1. My very least favourite Canadian tradition is this habit of every Canada Day doing a study that scolds me for not knowing stuff about Canadian history that I do, in fact, already know.
2. The problem with the National Day of Action is that I don't know what they want from me. They interviewed some people on the radio on Friday and they seemed to be saying that they were trying to raise awareness of the shitty conditions that Aboriginal people have to live in, but I already know this and I'm already outraged by it! So what do they want me to do? 'Cause I'll probably do it, I just need to know what I'm supposed to do!
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Another belated analogy
I previously blogged about the concept of ad-hominem self-righteousness.
It occured to me today that the real problem is that people who practise ad-hominem self-rightousness then get grumpy when other people aren't on their side. If you want to go it alone, be as "I'm right because I'm me!" as you want. But if you want other people on-side, you have to give them something more to convince them.
It's like if I were trying to convince y'all of something, and I said "I'm clearly right here, because I'm the smartest person in this conversation." The only people who would agree with me are the people who already believe that I'm the smartest person in this conversation. If I want to convince people who don't believe that I'm smarter than them, I have to give them some other reason why I'm right. Otherwise, it's just as convincing as saying "We must remove all troops from Afghanistan because the sky is maroon."
It occured to me today that the real problem is that people who practise ad-hominem self-rightousness then get grumpy when other people aren't on their side. If you want to go it alone, be as "I'm right because I'm me!" as you want. But if you want other people on-side, you have to give them something more to convince them.
It's like if I were trying to convince y'all of something, and I said "I'm clearly right here, because I'm the smartest person in this conversation." The only people who would agree with me are the people who already believe that I'm the smartest person in this conversation. If I want to convince people who don't believe that I'm smarter than them, I have to give them some other reason why I'm right. Otherwise, it's just as convincing as saying "We must remove all troops from Afghanistan because the sky is maroon."
Things They Should Invent: the opposite of "role model"
Have you ever looked at someone and thought "Wow, I don't want to be like that!" and then that desire not to be like that informed your life choices?
There needs to be a word for that!
There needs to be a word for that!
Belated analogy
A long time ago, I proposed that we should expect the impossible from our political leaders.
I now have an analogy. Imagine you have a health problem where you have no idea what it is or how to fix it. Despite the fact that you don't have the specific knowledge of how to do so, you expect the doctor to be able to figure out what it is and how to fix it. That's what she went to all the medical school for, and why she gets to be a doctor. It is perfectly reasonable to ask her to fix a medical problem you have no idea how to fix, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask her to do so in a way that minimizes the impact on your golf game because golf is one of your priorities in life.
Similarly, it should be considered perfectly reasonable to demand that our political leaders fix problems in a way that is consistent with our priorities, even if we, personally, can't figure out a way to do so ourselves.
I now have an analogy. Imagine you have a health problem where you have no idea what it is or how to fix it. Despite the fact that you don't have the specific knowledge of how to do so, you expect the doctor to be able to figure out what it is and how to fix it. That's what she went to all the medical school for, and why she gets to be a doctor. It is perfectly reasonable to ask her to fix a medical problem you have no idea how to fix, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask her to do so in a way that minimizes the impact on your golf game because golf is one of your priorities in life.
Similarly, it should be considered perfectly reasonable to demand that our political leaders fix problems in a way that is consistent with our priorities, even if we, personally, can't figure out a way to do so ourselves.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Jeopardy drinking game: first draft
1. If you get an answer right and no one on TV gets it right, take a drink.
2. If you get an answer right and no one else you're playing with IRL gets it right, take a drink.
3. If you manage to guess an answer based on the category, before hearing the clue, take a drink.
4. If you get a Before & After right, regardless of circumstances, take a drink. (just because we suck at Before & After).
5. If you don't get the answer right but it's clear that you know the answer, your fellow players may grant you a drink at their discretion.
6. If you get an answer right thanks to something you were once told or taught by another player, you should grant them a drink. (This rule should rarely come into play, unless we someday find ourselves playing with Monty Python.)
7. Only your first guess for each question counts.
This game is intended to accompany playing Jeopardy with other people along with the TV. You can do it in person or over the computer (although you'll probably want to go sip-based instead of shot-based if you're doing it on the computer because pouring and typing at the same time are hard).
