On the morning of Monday, April 23, one of the news stories on the radio was that the students of Virginia Tech were returning to class. Apparently classes had been suspended since the shooting, and students also had the option either completing their semester, or taking whatever their current mark was and leaving for the rest of the semester. I remember thinking that was very civilized, and reflecting wistfully on the flexibility of academia.
Then it was time to head out to work. There had just been an accident where a TTC worker was killed, the subway was offline for my entire commute. The TTC was out in full force trying to cover for the outage. Every available single bus (including these really old retro buses) was being used to shuttle passengers along the subway routes. There were transit supervisors everywhere directing people. Basically everyone in the entire system was going full throttle to make sure the city keeps moving.
Despite the fact that the two situations are very different, the contrast nevertheless really struck me. At Virginia Tech they get the time and flexibility they need to recover a bit, while the TTC people have to jump right into work full throttle without missing a beat.
I hope the general public keeps this in mind next time they're inclined to get all bitchy at the TTC because it pays some of its workers over $20/hour.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Fictional universes
When I'm reading science fiction or fantasy or historical fiction, the one thing I really enjoy is just immersing myself in the peaceful everyday life of the fictional/historical universe. I love the whimsy of everyday life at Hogwarts. I love the bucolic peace of the Shire. I love the very beginning of Gone With The Wind, before the Civil War starts. Unfortunately, these genres tend to demand that once the calm happy everyday existence in the universe is established, it is completley boulversé. The protagonist has to leave everyday life to go off on some grand adventure (which will take up most of the plot), and then introducing the reader to the universe is set aside in favour of the larger plot.
Some books are able to work around this. Judith Merkle Riley's Vision of Light has the protagonist in her optimal place narrating the events that got her there, so I got to enjoy the happy everyday life throughout the upheavel of the rest of the book. The Mists of Avalon doesn't have a single happy place, but rather a series of places are travelled through and there's no single grand quest, so, again, I get to enjoy everyday life throughout. But most often, the genre demands that we only get a fleeting, tantalizing glimpse of happy everyday life, before the protagonist runs off on a quest.
A genre that would be more conducive to showing us happy everyday life would be lighter, more domestic novels, like Little Women or Jane Austen. However, they don't really show the universe, because they were written in what was then the present, so the authors didn't focus on creating the universe with historical details because all those details were obvious at the time. So I guess a way to create the kind of historical fiction that makes me happy would be to rework these old novels in the form of historical novels, written for an audience who is unfamiliar with the details of the era. So then we could enjoy the universe, and we'd also get a plot that doesn't involve completely turning the universe upsidown. I guess that's why I tend to prefer movies of these older books. They have to create the universe rather than taking it as a given, so I get to immerse myself in the world even though that wasn't the author's original intent.
Some books are able to work around this. Judith Merkle Riley's Vision of Light has the protagonist in her optimal place narrating the events that got her there, so I got to enjoy the happy everyday life throughout the upheavel of the rest of the book. The Mists of Avalon doesn't have a single happy place, but rather a series of places are travelled through and there's no single grand quest, so, again, I get to enjoy everyday life throughout. But most often, the genre demands that we only get a fleeting, tantalizing glimpse of happy everyday life, before the protagonist runs off on a quest.
A genre that would be more conducive to showing us happy everyday life would be lighter, more domestic novels, like Little Women or Jane Austen. However, they don't really show the universe, because they were written in what was then the present, so the authors didn't focus on creating the universe with historical details because all those details were obvious at the time. So I guess a way to create the kind of historical fiction that makes me happy would be to rework these old novels in the form of historical novels, written for an audience who is unfamiliar with the details of the era. So then we could enjoy the universe, and we'd also get a plot that doesn't involve completely turning the universe upsidown. I guess that's why I tend to prefer movies of these older books. They have to create the universe rather than taking it as a given, so I get to immerse myself in the world even though that wasn't the author's original intent.
