Upgefu(c)kt

Of my own initiative, I started using the word upgefukt about 10 years ago. However, I'm not the only person in the universe who has come up with this revolutionary linguistic innovation, and it seems the prevailing spelling is upgefuckt (1380 google hits, compared with 58 for upgefukt).

The advantage of upgefuckt is it uses the actual root of the verb, and more strictly follow German past participle formation rules. The disadvantage is that if you pronounce it in German, it comes out "upgefutskt".

So should I go with prevailing usage and start spelling it with a C?

Breast self-exams

They recently did a study that found that breast cancer survival rates are the same for women who do self-exams and women who don't.

I found it really weird that they were focusing solely on survival rates. What about quality of life issues? Lumpectomy vs. masectomy? Need for chemotherapy? Duration of treatment and recovery period? Ability to resume one's normal lifestyle vs. not ever being able to get back to the exact same quality of life?

I don't know much about cancer treatment, so I can't even begin to guess at the answers. But if, for example, doing a self-exam means catching a lump early enough that you can get a lump early enough that you can get a lumpectomy and don't need chemo rather than a masectomy with chemo, I'd say it's still worthwhile, even if there is a higher risk of false alarms. All survival is not created equal.

Referendum

I've noticed two things lately:

1. I keep being innundated with referendum ads. There are large ads in every newspaper I look at, those clever "Make sure you understand the question" ads are on whenever I watch TV, I'm getting mailings like every other day, my MP is talking about it - the referendum is everywhere!

2. In the newspaper and the blogosphere, I keep hearing "OMG, NO ONE knows ANYTHING about this referendum! We need more public awareness!"

I think I've become completely incapable of judging what the average person does or does not know.

This Is My Country, What's Yours? A Literary Atlas of Canada by Noah Richler

This is one of those "read this to feel smart" books. It's a literary psychogeography of Canada, which is kind of WHOOSH ***/me swishes hand about a foot over head*** but I managed to follow it well enough anyway. It was easier to follow when the author was talking about works of literature or places that I was familiar with, but I didn't get lost in other parts of the book. Interestingly, people kept striking up conversations with me when I was reading this book in public, which has only ever happened with Harry Potter and Life of Pi.

The author starts with the idea of Canada as Nowhere. It's an old-fashioned idea from back when we were still functionally a colony - the wilds of Canada were the kind of place that people would be banished to - but it does appeal to me. Our leaders are so obsessed with making Canada a significant global power and making Toronto a world-class city, but I like the idea of being nowhere and being globally irrelevant, being thought of as just a few million people in this vast wild wasteland. (Well, I like the idea as long as it doesn't affect our performing arts scene so badly that it's no longer reasonable to say "Oh, I'll just wait for that play/opera/tour/whatever to come to Toronto.") I like the idea that people might sometimes forget about our existence, only to be reminded with things like "Well, you could always go to Canada to marry your same-sex partner." Like the kid in high school who would never be part of the cool crowd, but it doesn't matter because they've got their own life and hobbies and friends outside of school.

The other interesting idea the author raised is The City (as in all cities, I'm not getting all San Francisco on you) as a distinct society.

In the city, [borders] lose significance. The city, as it develops, becomes bigger and more complex than any of its parts. Consensus falls away and difference becomes the lifeblood of a place where a multitude of stories compete for recongition and dispute and build on what has been said before. The City is a "distinct society" because communities live on top of and in between one another and no person is any one thing for all of the time. borders do not matter any more because the living is diffuse. The city has its own rules, its own accords. It is a generic place but also multiplicitous.

I like this because it articulated something I've had in mind but haven't been able to articulate. When you live in a city, where you're from (both geographically and socially) can be allowed to become as irrelevant as you want it to be. Which is something I find appealing. In media/literature you sometimes come across the idea that a young person is abandoning "who they are" when they decide to live in a way that's different from their family. (I've seen this most recently seen this as a criticism of Didi in The Riches, which doesn't make sense as something to criticize her about but that's a whole nother post.) Whenever I encounter this idea, I always think it's unfair, because you, not your background, should get to define "who you are". The distinct society that is urban life allows us to do that.

The real problem with Britney Spears at the MTV awards

I know this is old news, but I'm just really surprised that no one has mentioned it yet, so I'm bringing it up myself.

A bunch of people got all judgey on Britney Spears for her how she looked at the MTV awards. (I'm not talking about her performance here, just her appearance.) Then a bunch of other people jumped down their throats for criticizing a woman who has had two babies in the past 2-3 (?) years for having a less than perfectly flat tummy. I once again saw this mentioned in passing, and I still haven't seen anyone bring up the real problem.

