The Toronto Star asks if students should be required to recite the lord's prayer in public schools. (I have no idea why they're asking this and can't seem to find the associated news story.)
We actually did say the lord's prayer when I was in school, up to about grade 3. This was a source of a great moral dilemma for me. You see, I was raised Catholic (which I'm capitalizing only because it changes the meaning if you don't) but I went to public school because my mother's experience as a teacher in our local Catholic board led her to decide that she didn't want her kids going to school in that environment. (To answer the inevitable question, going to public school isn't what drove me away from the church - it was my experience with other Catholics and with the church's teachings themselves.)
Thing is, in the Catholic church, the our father ends with the line "Deliver us from evil." The version we had to say in school had more lines after that: "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever, amen." (Here's a theological explanation of why from a Catholic perspective, but I didn't have access to that information at the time.)
Now I knew that, to be good, I had to do what my teachers told me to in school. And my teachers in school were telling me to recite the lord's prayer complete with those last few lines. And I knew that if I didn't do what my teachers told me, I'd go to hell for being bad. But I also knew that, to be good, I had to do what the church told me. And the church told me stop at "deliver us from evil." And I knew that if I didn't do what the church told me, I'd go to hell for being bad.
So there I was, a good, virtuous child who wanted very much to do the right thing, (seriously, this is actually what I was like at that age) utterly convinced that I was automatically going to burn in hell for all time because the prayer script my school gave me varied slightly from the prayer script my church gave me. I was between the ages of 4 and 8 at the time.
And the thing is, I was just coming from a different sect of the same religion! All this distress was being caused by a slight variance in how to articulate the exact same sentiment! Imagine the kind of confusion and cognitive dissonance it would cause for students from religions with completely different deities! And remember, this includes elementary school students, who are still young enough that they genuinely want to be good by obeying the grownups around them! What on earth do they think reciting the lord's prayer will do (and why this one prayer specifically?) that it's worth putting all the students who, through no fault of their own, were born into a different religion or no religion at all in a catch-22 where they cannot possibly be good?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Eddie Izzard reference in Cornered?
(I didn't mean to do two Izzard posts in a row, but we'll blame the composition of today's newspapers.)
First, watch Eddie.
Then, read Cornered.
First, watch Eddie.
Then, read Cornered.
It's all about Eddie
1. It seems that Canada Post took foreign policy advice from Eddie Izzard long before the Russians did. And announcing that they were doing so to better serve Santa Claus? Dash cunning of them!
2. A writer to the Globe & Mail's Group Therapy column says he likes dressing as a woman, but his wife would leave him if she found out. I'm surprised no one suggested Eddie Izzard therapy!
I'm quite serious about this. He could just show his wife a couple of youtubes of Eddie, not on the basis of "See, trannies are people too!" but more like "Hey, watch this, it's funny!" Watching Eddie talking about supermarkets or giraffes or language while he just happens to be dressed in women's clothes would help make the wife less uncomfortable with the concept, and if she likes his work they could move on to material where he actually discusses and demystifies transvestism.
And if the wife does like Eddie's comedy, that may provide an opening to take things a step further. Picture a nice cosy night in, wine, comfort food, a couple of comedy DVDs (one of which happens to be Circle), feeling safe and comfy and happy, full of residual giggles. Then he casually pops Circle into the DVD player and presses play, carelessly neglecting to skip over the opening sequence. Best case, she'll find herself surprisingly intrigued by the concept. If not, they still get to spend 2 hours laughing hysterically and normalizing transvestism. And, of course, if the husband doesn't want to tell her he's been hiding this key aspect of himself for a long time he could even present is as being intrigued by Eddie himself and wanting to see if maybe there was something to it.
2. A writer to the Globe & Mail's Group Therapy column says he likes dressing as a woman, but his wife would leave him if she found out. I'm surprised no one suggested Eddie Izzard therapy!
I'm quite serious about this. He could just show his wife a couple of youtubes of Eddie, not on the basis of "See, trannies are people too!" but more like "Hey, watch this, it's funny!" Watching Eddie talking about supermarkets or giraffes or language while he just happens to be dressed in women's clothes would help make the wife less uncomfortable with the concept, and if she likes his work they could move on to material where he actually discusses and demystifies transvestism.