This is a performance-based version where drinks are rewards. In a two-person game using sips or half-shots of wine, we went through most of one glass. Adjust your beverage of choice and definition of "a drink" accordingly. In a game with more people, you'd probably end up drinking less.
2. If you get an answer right and no one else you're playing with IRL gets it right, take a drink.
3. If you manage to guess an answer based on the category, before hearing the clue, take a drink.
4. If you get a Before & After right, regardless of circumstances, take a drink. (just because we suck at Before & After).
5. If you don't get the answer right but it's clear that you know the answer, your fellow players may grant you a drink at their discretion.
6. If you get an answer right thanks to something you were once told or taught by another player, you should grant them a drink. (This rule should rarely come into play, unless we someday find ourselves playing with Monty Python.)
7. Only your first guess for each question counts.
This game is intended to accompany playing Jeopardy with other people along with the TV. You can do it in person or over the computer (although you'll probably want to go sip-based instead of shot-based if you're doing it on the computer because pouring and typing at the same time are hard).
This is a performance-based version where drinks are rewards. In a two-person game using sips or half-shots of wine, we went through most of one glass. Adjust your beverage of choice and definition of "a drink" accordingly. In a game with more people, you'd probably end up drinking less.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Random Harry Potter reread thoughts
I've started my Harry Potter reread, which means that this blog is now a spoiler zone for all HP up to the end of book 6. Be warned.
1. In Philosopher's Stone, when they're driving around trying to escape from the Hogwarts letters, it's mentiond that Dudley is the most miserable he's ever been in his life. I wonder if that's what he experienced when he was attacked by Dementors?
2. I think Firenze's presence at Hogwarts will come into play in book 7.
1. In Philosopher's Stone, when they're driving around trying to escape from the Hogwarts letters, it's mentiond that Dudley is the most miserable he's ever been in his life. I wonder if that's what he experienced when he was attacked by Dementors?
2. I think Firenze's presence at Hogwarts will come into play in book 7.
Video mashup ideas, free for the taking
1. The music: "I'd Be Good For You" from Evita. The images: a montage of photos from the courtship of a newlywed couple who both struck you as people who would never marry.
2. The music: "Short Skirt, Long Jacket" by Cake. The images: Eddie Izzard's Sexie show.
2. The music: "Short Skirt, Long Jacket" by Cake. The images: Eddie Izzard's Sexie show.
Comedy bunny, free for the taking
The premise: The French taunting scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail was really just a massive miscommunication.
The execution: First, translate the entire scene into French. Then compare the English and French side by side, and look for places where mistakes might be made. Words that sound like other words, common mistakes that Anglophones make when learning French and vice versa, faux amis, etc. Then incorporate these mistakes into the dialogue so that every statement made is a logical and rational response to the previous statement. Any character can speak either language at any time - after all, it's perfectly normal to try to accomodate.
The goal: a bilingual conversation wherein every character thinks they're responding perfectly reasonably to what their interlocutor says, but the end result is (or can be interpreted as) the French taunting scene.
Yes, I might work this out myself someday, but for now I haven't the slightest idea how to do it and don't have the time and energy to try. So I'm throwing it out there for free.
The execution: First, translate the entire scene into French. Then compare the English and French side by side, and look for places where mistakes might be made. Words that sound like other words, common mistakes that Anglophones make when learning French and vice versa, faux amis, etc. Then incorporate these mistakes into the dialogue so that every statement made is a logical and rational response to the previous statement. Any character can speak either language at any time - after all, it's perfectly normal to try to accomodate.
The goal: a bilingual conversation wherein every character thinks they're responding perfectly reasonably to what their interlocutor says, but the end result is (or can be interpreted as) the French taunting scene.
Yes, I might work this out myself someday, but for now I haven't the slightest idea how to do it and don't have the time and energy to try. So I'm throwing it out there for free.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Ecological dilemma du jour
This morning on the radio, they mentioned that they're asking us to minimize electricity usage between noon and 8pm. So I waited until after 8 pm to put my laundry in. However, because I waited until later (I normally would have done it at 6), I'll have to run the dryer on a higher setting so my sheets will be dry so I can put them back on my bed before I go to sleep. So was it still worth waiting until 8 pm? Or should I have put the laundry in earlier and used less power for drying?
