Friday, September 14, 2007
Military funerals
If a member of the military dies, do they have to have a military funeral? What if they want something else?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
WTF?
A government committee is jumping down the Chief Electoral Officer's throat because he won't forbid people from wearing veils while voting. The Chief Electoral Officer's position is that he has no authority to do so, because the law clearly states that photo ID is not required.
Which it does:
Public servants do not have the authority to do anything but implement the law as written. This is the cornerstone of public service ethics. Only elected officials can change the law by passing legislation through the normal channels.
The Chief Electoral Officer is a public servant. The committee that's haranguing him consists entirely of MPs. In other words, the committee members are the ones with the authority to change the law, and the Chief Electoral Officer is morally and professionally obligated to NOT take any initiative in changing the law, but instead of changing the law the MPs instead jump down his throat.
This reminds me of the bullies on the Simpsons who keep going "Stop punching yourself!" while using the victim's own fist against him.
***
Also, I've been really surprised lately by the tenor and quality of the reader comments on the Globe & Mail website. The G&M has always come across as rather an intellectual newspaper, but so many of the readers leaving comments are just stupid! They aren't googling, they're basing their positions on premises that are blatently false, and they're just generally being loudmouth assholes. I'm surprised that people like that would read the Globe and Mail in the first place! Frankly, it's a dull and dry-looking newspaper, and there are plenty of other newspapers that would be more appealing (visually, content-wise, and editorially) to these kinds of people.
Which it does:
2) If the poll clerk determines that the elector’s name and address appear on the list of electors or that the elector is allowed to vote under section 146, 147, 148 or 149, then, subject to subsection (3), the elector shall provide to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk the following proof of his or her identity and residence:
(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or
(b) two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address.
Public servants do not have the authority to do anything but implement the law as written. This is the cornerstone of public service ethics. Only elected officials can change the law by passing legislation through the normal channels.
The Chief Electoral Officer is a public servant. The committee that's haranguing him consists entirely of MPs. In other words, the committee members are the ones with the authority to change the law, and the Chief Electoral Officer is morally and professionally obligated to NOT take any initiative in changing the law, but instead of changing the law the MPs instead jump down his throat.
This reminds me of the bullies on the Simpsons who keep going "Stop punching yourself!" while using the victim's own fist against him.
***
Also, I've been really surprised lately by the tenor and quality of the reader comments on the Globe & Mail website. The G&M has always come across as rather an intellectual newspaper, but so many of the readers leaving comments are just stupid! They aren't googling, they're basing their positions on premises that are blatently false, and they're just generally being loudmouth assholes. I'm surprised that people like that would read the Globe and Mail in the first place! Frankly, it's a dull and dry-looking newspaper, and there are plenty of other newspapers that would be more appealing (visually, content-wise, and editorially) to these kinds of people.
Ping Globe and Mail editorial writers
"To applaud diversity for diversity's sake is to evade responsibility for the effects of that diversity on children."
And what about if those children grow up to be people who would benefit from a society that's accepting of a variety of family structure?
(Aside: Only 8% of Canadians are divorced. I thought it would be more.)
And what about if those children grow up to be people who would benefit from a society that's accepting of a variety of family structure?
(Aside: Only 8% of Canadians are divorced. I thought it would be more.)
Handshake logistics
If I'm noticing that the other person's handshake is weak, does that mean that my handshake is sufficiently firm? I know I can give good handshake, but I always forget to pay attention to it. Then when I notice someone else's hand is limp, I start fretting about whether mine is too.
The relevant Eddie:
The relevant Eddie:
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Breastfeeding pictures
Apparently Facebook banned breastfeeding pictures and now there's a big fuss.
Now I have nothing against breastfeeding and am no way bothered by it. I was breastfed myself. However, I honestly do not understand why a person would a) take a picture of their baby nursing, and b) post it on the internet. "Hey, this would make a good picture! Get the camera! Now we must share it with everyone!"
In a nursing picture, you can't see much of the baby's face because it's obscured by the breast. In addition, there are a lot of people on the internet who you probably wouldn't want thinking about your breasts. So if you wanted to post a picture of your baby, why wouldn't you post one where you can actually see the face and that doesn't involve your breasts? Or, if you do want people thinking about your breasts, why not post a picture that's actually sexy rather than one with a great big baby head in the way? I just cannot grok the mindset.