Things They Should Invent: a better way of folding fitted sheets
Fitted sheets are not rectangular, but all the ways I can find to fold them are based on trying to force them to act like rectangles. Someone should really come up with a way to fold them that takes into account their unique nature, but still enables them to fit into the linen closet. No, I don't have any suggestions or insight.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Another reason to treat detainees humanely
Remember in March 2003, when the US first started invading Iraq and you could turn on the TV and "watch war"? Remember how they were reporting that huge numbers of Iraqi soldiers were just outright surrendering? I don't know if this was true or not - I never heard much follow-up after that, and it is the sort of thing that makes for good propoganda - but the reporting made it sound like at the first sight of American military the Iraqi soldiers were waving white flags, to deliberately escape from whatever kind of hellhole the Iraqi military was. Upon hearing this mentioned several times, I turned to my father (I was at my parents' house that weekend) and said "So if this is true, that means that being a US prisoner of war is significantly better than being a free Iraqi soldier."
Obviously, I hadn't yet heard of Abu Ghraib.
This memory came back to me the other day, when the radio was talking about how people taken prisoner by Canadians in Afghanistan are treated. It occurs to me that, apart from the fact that we should be better than that, and apart from the fact that torturing our prisoners invites people to torture are citizens, and apart from the fact that it's ineffective anyway, and apart from basic human decency, this is another reason why we should treat our prisoners humanely.
Imagine if everyone, everyone in the world, knew that if they surrendered to or were arrested by a Canadian soldier, they would be put somewhere that's clean and sanitary, with sufficient food and health care, and they absolutely would not be beaten, raped, or tortured.
Clearly, the pragmatic decision would be to surrender, or to go quietly if you get arrested. Obviously some people aren't going to go along with this, but that would be out of ideology, not out of self-preservation. If our prisoners can get tortured, that gives people the motivation to do everything possible to avoid being taken prisoner, lest the unspeakable happen. Now if they didn't have this motivation to do everything possible to evade our troops, imagine how much easier that would make our military's job. Some people are still going to fight them because there is ideology and even fanticism involved, but others will have far greater motivation to go along quietly, or to surrender, or even just to treat our troops with a grudging respect. Imagine a situation where those rivers of surrendering enemy soliders - whether they were real or a creation of propganda - were unquestionably making the best decision for themselves and for their families. Wouldn't that make things better for everyone?
Obviously, I hadn't yet heard of Abu Ghraib.
This memory came back to me the other day, when the radio was talking about how people taken prisoner by Canadians in Afghanistan are treated. It occurs to me that, apart from the fact that we should be better than that, and apart from the fact that torturing our prisoners invites people to torture are citizens, and apart from the fact that it's ineffective anyway, and apart from basic human decency, this is another reason why we should treat our prisoners humanely.
Imagine if everyone, everyone in the world, knew that if they surrendered to or were arrested by a Canadian soldier, they would be put somewhere that's clean and sanitary, with sufficient food and health care, and they absolutely would not be beaten, raped, or tortured.
Clearly, the pragmatic decision would be to surrender, or to go quietly if you get arrested. Obviously some people aren't going to go along with this, but that would be out of ideology, not out of self-preservation. If our prisoners can get tortured, that gives people the motivation to do everything possible to avoid being taken prisoner, lest the unspeakable happen. Now if they didn't have this motivation to do everything possible to evade our troops, imagine how much easier that would make our military's job. Some people are still going to fight them because there is ideology and even fanticism involved, but others will have far greater motivation to go along quietly, or to surrender, or even just to treat our troops with a grudging respect. Imagine a situation where those rivers of surrendering enemy soliders - whether they were real or a creation of propganda - were unquestionably making the best decision for themselves and for their families. Wouldn't that make things better for everyone?
Friday, April 27, 2007
Money, status, and age
Sure, everyone wants to earn a living - but it turns out that with age comes a realization for many that status and money are not as important as knowing they somehow made a difference.
It sounds like they're saying that when you're young and foolish you think money and status are important, but when you get older and wiser you realize that they never were important.