The real problem is that her costume was poorly designed and unflattering. Any decent costume designer/stylist should have been able to make her look better.

If the top of her bottoms was about halfway between where it was on that costume and her navel, and the legs were more high-cut rather than straight across, she would have looked far better. If she were dressed the same as her backup dancers, she would have looked great. But the costume she was wearing was not flattering to her body, which is a failure on the part of whomever was dressing her. I can look far better than that using what's in my own closet, and I've probably got 20 lbs. on her and no aesthetic talent. Professionals should be able to do even better than I can.

The real reason why Burma changed its name to Myanmar

There's some serious shit going down in Burma/Myanmar right now (it's a whole political thing about which name to use and different media sources use different names and I haven't decided yet what I should do personally). Human rights struggle, oppressive regimes, social and political upheaval, oppression, rebellion, people being killed - it's very hardcore and serious and important and complex and I should be reading and learning everything about it I can in order to be a fully-informed citizen of the world.

But all I can think of is Graham Chapman, dressed as a frumpy housewife, corpsing himself ("I panicked").

I think that's why they changed their name. It's hard to be taken seriously with that image in mind.

A crappy joke

Two flies are having a fight. One says "EAT SHIT!" The other says "Why, thank you, don't mind if I do!"

Blasts from the past

If you used to read Baby-Sitters Club, you might enjoy BSC Headquarters.

If you used to read Sweet Valley High, you might enjoy The Dairi Burger.

Question for anyone watching the Simpsons right now

What's tha music playing when Homer's in the fast food restaurant?

Information

Having a connectivity scare always makes me think about the place of the internet in my life, and I realized that I feel absolutely entitled to any information I might possibly need being at my fingertips.

Who's that actor and what else have I seen him in? What's up with that 0.1g of trans fat in my cheese? At what time will it start getting humid today? What's up with those cranes at or near Sunnybrook? What is salsa americana and how does it differ from what these Spanish-speaking people on TV define as regular salsa? And is anyone having the same problem with their computer that I'm having? I fully expect to be able to find out all of these things within seconds, in one google and on the first page of results. And if I can't, something's wrong.

Fifteen years ago, this would have been a ridiculous expectation. Now, I can't imagine living any other way.

I wonder if 15 years from now I'll be looking back on today and marvelling at how on earth I managed to get by with so little information.

Pissed off at Rogers

I got a voicemail from Rogers today alleging that my computer was launching a DOS attack, so they disabled my internet connection. I'm very pissed off at how this was handled though. First, I had to wait half an hour just to speak with a human being - while constantly being told by a recording that I should go online to their technical support website (Gee, I'd love to!)

Then I talked to a guy and he escalated me to a security guy, who told me that I had a virus. But he couldn't give me any information on what kind of virus it apparently was, or what IP address it was apparently attacking (he gave me the last three octets, which is meaningless), or what port it was apparently attacking, or even agree on what time this alleged attack occurred. So how am I supposed to fix it? His only suggestions, after a very condescending lecture on what exatly constitutes a DOS attack, were to format the drive and reinstall windows, or to call a technican (by which he meant a futureshop-type technician, which is on par with my own technical skills if I'm allowed to have Google) In the meantime I'd run a full virus scan and ad-aware, and they both found nothing. Which is unsurprising because I run a full virus scan (and update defs) on a daily basis and do the same for ad-aware on a weekly basis. So I told the guy I'd bet him $10,000 that there was no virus on my computer, and he said he'd reconnect my connection, but if the DOS attack happened again my account would be suspended for a week. Without any warning or further information. So I said fine. This was at 7:30.

By 9:00, my account still hadn't been reactivated. So I called again, waited again, got another tech who went through the EXACT SAME SCRIPT! And then told me that the previou tech hadn't said he's reconnect me when he did say so explicitly! And then lectured me extensively about having malware on my computer! So dude FINALLY agreed to reconnecct, reread me the whole disclaimer thing again, and told me to unplug my modem for 10-15 minutes(!) and then I'd be reconnected.

Which I was. And now I'm running TrendMicro Housecall just to double check things. But I really resent how there is no leeway in this process for an honest mistake. The whole thing is based on the assumption that I'm either malicious or incompetent. If I could have specific information about the IP address being attacked or the port or the exact time of the attack, I could track what my computer was doing at the time. But no, instead they don't even give me the leeway to make a reasonable diagnosis and talk to me condescendingly. I have impeccable technological hygiene, I have the tech knowledge to fix whatever the problem is, but I just don't know offhand. But these security guys are working from a script and can't help me diagnose. And meanwhile, every test I know how to run, all my logs, everything I can google up, shows that my computer is not doing anything wrong. It's behaving the same as it has for the past 2 years, I can identify every single process that's currently running, and I have no sign whatsoever of what this alleged problem is. But if this alleged incident reoccurs again, they'll cut me off for a week without even telling me. I'm not happy.

