my dye job, the size of my gut, the stylishness of my glasses, and the way in which I greet my loved ones in public were all subject to media scrutiny, I would expect to be compensated accordingly. If I had children who would be also be subject to this scrutiny, I would expect to be paid even more.
- Elected officials don't work only when Parliament/legislature/whatever is sitting. They also sit on committees, do constituency work, deal with the media and have to attend all manner of public events. Which brings me to...
- Politicians can't just refuse an invitation. If I am invited to a civic event, I can just say no.
Friend: "Hey, want to go to Pride?"
Me: "Nah, it's too hot out and I'm not that into parades."
See, no problem.
But if a politician declines to go to Pride, it's seen as an anti-gay gesture. Multiply that by every event at all ever, all of which they can possibly decline for a prior commitment, but not just to stay at home with a good book and a glass of wine.
So do they already get paid in a way that reflects all these things? Maybe, maybe not. I couldn't tell you. I just want people to take these things into account when calculating how much politicians should get paid.
Dirty old people
The bad: on the subway today, this extremely frail old man sat next to me. By my best assessment, he was 100 years old and Chinese. He sat way too close to me. It was odd, because he appeared to be properly centred in his seat, but he was WAY closer to me than necessary. I'm a bit above average size-wise, as women go, but well within the range of normal for the general population. And this guy was tiny. I've sat next to thousands of people on the subway, and I assure you there was no excuse for him to be that close to me! Then the train pulled into a stop, and he stood up early so that he could "accidentally" fall into my lap as the train slowed down. I've lost my balance the subway dozens of times, and this was definitely on purpose - even the lady across from me could tell. I had to change clothes when I got home, because my clothes were psychologically tainted. What's odd is this is the second time a 100-year-old Chinese man has invaded my personal space on the subway while acting completely innocent about it.
The not-bad: my upstairs neighbour has a wobbly bed. Today I saw my upstairs neighbour in the mailroom. She's well over 80 years old! I want to be her when I grow up!
The not-bad: my upstairs neighbour has a wobbly bed. Today I saw my upstairs neighbour in the mailroom. She's well over 80 years old! I want to be her when I grow up!
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
An observation
Suppose I'm sitting somewhere where there's music and dancing. (I know, I don't belong in that kind of place and I don't know how to dance anyway, but bear with me for plot purposes.)
Guy 1: Would you like to dance?
Me: No thanks, I'm taken.
***pause***
Society as a whole: that has nothing to do with it! Dancing is a simple, innocent social activity and in no way implies the promise of anything romantic or sexual! You're free to dance with anyone regardless of your relationship status.
Me: But I don't want to dance with random strangers! I'm not comfortable with that degree of physical contact or implied intimacy with any strange man who happens to walk up to me.
Society as a whole: PRUDE! Dancing with a lot of different people is a standard part of social interaction at places where there is dancing! If you're not comfortable with that, you should go home!
Me: I will in a minute, just let me finish this skit and make my point.
***play***
Guy 2: Hi, would you like to dance?
Me: No thanks, but Guy 1 here is looking for someone to dance with.
Guys 1 & 2: OMG, no, we're not gay!
Me: that has nothing to do with it! Dancing is a simple, innocent social activity and in no way implies the promise of anything romantic or sexual! You're free to dance with anyone regardless of your relationship status.
***pause***
Society as a whole: You know full well that isn't the point! Stop being so disingenuous!
***stop***
It's true. According to general etiquette (Miss Manners), if you're in a dancing-type place you should be willing to dance with just about anyone, just to be polite and sociable. Miss Manners is very emphatic that it's not to be considered romantic or sexual at all. But just try taking one of those people who insists that it's not romantic or sexual, and pairing them up with a partner of their non-target gender!
Guy 1: Would you like to dance?
Me: No thanks, I'm taken.
***pause***
Society as a whole: that has nothing to do with it! Dancing is a simple, innocent social activity and in no way implies the promise of anything romantic or sexual! You're free to dance with anyone regardless of your relationship status.
Me: But I don't want to dance with random strangers! I'm not comfortable with that degree of physical contact or implied intimacy with any strange man who happens to walk up to me.
Society as a whole: PRUDE! Dancing with a lot of different people is a standard part of social interaction at places where there is dancing! If you're not comfortable with that, you should go home!
Me: I will in a minute, just let me finish this skit and make my point.
***play***
Guy 2: Hi, would you like to dance?
Me: No thanks, but Guy 1 here is looking for someone to dance with.
Guys 1 & 2: OMG, no, we're not gay!