I wonder if this really is the case? It occurs to me that perhaps acquiring more money and status become less important as you get older because by then you have earned or saved enough of each to live on in the long term.
I know first-hand it's quite easy to say that money doesn't matter when you have some. It's just that I tend to hear these sentiments coming the loudest from people who are resting on their laurels and collecting their indexed pensions. I somehow doubt they're looking back and saying "Wow, I wish I hadn't spent all that time in my youth building up financial security and a respected standing in the community!"
I just think people who are inclined to say that money doesn't matter need to keep that in mind. It's one thing to say "When I was young, it was more important to me to acquire money and status. But now I have enough of each and I can focus on other things." But it's quite another thing to go to someone who's in a place in their life where acquiring money and status are important, and try to convince them that these things aren't important for them just because they aren't important for you.
The litmus test: Thing back to the time one year before you got your first grownup job, however you choose to define "grownup job" to apply to your own life. How would you feel if your financial situation and social status now were no better than they were then?
How roommates would affect my ecological footprint
The Globe and Mail proposesthat people living alone are "an environmental time bomb."
This seemed off to me, so I calculated myecological footprint. Here are the results it gave for me living alone (I apologize for the all-caps, but it came that way. The bolding is my own):
Then I recalculated for if I lived in a household of six people. I kept all other variables the same, just changed the number of people:
"But six is really a bit much," you're saying. Okay, so let's do it for a household of two:
As you can see, the difference is really negligible. Already I'm only occupying about 1/3 of the average footprint. If I increased my household size to six, my footprint would shrink by only 0.8 hectares, which is only 9% of the average footprint in the country.
And that's with changing only the number of people - none of the other variables were touched. So that means I'm cramming six people into this 500 square foot, one-bedroom one-bathroom apartment. For a savings of only 9% of the national average. That hardly seems worth it, especially since I'm already 70% below the national average to start with!
But what if we did something more realistic. I have no idea how much space you'd need for six people, so I redid the calculations for 2 people in an 80-square-foot apartment. Why? Because that's the smallest apartment in this building that I think I could share happily with mi cielito. We're both introverts who need our space.
Not only is this higher than for if the two people lived in the 500 square foot apartment, but it's also higher than for my rating living alone. So it looks like the "problem", if there is one, isn't that people live alone, but that people who can afford to do so live with the amount of privacy we expect in our society.
But you know what? I'm not giving up my privacy. My privacy is the single greatest joy my home gives me. I'm childfree, carfree, vegetarian, and paying higher than average rent to live in a building with l33t new environmental features; and my ecological footprint reflects all that. I've done my part. If you want me to give up my privacy, work on getting everyone else's environmental footprints down low enough that mine even begins to approach the national average. Then we'll talk.
This seemed off to me, so I calculated myecological footprint. Here are the results it gave for me living alone (I apologize for the all-caps, but it came that way. The bolding is my own):
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.8
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 0.6
GOODS/SERVICES 0.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3.2
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.8 PLANETS.
Then I recalculated for if I lived in a household of six people. I kept all other variables the same, just changed the number of people:
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.8
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 0.2
GOODS/SERVICES 0.3
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.4
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.3 PLANETS.
"But six is really a bit much," you're saying. Okay, so let's do it for a household of two:
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.8
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 0.4
GOODS/SERVICES 0.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.8
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.6 PLANETS.
As you can see, the difference is really negligible. Already I'm only occupying about 1/3 of the average footprint. If I increased my household size to six, my footprint would shrink by only 0.8 hectares, which is only 9% of the average footprint in the country.
And that's with changing only the number of people - none of the other variables were touched. So that means I'm cramming six people into this 500 square foot, one-bedroom one-bathroom apartment. For a savings of only 9% of the national average. That hardly seems worth it, especially since I'm already 70% below the national average to start with!
But what if we did something more realistic. I have no idea how much space you'd need for six people, so I redid the calculations for 2 people in an 80-square-foot apartment. Why? Because that's the smallest apartment in this building that I think I could share happily with mi cielito. We're both introverts who need our space.