Monday, June 25, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Gah, not again!
Wente does it again.
Okay, but what ARE the thought process of a village woman who has never travelled five kilometres away from home? If you tell me, I might understand! If, instead, you just tell me that I don't understand, we're not going to get anywhere.
This is exacerbated by the fact that the photo caption in the print edition also repeats that NGOs don't understand the thinking of Afghan women. So I started reading the article specifically to find out about the thinking of Afghan women, and learned nothing about it!
I'm going to have to stop reading Wente - like make a deliberate point of not reading her even when the article looks interesting. It's just too frustrating.
"Most of the policy-makers knew next to nothing about the villages where 90 per cent of the Afghan population lived," he writes. "They came from postmodern, secular, globalized states with liberal traditions in law and government. It was natural for them to initiate projects on urban design, women's rights, and fibre-optic cable networks; to talk about transparent, clean, and accountable processes, tolerance, and civil society; and to speak of a people 'who desire peace at any cost and understand the need for a centralized multi-ethnic government.'"
What they don't understand are the thought processes of a village woman who has never travelled five kilometres away from home. And so most of their projects are doomed to failure.
Okay, but what ARE the thought process of a village woman who has never travelled five kilometres away from home? If you tell me, I might understand! If, instead, you just tell me that I don't understand, we're not going to get anywhere.
This is exacerbated by the fact that the photo caption in the print edition also repeats that NGOs don't understand the thinking of Afghan women. So I started reading the article specifically to find out about the thinking of Afghan women, and learned nothing about it!
I'm going to have to stop reading Wente - like make a deliberate point of not reading her even when the article looks interesting. It's just too frustrating.
Carrying things on your head
People in many parts of the world carry things on their heads.
So why doesn't anyone do this in Toronto?
We have immigrants from all over the world, including refugees (who are likely to be less urbanized and westernized than your average skilled worker immigrant). But you never see anyone carrying their groceries home in a basket on their head.
I would love to have this skill! I want to walk along Yonge Street, in skirt and blouse, heels and purse, with all my groceries on my head!
So why doesn't anyone do this in Toronto?
We have immigrants from all over the world, including refugees (who are likely to be less urbanized and westernized than your average skilled worker immigrant). But you never see anyone carrying their groceries home in a basket on their head.
I would love to have this skill! I want to walk along Yonge Street, in skirt and blouse, heels and purse, with all my groceries on my head!
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Tales from the grocery store
The man behind me in line put a bunch of things on the conveyer belt, including a pile of women's fashion magazines. I was unintentionally staring at the magazines - I think it was because one of them had a picture of Jennifer Lopez and I once again found myself pondering what's so big about her assets because really, I don't see it - and after a moment he caught me staring.
Now perhaps this wasn't obvious from looking at me (I wasn't very well-dressed and may have looked a bit soccer-momish), but as it happpened I would be going home that evening and chatting at length with a gay beauty pageant geek about a transvestite we both admire and whom I kindamaybesorta find a shade more intriguing than strictly appropriate, so no possible reason this man had for buying these magazines could have phased me.
"Oh, I just enjoy the pictures."
Except for that.
Now, of course, standard operating procedure dictates a notch more coldness. Not being able to think of anything else to do, I give him the obligatory "I acknowlege that you've made a light-hearted remark" smile, put my shields up and discreetly move away as I busy myself with paying and collecting my bags. But my gut tells me that it was all a charade, that he had some other reason for buying these magazines and was hiding behind machismo. After all, when a man is buying magazines to "enjoy the pictures", he doesn't exactly go around telling the strange woman in front of him in line. Or go around buying them in the grocery store for that matter.
This is Toronto, in the 21st century, the week before Pride. He shouldn't have felt the need to make an excuse. But I couldn't think of anything to do other than take him at face value, so I did so. And if he was, in fact, lying to me, I might have made things worse by giving the impression that I was getting cold for the very reason he thought he needed to hide his motives.
