This worries me. I'm worried that it will cause a scandal and then they'll introduce additional checks and balances that will ultimately delay future evacuations. I'm afraid that one day I'll be stuck in some emergency requiring consular assistance and I won't be able to get it in time because of the red tape.
I remember from when the Lebanon evacuation was in the news, they said it didn't go very well. People were stuck waiting for days and days. They had to go days without showering. There was no air conditioning on the boat. People were getting seasick and there was no medical attention. That doesn't sound very pleasant, and I certainly wouldn't want red tape to make it worse.
As a citizen, I would want my government to evacuate me as quickly and efficiently as possible, preferably in greater comfort than the Lebanon evacuation, regardless of the cost. As a taxpayer, I don't begrudge them whatever it costs to evacuate, even if some money is wasted in the process of getting it done as quickly as possible. One thing I have learned in life is that is what money is for - to throw at emergency situations and make them all better.
If something was done wrong and it can be corrected or remedied, go ahead and do so. If someone was taking advantage of the situation, go ahead and expose them. If the quality of the evacuation (not value for money, but the evacuee experience) could have been improved, go ahead and do so. But do not go around introducing new checks and balances that will make it harder to pull off a quick evacuation next time it's necessary. It's not worth it. Accept any financial loss as collateral damage, and move on.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Conservapedia
Theory: Conservapedia either is a spoof, or has by now attracted attention from vandals who are making it look even wingnuttier than it would be under natural conditions.
Exercise makes me angry
Whenever I exercise, it brings out any anger I might be feeling. And I don't mean that in a good way, like that the anger gets channelled into the exercises and then burned out. I mean that the act of exercises takes any latent anger I might be feeling and draws it to the surface, so I find myself yelling at people who have wronged me in the past, and occasionally at the exercise people on the screen when they're giving me bad instructions.
I don't like this. I don't like the person it makes me. I never get angry at non-immediate things, except while I'm exercising. I'm a much better person when I'm sedentary. It would be enough to make me stop exercising forever, were it not for the need to keep my blood pressure low enough to stay on the pill and the circumference of my body small enough to not drift into plus-size clothing.
I don't like this. I don't like the person it makes me. I never get angry at non-immediate things, except while I'm exercising. I'm a much better person when I'm sedentary. It would be enough to make me stop exercising forever, were it not for the need to keep my blood pressure low enough to stay on the pill and the circumference of my body small enough to not drift into plus-size clothing.
Monday, March 12, 2007
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
This book sets out to give a history of evolution and creationism, and tell the reader how we got to where we are now. It does that successfully, and is quite calm about it. The only problem was it didn't hold my interest while it was doing that. I think that's a problem with me instead of with the book - I found the subject matter less interesting than I thought I would. The book does briefly explore how religion in the US turned out to be more fundamentalist than religion in Europe, which was rather interesting, but as a whole it turned out I just don't care about evolution vs. creationism for 300 pages worth of text.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Hooked on mnemonics
Warren Clements, author of the Globe and Mail's Wordplay column, has compiled a list of the top 10 misused words that readers send to him. He does a good job of explaining the grammatical rules behind each correct usage, but doesn't provide any easier ways to remember them. So I'd like to humbly offer up a few mnemonics I've collected over the years.
1. Its/It's: "It's" means "it is". The apostrophe replaces the "i" in "is". Therefore, if you see the apostrophe, mentally replace it with "is". If the sentence still makes sense, you've used the correct word.
2. Who/whom: Rework the sentence so that the person referred to by who/whom is referred to by "he" or "him". If "he" fits, the correct answer is "who". If "him" fits, the answer is "whom." The mnemonic is that "him" and "whom" both end in M. To use the example given in the column: "This is the man who(m) I believe knows the answer." So let's rework that to accomodate a "he" or a "him": "I believe ______ knows the answer." The word "he" fits in the blank, the word "him" does not. Therefore, the sentence takes a "who".
7. I/me: This item deals with the habit of saying "you and I" every time you have the second person and the first person joined by a conjuction, regardless of whether it's the subject or the object. "Just between you and ___", "...for you and ___", etc. There's a simple test to figure out which one is correct: handle the pronouns one at a time. "This is a good experience for you and ____". So take the "you" out, and you end up with "This is a good experience for me." When you do the pronouns one at a time, it becomes obvious which one is correct.
8. Discreet/discrete: Discrete has two discrete E's.
1. Its/It's: "It's" means "it is". The apostrophe replaces the "i" in "is". Therefore, if you see the apostrophe, mentally replace it with "is". If the sentence still makes sense, you've used the correct word.
2. Who/whom: Rework the sentence so that the person referred to by who/whom is referred to by "he" or "him". If "he" fits, the correct answer is "who". If "him" fits, the answer is "whom." The mnemonic is that "him" and "whom" both end in M. To use the example given in the column: "This is the man who(m) I believe knows the answer." So let's rework that to accomodate a "he" or a "him": "I believe ______ knows the answer." The word "he" fits in the blank, the word "him" does not. Therefore, the sentence takes a "who".
7. I/me: This item deals with the habit of saying "you and I" every time you have the second person and the first person joined by a conjuction, regardless of whether it's the subject or the object. "Just between you and ___", "...for you and ___", etc. There's a simple test to figure out which one is correct: handle the pronouns one at a time. "This is a good experience for you and ____". So take the "you" out, and you end up with "This is a good experience for me." When you do the pronouns one at a time, it becomes obvious which one is correct.
8. Discreet/discrete: Discrete has two discrete E's.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Half-formed idea
Let's all work to associate the word "pathetic" with rapists, sexual harassers, etc. Whenever it comes up in conversation, find some opportunity to label them as pathetic, using cultural expectations of masculinity to convey our message to its greatest advantage. Pathetic in the most stereotypically unmanly way. Pathetic like living in your parents' basement. Pathetic like a 40-year-old virgin. Pathetic like a teenage boy who's so overexcitable he cums his pants the first time he manages to touch a girl's breast. We will channel the worst of our middle-school bullies to sneed and spit out the word pathetic with complete loathing and contempt. They're all pathetic little boys who are raping/harassing/whatever because they aren't man enough for a consensual relationship of equals. How pathetic!
Panhandlers earning $200 a day
At some point during my adolescence, a newspaper article was published saying that panhandlers earn $200 a day. I don't remember where it was published or what methodology they used to arrive at this conclusion, I don't even know if I read the article myself or I just heard about it. I just remembered the number $200 a day and the fact that the grownups around me were outraged about it.
At the time, I couldn't quite conceptualize $200 a day. It sounded like a lot to me, but I couldn't give you specifics about the quality of life it would support. But now I can grok that amount. I more or less know what it feels like, what it will buy.
And you know what? I don't think they have it easy!
It's certainly not wretched poverty. You could have your own apartment if you could manage to get an apartment without having a job. You could have phone and TV and internet. You could buy groceries. You could furnish the apartment over time. Overall, you could manage a perfectly decent standard of living on $200 a day.
But there's also work involved in panhandling $200 a day. You have to be outside in the elements. You have to deal with people. You're doing the in-person equivalent of cold-calling. You're in an undignified position. People are looking at you with scorn. And you're essentially working solely on commission, with no salary or benefits.
I don't have to deal with any of that shit in my current job! And frankly, if I did have to deal with that shit, I'd be actively searching for another job, perhaps even quitting my job and living on my savings until I could find another job. Speaking from the privileged position of white-collar salary, I wouldn't panhandle for $200 a day because I wouldn't consider that adequate compensation for the working conditions.
I think, in light of the working conditions of panhandlers, they aren't getting a free ride. In other words, if they are actually getting $200, they aren't getting it for doing nothing. Instead, it's a twisted form of entrepreneurship. They can't find a job so they make their own, and the job they've made is to use salesmanship and performance and psychology to convince people to give them money.
That sounds hard to me. I don't have that kind of drive and initiative, and I'm not up to faking it for only $200 a day. I'd rather earn my money the easy way, by sitting in a cubicle and translating.
At the time, I couldn't quite conceptualize $200 a day. It sounded like a lot to me, but I couldn't give you specifics about the quality of life it would support. But now I can grok that amount. I more or less know what it feels like, what it will buy.
And you know what? I don't think they have it easy!
It's certainly not wretched poverty. You could have your own apartment if you could manage to get an apartment without having a job. You could have phone and TV and internet. You could buy groceries. You could furnish the apartment over time. Overall, you could manage a perfectly decent standard of living on $200 a day.
But there's also work involved in panhandling $200 a day. You have to be outside in the elements. You have to deal with people. You're doing the in-person equivalent of cold-calling. You're in an undignified position. People are looking at you with scorn. And you're essentially working solely on commission, with no salary or benefits.
I don't have to deal with any of that shit in my current job! And frankly, if I did have to deal with that shit, I'd be actively searching for another job, perhaps even quitting my job and living on my savings until I could find another job. Speaking from the privileged position of white-collar salary, I wouldn't panhandle for $200 a day because I wouldn't consider that adequate compensation for the working conditions.
I think, in light of the working conditions of panhandlers, they aren't getting a free ride. In other words, if they are actually getting $200, they aren't getting it for doing nothing. Instead, it's a twisted form of entrepreneurship. They can't find a job so they make their own, and the job they've made is to use salesmanship and performance and psychology to convince people to give them money.
That sounds hard to me. I don't have that kind of drive and initiative, and I'm not up to faking it for only $200 a day. I'd rather earn my money the easy way, by sitting in a cubicle and translating.