Edited to add an analogy:

If I had some problem that was on Roger's end and they couldn't resolve it on the first try, it would be unreasonable for me to demand a week's free service. The most reasonable way to troubleshoot an unknown problem does involve some trial and error, and as a user I have to accept that. Now, if my computer does start launching a DOS attack, I'm perfectly fine with them cutting me off mid-attack. But the most reasonable way for me to troubleshoot an unknown problem would be to eliminate all processes and then reconnect them one by one. So, to successfully identify and resolve the problem, the attack would have to be relaunched. What should happen then is they disconnect me and call me automatically to inform me of the attack, then I say "Okay, I've just identified what's causing it, I'll eliminate that." Then they reconnect me and everything's fine. To arbitrarily disconnect me for a week if the attack reoccurs just once is completely counter to good troubleshooting principles. A three strikes rule, with notification (including specific time and duration) of each offence would be far more appropriate.

Post examples of invisible letters here!

A convergence of recent thoughts:

We do, in fact, have invisible letters in the English language.

The F in lieutenant (non-US pronunciation).
The R in colonel.
The F in draught. Or cough.

I've also noticed that the Pythons sometimes pronounce "idea" as "idear", which would be an invisible R. But I don't know whether this is a legitimate dialect or a failed attempt at an accent.

Can you think of any more examples of invisible letters?

22

In recent years, both young men and women have delayed many transitions. For example, in 2001, half of all 22-year-olds were still in school. Only one in five had a partner (usually common-law), and one in 11 had children.

I've already discussed the problems with using relationships and children as markers of adulthood so we won't get into that again. Today my point is the problem with using the age of 22.

Here in Ontario (which, like it or not, constitutes a statistically influential chunk of the Canadian population), in 1971 and in 2001, if you started kindergarten at the normal age (in September of the calendar year in which you turn 5), then proceed through elementary school, high school (including OAC, which still affected 22-year-olds in 2001), and university at the standard rate of one grade level per year, at the age of 22 you will be in fourth-year university. If you were born in the first half of the calendar year, the entire time you were 22 years old will have been spent in university. If you were born in the second half of the calendar year, you will still be 22 for a few months after graduation.

So still being in school at the age of 22 is not a sign of lack of adulthood. It is simply a sign of being in university. Even if absolutely everyone finished university in four years, graduated, got a job, and married in quick succession, and then promptly got themselves knocked up, half of 22-year-olds would still be in school, and the vast majority would not be married yet (because some people are going to want to have a wedding that involves some planning) or have children yet.

If they want to make these kinds of value judgements, they should really pick a slightly older age.

I think I've been thinking about Ontario politics too much

I thought I wasn't paying enough attention to the Ontario election, but then last night I had a dream.

I dreamed that McGuinty, Hampton, and Tory were having a debate about the value of MMP. (No, I don't know why De Jong wasn't invited to my dream.) They all kept using the word consensus to mean something different, and couldn't agree on what it actually meant. (Yeah, I know...) So I offered to look it up in the dictionary for them, but I had trouble because I didn't know about the invisible U between the N and the first S. (Yes, the invisible letters schtick is an Eddie thing.) So then I remembered about the invisible U and looked it up and found the definition. So I raised my hand and said that I'd found the definition. But John Tory wouldn't shut up for long enough for me to tell them the definition. He just kept talking and talking and wouldn't shut up. So I punched him in the teeth.

Seriously, that was my dream. Maybe I need to back off politics for a while.

Performance art, free for the taking

Today I saw a rather loud group of people celebrating the fact that one of their number was cancer-free.

It would be good performance art to loudly celebrate the fact that your friend is cancer-free, casually neglecting to mention that they've never had cancer yet in the first place.

Bath tissue?

I just saw a commercial for toilet paper that described it as "bath tissue". I've heard "bathroom tissue" before, but "bath tissue" sounds just a tad too bath-related, and not enough toilet-related.

Alos, I saw a commercial with someone complaining that the dishes come out of her dishwasher less than completely dry. I think perhaps that's a sign you don't have enough problems.

Military funerals

If a member of the military dies, do they have to have a military funeral? What if they want something else?

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:

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.)