Me: that has nothing to do with it! Dancing is a simple, innocent social activity and in no way implies the promise of anything romantic or sexual! You're free to dance with anyone regardless of your relationship status.
***pause***
Society as a whole: You know full well that isn't the point! Stop being so disingenuous!
***stop***
It's true. According to general etiquette (Miss Manners), if you're in a dancing-type place you should be willing to dance with just about anyone, just to be polite and sociable. Miss Manners is very emphatic that it's not to be considered romantic or sexual at all. But just try taking one of those people who insists that it's not romantic or sexual, and pairing them up with a partner of their non-target gender!
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
PMS
WAAAH! I hate all my clothes!
WAAAH! After years of lobbying for women's pants with pockets, I can't find any without pockets!
WAAAH! My old size 13 pants from Smart Set are too big!
WAAAH! Current size 13 pants in-store at Smart Set are too small!
WAAAH! There's no single item of clothing available that, once purchased, will solve all my problems in the world forever!
WAAAH! And when I do buy clothes, they cost money!
WAAAH! The magical stain remover only removed about 1/3 of the impossible-to-remove stains!
WAAAH! And there's lint on my black shirt!
WAAAH! And there's lint on my lint brush!
WAAAH! And my clothes are wrinkled!
WAAAH! But I don't want to iron!
WAAAH! And my body hair is growing too fast and too dark!
WAAAH! And my head hear is growing too slow and too light!
WAAAH! And I can't find any white chocolate!
WAAAH! And the white chocolate I did find smells too chocolatey!
WAAAH! My work is boring!
WAAAH! My clients keep interrupting my boring work to send hard work!
WAAAH! I want some time off!
WAAAH! But I don't want to use up my vacation days on something so frivolous as time off!
WAAAH! I don't want my statutory holidays to occur during xmas season!
WAAAH! But I want everything to smell like pine trees in the middle of winter!
WAAAH! I'm tired!
WAAAH! I don't want to go to bed!
WAAAH! But I want to sleep forever!
WAAAH! After years of lobbying for women's pants with pockets, I can't find any without pockets!
WAAAH! My old size 13 pants from Smart Set are too big!
WAAAH! Current size 13 pants in-store at Smart Set are too small!
WAAAH! There's no single item of clothing available that, once purchased, will solve all my problems in the world forever!
WAAAH! And when I do buy clothes, they cost money!
WAAAH! The magical stain remover only removed about 1/3 of the impossible-to-remove stains!
WAAAH! And there's lint on my black shirt!
WAAAH! And there's lint on my lint brush!
WAAAH! And my clothes are wrinkled!
WAAAH! But I don't want to iron!
WAAAH! And my body hair is growing too fast and too dark!
WAAAH! And my head hear is growing too slow and too light!
WAAAH! And I can't find any white chocolate!
WAAAH! And the white chocolate I did find smells too chocolatey!
WAAAH! My work is boring!
WAAAH! My clients keep interrupting my boring work to send hard work!
WAAAH! I want some time off!
WAAAH! But I don't want to use up my vacation days on something so frivolous as time off!
WAAAH! I don't want my statutory holidays to occur during xmas season!
WAAAH! But I want everything to smell like pine trees in the middle of winter!
WAAAH! I'm tired!
WAAAH! I don't want to go to bed!
WAAAH! But I want to sleep forever!
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Someone explain science to me?
I have some wet clothes hanging to dry. They appear to be drying from the top down - i.e. currently the top part is dry, but the bottom is still damp. This would imply that the water is dripping out of them, which would makes sense because water tends to do that.
BUT BUT BUT...
They stopped dripping a long time ago! When they stopped dripping, they were still uniformly damp (as far as I could perceive by sight and touch). Since they aren't dripping, that would imply that the water should be evaporating uniformly. But it's evaporating from the top down! Why is this happening when they aren't dripping???
BUT BUT BUT...
They stopped dripping a long time ago! When they stopped dripping, they were still uniformly damp (as far as I could perceive by sight and touch). Since they aren't dripping, that would imply that the water should be evaporating uniformly. But it's evaporating from the top down! Why is this happening when they aren't dripping???
Things They Should Invent: self-declared two-tier citizenship
With all the silly fuss about Stéphane Dion's inherited dual citizenship, it occurs to me that it would be helpful to have the option of two-tier citizenship.
Don't worry, I don't mean that the government declares some citizens to be more equal than others.
I mean that individuals who possess dual (or triple - is that possible? If two people with different hereditary citizenships have a baby in a third country?) citizenship can optionally declare one of their citizenships to be their primary citizenship. Perhaps there could be minor consequences (can't vote in your country of secondary citizenship? must travel on your primary passport?) but the general idea is to symbolically favour one country without the symbolic slight of renouncing your other citizenship.