And if the wife does like Eddie's comedy, that may provide an opening to take things a step further. Picture a nice cosy night in, wine, comfort food, a couple of comedy DVDs (one of which happens to be Circle), feeling safe and comfy and happy, full of residual giggles. Then he casually pops Circle into the DVD player and presses play, carelessly neglecting to skip over the opening sequence. Best case, she'll find herself surprisingly intrigued by the concept. If not, they still get to spend 2 hours laughing hysterically and normalizing transvestism. And, of course, if the husband doesn't want to tell her he's been hiding this key aspect of himself for a long time he could even present is as being intrigued by Eddie himself and wanting to see if maybe there was something to it.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Pronunciation
If you asked me whether "morning" and "mourning" are pronounced the same, I would unhesitatingly tell you that yes, they are.
But I pronounce them differently. I pronounce mourning a bit lower, with something of a dipthong.
I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to be doing this. As I recall (and correct me if I'm wrong) there are only two dipthongs in Canadian Standard (i.e. two plus Canadian raising - ride, write, cloud, clout) and "mourning" isn't one of them. And while my consonants do tend to devoice themselves when they're not supposed to, my only frame of reference for vowels is Canadian Standard.
So I have no idea why I'm doing this. It's like a fake enunciation, an overcorrection. I also do it with "boy" and "buoy". And I don't mean that I pronounce "buoy" as "booo-eeee", I just mean that I insert a sort of fake dipthong and then Canadian-raise it even though no such thing exists in reality (and there isn't even a devoiced consonant afterwards) - just to acknowledge the spelling difference or somsething.
No wonder phonetics was my worst thing in linguistics.
(Aside: I wonder if Phonetics has anything to do with Phonecians?)
But I pronounce them differently. I pronounce mourning a bit lower, with something of a dipthong.
I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to be doing this. As I recall (and correct me if I'm wrong) there are only two dipthongs in Canadian Standard (i.e. two plus Canadian raising - ride, write, cloud, clout) and "mourning" isn't one of them. And while my consonants do tend to devoice themselves when they're not supposed to, my only frame of reference for vowels is Canadian Standard.
So I have no idea why I'm doing this. It's like a fake enunciation, an overcorrection. I also do it with "boy" and "buoy". And I don't mean that I pronounce "buoy" as "booo-eeee", I just mean that I insert a sort of fake dipthong and then Canadian-raise it even though no such thing exists in reality (and there isn't even a devoiced consonant afterwards) - just to acknowledge the spelling difference or somsething.
No wonder phonetics was my worst thing in linguistics.
(Aside: I wonder if Phonetics has anything to do with Phonecians?)
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Mystery gum
There's this one place I like to stand on the platform while waiting for the subway home, because it's directly in front of the door I ultimately need to exit the subway from. Conveniently, there's a pillar right there that I can lean against right there. However, lately someone has been sticking a piece of gum on the pillar, right where I like to lean. This piece of gum keeps showing up, and then disappearing, and then showing up again. It's like someone cleans it off, and someone else keeps putting it back. WTF?
Monday, August 06, 2007
Dreams
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that I can see the future in my dreams. My whole life, every so often I'd be in a situation and get a déjà vu from a dream. Usually it's only a moment - imagery plus train of thought - and then the dream moves on to something else in service of a greater plot. But I definitely have dream déjà vu (déjà revé?).
For example, in Grade 9, I had a dream where the answers to my Geography exam were on the blackboard, but I didn't pay attention to them because I was distracted by the emotions I was feeling at the time. Then, several weeks later, we were taking up our Geography exam in class, but I was distracted by a situation in my social life that was causing me to experience those exact same emotions. But then, an objective observer could have told you that emotional situation was forthcoming, and, while I am convinced that the exam answers in my dream were the real answers, I didn't actually see them. So that one could be explained away.
But just now, I was looking at the menu of a DVD while thinking about whether I want to attend a barbecue, and I was overcome with déjà vu. I have had a dream where I was thinking these thoughts while looking at these images.