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.8
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 0.9
GOODS/SERVICES 1
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3.8
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.1 PLANETS.
Not only is this higher than for if the two people lived in the 500 square foot apartment, but it's also higher than for my rating living alone. So it looks like the "problem", if there is one, isn't that people live alone, but that people who can afford to do so live with the amount of privacy we expect in our society.
But you know what? I'm not giving up my privacy. My privacy is the single greatest joy my home gives me. I'm childfree, carfree, vegetarian, and paying higher than average rent to live in a building with l33t new environmental features; and my ecological footprint reflects all that. I've done my part. If you want me to give up my privacy, work on getting everyone else's environmental footprints down low enough that mine even begins to approach the national average. Then we'll talk.
Anyone out there watch Ugly Betty?
Is Wilhelmina aware that Claire owns Mode, not Bradford? If not, why hasn't anyone told her? If so, why is she sleeping with Bradford?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Renting and home improvements
I'm just posting this because I can finally articulate something I wish I'd been able to explain earlier.
Many of the homeowners in my life don't understand why I'm so hesitant to do home repairs or upgrades. They have also been known to complain about their renting neighbours not maintaining their homes. These two things come down to one main issue that many (or at least the loudest of) homeowners don't seem to be able to grasp and that I wish I'd been able to articulate earlier:
Most maintenance falls under the homeowner's jurisdiction, but is outside the tenant's jurisdiction.
If you own a house and you want to install a lighting fixture, go ahead. You mess up, the worst thing that happens (short of hurting yourself) is you've hurt your property and you have to spend some money to hire a professional to fix it. However, if you rent and want to install a lighting fixture and mess up, you hurt someone else's property, and you can't hire a professional to fix it because contractors require the landlord's permission. So not only have you hurt someone else's property, but you've inconvenienced them to get it fixed.
If your house is drafty and poorly insulated, you can totally put in insulation or hire someone to put in insulation. This falls entirely within your jurisdiction and it is your right. But if your apartment is drafty and poorly insulated, you have to live with it. It is completely outside your jurisdiction to go around opening up the walls.
If you own a house and it needs painting, you can paint it. If you rent a house and it needs painting, that's the landlord's responsibility. If you want to paint it anyway, you need permission and maybe you'll also need to paint it back when you move out.
Basically, if I want to try something new on property that I own, all I need to do is be reasonably sure that I can attempt the process without killing myself. But if I want to try something new on property that I rent, I need to be 100% certain that I can get it back to mint condition before I move out. This is why I'm willing to install a new showerhead, but not to take risks with wiring.
Many of the homeowners in my life don't understand why I'm so hesitant to do home repairs or upgrades. They have also been known to complain about their renting neighbours not maintaining their homes. These two things come down to one main issue that many (or at least the loudest of) homeowners don't seem to be able to grasp and that I wish I'd been able to articulate earlier:
Most maintenance falls under the homeowner's jurisdiction, but is outside the tenant's jurisdiction.
If you own a house and you want to install a lighting fixture, go ahead. You mess up, the worst thing that happens (short of hurting yourself) is you've hurt your property and you have to spend some money to hire a professional to fix it. However, if you rent and want to install a lighting fixture and mess up, you hurt someone else's property, and you can't hire a professional to fix it because contractors require the landlord's permission. So not only have you hurt someone else's property, but you've inconvenienced them to get it fixed.
If your house is drafty and poorly insulated, you can totally put in insulation or hire someone to put in insulation. This falls entirely within your jurisdiction and it is your right. But if your apartment is drafty and poorly insulated, you have to live with it. It is completely outside your jurisdiction to go around opening up the walls.
If you own a house and it needs painting, you can paint it. If you rent a house and it needs painting, that's the landlord's responsibility. If you want to paint it anyway, you need permission and maybe you'll also need to paint it back when you move out.
