You often hear or hear of elders complaining of social isolation because they don't get enough attention from their descendents. And people with children do tend to assume that their children will take care of them in old age.
But what about childless elders? On one hand, if you're childless, you don't have any younger people who have some sense of duty to take care of you. But on the other hand, you can see it coming. You know you don't have any children, so you aren't going to be surprised when you get old and you don't have any children or grandchildren around you.
I did a quick google and the research I could find suggested that childless elders are more socially isolated, although marital status is also a factor. However, none of the abstracts (I can't access academic databases from home so I couldn't see the whole articles) said anything about whether this bothers them.
What's interesting is this is all going to be moot anyway within the next generation. With the internet, even if you're confined to your home and your children never visit you, you can still blog about whatever you want or find an online community about whatever interests you (or whatever it is people will do on the internet a generation from now).
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Things Google Should Invent: click on a building and see its Yellow Pages entry
I was searching to see where a specific address was located. Google Maps found it for me, of course, and let me see a nice satellite picture. But then I wanted to see what was near there. Was there anywhere to buy lunch? Unfortunately, Google Maps doesn't help with this. All I can see from the satellite photos is roofs of buildings surrounded by parking lots. The buildings are biggish, so they could be malls or they could be supermarkets or they could be Walmart or they could be strip malls or they could be sprawly industrial parks. I can't tell at all.
Now Google Maps does know what's inside these buildings. If I do find "Food" near "$ADDRESS" it will produce results, but these results aren't completely good. If Pizza Pizza is labelled "pizza" but not "food", my search won't turn it up.
So what I want to do instead is click on the buildings, and Google will tell me which businesses are inside them. They already have the information, I just want to get at it the other way around. You can do it Google!
Now Google Maps does know what's inside these buildings. If I do find "Food" near "$ADDRESS" it will produce results, but these results aren't completely good. If Pizza Pizza is labelled "pizza" but not "food", my search won't turn it up.
So what I want to do instead is click on the buildings, and Google will tell me which businesses are inside them. They already have the information, I just want to get at it the other way around. You can do it Google!
School shootings
I wonder if there are any numbers on whether a person is more likely to be shot up by a crazed gunman in a school vs. in other places.
Why women don't vote Conservative
Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail speculates on why fewer women vote Conservative than men.
Now I rarely make bold black-and-white declarative statements - I adore nuance - but in this case, speaking as a member of the demographic in question and given the specific numbers in the article, I am quite convinced there is one answer.
It's all about abortion.
Women, especially younger women and especially single women, don't vote Conservative because we don't trust that they'll uphold our rights to and access to abortion.
Look at the specific number breakdowns. Please qualify all my statements with "In general, statistically speaking, using gross generalizations to explain broad trends, etc.":
Because raising a child single-handedly is way harder, married women are more likely to welcome a pregnancy (or at least not see it as a major problem). It is also easier to get a tubal (or a vasectomy) if you're married, so married people who don't want any (more) children may be able to get sterilized and therefore be less likely to need an abortion.
With the cost of living being lower in rural areas, supporting an planned child would be easier. In major cities, even a two-bedroom apartment may be out of people's price range. Also, this is a (positive or negative, depending on your opinion) feedback loop - culture in rural areas tends to be more conservative and family-oriented, so people who don't want that sort of life tend to leave and move to the city, which reduced the number of non-family people in rural areas, which makes it even more family-oriented etc. etc.
Younger women are more fertile, so more likely to become pregnant despite contraceptive efforts. Doctors don't like to do tubals on women under the age of 35, so younger women are more likely to be fertile against their will. In contrast, menopause tends to happen around 50, so the vast majority of women over 50 simply will not become pregnant no matter what happens.
This not only is irrelevant to the childless woman, but also, by targeting women through child-related policies tells us specifically that they don't care about us except as mothers. All the child tax credits in the world do not negate the existence of a child. Crime is bad, we do agree with that just like anyone else, but even executing - even torturing! - my rapist would not make up for being forced to gestate his baby. It doesn't matter how many women are in government, what matters on a personal, visceral level is that everyone - not just me and my friends and cousins and sister but everyone, even random 14-year-olds in Nunavut - gets to gestate only the pregnancies she wants to. If they doubled my taxes to pay for an abortion clinic on every corner, I would applaud and campaign for them next time around. If they cut my taxes to zero and eliminated all crime and gave you $100,000 a year for each child but eliminated the possibility of abortion, I would riot.