Now I have nothing against breastfeeding and am no way bothered by it. I was breastfed myself. However, I honestly do not understand why a person would a) take a picture of their baby nursing, and b) post it on the internet. "Hey, this would make a good picture! Get the camera! Now we must share it with everyone!"
In a nursing picture, you can't see much of the baby's face because it's obscured by the breast. In addition, there are a lot of people on the internet who you probably wouldn't want thinking about your breasts. So if you wanted to post a picture of your baby, why wouldn't you post one where you can actually see the face and that doesn't involve your breasts? Or, if you do want people thinking about your breasts, why not post a picture that's actually sexy rather than one with a great big baby head in the way? I just cannot grok the mindset.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Whose Line moment of the day
I'm just posting this because it made me laugh far more than I would have thought US Whose Line could.
My latest conspiracy theory
I think the idea of teaching creationism in schools was brought up so that government funding for Catholic schools will ultimately be eliminated.
First they mentioned funding other religious schools, which does make sense - it's got to be everyone or no one, not just the catholics. Then they mention creationism to make the idea of universal religious funding scary. But the public has already processed the idea that it's no fair that only the catholics get funding, so in the long run they're not going to continue to accept the status quo.
It is inevitable that government funding must go to either all or no religious schools. This was obvious to me back when I was a Catholic preteen. (Yes, I am aware of the British North America Act, but it didn't anticipate and is not applicable to today's more pluralistic society.) And obviously it would be far easier to organize one secular public school system than any number of religious school systems. I think Tory's current approach is a nefarious scheme to make that happen. I'm surprised to see it from the Conservative party, and it's not enough to affect my vote, but I am glad to see that seed was planted.
First they mentioned funding other religious schools, which does make sense - it's got to be everyone or no one, not just the catholics. Then they mention creationism to make the idea of universal religious funding scary. But the public has already processed the idea that it's no fair that only the catholics get funding, so in the long run they're not going to continue to accept the status quo.
It is inevitable that government funding must go to either all or no religious schools. This was obvious to me back when I was a Catholic preteen. (Yes, I am aware of the British North America Act, but it didn't anticipate and is not applicable to today's more pluralistic society.) And obviously it would be far easier to organize one secular public school system than any number of religious school systems. I think Tory's current approach is a nefarious scheme to make that happen. I'm surprised to see it from the Conservative party, and it's not enough to affect my vote, but I am glad to see that seed was planted.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Zit poll
Please answer in the comments:
Are you getting more acne than usual lately? If so, please post your geographical location in the comments.
I'm asking because I've been getting more acne than usual the last couple of weeks, and so have two friends in Hamilton (one male, one female).
Are you getting more acne than usual lately? If so, please post your geographical location in the comments.
I'm asking because I've been getting more acne than usual the last couple of weeks, and so have two friends in Hamilton (one male, one female).
Won't someone please think of the virgins?
Okay, we've all heard the thing where apparently Islamic terrorist martyrs think that they'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife.
And if you google this you'll find people debunking it and saying it's not really Islam or whatever.
But let's just take this belief as a given. There are people who believe this, so for the purpose of this post let's call it a religious belief.
So theological question: how did those virgins end up being sentenced to be someone's sex slave?
Is it punishment? Could it be avoided? Or is demands for virgins so high that everyone is pressed into service? And what does the afterlife have in store for an unmarried non-virgin? Maybe it's better to just jump in bed with the first willing person to avoid condemning yourself to a lifetime of being some asshole's sex toy?
People think I'm joking when I ask questions like this, but I'm quite serious, I want to know. Unfortunately, I don't know what to google to find the answers.
And if you google this you'll find people debunking it and saying it's not really Islam or whatever.
But let's just take this belief as a given. There are people who believe this, so for the purpose of this post let's call it a religious belief.
So theological question: how did those virgins end up being sentenced to be someone's sex slave?
Is it punishment? Could it be avoided? Or is demands for virgins so high that everyone is pressed into service? And what does the afterlife have in store for an unmarried non-virgin? Maybe it's better to just jump in bed with the first willing person to avoid condemning yourself to a lifetime of being some asshole's sex toy?