Basically, if I want to try something new on property that I own, all I need to do is be reasonably sure that I can attempt the process without killing myself. But if I want to try something new on property that I rent, I need to be 100% certain that I can get it back to mint condition before I move out. This is why I'm willing to install a new showerhead, but not to take risks with wiring.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Bad layout of the day
Doesn't this make it look like Boris Yeltsin is the TTC worker who was killed?
Monday, April 23, 2007
The Bloor line workaround doesn't work today!
I've long been an advocate of taking the subway down to Bloor rather than using a bus to cross between the Yonge and U-S lines. But don't try that today! Subway traffic is SO slow south of Eglinton because they have to keep turning the trains!
However, if you want to cross at Sheppard, take the York University Rocket (not the Sheppard bus).
However, if you want to cross at Sheppard, take the York University Rocket (not the Sheppard bus).
Sunday, April 22, 2007
The ethics of newspaper delivery
Apparently if you subscribe to the Toronto Star and you don't get a newspaper and you report this and ask them to credit your account, they'll deduct $5 from the carrier's pay. This blog mentioned it, and someone (who I don't know very well, but would be in a position to know) told me so IRL.
This seems wrong, especially considering that the paper costs like $1 each in store, and the Star seems so eager to sell me subscriptions at under $1 a week.
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
This seems wrong, especially considering that the paper costs like $1 each in store, and the Star seems so eager to sell me subscriptions at under $1 a week.
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
I am a high school graduate
You paid attention during 100% of high school!
85-100% You must be an autodidact, because American high schools don't get scores that high! Good show, old chap!
Do you deserve your high school diploma?
Create a Quiz
I have no idea what that immaculate conception question was doing there though. It seems a bit esoteric and unnecessary, even if you take into accoutnt the possibility of a Catholic education.
Least memorable book ever
Just before I moved, I finished a book of short stories. I wanted to blog about it because I'm really trying to get back in the habit of blogging what I read, but I can't remember the title! Or the author! Or the contents of the stories! I think there was some adultery, and maybe a yoga class, and maybe an old man, but I'm not entirely certain.
So obviously they weren't terribly memorable stories. Unfortunately I can't even tell you the name or author so you can avoid them.
So obviously they weren't terribly memorable stories. Unfortunately I can't even tell you the name or author so you can avoid them.
Friday, April 20, 2007
How to photograph your puppy
If you're photographing a puppy (or anything else that's cute because it's small), pose it with some everyday object so people can get an idea of scale. For example, I thought that this puppy was cute, but didn't realize how small she was because she's shaped basically like a grownup dog. But then I scrolled down and saw the picture with the big yellow dog, and then the picture further down with the blue chair, and went "OOOH!" in a strange squeaky voice because she's so much smaller than I originally thought.
So use props to show just how adorably little your adorably little photography subject is.
Really. It's a rule.
So use props to show just how adorably little your adorably little photography subject is.
Really. It's a rule.
Emerald Movers & Storage
The moving company I ended up hiring was Emerald Movers & Storage, and I was quite happy with their work. The receptionist was very reassuring, knew who I was when I called, and was able to answer all my questions. The movers showed up on time, and were quick, efficient, strong, competent, and all business. They walked in and immediately started moving my boxes to the elevator. They wrapped up all my furniture in protective padding, and everything came out on the other side perfectly intact. Then they drove over to the new building and put everything back just as efficiently, taking all their padding and wrapping away with them. They required no supervision except for instructions on where to put stuff in the new apartment. They also behaved with complete propriety at all times. My mother was there most of the time, but at one point I was alone in an elevator with these two extremely tall and strong men, (I had to look up at them, and I don't normally have to look up at people), and I was not at all uncomfortable. The move came in under time and under estimate (although I think they overestimated the estimate for that very reason). It took a total of three hours to move my 500 square foot one-bedroom apartment a very short distance.