At this point, people usually point out that the Conservatives are not trying to take away my Morgentaler Clinic. Which is true, on paper at least, and explains why they're getting any votes at all. However, we have long memories. If Paul Bernardo was out on parole having been a model prisoner and evaluated as unlikely to reoffend, I still wouldn't get in a car with him. And before you tell me that this isn't an apt comparison, if you told me "Get in the car with Paul Bernardo or abortion will be eliminated," I'd pause only long enough to tell you where to find my will.
If you have a fertile womb but do not want to become pregnant, there are few things anywhere near as important. Anyone who we even suspect does not understand this has no chance of getting our votes.
Now I rarely make bold black-and-white declarative statements - I adore nuance - but in this case, speaking as a member of the demographic in question and given the specific numbers in the article, I am quite convinced there is one answer.
It's all about abortion.
Women, especially younger women and especially single women, don't vote Conservative because we don't trust that they'll uphold our rights to and access to abortion.
Look at the specific number breakdowns. Please qualify all my statements with "In general, statistically speaking, using gross generalizations to explain broad trends, etc.":
Among single women, the Conservatives trail the Liberals by a whopping 19 points (36 to 17 per cent), whereas the Conservatives are seven points ahead among married women (37 to 30 per cent).
Because raising a child single-handedly is way harder, married women are more likely to welcome a pregnancy (or at least not see it as a major problem). It is also easier to get a tubal (or a vasectomy) if you're married, so married people who don't want any (more) children may be able to get sterilized and therefore be less likely to need an abortion.
The Conservatives lead by nine points among rural women (37 to 28 per cent) but trail by four among urban ones (33 to 29 per cent).
With the cost of living being lower in rural areas, supporting an planned child would be easier. In major cities, even a two-bedroom apartment may be out of people's price range. Also, this is a (positive or negative, depending on your opinion) feedback loop - culture in rural areas tends to be more conservative and family-oriented, so people who don't want that sort of life tend to leave and move to the city, which reduced the number of non-family people in rural areas, which makes it even more family-oriented etc. etc.
Women under 34 favour the Liberals by 11 points (38 to 27 per cent); women over 50 prefer the Conservatives by eight points (36 to 28 per cent).
Younger women are more fertile, so more likely to become pregnant despite contraceptive efforts. Doctors don't like to do tubals on women under the age of 35, so younger women are more likely to be fertile against their will. In contrast, menopause tends to happen around 50, so the vast majority of women over 50 simply will not become pregnant no matter what happens.
As part of their strategy of slicing and dicing the electorate, the Conservatives have very specifically targeted married women.
Their so-called "child care policy" was really a new version of the old family allowance approach: a cheque in the mail for families with kids. Their "tough on crime" policies were intended to be popular with older women and those with children. Their itsy-bitsy tax credits for children's athletic programs had young families in the bull's eye.
This not only is irrelevant to the childless woman, but also, by targeting women through child-related policies tells us specifically that they don't care about us except as mothers. All the child tax credits in the world do not negate the existence of a child. Crime is bad, we do agree with that just like anyone else, but even executing - even torturing! - my rapist would not make up for being forced to gestate his baby. It doesn't matter how many women are in government, what matters on a personal, visceral level is that everyone - not just me and my friends and cousins and sister but everyone, even random 14-year-olds in Nunavut - gets to gestate only the pregnancies she wants to. If they doubled my taxes to pay for an abortion clinic on every corner, I would applaud and campaign for them next time around. If they cut my taxes to zero and eliminated all crime and gave you $100,000 a year for each child but eliminated the possibility of abortion, I would riot.
At this point, people usually point out that the Conservatives are not trying to take away my Morgentaler Clinic. Which is true, on paper at least, and explains why they're getting any votes at all. However, we have long memories. If Paul Bernardo was out on parole having been a model prisoner and evaluated as unlikely to reoffend, I still wouldn't get in a car with him. And before you tell me that this isn't an apt comparison, if you told me "Get in the car with Paul Bernardo or abortion will be eliminated," I'd pause only long enough to tell you where to find my will.
If you have a fertile womb but do not want to become pregnant, there are few things anywhere near as important. Anyone who we even suspect does not understand this has no chance of getting our votes.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Does anyone get anything out of rote recitation of a prayer?
Apparently they say the Lord's Prayer in the Ontario Legislature? and they're only just now thinking "Hey, maybe this isn't the time or place"?
I've already written what I think about saying it in public school and that applies here too, but now I'm wondering something else.
If you are in fact religious, and you're in a situation like this where you have to recite a specifically-worded prayer in a secular context, do you at all feel it emotionally or religiously or faithfully or however it is you normally experience prayer?