But I'm looking at this DVD for the first time ever. I only just heard about the movie recently, and have never even seen it advertised. I'm seeing the images for the first time, and the general idea has been in my brain only a few days. Similarly, I just got the invitation to the barbecue maybe an hour ago. I did not expect to be invited to a barbecue, and I would never have guessed that the people who issued this invitation would invite me to anything. But I have definitely dreamed this moment before.
For example, in Grade 9, I had a dream where the answers to my Geography exam were on the blackboard, but I didn't pay attention to them because I was distracted by the emotions I was feeling at the time. Then, several weeks later, we were taking up our Geography exam in class, but I was distracted by a situation in my social life that was causing me to experience those exact same emotions. But then, an objective observer could have told you that emotional situation was forthcoming, and, while I am convinced that the exam answers in my dream were the real answers, I didn't actually see them. So that one could be explained away.
But just now, I was looking at the menu of a DVD while thinking about whether I want to attend a barbecue, and I was overcome with déjà vu. I have had a dream where I was thinking these thoughts while looking at these images.
But I'm looking at this DVD for the first time ever. I only just heard about the movie recently, and have never even seen it advertised. I'm seeing the images for the first time, and the general idea has been in my brain only a few days. Similarly, I just got the invitation to the barbecue maybe an hour ago. I did not expect to be invited to a barbecue, and I would never have guessed that the people who issued this invitation would invite me to anything. But I have definitely dreamed this moment before.
Intelligent comedy
A lot of what is considered intelligent comedy isn't actually hugely intelligent, I don't think. I'm thinking mainly of Python here, but the same goes for Eddie and other Pythonic spiritual successors. I'm not saying it's unintelligent, just that it isn't this massive intellectual behemoth. It's more that the creators aren't afraid to show that they know stuff.
When I was in middle school, knowing stuff suddenly became extremely uncool. You were supposed to play dumb. I was tormented extensively for once using the word "theoretically" (which I used because I meant "theoretically" - I know no other way to say it). The stuff you learned in class? You had to pretend you don't know it. Stuff you learned elsewhere? You had to pretend you never learned it. Five syllable words? Worth at least two sessions of locker-room harassment, even if most of the syllables were the morphemes necessary to create an adverb.
But this attitude seems to carry through into adult culture. People on TV going "Oh, this is just too complicated for me" when faced with simple arithmetic. Comedy based on the premise that we don't know stuff that we do of course know. (The real-life equivalent of Krusty the Clown going "Yellow pages and white pages? What's up with that?") This isn't ubiquitous, of course, but there's enough of it around that comedy gets defined as intelligent simply by virtue of the creators not being afraid to show to show that they've picked up a thing or two throughout their lifetime.
When I was in middle school, knowing stuff suddenly became extremely uncool. You were supposed to play dumb. I was tormented extensively for once using the word "theoretically" (which I used because I meant "theoretically" - I know no other way to say it). The stuff you learned in class? You had to pretend you don't know it. Stuff you learned elsewhere? You had to pretend you never learned it. Five syllable words? Worth at least two sessions of locker-room harassment, even if most of the syllables were the morphemes necessary to create an adverb.
But this attitude seems to carry through into adult culture. People on TV going "Oh, this is just too complicated for me" when faced with simple arithmetic. Comedy based on the premise that we don't know stuff that we do of course know. (The real-life equivalent of Krusty the Clown going "Yellow pages and white pages? What's up with that?") This isn't ubiquitous, of course, but there's enough of it around that comedy gets defined as intelligent simply by virtue of the creators not being afraid to show to show that they've picked up a thing or two throughout their lifetime.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Gated communities
You know, apartments are like gated communities. Only people who live there are supposed to be able to get in.
That weirds me out.
That weirds me out.
Luxury
One of my favourite feelings in the world is a Sunday evening when I don't have to wake up early the next morning.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Leave your radio on during the night?
From Python: "Now here is a reminder about leaving your radio on during the night: leave your radio on during the night."
Now was this a real thing that they reminded people about in the UK in the 70s? (Or perhaps before the 70s?) If so, why? Or did they remind them to NOT leave their radios on (which would make more sense)? But then, why would you need a reminder? The sound of the radio would interrupt your sleeping. Or was there no such thing as reminders about leaving your radio on or not, and the Pythons just made that up from nowhere?