Parenting advice from the childfree
Inspired by a train of thought arising from the first letter in Friday's Vine (i.e. Friday March 9, it hasn't been archived yet):
Think about the sexual values you want your kid(s) to have. Yes, I know, squicky. You don't want them having sex at all ever. But work past that mentally and think into the distant future, when your kid is a full-fledged adult and in whatever kind of situation you think it's appropriate for people to be in before they have sex. What do you want their sexual values to be? Do you want their sex to be loving? Kind? Gentle? Respectful? Fair and equal? Fun? Romantic? Not taken too seriously? Taken very seriously? Heterosexual? Homosexual? Married? Unmarried? For procreation purposes only? Heavy protected by contraception? Just decide, quietly and to yourself, what these values are.
Then, whenever a book you're reading contains sex scenes that reflect these values, buy the book and keep it on a bookshelf in your home. The books don't have to be about sex, they just have to contain one or more sex scene of whatever level of graphicness they happen to be. You can read them or not as your preferences dictate to you, just keep them on a bookshelf in your livingroom or some other public area of your home. Don't point this out to your kid or anything, just keep it there in your home.
Why? Because at some point in early adolescence, your kid is going to learn that some books have sex in them. And they're going to look for the sexy parts of books so they can learn more about sex. While they might prefer a more visual medium, books have the advantage of being innocent- and respectable-looking, silent, and easily portable. Once your kid discovers that there's sex in them thar books, they will read the books, especially the sex scenes, and most likely surreptitiously. But because you have chosen books whose sex scenes reflect what you consider to be positive sexual values, your kid's earliest exposures to sex portrayed in media will reflect the values you want to instill.
Think about the sexual values you want your kid(s) to have. Yes, I know, squicky. You don't want them having sex at all ever. But work past that mentally and think into the distant future, when your kid is a full-fledged adult and in whatever kind of situation you think it's appropriate for people to be in before they have sex. What do you want their sexual values to be? Do you want their sex to be loving? Kind? Gentle? Respectful? Fair and equal? Fun? Romantic? Not taken too seriously? Taken very seriously? Heterosexual? Homosexual? Married? Unmarried? For procreation purposes only? Heavy protected by contraception? Just decide, quietly and to yourself, what these values are.
Then, whenever a book you're reading contains sex scenes that reflect these values, buy the book and keep it on a bookshelf in your home. The books don't have to be about sex, they just have to contain one or more sex scene of whatever level of graphicness they happen to be. You can read them or not as your preferences dictate to you, just keep them on a bookshelf in your livingroom or some other public area of your home. Don't point this out to your kid or anything, just keep it there in your home.
Why? Because at some point in early adolescence, your kid is going to learn that some books have sex in them. And they're going to look for the sexy parts of books so they can learn more about sex. While they might prefer a more visual medium, books have the advantage of being innocent- and respectable-looking, silent, and easily portable. Once your kid discovers that there's sex in them thar books, they will read the books, especially the sex scenes, and most likely surreptitiously. But because you have chosen books whose sex scenes reflect what you consider to be positive sexual values, your kid's earliest exposures to sex portrayed in media will reflect the values you want to instill.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
The Sarah Silverman Program
I just saw the Sarah Silverman Program for the first time today, and I'm astounded at how good it is. That isn't necessarily an assessment of its net comedy value, but rather the fact that they took what by all rights should have been stupid, offensive, gross-out humour and made it funny. I don't normally find that kind of humour funny at all, but I was laughing! And now I'm trying to figure out why.
I think I was laughing despite the gross-out humour, not because of it. I don't find the "Look! A fart!" funny, but the way they set up a whole situation that is funny, with or without the fart. Saying it's funny doesn't do it justice. It's both tightly plotted, with everything being used well, and utterly bizarre.
The bizarreness actually helps make it funny despite subject matter that should be offensive. These characters clearly do not inhabit the real world. Natural consequences to their actions exist or do not exist as necessary to serve the comedy. Sarah invites a homeless guy to come home with her, and he doesn't take it as a pickup or show any sexual interest in her. He takes her frankly insulting attempts to help him exactly as well as she intended him to take them. Why? Because it's funnier that way and moves the plot in the necessary direction. She starts talking about queefing on TV, going way overboard, and the TV audience thinks it's hilarious but the homeless guy is offended. Why? Because it's funnier that way and moves the plot in the necessary direction. I know I usually complain about lack of natural consequences in my fiction, but for comedic purposes this works better without. And I can accept it on that basis. It's like Monty Python with a plot in that way.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think this show doesn't have a laugh track, and that really helps, especially when the humour is such a delicate balance. They aren't telling me what's funny and what isn't. My enjoyment isn't interrupted by a bunch of fake people laughing at a fart. I can just take what I can use and go on, as Ani Difranco says. Without a laugh track, it's like when someone mentions in passing that they have a core belief that you find objectionable; with the laugh track, it's like when they spend the entire dinner party trying to get you to change your core beliefs to correspond with theirs.
I'll probably come back to this later, because I'm fascinated by the fact that I find this funny. For now, I just hope that zombie ghost thing doesn't give me nightmares tonight!
I think I was laughing despite the gross-out humour, not because of it. I don't find the "Look! A fart!" funny, but the way they set up a whole situation that is funny, with or without the fart. Saying it's funny doesn't do it justice. It's both tightly plotted, with everything being used well, and utterly bizarre.
The bizarreness actually helps make it funny despite subject matter that should be offensive. These characters clearly do not inhabit the real world. Natural consequences to their actions exist or do not exist as necessary to serve the comedy. Sarah invites a homeless guy to come home with her, and he doesn't take it as a pickup or show any sexual interest in her. He takes her frankly insulting attempts to help him exactly as well as she intended him to take them. Why? Because it's funnier that way and moves the plot in the necessary direction. She starts talking about queefing on TV, going way overboard, and the TV audience thinks it's hilarious but the homeless guy is offended. Why? Because it's funnier that way and moves the plot in the necessary direction. I know I usually complain about lack of natural consequences in my fiction, but for comedic purposes this works better without. And I can accept it on that basis. It's like Monty Python with a plot in that way.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think this show doesn't have a laugh track, and that really helps, especially when the humour is such a delicate balance. They aren't telling me what's funny and what isn't. My enjoyment isn't interrupted by a bunch of fake people laughing at a fart. I can just take what I can use and go on, as Ani Difranco says. Without a laugh track, it's like when someone mentions in passing that they have a core belief that you find objectionable; with the laugh track, it's like when they spend the entire dinner party trying to get you to change your core beliefs to correspond with theirs.
I'll probably come back to this later, because I'm fascinated by the fact that I find this funny. For now, I just hope that zombie ghost thing doesn't give me nightmares tonight!
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Hijab
I just realized, from watching Little Mosque today, that one thing I find raelly dissonant about hijab is that Muslim women generally cover their heads when out in public, but they will bare their heads when at home, including in front of their father and/or brothers.
Intellectually I can accept that's What's Done. But when I really think about it and try to identify with the situation, I find it very strange to expose to your father a part of your body that you aren't willing to expose in public. There is no analogy or equivalent in my own life experience. Yes, I'll wear my pyjamas or a bathrobe in the presence of my father, but that doesn't actually expose any of my body, it's just highly informal. If I'm wearing a cami and planning to put a shirt on over top and my father knocks on my door while I'm dressing, I'll make him wait until I've put on and buttoned the shirt - he doesn't get to see me in my cami if that's not what I'm exposing to the general public.
I just have no frame of reference for showing your father a part of your body that you keep hidden from the public. Covering your head, your face, your whole body, I grok that. You can't date, no physical contact with the opposite sex, I grok that. Putting a scarf over your head to go shopping and then taking it off when you get home to your father, just too much for my puny little brain.
Intellectually I can accept that's What's Done. But when I really think about it and try to identify with the situation, I find it very strange to expose to your father a part of your body that you aren't willing to expose in public. There is no analogy or equivalent in my own life experience. Yes, I'll wear my pyjamas or a bathrobe in the presence of my father, but that doesn't actually expose any of my body, it's just highly informal. If I'm wearing a cami and planning to put a shirt on over top and my father knocks on my door while I'm dressing, I'll make him wait until I've put on and buttoned the shirt - he doesn't get to see me in my cami if that's not what I'm exposing to the general public.
I just have no frame of reference for showing your father a part of your body that you keep hidden from the public. Covering your head, your face, your whole body, I grok that. You can't date, no physical contact with the opposite sex, I grok that. Putting a scarf over your head to go shopping and then taking it off when you get home to your father, just too much for my puny little brain.
Little Mosque has officially lost me
Rayyan is a doctor. That means that she is a) a very responsible person, and b) at least in her mid-20s, probably older.
I simply cannot enjoy spending time in a place where a grown woman who is a physician and whose behaviour has been nothing but exemplary is not trusted to adhere to her own morals.
This plot might work with a teenager (although I'd still find it distasteful), but you can't just transpose it onto a grown adult who is a doctor.
I simply cannot enjoy spending time in a place where a grown woman who is a physician and whose behaviour has been nothing but exemplary is not trusted to adhere to her own morals.
This plot might work with a teenager (although I'd still find it distasteful), but you can't just transpose it onto a grown adult who is a doctor.
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: luxury witness protection program
Conventional wisdom is that people aren't willing to come forward and report crimes that they've witnessed. The solution: make it worth their while. If you witness and report a major crime, you get put into a really posh witness protection program. Along with their new identity, witnesses get a home, paid for outright, fully furnished, and stocked with everything they'll need (since they have to leave their previous lives behind). They also get a generous annual allowance, tax-free and indexed, to ensure that they never have to work again. If they have any kids, they get an additional allowance to cover their tuition and school expense. And they get all this for the rest of their lives providing they don't ever get involved in crime.
I wonder what effect it would have on gang-related crime if snitching suddenly became more lucrative than a life of crime?