I was once religious so I do grok that prayer is something to be experienced, not simply something to be recited. You think and feel something and then pray it, and then something happens, something that's more than just thinking and feeling it. (I don't know what happens, I never had the experience myself which is why I'm an atheist, but it's supposed to happen.) And I do see how saying a specific prayer could be an experience when done in a church or some other religious context - in Catholicism, all the words and actions of the mass had a specific purpose which served a greater goal of forgiving all our sins so we wouldn't go to hell if we died between the end of mass and our next sin or something (there are big words for all this but they escape me at the moment).
But if you're in the legislature - a completely secular context of no theological significance - and you recite from a given script, are you experiencing it religiously at all? Reciting in a religious context I can see, praying whatever your happen to be thinking and feeling in any context I can see, but does reciting in an irrelevant context actually do anything for you?
Any religious people out there? Or have I already alienated them all?
ETA: Theme of the day seems to be blogging things that other people have already said better. Here's Eddie's take.
I've already written what I think about saying it in public school and that applies here too, but now I'm wondering something else.
If you are in fact religious, and you're in a situation like this where you have to recite a specifically-worded prayer in a secular context, do you at all feel it emotionally or religiously or faithfully or however it is you normally experience prayer?
I was once religious so I do grok that prayer is something to be experienced, not simply something to be recited. You think and feel something and then pray it, and then something happens, something that's more than just thinking and feeling it. (I don't know what happens, I never had the experience myself which is why I'm an atheist, but it's supposed to happen.) And I do see how saying a specific prayer could be an experience when done in a church or some other religious context - in Catholicism, all the words and actions of the mass had a specific purpose which served a greater goal of forgiving all our sins so we wouldn't go to hell if we died between the end of mass and our next sin or something (there are big words for all this but they escape me at the moment).
But if you're in the legislature - a completely secular context of no theological significance - and you recite from a given script, are you experiencing it religiously at all? Reciting in a religious context I can see, praying whatever your happen to be thinking and feeling in any context I can see, but does reciting in an irrelevant context actually do anything for you?
Any religious people out there? Or have I already alienated them all?
ETA: Theme of the day seems to be blogging things that other people have already said better. Here's Eddie's take.
A better name for Family Day
Monday is Family Day. Which is a bad name for a holiday - it imposes obligation on people who don't want to spend time with their families and alienates people who don't have families, while people who do want to spend time with their families would be doing so anyway. Not that I care that much because I don't get the day off.
Today, the sun was out as I was leaving work for the first time this year. I usually notice the return of the sun around around this time of year, and it does make life a little brighter.
Therefore, this holiday should be themed on something like Here Comes The Sun Day. But shorter, perhaps with a mythological reference or something. Suggestions are welcome!
ETA: James Bow's idea is better.
Today, the sun was out as I was leaving work for the first time this year. I usually notice the return of the sun around around this time of year, and it does make life a little brighter.
Therefore, this holiday should be themed on something like Here Comes The Sun Day. But shorter, perhaps with a mythological reference or something. Suggestions are welcome!
ETA: James Bow's idea is better.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
A Toronto moment
The cashier goes to give the customer his change, then realizes that one of the coins is foreign.
Cashier: Wait, this isn't right, let me get you a real dime.
Customer: **inspects strange coin** I wonder what this is?
Cashier: I don't know, I've never seen one of those before.
Customer: It looks like some European language. I can never tell them apart.
Cashier: Me neither, they all look the same.
Cashier: Wait, this isn't right, let me get you a real dime.
Customer: **inspects strange coin** I wonder what this is?
Cashier: I don't know, I've never seen one of those before.
Customer: It looks like some European language. I can never tell them apart.
Cashier: Me neither, they all look the same.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Math lesson for Michael Bryant
So the Ontario Liberals want to have the legislature sit in the morning instead of in the afternoon and evening.
Now I should admit a perceived conflict of interest here: I am a card-carrying member of Night Owls International (Motto: "We do more after 2am than most people do all day"). However, this post isn't about circadian rhythms, it's about math.
So let's calculate this. First, the number of hours a week under the current system:
1:30 to 6 = 4.5 hours
6:45 to midnight = 5.25 hours
= 9.75 hours a day * 4 days a week = 39 hours a week.
+ 2 hours on Thursday mornings = 41 hours a week
Now under the new system:
9:30 to 6 = 8.5 hours
8.5 * 4 days a week = 34 hours a week
So under the new system they'd actually be sitting for fewer hours a week! That in no way expands the number of hours of debate by 50%!