People think I'm joking when I ask questions like this, but I'm quite serious, I want to know. Unfortunately, I don't know what to google to find the answers.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Test The Nation: Language
I got 62/70, which is only 88%. I'd hoped to do better.
The interesting thing about the spelling category is that I'm not necessarily that good at spotting common misspellings. I tend to double-check things with spell-check and google rather than knowing every spelling off-hand. Thing is, my fingers know how to spell more words than my brain does. If I attempt to type something, I will type it properly (barring typoes), but I can't necessarily rattle it off spelling-bee style.
I'm surprised I got so many right in the Made In Canada category, because I was guessing at everything. I don't actually know that many regionalisms.
The problem with the nursery rhyme category was that I didn't know what a tuffet is. That category is questionable though, because it was more about common conceptions of what the nursery rhymes are about rather than what they're actually about. For example, Snopes says the idea that Ring Around the Rosie is about the plague is false. If it actually is false, I don't think a person should be faulted for not knowing it's allegedly about the plague.
The word origins were almost entirely Aboriginal, and almost entirely place names. I see their point and I'm not saying there's no place for Aboriginal word origins or place name origins in this test, but I think to truly test people's in-depth knowledge of English, you'd have to test their understanding of more common etymology, from French and German and Greek and Latin, and of everyday words, especially words for which the etymology is significant. I did find it strange that they asked at the beginning how many languages you speak when knowledge of other languages had so little influence on so many of the questions.
It would be interesting to see a bilingual version of this quiz. It would also be interesting to see how people could do if they were allowed to research. My translation training focused more on teaching me how to quickly and reliably find out stuff I don't know rather than on knowing absolutely everything, and I am absolutely certain I could have gotten every question correct if I'd had, say, one minute or 90 seconds to research each question. So I'd be interested in knowing how this compares with other people who don't have this training and experience.
Spelling, Eh: 4/5
Modern English: 4/4
Everyday Mistakes: 10/10
Made in Canada: 11/12
Nursery Rhymes: 3/4
Euphemisms: 5/5
Word Origins: 3/8
Language Terms: 4/4
Txt Talk: 5/5
Plurals: 4/4
The Arts: 3/3
What The...?: 2/2
Expressions: 4/4
The interesting thing about the spelling category is that I'm not necessarily that good at spotting common misspellings. I tend to double-check things with spell-check and google rather than knowing every spelling off-hand. Thing is, my fingers know how to spell more words than my brain does. If I attempt to type something, I will type it properly (barring typoes), but I can't necessarily rattle it off spelling-bee style.
I'm surprised I got so many right in the Made In Canada category, because I was guessing at everything. I don't actually know that many regionalisms.
The problem with the nursery rhyme category was that I didn't know what a tuffet is. That category is questionable though, because it was more about common conceptions of what the nursery rhymes are about rather than what they're actually about. For example, Snopes says the idea that Ring Around the Rosie is about the plague is false. If it actually is false, I don't think a person should be faulted for not knowing it's allegedly about the plague.
The word origins were almost entirely Aboriginal, and almost entirely place names. I see their point and I'm not saying there's no place for Aboriginal word origins or place name origins in this test, but I think to truly test people's in-depth knowledge of English, you'd have to test their understanding of more common etymology, from French and German and Greek and Latin, and of everyday words, especially words for which the etymology is significant. I did find it strange that they asked at the beginning how many languages you speak when knowledge of other languages had so little influence on so many of the questions.
It would be interesting to see a bilingual version of this quiz. It would also be interesting to see how people could do if they were allowed to research. My translation training focused more on teaching me how to quickly and reliably find out stuff I don't know rather than on knowing absolutely everything, and I am absolutely certain I could have gotten every question correct if I'd had, say, one minute or 90 seconds to research each question. So I'd be interested in knowing how this compares with other people who don't have this training and experience.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Things They Should Invent: Phonetymology
Given that phonetics is pronunciation and etymology is word origins, we need a field of linguistics called Phonetymology, which will study pronunciation origins.
Why do we need this? Because of the word lieutenant.