Now, if you're doing your research on Emerald, you might encounter a few things that could be interpreted as red flags. First, they point potential clients to HomeStars.ca where they have many positive reviews.* However, they have so many more positive reviews than any of the companies, so it really comes across as fake. I can't vouch for the accuracy or inaccuracy of these reviews, but they are consistent with my experience. (This is why I choose to review here, in an independent medium where you can see that I am, in fact, an individual.) Second, they are not a member of the Canadian Association of Movers. I asked the guy who gave me my estimate about this (he also ended up being one of the actual movers - I don't know if this is normal practice or not) and he didn't have an answer for me right away, but he did call me back the next business day with the explanation that CAM is geared more towards large moving companies and Emerald is small. Again, I cannot vouch for the accuracy or inaccuracy of this statement, but I have no reason to believe it's false, and the question was handled in a way that was consistant with perfect transparency. Thirdly, the truck they used didn't say "Emerald" on it, it was from Penske truck rental. I didn't get a chance to get a full explanation of this. I don't know whether or not it's normal practice, I did notice that they don't have any trucks on their website, but my move did go perfectly smoothly despite the fact that the truck didn't have the moving company's name on it.
Rereading this post, I just realized that, by saying that they were competent and did their job as expected, I may come across as damning them with faint praise. That is not my intention. It's just that I've heard so many horror stories about movers that I'm extremely happy that everything went smoothly. I can't say that Emerald went above and beyond for me, but it's not like they had the opportunity, because my move was extremely simple as moves go (if I had muscles and a car, I would have done it myself). As it was, nothing whatsoever went wrong, so I'm happy.
I would recommend Emerald without hesitation, and, as a youngish woman living alone, I would not be uncomfortable hiring these guys even if there couldn't be anyone else present on moving day.
*Edited to add: a couple weeks after my move, I received an email from Emerald thanking me for my business and suggesting that I review them on Homestars. So that's probably why they have so many more reviews than everyone else - because they actively point their clients there.
Now, if you're doing your research on Emerald, you might encounter a few things that could be interpreted as red flags. First, they point potential clients to HomeStars.ca where they have many positive reviews.* However, they have so many more positive reviews than any of the companies, so it really comes across as fake. I can't vouch for the accuracy or inaccuracy of these reviews, but they are consistent with my experience. (This is why I choose to review here, in an independent medium where you can see that I am, in fact, an individual.) Second, they are not a member of the Canadian Association of Movers. I asked the guy who gave me my estimate about this (he also ended up being one of the actual movers - I don't know if this is normal practice or not) and he didn't have an answer for me right away, but he did call me back the next business day with the explanation that CAM is geared more towards large moving companies and Emerald is small. Again, I cannot vouch for the accuracy or inaccuracy of this statement, but I have no reason to believe it's false, and the question was handled in a way that was consistant with perfect transparency. Thirdly, the truck they used didn't say "Emerald" on it, it was from Penske truck rental. I didn't get a chance to get a full explanation of this. I don't know whether or not it's normal practice, I did notice that they don't have any trucks on their website, but my move did go perfectly smoothly despite the fact that the truck didn't have the moving company's name on it.
Rereading this post, I just realized that, by saying that they were competent and did their job as expected, I may come across as damning them with faint praise. That is not my intention. It's just that I've heard so many horror stories about movers that I'm extremely happy that everything went smoothly. I can't say that Emerald went above and beyond for me, but it's not like they had the opportunity, because my move was extremely simple as moves go (if I had muscles and a car, I would have done it myself). As it was, nothing whatsoever went wrong, so I'm happy.
I would recommend Emerald without hesitation, and, as a youngish woman living alone, I would not be uncomfortable hiring these guys even if there couldn't be anyone else present on moving day.
*Edited to add: a couple weeks after my move, I received an email from Emerald thanking me for my business and suggesting that I review them on Homestars. So that's probably why they have so many more reviews than everyone else - because they actively point their clients there.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Cervical cancer vaccine acquired (at age 26)
Despite the fact that I'm too old, my doctor has consented to administer the HPV vaccine!