But today it occurred to me how I could have handled it better. What I should have done instead is drawn on the full powers vested in me by Revlon and La Senza, given him a coy smile, and purred "Oh, that's too bad, and I was just thinking what a fascinating man you must be."
Now perhaps this wasn't obvious from looking at me (I wasn't very well-dressed and may have looked a bit soccer-momish), but as it happpened I would be going home that evening and chatting at length with a gay beauty pageant geek about a transvestite we both admire and whom I kindamaybesorta find a shade more intriguing than strictly appropriate, so no possible reason this man had for buying these magazines could have phased me.
"Oh, I just enjoy the pictures."
Except for that.
Now, of course, standard operating procedure dictates a notch more coldness. Not being able to think of anything else to do, I give him the obligatory "I acknowlege that you've made a light-hearted remark" smile, put my shields up and discreetly move away as I busy myself with paying and collecting my bags. But my gut tells me that it was all a charade, that he had some other reason for buying these magazines and was hiding behind machismo. After all, when a man is buying magazines to "enjoy the pictures", he doesn't exactly go around telling the strange woman in front of him in line. Or go around buying them in the grocery store for that matter.
This is Toronto, in the 21st century, the week before Pride. He shouldn't have felt the need to make an excuse. But I couldn't think of anything to do other than take him at face value, so I did so. And if he was, in fact, lying to me, I might have made things worse by giving the impression that I was getting cold for the very reason he thought he needed to hide his motives.
But today it occurred to me how I could have handled it better. What I should have done instead is drawn on the full powers vested in me by Revlon and La Senza, given him a coy smile, and purred "Oh, that's too bad, and I was just thinking what a fascinating man you must be."
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
I think I find myself agreeing with Margaret Wente
As Canada's very own no-fly list goes into effect, I'm glad my name isn't Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad. For that matter, I'm also glad my name isn't Patrick Martin. That's my boss's name. Even before this latest list, he sometimes got hauled aside and had to prove his innocence. That's because there is, or was, another suspicious character named Patrick Martin. There also are, or were, suspicious Kennedys, Thompsons and Williamses.
I have six to eight doppelnamers in Canada that I know of (two of them may be duplicates). Those of you who know my real name are probably going "Is that all?" and in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the number is 2-3 times that many. So before I even get to thinking of civil liberties and national security and its appropriateness in society as a whole, my first thought is whether I'll get hauled away and deported to Syria for torture because of something one of my many doppelnamers did. (No, I'm not Syrian, but my Canadian citizenship is exactly equal to Maher Arar's).
Then I find myself wondering about the ethics of the point Ms. Wente is making here. On one hand, I do find it somewhat distasteful to be all "OMG it affects white people to so therefore it's important!" On the other hand, I have noticed a tendency among people with whose skin is just as pale and whose names are just as WASPy as my own to assume that this stuff doesn't apply to them. "Of course you won't get deported and tortured," they attempt to reassure me, "you were born here!" Maybe if more people could immediately identify with the risk of being disappeared, they'd be more willing to question stuff rather than blindly accept it?
Data
On TNG, a crewmember is kissing Data. This makes me wonder if Data is warm-blooded or cold-blooded. It would be weird to kiss someone who isn't physically warm.
Then later, (because you have to have a technical plot when you have an interpersonal plot) the ship is trapped in some kind of nebula and they have to be guided out by a shuttlecraft that requires l33t expert piloting or everyone will die. So Picard says he'll pilot the shuttlecraft himself. But why not have Data do it? Data's a computer, he must have better visual acuity and response time!
Then later, (because you have to have a technical plot when you have an interpersonal plot) the ship is trapped in some kind of nebula and they have to be guided out by a shuttlecraft that requires l33t expert piloting or everyone will die. So Picard says he'll pilot the shuttlecraft himself. But why not have Data do it? Data's a computer, he must have better visual acuity and response time!
Homework
There is a bit of a debate in the letters to the editor page of the Star about whether Kids Today are getting too much homework, especially in the younger grades, or whether they're just spoiled and coddled or what.
I'm not going to offer up an opinion because I know that schools are now using a completely different curriculum than the one I was taught with. But I do have a question that I think everyone should be asking: what about the quality of the homework?