In the States, they pronounce lieutenant reasonably. But everywhere else, it's pronounced in English as "leftenant."
BUT WHY?????
The only way I could see getting from the letter U to the F sound is if you considered a U and a V to be the same thing (like carved letters on old architecture from I forget what that architectural era is called but I'm inclined to say Romantic), and then pronounced the V in German. Despite the fact that the word origin is clearly French. But that would be weird, because the preceding vowel sound isn't German (if it were, it would be a long EEEEEE). And the "leftenant" also disregards the I for some reason.
So how did they establish this? "Okay, pronounce the first letter normally, ignore the second letter, pronounce the third letter as though the surrounding vowels weren't there, disingenuously misread the fourth letter as though it were carved into a historic stone sign and then pronounce it in German, and then pronounce the rest of this word as written."
Another related (is this mere coincidence) word for which we need phonetymology is colonel, which is pronounced kernel. So not only is the L changed to an R, but the strong vowels become weakened or completely ignored, without influencing the surrounding consonants! Usually if you have the letter C before a weak E sound it's a soft C (pronounced S), but this one retains its hard C qualities. And the only way I've ever heard of for confusing L and R is that mock Chinese accent that Monty Python did in that one bit with the court of Elizabeth I on scooters, but I think that's racist.
"Okay, pronounce the first letter as written, belligerently forbidding it to be influenced by the pronunciation of the neighbouring vowel. Then turn the second letter into a weak vowel, despite the fact that it's the location of the stress in the word. Pronounce the third letter in as racist a manner as humanly possible, then ignore the fourth letter and pronounce the rest of the word as written."
WTF is up with this? We need an explanation!
Why do we need this? Because of the word lieutenant.
In the States, they pronounce lieutenant reasonably. But everywhere else, it's pronounced in English as "leftenant."
BUT WHY?????
The only way I could see getting from the letter U to the F sound is if you considered a U and a V to be the same thing (like carved letters on old architecture from I forget what that architectural era is called but I'm inclined to say Romantic), and then pronounced the V in German. Despite the fact that the word origin is clearly French. But that would be weird, because the preceding vowel sound isn't German (if it were, it would be a long EEEEEE). And the "leftenant" also disregards the I for some reason.
So how did they establish this? "Okay, pronounce the first letter normally, ignore the second letter, pronounce the third letter as though the surrounding vowels weren't there, disingenuously misread the fourth letter as though it were carved into a historic stone sign and then pronounce it in German, and then pronounce the rest of this word as written."
Another related (is this mere coincidence) word for which we need phonetymology is colonel, which is pronounced kernel. So not only is the L changed to an R, but the strong vowels become weakened or completely ignored, without influencing the surrounding consonants! Usually if you have the letter C before a weak E sound it's a soft C (pronounced S), but this one retains its hard C qualities. And the only way I've ever heard of for confusing L and R is that mock Chinese accent that Monty Python did in that one bit with the court of Elizabeth I on scooters, but I think that's racist.
"Okay, pronounce the first letter as written, belligerently forbidding it to be influenced by the pronunciation of the neighbouring vowel. Then turn the second letter into a weak vowel, despite the fact that it's the location of the stress in the word. Pronounce the third letter in as racist a manner as humanly possible, then ignore the fourth letter and pronounce the rest of the word as written."
WTF is up with this? We need an explanation!
Friday, September 07, 2007
Why was Larry Craig a senator in the first place?
There's one thing that I don't get about this whole Larry Craig scandal in the states: why did he run for public office in the first place, especially as a republican?
I can, unfortunately, understand why a person, especially a person his age, might believe it's impossible to live an authentic and transparent life that includes having sex with people of the same sex. And I am aware that closeted gay people sometimes feel the need to put on a public appearance of being anti-gay. But why pick a career path that would require you to repeatedly publically assert your position on gay issues? Why not do something where you aren't in the public eye? Be an actuary or something? That way, when you're outed, instead of being someone who actively worked to make life more difficult for gay people, you're just some random guy who, worst case, turns into a bit of a loudmouth homophobic asshole when he's had a few drinks. I'm sure there wouldn't be nearly as much scandal about the bathroom sex thing if he hadn't been so loudly anti-gay.