I wonder what effect it would have on gang-related crime if snitching suddenly became more lucrative than a life of crime?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
I don't think Dear Ellie quite gets what the internet is all about
A self-described "internet geek" writes to Ellie asking for advice on how to attract women. Most of the advice she gives is adequate, but this one statement I disagree with: "...push away from your computer to try something new – rock climbing, snowboarding, whatever. Now you have something to be enthusiastic about in conversation."
There are two problems here:
1. The internet is an excellent source of things to be enthusiastic about in conversation. Rock climbing, not so much. Whatever you're into, the internet can help you find out more about it and hook you up with communities of like-minded people. Rock climbing...is rock climbing. It's only one thing. If you spend an hour rock climbing and you aren't particularly enthusiastic about it, you've just wasted an hour. If you spend an hour on the internet looking for things that are interesting, you will definitely find something to be enthusiastic about.
2. If rock climbing or snowboarding or whatever is the tipping point that causes this guy's next relationship to launch, that relationship isn't going to last. He needs someone with whom he can discuss whatever he's actually into, not someone for whom he will always have to act like a rock climbing enthusiast.
I think the guy's main problem is that he thinks he has to Make a Move - that there's this one-chance, make-or-break Move that he has to make, and if he does it right he'll come out with a girlfriend. Ellie should have focused her advice a little more towards getting to know people and building friendships over time, and she completely neglected to mention how the internet can be helpful in doing that. On the internet, this guy can find other people who are passionate about whatever he's passionate about - for real, not random rock climbing - and find where he can meet likeminded people IRL. Plus he can use online communities to practice making friends so he's more comfortable doing that IRL.
There are two problems here:
1. The internet is an excellent source of things to be enthusiastic about in conversation. Rock climbing, not so much. Whatever you're into, the internet can help you find out more about it and hook you up with communities of like-minded people. Rock climbing...is rock climbing. It's only one thing. If you spend an hour rock climbing and you aren't particularly enthusiastic about it, you've just wasted an hour. If you spend an hour on the internet looking for things that are interesting, you will definitely find something to be enthusiastic about.
2. If rock climbing or snowboarding or whatever is the tipping point that causes this guy's next relationship to launch, that relationship isn't going to last. He needs someone with whom he can discuss whatever he's actually into, not someone for whom he will always have to act like a rock climbing enthusiast.
I think the guy's main problem is that he thinks he has to Make a Move - that there's this one-chance, make-or-break Move that he has to make, and if he does it right he'll come out with a girlfriend. Ellie should have focused her advice a little more towards getting to know people and building friendships over time, and she completely neglected to mention how the internet can be helpful in doing that. On the internet, this guy can find other people who are passionate about whatever he's passionate about - for real, not random rock climbing - and find where he can meet likeminded people IRL. Plus he can use online communities to practice making friends so he's more comfortable doing that IRL.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Living alone redux
Apart from the fact that it's a crash course in the joys and responsibilities of adulthood, there are two other things:
1. You get to spend some time with your true, uncensored self. There's no one else around to impress or accomodate.
2. You can keep almost any aspect of your life secret from almost everyone.
It really teaches you a lot about yourself and your priorities to have complete freedom in your private actions, and complete control over who finds out about them.
1. You get to spend some time with your true, uncensored self. There's no one else around to impress or accomodate.
2. You can keep almost any aspect of your life secret from almost everyone.
It really teaches you a lot about yourself and your priorities to have complete freedom in your private actions, and complete control over who finds out about them.
Modern and Normal by Karen Solie
Usually poetry doesn't work for me, but this one did. It wasn't over my head, I got it. All of it worked for me, but what I liked best was the found poetry. She took text from packaging and textbooks and other ephemeral sources, and arranged it as poems. Ever since I read it, I've been viewing everyday texts in a more poetic way, which makes the act of translation far more interesting.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Lower Bay
I went through Lower Bay today, and, just like everyone else in the city, I feel the need to blog about it.
The station itself looks kind of post-apocalyptic. That might be because there's no one on the platform, no one at all. I was kind of disappointed that I couldn't see what was happening in the tunnels though. I thought this was because of the poor lighting in the tunnels, but now that I look at the videos on youtube I can see that it's because the driver had done that thing where he opens the door to his little cabin the full way, blocking off the front row of seats and the front window. I suppose he has his reasons, but it seems a bit inconsiderate given the exceptional situation.
I found that Museum was handled well. There were a LOT of TTC supervisors and transit cops on the platform, and they'd verbally repeat every loudspeaker announcement, so everyone was within hearing range of someone giving the information in person. Must be a boring job for them though.
What surprised me is how quickly we got from Museum to Bloor. When I was taking a class of U of T, I went every day from Museum up to St. George, transferred to the Bloor line, then over to Yonge&Bloor to transfer back to the Yonge line to go home. Going through the Y was so much faster! Just on that basis, if they decided to start using Lower Bay again, I wouldn't disagree.
Overall it wasn't that exciting, although it must be so cool if you go in not knowing that there's another station down there.
The station itself looks kind of post-apocalyptic. That might be because there's no one on the platform, no one at all. I was kind of disappointed that I couldn't see what was happening in the tunnels though. I thought this was because of the poor lighting in the tunnels, but now that I look at the videos on youtube I can see that it's because the driver had done that thing where he opens the door to his little cabin the full way, blocking off the front row of seats and the front window. I suppose he has his reasons, but it seems a bit inconsiderate given the exceptional situation.
I found that Museum was handled well. There were a LOT of TTC supervisors and transit cops on the platform, and they'd verbally repeat every loudspeaker announcement, so everyone was within hearing range of someone giving the information in person. Must be a boring job for them though.
What surprised me is how quickly we got from Museum to Bloor. When I was taking a class of U of T, I went every day from Museum up to St. George, transferred to the Bloor line, then over to Yonge&Bloor to transfer back to the Yonge line to go home. Going through the Y was so much faster! Just on that basis, if they decided to start using Lower Bay again, I wouldn't disagree.
Overall it wasn't that exciting, although it must be so cool if you go in not knowing that there's another station down there.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Ethical question
Someone scratched a swastika on the wall of the elevator. Would I be helping if I were to add some more lines to the graffiti to close the "squares" formed by the swastika, thus changing it from a swastika to one large square subdivided into four small squares?
Critical thinking
I've been doing some tough thinking lately, really reflecting on myself and my role and place in the world and what I have to offer, and I've come to some pretty serious conclusions:
I am not special, not at all. I have nothing unique to contribute. Even if I were given the power to rule the world, I couldn't offer anything to make it a better place.
Okay, stop. Think about what you were thinking in response to those statements. Some of you were probably wondering what had happened to get me so depressed. Some of you were probably thinking "That's not true!" and mentally drafting a comment to convince me I'm wrong. Some of you may have been sneering at me for wallowing in angst and self-pity. But, unless you came here thinking that I have an over-inflated ego and deserve a downfall, your reaction probably wasn't positive or neutral. In our culture, those kinds of statements are not considered positive or neutral. They aren't considered healthy or normal. They're considered negative, a sign of a problem that needs fixing.
So what does this have to do with anything? They recently did a study labelling an entire generation as narcissists because, when asked to respond to certain statements, the responses of the students studied were the opposite of the statements I made above.
(It isn't explicitly stated in the article, but the way these tests generall work is that you give a yes or no, or a response on the agree or disagree spectrum, to the statements given.)
I don't think this is a valid indicator, because our cultural values indicate that an "agree" is the "right" answer, the "healthy" answer. I think people would be inclined to say "agree" or "yes" when they didn't actively disagree, or when they were thinking "There's nothing wrong with me in this area, I'm perfectly healthy and normal in this aspect of life." Telling someone "You're special" is a meaningless cliche, while "You're nothing special" is an actual insult. "He thinks he's special" is run-of-the-mill everyday egoism, while "He think there's nothing special about himself" borders on time to schedule a therapy appointment.
So does the fact that our culture has established "I'm special" as the norm mean that everyone actually thinks they're special? I don't think that's necessarily true either, because there isn't really any place in our culture to reflect on or question your own specialness. You can question other sacred cows, like sex or politics or religion or your basic moral values, and by the end of your first year of university you most likely already have. If you decide to change your religion or politics to something drastically unorthodox, or have kinky sex with unlikely partners, or give on up capitalism or consumerism or family values, there's a name for whatever you're doing and and online community for likeminded people. But if you decide to question whether you're actually special, there's no name for that, no community for that. If you go to a therapist because you find yourself questioning your politics or religion or sexuality, they'll help you work through the feelings around it, but won't try to change your politics or religion or sexuality. If you go to a therapist and say "I'm beginning to have doubts about whether I'm actually special," they'll probably try to get you to see that you're actually special.
Lather, rinse, repeat for making the world a better place and for wanting to be the centre of attention.
As long as we consider negative responses to these statements as signs of a problem, we can't go around indicting people for giving positive responses.
I am not special, not at all. I have nothing unique to contribute. Even if I were given the power to rule the world, I couldn't offer anything to make it a better place.
Okay, stop. Think about what you were thinking in response to those statements. Some of you were probably wondering what had happened to get me so depressed. Some of you were probably thinking "That's not true!" and mentally drafting a comment to convince me I'm wrong. Some of you may have been sneering at me for wallowing in angst and self-pity. But, unless you came here thinking that I have an over-inflated ego and deserve a downfall, your reaction probably wasn't positive or neutral. In our culture, those kinds of statements are not considered positive or neutral. They aren't considered healthy or normal. They're considered negative, a sign of a problem that needs fixing.
So what does this have to do with anything? They recently did a study labelling an entire generation as narcissists because, when asked to respond to certain statements, the responses of the students studied were the opposite of the statements I made above.