I remember a lot of time, especially in elementary school, spent gluing stuff to bristol board, trying to draw a picture of my house (yes, for that dreaded Grade 4 French project), frantically scrambling for pictures to make a collage with when my parents didn't subscribe to any magazines, etc. I found that all very time-consuming and stressful (because it did count, and it was just as important as anything else I had going on). More academic stuff - learning spelling words, doing work problems, studying for a history test - I didn't mind as much. Of course, I'm a pretty academic person for someone who is no longer involved in academia. I consider reading a journal a nice treat, I play Jeopardy for fun, and I sit down with popcorn to watch election returns. I don't know what less academic people thought of this kind of work. I do appreciate that there are different learning styles and some of the less academic kids might feel differently about what's a worthwhile use of their time, but I also think it's a problem if you're spending more time trying to figure out how to make a mobile about your book than you'd spend writing a book report.
I don't know if Kids Today are facing these kinds of issues, but I hope people who are more directly affected are taking this into consideration.
I'm not going to offer up an opinion because I know that schools are now using a completely different curriculum than the one I was taught with. But I do have a question that I think everyone should be asking: what about the quality of the homework?
I remember a lot of time, especially in elementary school, spent gluing stuff to bristol board, trying to draw a picture of my house (yes, for that dreaded Grade 4 French project), frantically scrambling for pictures to make a collage with when my parents didn't subscribe to any magazines, etc. I found that all very time-consuming and stressful (because it did count, and it was just as important as anything else I had going on). More academic stuff - learning spelling words, doing work problems, studying for a history test - I didn't mind as much. Of course, I'm a pretty academic person for someone who is no longer involved in academia. I consider reading a journal a nice treat, I play Jeopardy for fun, and I sit down with popcorn to watch election returns. I don't know what less academic people thought of this kind of work. I do appreciate that there are different learning styles and some of the less academic kids might feel differently about what's a worthwhile use of their time, but I also think it's a problem if you're spending more time trying to figure out how to make a mobile about your book than you'd spend writing a book report.
I don't know if Kids Today are facing these kinds of issues, but I hope people who are more directly affected are taking this into consideration.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning by George Monbiot
This book sets out a way to cut our carbon emissions by 90% by 2030 without sending us all back to the stone age. The science seems sound to my only slightly trained eye, so I'd recommend that anyone who's a political leader or who's in a position to make significant invetment in new technologies read this. Maybe if that sending-books-to-Stephen-Harper thing is still going on, someone could send him this. (The Canadian edition starts out by laying a smackdown on Canada for the Harper government's policies.) I can suggest only one improvement, and that would be to put a brief summary of all the recommendations at the end of the book. I'm sure I forgot some things by the time I finished reading it. But it's really not that big a deal for the reader to page back.
There are lots of good ideas in this book, but my favourite (just because it's so obvious in retrospect and so applicable to real-life) is the idea of appliances like washing machines and dishwashers where you load them up and then they will automatically start operating when overall demand on the power grid is low. Obviously you'd need to be able to override that, but it's such a good idea!
Reading this book did bring up one thing that has been sort of quietly bugging me about environmentalism for a while: there seems to be greater value placed on cutting back your own footprint than on having a small footprint in the first place. If you give up driving during Environment Week, and you can get points for Commuter Challenge. Give up your car permanently, and you've won the One Tonne Challenge. But if you don't own a car in the first place, you don't get any credit. Which is kind of frustrating for me as I sit here, childfree, carfree and vegetarian, in my LEED-certified apartment. Monbiot insists that everyone needs to cut back by 90%, and while he maybe means that in the macro sense (the suggestions in the book are all things that governments and businesses can do rather than personal choices - policies have to be changed, different products need to be available etc.) I still find it kind of annoying that by his philosophy, there's no possible way anyone, no matter how virtuous, can count as having already cut back their 90%.
There are lots of good ideas in this book, but my favourite (just because it's so obvious in retrospect and so applicable to real-life) is the idea of appliances like washing machines and dishwashers where you load them up and then they will automatically start operating when overall demand on the power grid is low. Obviously you'd need to be able to override that, but it's such a good idea!