I can, unfortunately, understand why a person, especially a person his age, might believe it's impossible to live an authentic and transparent life that includes having sex with people of the same sex. And I am aware that closeted gay people sometimes feel the need to put on a public appearance of being anti-gay. But why pick a career path that would require you to repeatedly publically assert your position on gay issues? Why not do something where you aren't in the public eye? Be an actuary or something? That way, when you're outed, instead of being someone who actively worked to make life more difficult for gay people, you're just some random guy who, worst case, turns into a bit of a loudmouth homophobic asshole when he's had a few drinks. I'm sure there wouldn't be nearly as much scandal about the bathroom sex thing if he hadn't been so loudly anti-gay.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Birth order theory
Suppose a family has a child, acquired through whatever means. Then they adopt a second child who happens to be older than the first child. Who is (i.e. takes on the traits of/is treated as) the firstborn?
Lightbulbs
My compact fluroescent bulbs become hot to the touch if left on for a bit. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen?
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Wherein my inner child plays with a cellphone
The other day I had to use the word fuck in a text message. (Yes, my choice of modal there was deliberate.) However, T9 didn't know the word fuck. Its guesses were: dual, duck, eval, and dubl. I'm not sure where it's going with dubl except perhaps Dublin. Curiously, since I taught it the word fuck, fuck has become the second choice for that key combination, ahead of duck.
Of course, this made me wonder what T9 would make of other swear words.
Shit: shiv. And that's it. Isn't a shiv a makeshift prison knife? Why on earth would I need to say that?
Damn: econ, famo, fann, dann, damo, ebon. None of these are whole words.
Ass: Turns out it knows the word ass. But it guessed app, bps, and apr first, and then arr, asp, ars, and bsq. I don't know what bsq is supposed to be.
Hell: Is hell even a swear word for grownups? I don't know. But it was on the list of words I learned in Grade 1 from the big Grade 2 kids in the line next to us (except for the mythical C word, which I thought was "crap" until the age of 17) so I'll try it. And T9 gets it right on the first try.
Now onto the letter C...
Cunt: aunt, cumu. Aunt is a joke involving the pope, isn't it?
And just because of my childish confusion over C words...
Crap: I know it isn't really a swear word, but I'll try anyways. ASAP, bras, arcs, apar, cras, ascr.
Bitch: Not entirely a swear (and, in fact, a perfectly cromulent word in the context of dog breeding) but we'll see what happens anyway. Citag, chubi. I don't know where citag is going. And I guess T9 didn't anticipate talking about dog breeding.
And since I tried bitch, I'll have to try...
Bastard: Even though it isn't really a swear word. And T9 doesn't know it at all and doesn't have any guesses.
Slut: Again, not a swear, but a good ugly dirty-looking word. Plut, and that's it. I guess it's going for Pluto.
Whore: whose, and that's it. And now we need some more male-gendered insults to balance things out.
Dick: dial, fick, egal. I like fick! I think I'll start using that as faux-profanity! Then I added some more letters, but T9 can't even guess at the word dickhead.
Asshole: T9 can't guess at this either. I think it has trouble with longer words.
Speaking of longer words, let's round this out with the rest of the seven words you can't say on television.
Piss: sips, rips, ripp, sipp. I'm not sure where sipp is going.
Cocksucker: coastaler. I didn't know that was a word! It knows the word cock, but it guesses coal and anal first. Which gives me ideas for more words...
Motherfucker: It doesn't know this one. Before I entered the R, it was going for " mothereuale", which I don't know what that's supposed to mean.
Tits: thus, thur, vitr. I guess, in addition to dog breeding, T9 didn't anticipate ornithology.
Now for the idea I had before - the technical names of sex acts.
Sodomy: Right on the first guess!
Cunnilingus: Right on the first guess! (Aside: while checking my spelling, I found the wikipedia has an article on cunnilingus. Complete with illustrations from classic works of art. And a typical wikipedia discussion on whether it should be merged with the article on oral sex.
Fellatio: Fellathm. I have no idea where that's going.
Masturbation: Right on the first guess.
This post makes me wish I had Google Ads just so I could see what they'd come up with.
Of course, this made me wonder what T9 would make of other swear words.