I was in her office for a scheduled appointment for another matter when I asked her whether there was any possibility of giving me the vaccine. She said we'd need to schedule another appointment to discuss my risk factors, so I did so. That appointment was today. She asked me about whether I've had abnormal pap smears and about my sexual history, and in light of the information acquired there said that she could allow me to have it. Then she brought up the fact that my future risk of acquiring HPV is low, so is the vaccine really necessary. I asked what specific risks there were to taking this vaccine, and she said that there were none that they know of (apart from the usual potential for your body reacting to the vaccine) but long-term effects are still unknown. She didn't have anything specific to warn me about and didn't seem to be trying to dissuade me, she just seemed to be making sure I had all the information. It felt like she was leaving the decision up to me.
So I decided to do it, she gave me the prescription, and I will be getting my first shot in early May.
I'm not going into detail about my personal risk factors, because I don't know how different risk factors would affect one's chances of getting the vaccine. That's really something to talk to your doctor about.
So how do you get in to talk to your doctor? (If you haven't been following my saga, that was the first problem - I'd been trying since last August but couldn't get past the receptionist because she'd never heard of it.) If you're having the same problems as me, don't ask the receptionist about the HPV vaccine or Gardasil or the cervical cancer vaccine, just get into the doctor's examining room by whatever means necessary, and then ask the doctor there. I know it's considered necessary to tell the receptionist why you need the appointment, but if that doesn't work the receptionist's attitude isn't necessarily the same as the doctor's. I was just completely unprepared for the receptionist not knowing what I was talking about and then limiting her actions based on her own knowledge.
I was in her office for a scheduled appointment for another matter when I asked her whether there was any possibility of giving me the vaccine. She said we'd need to schedule another appointment to discuss my risk factors, so I did so. That appointment was today. She asked me about whether I've had abnormal pap smears and about my sexual history, and in light of the information acquired there said that she could allow me to have it. Then she brought up the fact that my future risk of acquiring HPV is low, so is the vaccine really necessary. I asked what specific risks there were to taking this vaccine, and she said that there were none that they know of (apart from the usual potential for your body reacting to the vaccine) but long-term effects are still unknown. She didn't have anything specific to warn me about and didn't seem to be trying to dissuade me, she just seemed to be making sure I had all the information. It felt like she was leaving the decision up to me.
So I decided to do it, she gave me the prescription, and I will be getting my first shot in early May.
I'm not going into detail about my personal risk factors, because I don't know how different risk factors would affect one's chances of getting the vaccine. That's really something to talk to your doctor about.
So how do you get in to talk to your doctor? (If you haven't been following my saga, that was the first problem - I'd been trying since last August but couldn't get past the receptionist because she'd never heard of it.) If you're having the same problems as me, don't ask the receptionist about the HPV vaccine or Gardasil or the cervical cancer vaccine, just get into the doctor's examining room by whatever means necessary, and then ask the doctor there. I know it's considered necessary to tell the receptionist why you need the appointment, but if that doesn't work the receptionist's attitude isn't necessarily the same as the doctor's. I was just completely unprepared for the receptionist not knowing what I was talking about and then limiting her actions based on her own knowledge.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Done
The move went successfully, despite my ridiculous exhaustion. (Lesson learned: take nyquill before bed the night before you move. The showerhead is still in question. Any recommendations for specific hand-held showerheads with good water pressure?
More later, including a full review of the moving company.
More later, including a full review of the moving company.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
freaking out
i'm surrounded by boxes and i hate it.
the water pressure in my new shower needs viagra. i'm particularly pissed since the leasing agents assured (sp???) me that there's good water pressure on every single floor and there's no need to worry about the details of construction because construction is so very very l33t that there's good water pressure on ever floor, and now the water pressure int he shower sucks. in a paricularly painful bit of irony, the water pressure in the sink and the kitchen are both fine, it's just the shower that needs viagra. I was so very very confident that the new apartment is better and that's why it's worth all this trouble and then the water pressure sucks and long hot showers are part of my raison d'etre so i don't know what to do now. Plus I saw an air conditioning truck outside the building today which make me nervous that the a/c doesn't work because the whole building is a greenhouse without the a/c. If it's not as better as i thought, especially at the prices I'm paying, I think I'm going to cry.