Reading this book did bring up one thing that has been sort of quietly bugging me about environmentalism for a while: there seems to be greater value placed on cutting back your own footprint than on having a small footprint in the first place. If you give up driving during Environment Week, and you can get points for Commuter Challenge. Give up your car permanently, and you've won the One Tonne Challenge. But if you don't own a car in the first place, you don't get any credit. Which is kind of frustrating for me as I sit here, childfree, carfree and vegetarian, in my LEED-certified apartment. Monbiot insists that everyone needs to cut back by 90%, and while he maybe means that in the macro sense (the suggestions in the book are all things that governments and businesses can do rather than personal choices - policies have to be changed, different products need to be available etc.) I still find it kind of annoying that by his philosophy, there's no possible way anyone, no matter how virtuous, can count as having already cut back their 90%.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Missing information
I'm surprised to see such big missing information in an article in the Star. But I've read through the article twice and still can't figure this out:
So my first thought is why and how this happens - a man becoming a father isn't a physical change in his body, not like a woman becoming a mother. And this raises a bunch of questions. How can it come from becoming a father? Is it a reaction caused by his female partern becoming a mother? Or is it actually related to the presence of his own offspring? What if he becomes a father without his knowledge? What if he becomes a father without his knowledge and then is unknowingly put in the presence of his baby? If it does work that way, would it work with sperm donor? What if his female partner bears another man's child, but he believes it's his own child? What if his female partner bears another man's child and he knows it isn't his own but he's willing to raise it?
I'm sure this hasn't be researched as thoroughly as I'm asking about, but I would appreciate a little more background on why exactly they're making the statement quoted above.
"There are hormonal changes in men when they become fathers," says Wynne-Edwards, whose work is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. "Those specifically are an increase in (female) estrogen, a temporary decrease in testosterone, and an increase in prolactin, which is a hormone associated with the nursing process."
So my first thought is why and how this happens - a man becoming a father isn't a physical change in his body, not like a woman becoming a mother. And this raises a bunch of questions. How can it come from becoming a father? Is it a reaction caused by his female partern becoming a mother? Or is it actually related to the presence of his own offspring? What if he becomes a father without his knowledge? What if he becomes a father without his knowledge and then is unknowingly put in the presence of his baby? If it does work that way, would it work with sperm donor? What if his female partner bears another man's child, but he believes it's his own child? What if his female partner bears another man's child and he knows it isn't his own but he's willing to raise it?
I'm sure this hasn't be researched as thoroughly as I'm asking about, but I would appreciate a little more background on why exactly they're making the statement quoted above.
Things They Should Invent (or, rather, standardize and everyone start doing): descriptive Youtube linking practices
The problem with Youtube links is that the URLs themselves aren't descriptive, and this is compounded by the fact that people tend to share Youtube links by going "OMG, you have to see this" without any further description.
Okay, but what is it I just have to see? A dozen little yellow puppies meeting a cat? A surprisingly hilarious moment from Whose Line? Scenes from Harry Potter remixed with music from Chicago? This is especially annoying on forums etc., where the link is more likely to be something the linker enjoys, rather than something they know I specifically will enjoy, and then it ends up being clips sports or a reality show or something that just isn't of that much interest to me.
So until and unless Youtube starts giving us descriptive URLs (could happen, Amazon started doing it after, what, 10 years?) please provide a description when sharing Youtube links. Not just "OMG this is funny," something a bit more substantial. Use the "Drop everything and look at this. No, seriously, don't ask questions, you just have to see this" approach only when absolutely positively most strictly necessary.
Okay, but what is it I just have to see? A dozen little yellow puppies meeting a cat? A surprisingly hilarious moment from Whose Line? Scenes from Harry Potter remixed with music from Chicago? This is especially annoying on forums etc., where the link is more likely to be something the linker enjoys, rather than something they know I specifically will enjoy, and then it ends up being clips sports or a reality show or something that just isn't of that much interest to me.
So until and unless Youtube starts giving us descriptive URLs (could happen, Amazon started doing it after, what, 10 years?) please provide a description when sharing Youtube links. Not just "OMG this is funny," something a bit more substantial. Use the "Drop everything and look at this. No, seriously, don't ask questions, you just have to see this" approach only when absolutely positively most strictly necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)