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory asks students to react to such statements as: "If I ruled the world, it would be a better place," "I think I am a special person" and "I like to be the center of attention."
(It isn't explicitly stated in the article, but the way these tests generall work is that you give a yes or no, or a response on the agree or disagree spectrum, to the statements given.)
I don't think this is a valid indicator, because our cultural values indicate that an "agree" is the "right" answer, the "healthy" answer. I think people would be inclined to say "agree" or "yes" when they didn't actively disagree, or when they were thinking "There's nothing wrong with me in this area, I'm perfectly healthy and normal in this aspect of life." Telling someone "You're special" is a meaningless cliche, while "You're nothing special" is an actual insult. "He thinks he's special" is run-of-the-mill everyday egoism, while "He think there's nothing special about himself" borders on time to schedule a therapy appointment.
So does the fact that our culture has established "I'm special" as the norm mean that everyone actually thinks they're special? I don't think that's necessarily true either, because there isn't really any place in our culture to reflect on or question your own specialness. You can question other sacred cows, like sex or politics or religion or your basic moral values, and by the end of your first year of university you most likely already have. If you decide to change your religion or politics to something drastically unorthodox, or have kinky sex with unlikely partners, or give on up capitalism or consumerism or family values, there's a name for whatever you're doing and and online community for likeminded people. But if you decide to question whether you're actually special, there's no name for that, no community for that. If you go to a therapist because you find yourself questioning your politics or religion or sexuality, they'll help you work through the feelings around it, but won't try to change your politics or religion or sexuality. If you go to a therapist and say "I'm beginning to have doubts about whether I'm actually special," they'll probably try to get you to see that you're actually special.
Lather, rinse, repeat for making the world a better place and for wanting to be the centre of attention.
As long as we consider negative responses to these statements as signs of a problem, we can't go around indicting people for giving positive responses.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Weird framing choice
The National is doing a thing on diabetes. While making the point that weight gain and an unhealth diet affects the likelihood of diabetes, they showed footage from a Tim Hortons. The camera zoomed in on the contents of one customer's tray, then panned over to another customer's buttocks.
Weird thing: the buttocks in question weren't at all fat.
They weren't the sexiest buttocks ever at all in the world, but they certainly weren't fat.
WTF?
Weird thing: the buttocks in question weren't at all fat.
They weren't the sexiest buttocks ever at all in the world, but they certainly weren't fat.
WTF?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The problem with Little Mosque
The problem with Little Mosque is that none of the characters can say no. Right now Yassir's mother wants him to take a second wife, and Yassir doesn't just go and say "No, absolutely not." So then she goes to the imam, and the imam doesn't say outright "No, we don't do that here."
I can accept this sort of thing for sitcom plot purposes once in a while, but it happens every week!
The convert starts being a self-righteous dick, the imam never says "Um, dude, that's not what we're all about there."
Yassir's client and the mosque both need wiring done, there aren't enough electricians to do both, and Yassir doesn't say to anyone "No, I'm sorry, there aren't enough electricians." Instead he blows up the mosque.
The finance-focused archdeacon comes for a visit, and the (priest? minister? what do Anglicans call them?) stages a massive charade instead of saying "Yeah, the presence of the mosque helps us fund the church."
Call me when they start acting like grownups.
I can accept this sort of thing for sitcom plot purposes once in a while, but it happens every week!
The convert starts being a self-righteous dick, the imam never says "Um, dude, that's not what we're all about there."
Yassir's client and the mosque both need wiring done, there aren't enough electricians to do both, and Yassir doesn't say to anyone "No, I'm sorry, there aren't enough electricians." Instead he blows up the mosque.
The finance-focused archdeacon comes for a visit, and the (priest? minister? what do Anglicans call them?) stages a massive charade instead of saying "Yeah, the presence of the mosque helps us fund the church."
Call me when they start acting like grownups.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Enough about the dresses, what about the hair?
I was really surprised at the number of actresses wearing their hair long and straight for the Oscars. My hair is like that naturally, so I really don't think of it as a formal hairstyle.
You'd think I'd be happy that my hair naturally falls into an Oscar-calibre hairstyle, right? Well, it's not that simple...
The problem is that, when left to its own devices, my hair becomes lank and limp and greasy and stringy. It constantly needs to be fluffed up with a brush, the part certainly doesn't stay neat, and it tangles if you even look at it funny. I could certainly acheive, say, Gwyneth Paltrow's look for a photograph, but there's no way I could maintain it for several hours.
So what in the world did all these actresses do to keep their hair looking good? I have no idea! Everyone's talking about the dresses, but no one's talking about the hair! I've heard that mousse is involved, but it just makes me look greasy even faster.
You'd think I'd be happy that my hair naturally falls into an Oscar-calibre hairstyle, right? Well, it's not that simple...
The problem is that, when left to its own devices, my hair becomes lank and limp and greasy and stringy. It constantly needs to be fluffed up with a brush, the part certainly doesn't stay neat, and it tangles if you even look at it funny. I could certainly acheive, say, Gwyneth Paltrow's look for a photograph, but there's no way I could maintain it for several hours.
So what in the world did all these actresses do to keep their hair looking good? I have no idea! Everyone's talking about the dresses, but no one's talking about the hair! I've heard that mousse is involved, but it just makes me look greasy even faster.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Nonarbitrary goals are the secret to happiness
I've previously postulated that pessimism is the secret to happiness.
I think another secret to happiness is not to make your goals too specific or arbitrary. I know that conventional wisdom is to make your goals specific, but I think unless the specificness has some particular purpose, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
This train of thought started awhile back when I read an article (linked to via some smug CFer or another) wherein a woman was convinced that she would have her children play with wooden toys only. (Incidentally, thanks to Google for re-finding that article for me with only msn lifestyle wooden toys plastic as keywords.) It occurred to me that if something meaningless like her children playing with plastic toys disappointed her, she would never be happy.
Then I thought of my family's xmas celebrations (yes, I am an atheist; no, my family is not). We used to have all these things that the grownups made us do. Let's all gather around the piano and sing xmas carols. Let's all share opłatek. Let's take a picture of all the kids lined up by height. We grew to not like those things, and people rebelled or opted out, which always disappointed one or more grownups. But as we got older and scattered far and wide and built our lives elsewhere with other people, they grew to be more appreciative that we were still all showing up. So instead of being disappointed that not every single person wanted to gather around the piano and sing carols, they were happy that everyone was there and more or less having a pleasant time.
It's not uncommon for people to set unnecessarily specific goals. "I'm going to be married by the time I'm 30" before you even know who you're going to marry. "I'm going to teach my son how to ride a bike" before you have any children. But why 30? Why a son and why a bike? What if you don't meet your soulmate until your 32nd birthday? What if your child is born with no legs? It's better to set goals like "I will only give my heart to people who are kind to me" or "I will teach any children I might have whatever I can." That way, you won't be taking a situation in which there is nothing wrong and defining it as a failure.
I think another secret to happiness is not to make your goals too specific or arbitrary. I know that conventional wisdom is to make your goals specific, but I think unless the specificness has some particular purpose, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
This train of thought started awhile back when I read an article (linked to via some smug CFer or another) wherein a woman was convinced that she would have her children play with wooden toys only. (Incidentally, thanks to Google for re-finding that article for me with only msn lifestyle wooden toys plastic as keywords.) It occurred to me that if something meaningless like her children playing with plastic toys disappointed her, she would never be happy.
Then I thought of my family's xmas celebrations (yes, I am an atheist; no, my family is not). We used to have all these things that the grownups made us do. Let's all gather around the piano and sing xmas carols. Let's all share opłatek. Let's take a picture of all the kids lined up by height. We grew to not like those things, and people rebelled or opted out, which always disappointed one or more grownups. But as we got older and scattered far and wide and built our lives elsewhere with other people, they grew to be more appreciative that we were still all showing up. So instead of being disappointed that not every single person wanted to gather around the piano and sing carols, they were happy that everyone was there and more or less having a pleasant time.
It's not uncommon for people to set unnecessarily specific goals. "I'm going to be married by the time I'm 30" before you even know who you're going to marry. "I'm going to teach my son how to ride a bike" before you have any children. But why 30? Why a son and why a bike? What if you don't meet your soulmate until your 32nd birthday? What if your child is born with no legs? It's better to set goals like "I will only give my heart to people who are kind to me" or "I will teach any children I might have whatever I can." That way, you won't be taking a situation in which there is nothing wrong and defining it as a failure.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
"A two-liter bottle of soda"
Peejee told Davan's father that Davan drinks "a two-liter bottle of soda" every day.
"A two-liter bottle of soda"???
Do they even use litres in the US? If so, why? Y'all don't use the metric system anywhere else outside of hardcore science, do you? Is liter even a legitimate spelling variation? It looks so funny! Do there really exist people who say both soda and litre? I figured if you said litre you'd also say pop.
"A two-liter bottle of soda"???
Do they even use litres in the US? If so, why? Y'all don't use the metric system anywhere else outside of hardcore science, do you? Is liter even a legitimate spelling variation? It looks so funny! Do there really exist people who say both soda and litre? I figured if you said litre you'd also say pop.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The effect of expectations on comprehension
Disclaimer 1: This post is about linguistics. It does veer perilously close to politics because a point of linguistic research reminded me of a current political situation, but it is not intended to be at all partisan. Please consider the political aspect as nothing more than the most readily-available practical example, and please keep any partisan debate or discussion out of this comment thread. This is a linguistics-only zone.
Disclaimer 2: The following is an excerpt from page 195 of Deborah Tannen's Talking from 9 to 5: How Women's and Men's Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work. I am copying it here because a) I'm under the impression that doing so is fair use, and b) Dr. Tannen can explain it much better than I can. If this is a copyright problem, please let me know nicely in the comments and I'll be happy to remove it. Any typos are my own.