Edited with more from the same episode:
When the timer shows 1:55 (embedded youtubes count backwards for some reason), Eric is wearing a Gryffindor scarf!
I may have blogged this one before, but since I'm here anyway, the conversation at 5:35 reminds me of people who claim they aren't opposed to same-sex marriage but don't want it to be called marriage.
Now was this a real thing that they reminded people about in the UK in the 70s? (Or perhaps before the 70s?) If so, why? Or did they remind them to NOT leave their radios on (which would make more sense)? But then, why would you need a reminder? The sound of the radio would interrupt your sleeping. Or was there no such thing as reminders about leaving your radio on or not, and the Pythons just made that up from nowhere?
Edited with more from the same episode:
When the timer shows 1:55 (embedded youtubes count backwards for some reason), Eric is wearing a Gryffindor scarf!
I may have blogged this one before, but since I'm here anyway, the conversation at 5:35 reminds me of people who claim they aren't opposed to same-sex marriage but don't want it to be called marriage.
Leggings
I wonder about people who wear leggings and are old enough to have been around last time leggings were in style. Do they think it looks good? Do they think it looks better than pants, or a skirt, or (if worn under a skirt) than stockings? If they think it looks good, why did they stop wearing it last time around? Because it was out of style? Because they were no longer available? Are they like "Yay, I can finally find leggings in stores again"? Are they like "Yay, I can finally wear leggings without being ridiculed again"?
Despite their resurgence, it is still possible to dress without wearing leggings this season, so if someone is wearing them that means they must like them. And if they do like them, and they liked them and wore them last time around, that does raise the question of why they stopped. I can't imagine stopping wearing something you actively like to wear just because it isn't in style. And I can't imagine resuming wearing something you've previously rejected just because it came back in style. So I just don't get what's going through the head of people who stopped wearing leggings and then started again.
Despite their resurgence, it is still possible to dress without wearing leggings this season, so if someone is wearing them that means they must like them. And if they do like them, and they liked them and wore them last time around, that does raise the question of why they stopped. I can't imagine stopping wearing something you actively like to wear just because it isn't in style. And I can't imagine resuming wearing something you've previously rejected just because it came back in style. So I just don't get what's going through the head of people who stopped wearing leggings and then started again.
Another benefit of living alone
I impulsively dyed my hair (a subtle auburn rinse intended for a lighter brown, causing my hair to shine red in certain lights and doing fascinating things to my greys) for the first time since I started living alone. And it's SO much easier when you live alone! If I forget to bring something to the bathroom, I can walk out and get it regardless of my state of undress (because putting clothes on with a headful of dye is impossible). When it comes time to rinse the dye out, I can take as long as I need to under the shower, just relaxing and letting my mind wander under the warm water until the water runs clear, without having to worry about anyone pounding on the door and asking if I'm going to be in there all day. And, of course, if I miss a spot when cleaning up afterwards, I can just catch it later without any lectures about ruining the bathroom or people disingenuously pretending to mistake the dye for menstruation so they can run from the bathroom screaming "Ewww, gross!"
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Things They Should Research
Scott Adams muses that women's salaries might be lower because women are more hesitant to negotiate.
This gives me an idea for something that should be researched: what is the male/female ratio like in jobs where there is no room for negotiating salary?
If you're unionized, you can't negotiate your salary - it's in the collective agreement. Some jobs have salary legislated by the government - you can't negotiate those. And some employers simply pay what they pay, and if you don't like it they'll call in the next candidate. I wonder if this all has any effect
This gives me an idea for something that should be researched: what is the male/female ratio like in jobs where there is no room for negotiating salary?
If you're unionized, you can't negotiate your salary - it's in the collective agreement. Some jobs have salary legislated by the government - you can't negotiate those. And some employers simply pay what they pay, and if you don't like it they'll call in the next candidate. I wonder if this all has any effect
The Riches
I've been having something of a tumultuous relationship with The Riches. I never meant to start watching. I just intended to tune in briefly to see how Eddie acquitted himself in a drama, with a beard and an American accent.
But I couldn't stop.