Shit: shiv. And that's it. Isn't a shiv a makeshift prison knife? Why on earth would I need to say that?
Damn: econ, famo, fann, dann, damo, ebon. None of these are whole words.
Ass: Turns out it knows the word ass. But it guessed app, bps, and apr first, and then arr, asp, ars, and bsq. I don't know what bsq is supposed to be.
Hell: Is hell even a swear word for grownups? I don't know. But it was on the list of words I learned in Grade 1 from the big Grade 2 kids in the line next to us (except for the mythical C word, which I thought was "crap" until the age of 17) so I'll try it. And T9 gets it right on the first try.
Now onto the letter C...
Cunt: aunt, cumu. Aunt is a joke involving the pope, isn't it?
And just because of my childish confusion over C words...
Crap: I know it isn't really a swear word, but I'll try anyways. ASAP, bras, arcs, apar, cras, ascr.
Bitch: Not entirely a swear (and, in fact, a perfectly cromulent word in the context of dog breeding) but we'll see what happens anyway. Citag, chubi. I don't know where citag is going. And I guess T9 didn't anticipate talking about dog breeding.
And since I tried bitch, I'll have to try...
Bastard: Even though it isn't really a swear word. And T9 doesn't know it at all and doesn't have any guesses.
Slut: Again, not a swear, but a good ugly dirty-looking word. Plut, and that's it. I guess it's going for Pluto.
Whore: whose, and that's it. And now we need some more male-gendered insults to balance things out.
Dick: dial, fick, egal. I like fick! I think I'll start using that as faux-profanity! Then I added some more letters, but T9 can't even guess at the word dickhead.
Asshole: T9 can't guess at this either. I think it has trouble with longer words.
Speaking of longer words, let's round this out with the rest of the seven words you can't say on television.
Piss: sips, rips, ripp, sipp. I'm not sure where sipp is going.
Cocksucker: coastaler. I didn't know that was a word! It knows the word cock, but it guesses coal and anal first. Which gives me ideas for more words...
Motherfucker: It doesn't know this one. Before I entered the R, it was going for " mothereuale", which I don't know what that's supposed to mean.
Tits: thus, thur, vitr. I guess, in addition to dog breeding, T9 didn't anticipate ornithology.
Now for the idea I had before - the technical names of sex acts.
Sodomy: Right on the first guess!
Cunnilingus: Right on the first guess! (Aside: while checking my spelling, I found the wikipedia has an article on cunnilingus. Complete with illustrations from classic works of art. And a typical wikipedia discussion on whether it should be merged with the article on oral sex.
Fellatio: Fellathm. I have no idea where that's going.
Masturbation: Right on the first guess.
This post makes me wish I had Google Ads just so I could see what they'd come up with.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
How to confuse people
If you're ever on a TV show that beeps profanity, use profanity in the middle of your sentences in a way that doesn't make sense. Use swear words as key nouns or verbs in the sentence (as opposed to as interjections that can easily be glossed over) but structure the sentence so that no swear word could possibly make sense in that place in the sentence. Then people at home receiving the beeped version will be scratching their heads trying to figure out what you said.
It's also an interesting intellectual exercise to try to create a sentence where no swear word can possibly fit in.
It's also an interesting intellectual exercise to try to create a sentence where no swear word can possibly fit in.
So what's the problem here?
Neither the two of three blocked or illegal exits aided our sortie, nor the half-dozen unhelpful people who had no clue how to reach Highway 400...In Ottawa on a separate trip, two citizens and a police officer were more than happy to offer their time.
Sounds to me like in Toronto six people were happy to offer their time, they just didn't know how to get to the 400. That's not unhelpful, that's just...carfree.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
End of summer
Labour Day weekend is commonly considered the end of summer, and with this end I'm feeling a sort of dread. I don't know why. There was nothing particularly special about this summer - life just went on as usual. But as I've been waking up to darkness rather than a view of the sunrise these past few days, I'm feeling like the fall and upcoming long winter months portend nothing but gloom.