The first thing this made me think of was Stéphane Dion. A lot of people have been saying lately that his English is insuffcient, which surprises me because it's quite clear that he's thinking in English. As a translator, I have been trained to identify gallicisms in English, so that I may eliminate them and make my French to English translations sound more natural. From what I've heard, Stéphane Dion's English has fewer gallicisms than a bilingual Ottawa anglophone's English. When you can hear all the mistakes he isn't making, it's quite clear that he's either thinking in English, or quite deliberately making a concerted (and successful) effort to give everything he says in English an English syntax.
But people still think he's difficult to understand. Why is that? Idealistic Pragmatist's readers suggest that it's his accent, which it may well be. I listen to French accents all day, so I can't tell you what they sound like to the average anglo. However, I asked some anglos in my life, and they said yes, he does have an accent, but it's not that bad. He's comprehensible. My parents' consensus is that they've had professors with worse accents and learned perfectly well from them.
So bearing all this in mind and then reading Tannen all made me think: what if Dion's English isn't really bad, but people have heard that it's bad and then they're having trouble because they expect it to be bad? This is impossible to test, of course. If someone thinks they don't understand something, then they don't understand it. You can't go around saying, "Oh, you don't really have trouble understanding that, you just think you have trouble understanding it." So if people are suggestable enought, they are actually going to be unable to understand him. I wonder if political strategists know enough about linguistics to do something like this on purpose?
Disclaimer 2: The following is an excerpt from page 195 of Deborah Tannen's Talking from 9 to 5: How Women's and Men's Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work. I am copying it here because a) I'm under the impression that doing so is fair use, and b) Dr. Tannen can explain it much better than I can. If this is a copyright problem, please let me know nicely in the comments and I'll be happy to remove it. Any typos are my own.
The effect of expectations on comprehension is also supported by research. Speech-communication professor Donald Rubin was concerned with complaints by students at his university that they had trouble understanding foreign-born teachig assistants. Rubin suspected that their preconeptions about foreign-looking speakers being difficult to understand might be playing a powerful role. to test this idea, he tape-recorded a four-minut lecture given by an American-born woman from Ohio, then played the tape to two groups of students at two different times. As the students listended to the leture on tape, they saw projected on a screen a photogrpah of the person they were told was the lecturer. In one case, they saw a photograph of a Caucasian woman, in the other, a Chinese woman. [...] He foundt hat the students wh othought they wer elistening to a Chinese lctruer scored lower on the comprehension test than those who thought they were listening to a white American - and their lower socres were about the same as those for a third group who had heard a lecture given by a real Chinese teaching assistant with a heavy accent.
The first thing this made me think of was Stéphane Dion. A lot of people have been saying lately that his English is insuffcient, which surprises me because it's quite clear that he's thinking in English. As a translator, I have been trained to identify gallicisms in English, so that I may eliminate them and make my French to English translations sound more natural. From what I've heard, Stéphane Dion's English has fewer gallicisms than a bilingual Ottawa anglophone's English. When you can hear all the mistakes he isn't making, it's quite clear that he's either thinking in English, or quite deliberately making a concerted (and successful) effort to give everything he says in English an English syntax.
But people still think he's difficult to understand. Why is that? Idealistic Pragmatist's readers suggest that it's his accent, which it may well be. I listen to French accents all day, so I can't tell you what they sound like to the average anglo. However, I asked some anglos in my life, and they said yes, he does have an accent, but it's not that bad. He's comprehensible. My parents' consensus is that they've had professors with worse accents and learned perfectly well from them.
So bearing all this in mind and then reading Tannen all made me think: what if Dion's English isn't really bad, but people have heard that it's bad and then they're having trouble because they expect it to be bad? This is impossible to test, of course. If someone thinks they don't understand something, then they don't understand it. You can't go around saying, "Oh, you don't really have trouble understanding that, you just think you have trouble understanding it." So if people are suggestable enought, they are actually going to be unable to understand him. I wonder if political strategists know enough about linguistics to do something like this on purpose?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Fun with the English language
Read the following two sentences and absorb the meaning by gut reaction only:
1. He was making an effort to speak French.
2. He was making the effort to speak French.
Doesn't it sound like his French was better in the second sentence? Isn't that cool???
1. He was making an effort to speak French.
2. He was making the effort to speak French.
Doesn't it sound like his French was better in the second sentence? Isn't that cool???
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: your own apartment as coming-of-age ritual
In today's Toronto Star, there was an article suggesting that Canada needs a coming-of-age ritual to make youth feel like responsible and enfranchised members of adult society. (Unfortunately I can't find a link, but it's on the second-last page of the Ideas section). I don't know if I agree with this premise, but I have an idea for something that might make an effective ritual. Inspired by the Native tradition of having boys go out alone in the woods, I'm imagining everyone having to live alone in their own apartment for a certain period of time after their 18th birthday.
The apartment is a very basic studio apartment, but you have it all to yourself. No roommates, and you're not sharing a kitchen or a bathroom like in res. You don't get it for free, but perhaps it would have to be geared to income because obviously most 18-year-olds can't afford their very own apartment. You'd pay market prices for your telecommunications, and utilities would be at market rates if feasible, or geared to income if unfeasible (we don't want people ruining their credit score or having to declare bankruptcy or going without running water just because we've forced them to leave their parents' home before they were ready financially). There would also have to be some kind of assistance for students who are still in high school, because we don't want this ritual to have to make people have to drop out. The coming-of-age apartments wouldn't all be bunched together in one building, they'd be spread out across the community, so your neighbours would be a random sampling of whomever lives in your community.
Of course, there are huge feasibility problems (which is why I categorized this post under Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work), but if it were feasible I think it would achieve a great many coming-of-age results.
Living alone is the ultimate exercise in dealing with the consequences of your actions. If you don't take out the garbage, it sits there and smells up the place. If you don't pay the phone bill, the phone gets cut off. If you make too much noise, the neighbours will complain. You get to see all the stuff your parents nagged you about come true (or not).
Living alone lets you develop your own person separate from the expectations of your family. When you live with your family, their expectations colour your every action, whether it's meeting their expectations, or defying their expectations, or trying to avoid their expectations. When I lived at home, if I wanted to go out I'd have to justify it to my parents, and if I wanted to stay in I'd have to avoid or put up with my sister's mockery. Here in my own apartment, I just come and go as I please. It's quite refreshing to go about your everyday life without having to justify your actions to anyone, and not having to justify your actions gets you away from the necessary adolescent defensiveness and ultimately leads to a more mature and adult attitude towards your life.
Living alone teaches you a lot about yourself. Think of how you set up your very first apartment. You doubtless anticipated some needs that didn't materialize, and didn't anticipate other needs that did materialize. And your second apartment was set up to reflect these needs. For example, I would never have guessed that I'd fall into the habit of gaming while watching TV, but now it's my favourite way to unwind. Conversely, I have a blender and a mixer in my kitchen, and I've never used them. I guess I anticipated doing more complicated cooking than I do, but ultimately found that it wasn't worth it since I don't have a dishwasher. I take fewer baths than I'd anticipated (no, I'm not dirty, I shower instead) but sleep in more than I'd anticipated. I eat less sugar and more salt than I thought I would. When you're all alone with complete control over your space and no one around to impress, you learn a lot about what your real preferences and priorities are, and can use that to inform your decisions.
Living alone also helps your parents and the other adults around you respect you for who you actually are. My parents weren't nearly as dismissive of my phobias when they found out that I still have panic attacks even when there's no one around to rescue me. My mother was convinced I'd change my kleenex-wasting ways and start using less kleenex once I had to buy it myself (I still don't know what is perceived as excessive about the amount of kleenex I use), but I didn't so now she has to chalk it up to "Different people do things differently." Living alone gives you a certain amount of grownup cred. You're managing, you're coping, you're dealing, so they can't really Kids Today you that much. The community also has to treat you like an adult because you're approaching them in your adult role to buy your groceries or do your banking or get your strep throat diagnosed.
Basically, living alone calls everyone's bluff. It's a real, relevant trial by fire (21st century industrialized urban version). If you make it, your elders have no choice but to give you basic adult respect. If you don't make it, you're much humbled and know exactly what you need to work on. In any case, it would make it clear that you are not spoiled or sheltered, but instead know exactly what it means to be an adult.
The apartment is a very basic studio apartment, but you have it all to yourself. No roommates, and you're not sharing a kitchen or a bathroom like in res. You don't get it for free, but perhaps it would have to be geared to income because obviously most 18-year-olds can't afford their very own apartment. You'd pay market prices for your telecommunications, and utilities would be at market rates if feasible, or geared to income if unfeasible (we don't want people ruining their credit score or having to declare bankruptcy or going without running water just because we've forced them to leave their parents' home before they were ready financially). There would also have to be some kind of assistance for students who are still in high school, because we don't want this ritual to have to make people have to drop out. The coming-of-age apartments wouldn't all be bunched together in one building, they'd be spread out across the community, so your neighbours would be a random sampling of whomever lives in your community.
Of course, there are huge feasibility problems (which is why I categorized this post under Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work), but if it were feasible I think it would achieve a great many coming-of-age results.
Living alone is the ultimate exercise in dealing with the consequences of your actions. If you don't take out the garbage, it sits there and smells up the place. If you don't pay the phone bill, the phone gets cut off. If you make too much noise, the neighbours will complain. You get to see all the stuff your parents nagged you about come true (or not).