It's not an entirely positive relationship. The premise is intriguing, but the show gets much too dark for me, but I find myself bursting into hysterical laughter when I least expect it, but Wayne's attempts to fake being a lawyer make me uncomfortable, but I'm always surprised by the twists the plot takes. At any rate, instead of gaming and watching out the corner of my eye like I normally do, I always find myself right in front of the TV, literally on the edge of my seat, leaning forward to see what happens next, and a week always seems too long to wait for the next episode.
Yesterday I watched the season finale, and it was SUCH a cliffhanger! It was such a cliffhanger that, if it had been possible to do so, I would have stayed up an hour later to see the next episode (even though I had to work the next day) rather than waiting even another day to find out what happens next. Problem: the next episode hasn't been written yet. The next season doesn't start until spring 2008 (and that's in the US - we might have to wait longer here).
I haven't been this eager for the next season of a TV show since the summer when I was 11, when Data's head was found in a cave in San Francisco. But then I only had to wait three months - now I have to wait at least six!
Honestly, I don't like this. I'm not used to it. I tend to fall into TV serieses once they're in syndication, so I can watch an episode every day and not have to wait between seasons. And yet here I am, sucked in, unwillingly beholden to this thing, with no choice but to wait around for it to come back. It's like being in a bad relationship. And yet, when it comes back, I will welcome it with open arms.
But I couldn't stop.
It's not an entirely positive relationship. The premise is intriguing, but the show gets much too dark for me, but I find myself bursting into hysterical laughter when I least expect it, but Wayne's attempts to fake being a lawyer make me uncomfortable, but I'm always surprised by the twists the plot takes. At any rate, instead of gaming and watching out the corner of my eye like I normally do, I always find myself right in front of the TV, literally on the edge of my seat, leaning forward to see what happens next, and a week always seems too long to wait for the next episode.
Yesterday I watched the season finale, and it was SUCH a cliffhanger! It was such a cliffhanger that, if it had been possible to do so, I would have stayed up an hour later to see the next episode (even though I had to work the next day) rather than waiting even another day to find out what happens next. Problem: the next episode hasn't been written yet. The next season doesn't start until spring 2008 (and that's in the US - we might have to wait longer here).
I haven't been this eager for the next season of a TV show since the summer when I was 11, when Data's head was found in a cave in San Francisco. But then I only had to wait three months - now I have to wait at least six!
Honestly, I don't like this. I'm not used to it. I tend to fall into TV serieses once they're in syndication, so I can watch an episode every day and not have to wait between seasons. And yet here I am, sucked in, unwillingly beholden to this thing, with no choice but to wait around for it to come back. It's like being in a bad relationship. And yet, when it comes back, I will welcome it with open arms.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Pssst...you missed a key point...
This article has been making the rounds of CF communities: Why Do Doctors Get to Decide When a Woman Is Old Enough to Have Her 'Tubes Tied'?
Unfortunately, they forgot to address a key point: the general consensus of the medical community is that 25-year-old women are too young to decide to get their tubes tied because it's a permanent decision and they may regret it later.
So why do they have no problem with 25-year-old women having babies? That is also a permanent, life-altering choice, but if you end up regretting it the consequences are much more dire.
If I walked into my doctor's office and told her I want to get my tubes tied, she'd say "Come back when you're 30." But if I walked in and told her I wanted to have a baby, she'd say "Great! Let's get you off those birth control pills and onto some folate supplements! You'd better hurry - a woman's fertility drops after the age of 26."
No one would dare suggest that I'm too young or immature to have a baby now at 26, even if I am. In fact, there are a lot of very noisy people who would consider it my right to have a baby, even if it means ruining the kid's life. But, apparently, I don't have the right to make sure I don't ruin the kid's life.
Unfortunately, they forgot to address a key point: the general consensus of the medical community is that 25-year-old women are too young to decide to get their tubes tied because it's a permanent decision and they may regret it later.
So why do they have no problem with 25-year-old women having babies? That is also a permanent, life-altering choice, but if you end up regretting it the consequences are much more dire.
If I walked into my doctor's office and told her I want to get my tubes tied, she'd say "Come back when you're 30." But if I walked in and told her I wanted to have a baby, she'd say "Great! Let's get you off those birth control pills and onto some folate supplements! You'd better hurry - a woman's fertility drops after the age of 26."