Why not just renounce your secondary citizenship? Apart from the fact that some countries don't allow you to renounce citizenship, renunciation tends to imply that you seriously disapprove of the other country. Remember all the fuss when Conrad Black renounced his Canadian citizenship so that he could be given a British peerage? And then when he was apparently considering taking up Canadian citizenship again, people were all offended because he's already renounced us? Not everyone wants to give their other country such a slap in the face. (Aside: wouldn't it be ironic if Stéphane Dion renounced his French citizenship, then became PM, then it leaked into France that the PM of Canada had renounced his French citizenship, and it caused an international incident because they got all offended?)
I somewhat identify with dual citizenship dilemmas because I'm second-and-a-half generation; if circumstances had been different, I could have inherited a second citizenship myself - my mother's country of birth just happened to assign citizenship differently at the time that her family left. I've never even been to my mother's country of birth. I was born in Canada, I've lived in Canada all my life, English is my first language and French is my second. I can stumble through a few words of my mother's mother tongue, but that's only because I'm the family language geek. I am Canadian - there is simply nothing else for me to be. I experience my second culture as an academic elective and a few family quirks.
If I had inherited citizenship from my mother's country of birth, I might feel the need to make it clear that my Canadian citizenship is predominant. To the casual observer this is obvious, but some people read quite a lot into dual citizenship, and some countries like to exert a stronger claim on their citizens. I might feel the need to explicitly state: "Canada, you're #1. Old Country, you're #2." But at the same time, I don't have anything against the Old Country. It's just that they're not my country. If I found myself renouncing an Old Country citizenship, it wouldn't be anything against that country, it would just be the only mechanism I have to assert the fact that Canada is #1. But the Old Country might consider that something of a slight. "What on earth does she have against us?" And I wouldn't have anything against them, it's just that I am Canadian.
So I propose that dual citizens be able to declare one of their citizenships to be primary. This wouldn't be mandatory - you could walk around with two equal citizenships if that better reflects your needs - but it would give people who fell into dual citizenship through no fault of their own the option of asserting their "loyalty" (I still don't know exactly what's intended by that word) without deliberately dissing the other country. Then we can save renunciation of citizenship for when you actively disapprove of the other country, rather than reducing such a drastic negative measure to a necessity of administrative convenience.
Don't worry, I don't mean that the government declares some citizens to be more equal than others.
I mean that individuals who possess dual (or triple - is that possible? If two people with different hereditary citizenships have a baby in a third country?) citizenship can optionally declare one of their citizenships to be their primary citizenship. Perhaps there could be minor consequences (can't vote in your country of secondary citizenship? must travel on your primary passport?) but the general idea is to symbolically favour one country without the symbolic slight of renouncing your other citizenship.
Why not just renounce your secondary citizenship? Apart from the fact that some countries don't allow you to renounce citizenship, renunciation tends to imply that you seriously disapprove of the other country. Remember all the fuss when Conrad Black renounced his Canadian citizenship so that he could be given a British peerage? And then when he was apparently considering taking up Canadian citizenship again, people were all offended because he's already renounced us? Not everyone wants to give their other country such a slap in the face. (Aside: wouldn't it be ironic if Stéphane Dion renounced his French citizenship, then became PM, then it leaked into France that the PM of Canada had renounced his French citizenship, and it caused an international incident because they got all offended?)
I somewhat identify with dual citizenship dilemmas because I'm second-and-a-half generation; if circumstances had been different, I could have inherited a second citizenship myself - my mother's country of birth just happened to assign citizenship differently at the time that her family left. I've never even been to my mother's country of birth. I was born in Canada, I've lived in Canada all my life, English is my first language and French is my second. I can stumble through a few words of my mother's mother tongue, but that's only because I'm the family language geek. I am Canadian - there is simply nothing else for me to be. I experience my second culture as an academic elective and a few family quirks.
If I had inherited citizenship from my mother's country of birth, I might feel the need to make it clear that my Canadian citizenship is predominant. To the casual observer this is obvious, but some people read quite a lot into dual citizenship, and some countries like to exert a stronger claim on their citizens. I might feel the need to explicitly state: "Canada, you're #1. Old Country, you're #2." But at the same time, I don't have anything against the Old Country. It's just that they're not my country. If I found myself renouncing an Old Country citizenship, it wouldn't be anything against that country, it would just be the only mechanism I have to assert the fact that Canada is #1. But the Old Country might consider that something of a slight. "What on earth does she have against us?" And I wouldn't have anything against them, it's just that I am Canadian.