Living alone lets you develop your own person separate from the expectations of your family. When you live with your family, their expectations colour your every action, whether it's meeting their expectations, or defying their expectations, or trying to avoid their expectations. When I lived at home, if I wanted to go out I'd have to justify it to my parents, and if I wanted to stay in I'd have to avoid or put up with my sister's mockery. Here in my own apartment, I just come and go as I please. It's quite refreshing to go about your everyday life without having to justify your actions to anyone, and not having to justify your actions gets you away from the necessary adolescent defensiveness and ultimately leads to a more mature and adult attitude towards your life.
Living alone teaches you a lot about yourself. Think of how you set up your very first apartment. You doubtless anticipated some needs that didn't materialize, and didn't anticipate other needs that did materialize. And your second apartment was set up to reflect these needs. For example, I would never have guessed that I'd fall into the habit of gaming while watching TV, but now it's my favourite way to unwind. Conversely, I have a blender and a mixer in my kitchen, and I've never used them. I guess I anticipated doing more complicated cooking than I do, but ultimately found that it wasn't worth it since I don't have a dishwasher. I take fewer baths than I'd anticipated (no, I'm not dirty, I shower instead) but sleep in more than I'd anticipated. I eat less sugar and more salt than I thought I would. When you're all alone with complete control over your space and no one around to impress, you learn a lot about what your real preferences and priorities are, and can use that to inform your decisions.
Living alone also helps your parents and the other adults around you respect you for who you actually are. My parents weren't nearly as dismissive of my phobias when they found out that I still have panic attacks even when there's no one around to rescue me. My mother was convinced I'd change my kleenex-wasting ways and start using less kleenex once I had to buy it myself (I still don't know what is perceived as excessive about the amount of kleenex I use), but I didn't so now she has to chalk it up to "Different people do things differently." Living alone gives you a certain amount of grownup cred. You're managing, you're coping, you're dealing, so they can't really Kids Today you that much. The community also has to treat you like an adult because you're approaching them in your adult role to buy your groceries or do your banking or get your strep throat diagnosed.
Basically, living alone calls everyone's bluff. It's a real, relevant trial by fire (21st century industrialized urban version). If you make it, your elders have no choice but to give you basic adult respect. If you don't make it, you're much humbled and know exactly what you need to work on. In any case, it would make it clear that you are not spoiled or sheltered, but instead know exactly what it means to be an adult.
Couples living apart
One thing I've noticed lately when enjoying my guilty pleasure of reading advice columns and online responses is that there are a lot of people out there who firmly, strongly, believe that if a couple lives together, then finds that they aren't very compatible cohabitation-wise, then their relationship is automatically over. They just cannot wrap their brains around the possibility of a couple saying "Well, looks like we aren't good at sharing a home, but we still love each other and that isn't going to change."
I know that sharing a home is the established norm, and I certainly do see the benefits of pooling your talents and resources, but I don't think it's the unconditional, no-exceptions, sine qua non of each and every relationship. I know that ceasing to live together is generally part of a breakup, but I don't think it must necessarily cause a breakup. I know a couple who tried living together and found that they couldn't, but they're still together romantically (they were well into their 50s when they met and both very set in their ways). I know several other couples who preemptively came to the realization that they can't live together, so they happily continue their relationship from separate apartments. While I can see how it could be a deal-breaker for some people, it shouldn't have to be a dealbreaker for each and every couple in the world. But it seems that many people just cannot or will not accept this.
Most people can comprehend the idea of a happy, successful romance between two people of different religions, or two people with vastly different political opinions, or two people who work opposite shifts, or two (or more) people who are consensually non-monogamous. Even if you could never do it yourself, you can say "Yeah, it's not for me, but I can see how other people could make it work." But so many people seem to have such a hard time imagining even the possibility of a relationship working from separate households.
I know that sharing a home is the established norm, and I certainly do see the benefits of pooling your talents and resources, but I don't think it's the unconditional, no-exceptions, sine qua non of each and every relationship. I know that ceasing to live together is generally part of a breakup, but I don't think it must necessarily cause a breakup. I know a couple who tried living together and found that they couldn't, but they're still together romantically (they were well into their 50s when they met and both very set in their ways). I know several other couples who preemptively came to the realization that they can't live together, so they happily continue their relationship from separate apartments. While I can see how it could be a deal-breaker for some people, it shouldn't have to be a dealbreaker for each and every couple in the world. But it seems that many people just cannot or will not accept this.
Most people can comprehend the idea of a happy, successful romance between two people of different religions, or two people with vastly different political opinions, or two people who work opposite shifts, or two (or more) people who are consensually non-monogamous. Even if you could never do it yourself, you can say "Yeah, it's not for me, but I can see how other people could make it work." But so many people seem to have such a hard time imagining even the possibility of a relationship working from separate households.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Tattoos
I wonder if anyone IRL has gotten a tattoo of the Dark Mark? There's no reason for a Muggle to perceive it as a cool thing to have a tattoo of, but people do all kinds of weird things.
"You will someday"
Most childfree people have, at one time or another, had the following exchange:
Childfree: "No, I'm not having children, I'm childfree"
Interlocutor: "You will someday."
An idea just to make the whole situation more entertaining: if your interlocutor is of the opposite sex, take it as a threat. Recoil, hide, refuse to be alone with them, etc.
Childfree: "No, I'm not having children, I'm childfree"
Interlocutor: "You will someday."
An idea just to make the whole situation more entertaining: if your interlocutor is of the opposite sex, take it as a threat. Recoil, hide, refuse to be alone with them, etc.
Friday, February 16, 2007
The 10th anniversary of the relationship that has had the greatest effect on my life
Ten years ago, I got my very own internet access for the first time. (Yes, I'm saying the internet has had a greater effect on my life than mi cielito, because without the internet I would never have met mi cielito).
What astounds me in retrospect is how small it all was back then.
The very first thing I did the very first time I dialed up was go to Yahoo (there being no Google at the time) and do a search for Monty Python. I forget how many results I got (a few pages worth), but I know that I managed to read site Yahoo turned up for Monty Python, in its entiretey, within a few weeks. Yes, in a few weeks I had managed to read every single word that was written on the Web about Monty Python.
In the online communities I visited, I read every posting. Every single one. And it was perfectly acceptable to email just anyone on the sole basis that you'd read their site or one of their web postings.
I looked up Square One Television, a childhood favourite; I found no sign that it had ever existed. Now there are 500 Google results for "Square One Television", and another 50,000 for "Square One TV".
There was a time when I self-taught myself all the HTML in the world, and that was enough to build a serviceable Web page. (My lack of design abilities was still a problem, but I had the technical skills down.) I still know HTML, but I'd probably have to take a course to get my overall skill set to a point where I could make Web pages that will stand up to 2007.
*Sigh*, the good old days...
What astounds me in retrospect is how small it all was back then.
The very first thing I did the very first time I dialed up was go to Yahoo (there being no Google at the time) and do a search for Monty Python. I forget how many results I got (a few pages worth), but I know that I managed to read site Yahoo turned up for Monty Python, in its entiretey, within a few weeks. Yes, in a few weeks I had managed to read every single word that was written on the Web about Monty Python.
In the online communities I visited, I read every posting. Every single one. And it was perfectly acceptable to email just anyone on the sole basis that you'd read their site or one of their web postings.
I looked up Square One Television, a childhood favourite; I found no sign that it had ever existed. Now there are 500 Google results for "Square One Television", and another 50,000 for "Square One TV".
There was a time when I self-taught myself all the HTML in the world, and that was enough to build a serviceable Web page. (My lack of design abilities was still a problem, but I had the technical skills down.) I still know HTML, but I'd probably have to take a course to get my overall skill set to a point where I could make Web pages that will stand up to 2007.
*Sigh*, the good old days...
Thursday, February 15, 2007
I wish I could write back to Dear Abby's correspondents
In today's Dear Abby, readers give advice in reply to a previous letter from a young woman who was receiving unwanted attention from her male colleagues. I really wish I could ask the writer of this one letter for clarification:
I would love to get her to elaborate on the "smiling too much" concept. How much smiling is too much? How do you tell? Personally, when I smile at my co-workers, it's a natural smile - I haven't faked a smile since I worked in customer service. So if your natural smiling in reaction to context has you "smiling too much", how do you deliberately not smile without looking like you're being deliberately mean?
Before complaining to the management about sexual harassment as you suggested, "Plain Jane" might take a careful look at herself. Is she dressing inappropriately for the workplace (low neckline, exposed midriff, short skirts)? Does she smile too much?Is there candy on her desk, encouraging co-workers to stop and chat? "Jane" might ask a trusted older working woman friend or relative to look over her wardrobe or share other hints.
I would love to get her to elaborate on the "smiling too much" concept. How much smiling is too much? How do you tell? Personally, when I smile at my co-workers, it's a natural smile - I haven't faked a smile since I worked in customer service. So if your natural smiling in reaction to context has you "smiling too much", how do you deliberately not smile without looking like you're being deliberately mean?
Silly things Harry Kim says in "The Haunting of Deck Twelve"
1. To a mess hall full of people, when an emergency begins to occur: "I want everyone to report to their stations until we figure out what's going on!" But these people are off duty, that's why they're in the mess hall! We know that Starfleet vessels operate on rotating shifts, so if all these people report to their stations, their stations will all be occupied by someone else!
2. To a frightened crewman in a dark hallway: "Trust me, there are no aliens roaming the corridors." Um, yeah...Vulcans, Klingons, Talaxians, Bolians, a handful of Borg drones...it's a Federation starship! Actually, since the crewman in question is a Bajoran, HARRY is an alien to her.
2. To a frightened crewman in a dark hallway: "Trust me, there are no aliens roaming the corridors." Um, yeah...Vulcans, Klingons, Talaxians, Bolians, a handful of Borg drones...it's a Federation starship! Actually, since the crewman in question is a Bajoran, HARRY is an alien to her.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Just saying no
When we think of why being a grownup rocks, we tend to think of things we can do even though our parents don't want us to. But another thing that rocks about being a grownup is that when our parents do want us to do something and we don't want to, we can just say no.