No one would dare suggest that I'm too young or immature to have a baby now at 26, even if I am. In fact, there are a lot of very noisy people who would consider it my right to have a baby, even if it means ruining the kid's life. But, apparently, I don't have the right to make sure I don't ruin the kid's life.
Toilet paper
You know how when you buy toilet paper, your inner child is always afraid that someone will see you and comment on it? You adult self knows that this is unreasonable, that everyone buys toilet paper and the worst anyone can say is "So...are you planning to poo a lot?" But we've all been through middle school and we've all been or seen people be tormented for things much more innocuous than walking down the street carrying a 24-pack of Charmin.
But fear not, I have the solution.
If someone else's inner child gives you shit about buying toilet paper (pun not intended), you tell your inner child to give them shit about NOT buying toilet paper. "Wassa matter with you? Don't you wipe? You're disgusting!"
But fear not, I have the solution.
If someone else's inner child gives you shit about buying toilet paper (pun not intended), you tell your inner child to give them shit about NOT buying toilet paper. "Wassa matter with you? Don't you wipe? You're disgusting!"
Things They Should Invent: ipod jukebox
You're having a party. You need music. You need lots of music, and it needs to be way cooler than your own music.
Now imagine that instead of fretting over what music to use, you can just use all the music on all your party guests' ipods.
I'm picturing it as something you can hook up to a computer or a stereo, and a whole shitload of ipods can plug into it. Then everyone shows up, hooks up their ipod, and the jukebox plays a random shuffle of all the songs on all the ipods, perhaps favouring higher-rated songs if your guests rate their mp3s. (I don't, but the option is there.)
What would be cool about this is that if a song is popular among your guests, more people will have it on their ipods, so it has a better chance of being played. Of course, the disadvantage is if someone (like me, for example) has some really lame music on their ipod, and a really lame song comes on and the guests are all WhoTF brought this song? It's also a problem if people keep podcasts or comedy or spoken word or other mp3s that aren't music in their music folder.
Now imagine that instead of fretting over what music to use, you can just use all the music on all your party guests' ipods.
I'm picturing it as something you can hook up to a computer or a stereo, and a whole shitload of ipods can plug into it. Then everyone shows up, hooks up their ipod, and the jukebox plays a random shuffle of all the songs on all the ipods, perhaps favouring higher-rated songs if your guests rate their mp3s. (I don't, but the option is there.)
What would be cool about this is that if a song is popular among your guests, more people will have it on their ipods, so it has a better chance of being played. Of course, the disadvantage is if someone (like me, for example) has some really lame music on their ipod, and a really lame song comes on and the guests are all WhoTF brought this song? It's also a problem if people keep podcasts or comedy or spoken word or other mp3s that aren't music in their music folder.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Abstract or concrete?
A question that often comes up in Myers-Briggs and similar personality test thingies is "Do you prefer the abstract or the concrete?"
The problem with me is that I like my tangible to be abstract and my intangible to be concrete.
If we're building a bridge, I'd rather be translating the technical specifications for the bridge than attaching the girders together. If we're planning a party, I'd rather think up the menu than work out the seating plan. If we're starting a household, I'd rather draw up the budget than arrange the furniture. Whe it comes to real, hands-on things, I prefer my contribution to be more of an idea than a physical thing you can put your hands on.
But if I'm writing an essay, it I want it to be about concrete ideas rather than vague abstractions. If I'm going to have a religion, I want to be able to grok everything (I've never liked that Holy Spirit fellow). If you want me to subscribe to your values, everything has to make logical sense when applied to the real world.
So I can never answer that question on the MBTI.
The problem with me is that I like my tangible to be abstract and my intangible to be concrete.
If we're building a bridge, I'd rather be translating the technical specifications for the bridge than attaching the girders together. If we're planning a party, I'd rather think up the menu than work out the seating plan. If we're starting a household, I'd rather draw up the budget than arrange the furniture. Whe it comes to real, hands-on things, I prefer my contribution to be more of an idea than a physical thing you can put your hands on.
But if I'm writing an essay, it I want it to be about concrete ideas rather than vague abstractions. If I'm going to have a religion, I want to be able to grok everything (I've never liked that Holy Spirit fellow). If you want me to subscribe to your values, everything has to make logical sense when applied to the real world.
So I can never answer that question on the MBTI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)