So I propose that dual citizens be able to declare one of their citizenships to be primary. This wouldn't be mandatory - you could walk around with two equal citizenships if that better reflects your needs - but it would give people who fell into dual citizenship through no fault of their own the option of asserting their "loyalty" (I still don't know exactly what's intended by that word) without deliberately dissing the other country. Then we can save renunciation of citizenship for when you actively disapprove of the other country, rather than reducing such a drastic negative measure to a necessity of administrative convenience.
Officially sick of xmas
Note: I have officially become sick of xmas for the year. I would like the stores to go back to normal so I can shop for clothes for myself (and maybe glasses frames) under normal shopping conditions. I would like the statutory holidays to be meaningless to my family rather than the traditional "get the family all together under one roof" day, so I can enjoy actual time off rather than simply exchanging professional obligations for family obligations. I'm officially sick of hearing carols whenever I go to buy laundry detergent or pasta sauce. And I want my white chocolate back! It seems to have been completely displaced on store shelves by xmas chocolate! Can we please go back to real life now?
Wherein the United States of America makes a simple task much harder than it needs to be
One of the stores I was shopping at today accidentally gave me a Cuban coin ("cinco centavos") in my change instead of a dime, so I decided to see how much it's worth.
First I googled 5 Cuban centavos in Canadian dollars, but Google didn't convert like it usually does.
So I thought that maybe Google only knows the basic units, not the centavos. So I googled Cuban currency to find out what it's called. It's called the Peso. That part was fine.
Then I googled 0.05 Cuban pesos in Canadian dollars. But again, Google didn't convert!
So I googled currency converter, and got xe.com, which I used to use before Google started converting automatically. But I couldn't find Cuban pesos!
So then I googled Cuban peso conversion and got Yahoo Finance, which does have Cuban pesos.
Turns out my little coin is worth $0.06 Canadian. So I was inadvertently cheated 4 cents, but I did get a new coin I've never seen out of the deal. But it shouldn't have taken that many steps for me to find out what it's worth! I should have been able to find out in my first Google! Unless someone has a better explanation, I'm going to blame the US embargo on Cuba in combination with American domination of the internet.
First I googled 5 Cuban centavos in Canadian dollars, but Google didn't convert like it usually does.
So I thought that maybe Google only knows the basic units, not the centavos. So I googled Cuban currency to find out what it's called. It's called the Peso. That part was fine.
Then I googled 0.05 Cuban pesos in Canadian dollars. But again, Google didn't convert!
So I googled currency converter, and got xe.com, which I used to use before Google started converting automatically. But I couldn't find Cuban pesos!
So then I googled Cuban peso conversion and got Yahoo Finance, which does have Cuban pesos.
Turns out my little coin is worth $0.06 Canadian. So I was inadvertently cheated 4 cents, but I did get a new coin I've never seen out of the deal. But it shouldn't have taken that many steps for me to find out what it's worth! I should have been able to find out in my first Google! Unless someone has a better explanation, I'm going to blame the US embargo on Cuba in combination with American domination of the internet.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Invisibility, or politeness?
A Toronto Star reporter wears the same outfit for a month to see if anyone notices. Then she feels invisible because no one noticed.
Maybe they were just too polite to say anything?
I once had a prof who wore the same thing every time we saw her (we saw her twice a week.) It was occasionally mentioned behind her back ("You have Prof. X? Is she still wearing that purple thing?") but no one was so crude as to mention it to her face. In middle school or high school I'd expect someone to say something, but in adult life if I wore the same outfit two days in a row (which I'd only do with a laundry cycle in between) and someone commented, I'd just find that rather...not becoming a grownup. If I saw one of my co-workers wearing the same thing several days in a row, I wouldn't dare comment (and would probably graciously assume they like it so they bought several copies, or they're changing their undershirt or something).
Also, I think I'd find it rather comforting to learn that my wardrobe choices aren't subject to scrutiny.
Maybe they were just too polite to say anything?
I once had a prof who wore the same thing every time we saw her (we saw her twice a week.) It was occasionally mentioned behind her back ("You have Prof. X? Is she still wearing that purple thing?") but no one was so crude as to mention it to her face. In middle school or high school I'd expect someone to say something, but in adult life if I wore the same outfit two days in a row (which I'd only do with a laundry cycle in between) and someone commented, I'd just find that rather...not becoming a grownup. If I saw one of my co-workers wearing the same thing several days in a row, I wouldn't dare comment (and would probably graciously assume they like it so they bought several copies, or they're changing their undershirt or something).
Also, I think I'd find it rather comforting to learn that my wardrobe choices aren't subject to scrutiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)