When you're a kid, if your parents offer you some specific food, you can't just say no thanks. They try to get you to eat it anyway, they make up all these rules like you have to eat ten peas before you leave the table or you have to drink a glass of milk before you can have some juice or if you don't eat it now you have to eat it for breakfast tomorrow morning. If you're going outside, they can make you wear snowpants, and you can't just say "I won't be needing snowpants, we'll be skipping and they'll just get in the way." If they think you need to practice your piano before you watch TV, you can't just say "Actually the one show I really want to watch is on now, so I'll watch it now and practice my piano after."
And this isn't just for disciplinary things. If your parents stop for ice cream but you don't want any ice cream, you can't just say no thanks, you have them try to convince you and you have to keep saying no and it's this whole big thing. If your friend invites you over to play and your parents think it's a good idea but you don't want to, you can't just say "Maybe later, I'm not up to it right now," to your friend - you have to justify the whole thing to your parents. If they offer to go play catch with you, under the impression that they're doing you a favour by doing something they think is fun for you, but you'd rather finish your book because you just got to the good part, you can't just say "No thanks, I want to finish my book." They try to coerce you and convince you and maybe they make a rule that you have to go play outside for at least an hour before you can come back in and finish your book.
When you're a kid, every single time you want to say no to your parents, you have to justify it, you have to discuss it, you have to get them to agree, you have to go through this Whole Big Thing. But as an adult, you can just say no. You can even manage to just say no thanks, because you know you're not going to have to go through the Whole Big Thing so your no doesn't have to be that forceful.
When you think about it, it really is remarkably liberating to not have to justify your every little preference, instead just quietly going about your life the way you want to. It saves so much time and energy!
When you're a kid, if your parents offer you some specific food, you can't just say no thanks. They try to get you to eat it anyway, they make up all these rules like you have to eat ten peas before you leave the table or you have to drink a glass of milk before you can have some juice or if you don't eat it now you have to eat it for breakfast tomorrow morning. If you're going outside, they can make you wear snowpants, and you can't just say "I won't be needing snowpants, we'll be skipping and they'll just get in the way." If they think you need to practice your piano before you watch TV, you can't just say "Actually the one show I really want to watch is on now, so I'll watch it now and practice my piano after."
And this isn't just for disciplinary things. If your parents stop for ice cream but you don't want any ice cream, you can't just say no thanks, you have them try to convince you and you have to keep saying no and it's this whole big thing. If your friend invites you over to play and your parents think it's a good idea but you don't want to, you can't just say "Maybe later, I'm not up to it right now," to your friend - you have to justify the whole thing to your parents. If they offer to go play catch with you, under the impression that they're doing you a favour by doing something they think is fun for you, but you'd rather finish your book because you just got to the good part, you can't just say "No thanks, I want to finish my book." They try to coerce you and convince you and maybe they make a rule that you have to go play outside for at least an hour before you can come back in and finish your book.
When you're a kid, every single time you want to say no to your parents, you have to justify it, you have to discuss it, you have to get them to agree, you have to go through this Whole Big Thing. But as an adult, you can just say no. You can even manage to just say no thanks, because you know you're not going to have to go through the Whole Big Thing so your no doesn't have to be that forceful.
When you think about it, it really is remarkably liberating to not have to justify your every little preference, instead just quietly going about your life the way you want to. It saves so much time and energy!
Injustice!
A 5-year-old girl fended for herself for days while home alone with the body of her mother, who apparently succumbed to bacterial meningitis, authorities said.
...
[The girl] was examined at a hospital and is in the temporary custody of the state human services department, agency spokeswoman Karen Stock said Tuesday. The dog was taken to an animal-rescue organization.
So her mother dies, she's alone with the body for days, she's now an orphan, and on top of everything else they take her dog away??? I wonder if they couldn't find a foster home that would take both the kid and the dog, or if they didn't try at all? She really should get to keep her dog after all she's been through!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
How to keep Google Groups from freezing in IE 6
Ever since Google Groups updated, it's been freezing for me in IE 6 (and malheureusement I don't have the option of using another browser at work). I accidentally figured out a workaround.
Open Google Groups in a maximized window. Open another IE window but don't maximize it (i.e. click on the little two-box "restore" icon on the top right.)
When you click on a link in Google Groups, immediately switch over to the non-maximized IE, then switch back to Google Groups. In my experience, the Google Groups window will display normally.
For some reason, this doesn't work if the second IE window is maximized, and it doesn't work if you just wait for Gooogle Groups to load. I have no idea why.
Open Google Groups in a maximized window. Open another IE window but don't maximize it (i.e. click on the little two-box "restore" icon on the top right.)
When you click on a link in Google Groups, immediately switch over to the non-maximized IE, then switch back to Google Groups. In my experience, the Google Groups window will display normally.
For some reason, this doesn't work if the second IE window is maximized, and it doesn't work if you just wait for Gooogle Groups to load. I have no idea why.
Petition
A petition against female genital mutiliation. Available in French only. (Pétition contre les mutilations génitales féminines).
Pour celles et ceux d'entre vous qui peuvent lire le français, veuillez cliquer, lire, et signer si vous le jugez approprié. Moi, je le juge approprié.
Pour celles et ceux d'entre vous qui peuvent lire le français, veuillez cliquer, lire, et signer si vous le jugez approprié. Moi, je le juge approprié.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Fitting into culture
I've recently noticed a convergence of commentary on how it's important for immigrants to make an effort to fit into the culture of their new home. But I find myself wondering if this really is important. After all, there's nowhere nearly as much emphasis on making people who were born in the geographical area in question fit into the culture. I can think of cases where, yes, certain cultural values could cause a major clash. But I can think of many more examples where if the behaviour in question were being done by someone who's ethnically or culturally unmarked, it would be considered at most an eccentricity.
Many of my personal values are completely different from prevailing societal values. There may well be no one else in the world who shares my exact same set of values. From my idea of what constitutes respectful behaviour to my classification of sex acts, from my rituals surrounding charitable donations to my reasoning behind my position on abortion, from what I would do if I won the lottery to what I would do if I lost my job, I'm sure at least some of these things are different from what you'd think in the same situation, and almost all of them are different from the cultural norm. But I don't hear anyone calling for me to adapt the values of the mainstream. Because I was born here? Because of the pallor of my skin? Because of my comically generic name? I can't tell you why. But it does make me think that cultural assimilation isn't really that important.
Many of my personal values are completely different from prevailing societal values. There may well be no one else in the world who shares my exact same set of values. From my idea of what constitutes respectful behaviour to my classification of sex acts, from my rituals surrounding charitable donations to my reasoning behind my position on abortion, from what I would do if I won the lottery to what I would do if I lost my job, I'm sure at least some of these things are different from what you'd think in the same situation, and almost all of them are different from the cultural norm. But I don't hear anyone calling for me to adapt the values of the mainstream. Because I was born here? Because of the pallor of my skin? Because of my comically generic name? I can't tell you why. But it does make me think that cultural assimilation isn't really that important.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Beware of AutoCorrect
The word I am attempting to type: succinct
The typo I accidentally make: succincg
Word's AutoCorrect of said typo: sucking
The result: a sentence implying that people should make sure their presentations suck.
The typo I accidentally make: succincg
Word's AutoCorrect of said typo: sucking
The result: a sentence implying that people should make sure their presentations suck.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Open Letter to HM Queen Elizabeth II, HRH Prince Charles, and HRH Prince William
Dear Current and Future Monarchs:
Apparently Justin Trudeau considering running for MP. I'm sure this means that eventually, someday, he will aspire to be Prime Minister of Canada. If this ever should happen, whichever one of you is reigning at the time must find some way to do a pirouette behind him.
Apparently Justin Trudeau considering running for MP. I'm sure this means that eventually, someday, he will aspire to be Prime Minister of Canada. If this ever should happen, whichever one of you is reigning at the time must find some way to do a pirouette behind him.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Parking etiquette question
Some of the moving companies I'm looking into do in-home estimates, where they come and look at all my stuff and tell me from there how much they expect it to cost.
My question for any urban drivers reading this: am I expected to provide the estimate guy with parking?
My building has underground guest parking. Guests need to be let in with a building key, which means I'd have to escort them, which is perfectly normal for people who are actually my guests, but weird for someone I've just met. There is limited free one-hour parking on my street, but more often than not it's all full. There are some Green P lots in the area, but you have to pay for those.
Is parking a basic hospitality like offering a chair to sit in or a glass of water, or is it a business expense that he's responsible for?
My question for any urban drivers reading this: am I expected to provide the estimate guy with parking?
My building has underground guest parking. Guests need to be let in with a building key, which means I'd have to escort them, which is perfectly normal for people who are actually my guests, but weird for someone I've just met. There is limited free one-hour parking on my street, but more often than not it's all full. There are some Green P lots in the area, but you have to pay for those.
Is parking a basic hospitality like offering a chair to sit in or a glass of water, or is it a business expense that he's responsible for?
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Puppies!
If you haven't seen this yet, you must go look: Daily Puppy.
I know, I know, I say every dog I find is the cutest dog ever. But the puppies on Daily Puppy are so adorable that they often make my eyes well up with tears at their sheer adorableness.
I know, I know, I say every dog I find is the cutest dog ever. But the puppies on Daily Puppy are so adorable that they often make my eyes well up with tears at their sheer adorableness.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Boring grownup stuff
The problem with arranging a move is that there's so much boring grownup stuff involved. I have to call people and get estimates for stuff and write cheques and watch my bank account balance and sign things. I've used the word "insurance" more in the past week than in the rest of my life combined! Don't get me wrong, I'd still rather be an adult than a child (I watched whatever I wanted on TV today! And now I'm playing computer games while drinking wine!) but this high density of boring grownup stuff is kind of getting me down.