Anyone know any brands of handheld showerheads that give you like major major intense water pressure?
Also, I diligently finished off a bottle of wine tonight (since, like, it's heavy and breakable and liquid and it's good to use up bottles instead of moving them) so if I sent you any emails tonight it might not make sense and that's why.
I just want it to be over. Hopefully by this time tomorrow I will be and I'll be sleeping the sleep of the physically exhausted in my own bed in my brand new apartment.
I don't know how people ever manage to move huge distances or plan weddings or anything like that. Moving this ridiculously short distance is stressful enough for me.
the water pressure in my new shower needs viagra. i'm particularly pissed since the leasing agents assured (sp???) me that there's good water pressure on every single floor and there's no need to worry about the details of construction because construction is so very very l33t that there's good water pressure on ever floor, and now the water pressure int he shower sucks. in a paricularly painful bit of irony, the water pressure in the sink and the kitchen are both fine, it's just the shower that needs viagra. I was so very very confident that the new apartment is better and that's why it's worth all this trouble and then the water pressure sucks and long hot showers are part of my raison d'etre so i don't know what to do now. Plus I saw an air conditioning truck outside the building today which make me nervous that the a/c doesn't work because the whole building is a greenhouse without the a/c. If it's not as better as i thought, especially at the prices I'm paying, I think I'm going to cry.
Anyone know any brands of handheld showerheads that give you like major major intense water pressure?
Also, I diligently finished off a bottle of wine tonight (since, like, it's heavy and breakable and liquid and it's good to use up bottles instead of moving them) so if I sent you any emails tonight it might not make sense and that's why.
I just want it to be over. Hopefully by this time tomorrow I will be and I'll be sleeping the sleep of the physically exhausted in my own bed in my brand new apartment.
I don't know how people ever manage to move huge distances or plan weddings or anything like that. Moving this ridiculously short distance is stressful enough for me.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Ineffective ads
There was a blurb in the Toronto Star about new ads to raise awareness of violence against women. They're supposed to be attention- grabbing.
Problem: I skimmed right over it without paying attention.
Why? Because the graphics of the ad look similar to the graphics of ads for dance or theatre performance or art exhibits - the kinds of ads you see in the Weekend Review section of the Globe and Mail. The word "Abuse" is in similar position, font, and size to the name of the performance or art work, the statistics are laid out similarly to the review blurbs, and the green bar at the bottom is similar to the information about where the piece is playing and how to buy tickets.
I don't know if this was all intentional, but when I saw the picture without reading it, my brain processed it as an ad for performance or art. And I'm not interested in seeing a play or dance piece or art exhibit about a beaten-up pregnant woman, so I ignored it. It wasn't until the third or fourth time my eye passed over it that it occurred to me that it was an article in the newspaper, not an ad.
I don't think it's very attention-getting to make an ad look like a different kind of ad.
Problem: I skimmed right over it without paying attention.
Why? Because the graphics of the ad look similar to the graphics of ads for dance or theatre performance or art exhibits - the kinds of ads you see in the Weekend Review section of the Globe and Mail. The word "Abuse" is in similar position, font, and size to the name of the performance or art work, the statistics are laid out similarly to the review blurbs, and the green bar at the bottom is similar to the information about where the piece is playing and how to buy tickets.
I don't know if this was all intentional, but when I saw the picture without reading it, my brain processed it as an ad for performance or art. And I'm not interested in seeing a play or dance piece or art exhibit about a beaten-up pregnant woman, so I ignored it. It wasn't until the third or fourth time my eye passed over it that it occurred to me that it was an article in the newspaper, not an ad.
I don't think it's very attention-getting to make an ad look like a different kind of ad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)