Part of this is sartoral. I'm going through an "OMG, I have NO CLOTHES!" phase, which is unfortunately coinciding with my weight being at its peak and my bank account being at its nadir. Both go through cyclical phases. I lose weight until my body starts screaming "FAT!!!! FEED ME FAT!!!!" Then I give into my cravings until I gain a dress size and my body bloats in protest at the slightest indulgence. This is where I am right now. And my bank account is going to be a bit low until I get a three-pay month in October (I think), so I'd best do without new clothes until then. Shallow as it is, it always makes me feel frumpy and unpleasant to go about life in clothes that don't make me feel good. I do have damn good boots though, as soon as it gets cool enough to wear boots.
Part of this is guilt. I've been feeling kind of guilty for not continually taking classes after I finished university, and back-to-school time just reminds me of that But frankly, I can't imagine how I managed to fit it into my schedule. I feel full now! Also, what time I do spend goofing off is generally spent with something that makes me laugh. An hour of goofing off means an hour of laughter, and that can only be healthy.
But beyond this, there's still a feeling of dread. Like something bad is going to happen as it gets cold and dark, because it's getting cold and dark. I can't imagine why though. I am now in the lightest surroundings, both physically and spirit-ly (I don't quite mean spiritually, but the best noun I can find to form this adjective is spirit), that I've ever been in. This will be the first winter when I can drink my morning coffee in a pool of sunlight. This will be my first winter with the complete works of Monty Python, Eddie Izzard (despite Poodle's best efforts to get me onto him earlier), and Whose Line at my fingertips. This is the first year when my brain has been able to handle listening to music while doing draft translation (on familiar topics that don't require in-depth research), which does ease the mental effort of working all day. (What would be awesome is if I ever develop the ability to listen to stand-up comedy while translating. This sounds impossible now, but a year ago listening to music with lyrics was impossible, and two years ago working on a post-insomnia day or through strep throat was impossible.) So I have more tools than ever before to get through any impending psychological darkness, and yet I still have this lurking premonition that it's going to be a difficult winter. I have no idea why.
Part of this is sartoral. I'm going through an "OMG, I have NO CLOTHES!" phase, which is unfortunately coinciding with my weight being at its peak and my bank account being at its nadir. Both go through cyclical phases. I lose weight until my body starts screaming "FAT!!!! FEED ME FAT!!!!" Then I give into my cravings until I gain a dress size and my body bloats in protest at the slightest indulgence. This is where I am right now. And my bank account is going to be a bit low until I get a three-pay month in October (I think), so I'd best do without new clothes until then. Shallow as it is, it always makes me feel frumpy and unpleasant to go about life in clothes that don't make me feel good. I do have damn good boots though, as soon as it gets cool enough to wear boots.
Part of this is guilt. I've been feeling kind of guilty for not continually taking classes after I finished university, and back-to-school time just reminds me of that But frankly, I can't imagine how I managed to fit it into my schedule. I feel full now! Also, what time I do spend goofing off is generally spent with something that makes me laugh. An hour of goofing off means an hour of laughter, and that can only be healthy.
But beyond this, there's still a feeling of dread. Like something bad is going to happen as it gets cold and dark, because it's getting cold and dark. I can't imagine why though. I am now in the lightest surroundings, both physically and spirit-ly (I don't quite mean spiritually, but the best noun I can find to form this adjective is spirit), that I've ever been in. This will be the first winter when I can drink my morning coffee in a pool of sunlight. This will be my first winter with the complete works of Monty Python, Eddie Izzard (despite Poodle's best efforts to get me onto him earlier), and Whose Line at my fingertips. This is the first year when my brain has been able to handle listening to music while doing draft translation (on familiar topics that don't require in-depth research), which does ease the mental effort of working all day. (What would be awesome is if I ever develop the ability to listen to stand-up comedy while translating. This sounds impossible now, but a year ago listening to music with lyrics was impossible, and two years ago working on a post-insomnia day or through strep throat was impossible.) So I have more tools than ever before to get through any impending psychological darkness, and yet I still have this lurking premonition that it's going to be a difficult winter. I have no idea why.
Signs I'm too much of a geek
I'm watching an episode of the old Batman TV series (which may be a sign I'm too much of a geek in and of itself). The bad guy has a Robin Hood theme, and in his villaneous lair he has a guillotine. My reaction: "But that's historically inaccurate!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)