This makes me glad I'm childfree and carfree. People with children and cars have to worry about stuff like this ALL THE TIME! Cars are giant resourcesucks, and with children you have to be doubley extra super-duper careful about EVERYTHING!
Maybe that's why those Kids Today people take childlessness as one of the signs of not being a grownup - because it affords you time to think about stuff other than boring grownup stuff.
This makes me glad I'm childfree and carfree. People with children and cars have to worry about stuff like this ALL THE TIME! Cars are giant resourcesucks, and with children you have to be doubley extra super-duper careful about EVERYTHING!
Maybe that's why those Kids Today people take childlessness as one of the signs of not being a grownup - because it affords you time to think about stuff other than boring grownup stuff.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Things They Should Invent: unwanted bottle drop-off point
With the new bottle deposit return system, I'm not going to take my bottles back to the Beer Store, because it's out of my way and a few cents isn't worth the trip to me. However, some of my local homeless do seem to think it's worth the trip, as I see them scavenging through my building's recycle dumpsters. But dumpster-diving is rather undignified, so it occurred to me that I might help out a bit by leaving my bottles in a bag outside the dumpster. But this is rather inconsiderate of my neighbours - it would be a mess if everyone kept leaving stuff outside the dumpsters.
What we really need is a central point where people who are too lazy to take their bottles back can just leave them behind - not in a dumpster, just in a small, civilized box - and someone who does have the need or initiative to go all the way to the Beer Store can take them and collect the deposit.
What we really need is a central point where people who are too lazy to take their bottles back can just leave them behind - not in a dumpster, just in a small, civilized box - and someone who does have the need or initiative to go all the way to the Beer Store can take them and collect the deposit.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Police, fire, amubulance?
Last night while I was waiting for sleep to overcome me, I heard a strange noise outside. For a brief second I thought it meant someone was climbing the side of my building. Of course, that is impossible for anyone but Peter Parker. But the thought crossed my mind nevertheless.
Then I found myself thinking about what I'd do if someone was, in fact, climbing the side of the building. I'd call 911, of course. The thing is, according to what few 911 transcripts I've read, a 911 call starts with the operator asking if you need police, fire, or ambulance.
So what do you say if someone is climbing up the side of your building? You need the police because you have a would-be intruder. You need the fire department to get him down. And you need an ambulance for when he falls.
No wonder people think our urban 21-century lives are unnecessarily complicated!
Then I found myself thinking about what I'd do if someone was, in fact, climbing the side of the building. I'd call 911, of course. The thing is, according to what few 911 transcripts I've read, a 911 call starts with the operator asking if you need police, fire, or ambulance.
So what do you say if someone is climbing up the side of your building? You need the police because you have a would-be intruder. You need the fire department to get him down. And you need an ambulance for when he falls.
No wonder people think our urban 21-century lives are unnecessarily complicated!
Things They Should Invent: centralized directory of people's new email addresses
For my primary personal email address, I use the address that came with my ISP. It has been serving me well for the past four years, but when I move in a couple of months I'm going to have to use a different ISP, so I'll lose my primary email address. I will, of course, email everyone I correspond with to inform them of my new emaill address (no, I haven't decided what it will be yet), but if I miss someone - say, someone I went to university with, or someone who wants to hire me - they'll be SOL. Since I haven't made myself terribly googleable using my real name or my primary email address, I'll be very difficult to find. I don't mind anyone who knows my old address knowing my new address, but they might not be able to find me, and I have no way of knowing who might be looking for me.
I'd like to see a website that is specifically designed for the sole purpose of informing the world of email address changes. When you have to change your email address, you enter your old email address and your new email address in a form. You don't have to enter any other information if you don't want to. Then if someone comes looking for you, they just enter your old email address, and the website will give them your new email address. If they know the old address, they can get the new one with no difficulty. If they don't know the old address, they can't find you by searching by your name or anything, unless you set it up that way. Simple, straightforward, solves a lot of problems. But it will only work if there's only one centralized site, which, really, is the problem with many online things.
I'd like to see a website that is specifically designed for the sole purpose of informing the world of email address changes. When you have to change your email address, you enter your old email address and your new email address in a form. You don't have to enter any other information if you don't want to. Then if someone comes looking for you, they just enter your old email address, and the website will give them your new email address. If they know the old address, they can get the new one with no difficulty. If they don't know the old address, they can't find you by searching by your name or anything, unless you set it up that way. Simple, straightforward, solves a lot of problems. But it will only work if there's only one centralized site, which, really, is the problem with many online things.
712-429-0268
I just got this call. I picked up and a recording said "Hi, this is Rachel from cardholder services, this is your last chance to reduce your interest rate." I then had the option of pressing 1 to reduce my interest rate. This is clearly a scam, not the least of which because I have three credit cards and she didn't identify which one she was with. So I did a *69 and got 712-429-0268. The internet tells me that this is in Iowa, which makes me certain this is a scam. My credit cards are Canadian! The thing I don't know is whether I need to report this, and if so to whom. I looked at the Phonebusters website, but they seem to be all about helping you if the scam succeeded.
Fun fact
I don't follow football. I know that the Superbowl was today, and I'm only certain about one of the teams that's playing and it's corresponding city, although I'd be willing to hazard a guess at what the other team is. I can't name any football players involved and don't know which team wears which uniform.
Based on the information currently available on the front page of Google News, I can't tell who won the Superbowl. I can tell that the game is over, and there are the names of some players and a small picture or two, but I can't figure it out without clicking on the articles.
Based on the information currently available on the front page of Google News, I can't tell who won the Superbowl. I can tell that the game is over, and there are the names of some players and a small picture or two, but I can't figure it out without clicking on the articles.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Tolkien linguistics
When I was taking sociolinguistics, I did a lot of work on code-switching. I internalized most of the main reasons for code-switching (I used to be able to rattle off with absolute certainty and provide examples for the top ten reasons for code-switching. Now I'd give it a shot, but I'd check the textbook before writing a paper about it or anything.)
I just noticed that in LOTR, whenever Aragon is speaking Elvish and then switches back into English, it's a natural code-switch. Every time, he has a reason from the top ten list. I might do the same thing if I were in the same situation speaking French to a bilingual francophone.
I knew that Tolkien was a linguist, but I never realized before that there was such attention to detail. I just took it as an excuse for him to use the languages he created.
I just noticed that in LOTR, whenever Aragon is speaking Elvish and then switches back into English, it's a natural code-switch. Every time, he has a reason from the top ten list. I might do the same thing if I were in the same situation speaking French to a bilingual francophone.
I knew that Tolkien was a linguist, but I never realized before that there was such attention to detail. I just took it as an excuse for him to use the languages he created.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Update
I have an apartment, but not the apartment. The apartment was far far too expensive. But I'm more or less happy with what I got. More later, I'm done for today.
Me being foolish at 1 am
I feel ridiculous doing this, but Wil Wheaton once claimed it works for him, so may as well give it a shot.
If I can have a convergence of good karma (or, as Wil calls it, mojo) around 4pm tomorrow, I will get the very best apartment ever in the world. Like an apartment that's so good I won't even consider buying a condo when I make my fortune, because the apartment is better than any of the condos. Statistically, there's no reason why I should get it. There's only one that meets my needs so perfectly, and it will most likely be taken before I get there. Plus, economically and based on the price points that I've been provided, it should be priced out of my range. Rightfully, I shouldn't even be thinking about it. But mein Gott do I ever want it!
Last time I had a convergence of good karma was April 2003. That resulted in my current job, despite the fact that rightfully no such position should have existed. The previous convergence of good karma was March 2000, when I was permitted to write my entrance exam late after not being informed of the date, despite the fact that there were hundreds of candidates competing for mere dozens of positions and rightfully they should have just said "Sorry, try again next year." So, if I may be so presumptuous, maybe I'm about due for another karma convergence?
So if you have any good karma, positive energy, mojo, or anything helpful like that, please send it in my direction around 4 pm EST tomorrow (Feb. 3) if you have the ability to do so. If it works, I shall be eternally grateful. If it doesn't work, I won't even notice.
I wonder if I'm jinxing it by saying what it's for? Wil never says what it's for, but that might be because of the nature of his profession?
If I can have a convergence of good karma (or, as Wil calls it, mojo) around 4pm tomorrow, I will get the very best apartment ever in the world. Like an apartment that's so good I won't even consider buying a condo when I make my fortune, because the apartment is better than any of the condos. Statistically, there's no reason why I should get it. There's only one that meets my needs so perfectly, and it will most likely be taken before I get there. Plus, economically and based on the price points that I've been provided, it should be priced out of my range. Rightfully, I shouldn't even be thinking about it. But mein Gott do I ever want it!
Last time I had a convergence of good karma was April 2003. That resulted in my current job, despite the fact that rightfully no such position should have existed. The previous convergence of good karma was March 2000, when I was permitted to write my entrance exam late after not being informed of the date, despite the fact that there were hundreds of candidates competing for mere dozens of positions and rightfully they should have just said "Sorry, try again next year." So, if I may be so presumptuous, maybe I'm about due for another karma convergence?
So if you have any good karma, positive energy, mojo, or anything helpful like that, please send it in my direction around 4 pm EST tomorrow (Feb. 3) if you have the ability to do so. If it works, I shall be eternally grateful. If it doesn't work, I won't even notice.
I wonder if I'm jinxing it by saying what it's for? Wil never says what it's for, but that might be because of the nature of his profession?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)