Now if the MPPs decide they want to sit earlier for work-life balance purposes, that's perfectly fine. A lot of people get to flex their work hours, and I don't think anyone will begrudge them that except for the subset of people who will begrudge them anything and everything on the basis that they're politicians. But don't go around saying it increases the number of hours of work when it doesn't! Frankly, I expected better from Michael Bryant, he's always struck me as rather sensible.
Now I should admit a perceived conflict of interest here: I am a card-carrying member of Night Owls International (Motto: "We do more after 2am than most people do all day"). However, this post isn't about circadian rhythms, it's about math.
When the legislature is in session, it sits from 1:30 to 6:00 p.m. and again from 6:45 p.m. until as late as midnight Monday through Thursdays, with the only morning sessions at 10 a.m. Thursdays for two hours of private members' business.
Bryant said sitting from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. would expand the number of hours for debate each week by as much as 50 per cent and make life a little easier for members with family demands.
So let's calculate this. First, the number of hours a week under the current system:
1:30 to 6 = 4.5 hours
6:45 to midnight = 5.25 hours
= 9.75 hours a day * 4 days a week = 39 hours a week.
+ 2 hours on Thursday mornings = 41 hours a week
Now under the new system:
9:30 to 6 = 8.5 hours
8.5 * 4 days a week = 34 hours a week
So under the new system they'd actually be sitting for fewer hours a week! That in no way expands the number of hours of debate by 50%!
Now if the MPPs decide they want to sit earlier for work-life balance purposes, that's perfectly fine. A lot of people get to flex their work hours, and I don't think anyone will begrudge them that except for the subset of people who will begrudge them anything and everything on the basis that they're politicians. But don't go around saying it increases the number of hours of work when it doesn't! Frankly, I expected better from Michael Bryant, he's always struck me as rather sensible.
Things They Should Invent: Youtube 4'33"
I would start this myself if I had a video camera.
It occurred to me today that Youtube would be the ideal venue for visual performances of John Cage's 4'33". There are some videos of musical performances, but instead of having it "played" on a piano or a violin or a guitar, I'm thinking it should be "played" on a video camera.
Here's how it works: set up your camera somewhere where you don't have complete control over what's going to pass through the viewfinder. Looking out the window, looking at the fishtank, or strapped to the dog are good. Pointing at a blank wall or sitting on top of your computer monitor filming your face are bad. Then press record, and wander away from the camera going about life as you normally would be, whether that has you in the same room as the camera or not. After 4 minutes and 33 seconds, stop filming and post the results on Youtube. You only get one try and you have the post the results of your first try unless it ends up invading someone's privacy in a context where they should reasonably expect privacy (e.g. if your camera is pointing out the window and films someone walking down the street, that's fine. If it's strapped to the dog and the dog wanders into the bathroom where your spouse is doing a bikini wax, don't post that one.)
It occurred to me today that Youtube would be the ideal venue for visual performances of John Cage's 4'33". There are some videos of musical performances, but instead of having it "played" on a piano or a violin or a guitar, I'm thinking it should be "played" on a video camera.
Here's how it works: set up your camera somewhere where you don't have complete control over what's going to pass through the viewfinder. Looking out the window, looking at the fishtank, or strapped to the dog are good. Pointing at a blank wall or sitting on top of your computer monitor filming your face are bad. Then press record, and wander away from the camera going about life as you normally would be, whether that has you in the same room as the camera or not. After 4 minutes and 33 seconds, stop filming and post the results on Youtube. You only get one try and you have the post the results of your first try unless it ends up invading someone's privacy in a context where they should reasonably expect privacy (e.g. if your camera is pointing out the window and films someone walking down the street, that's fine. If it's strapped to the dog and the dog wanders into the bathroom where your spouse is doing a bikini wax, don't post that one.)
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Instead of going to bed at a reasonable hour on a Sunday night, I think I'll do a stupid meme
Soundtrack to your life meme.
Shuffle your playlist and press play. For each question type the song that's playing. Then press next and type the next song for the next question.
Opening Credits:
Knuckle Down - Ani DiFranco
That could work
Waking Up:
Another Brick In The Wall (Part 1) - Pink Floyd
Wow, that's going to be an intense day...
First Day At School:
Baby's in Black - The Beatles
This is going to be a weird story...
Falling In Love:
I've Got a Crush on Your - Ella Fitzgerald
My iTunes is smart!
Fight Song:
In My Life - The Beatles
I want to see a fight scene to that song!
Breaking Up:
Don't Download This Song - Weird Al Yankovic
Again, I want to see a breakup scene to that song!
Prom:
Outta Me, Onto You - Ani DiFranco
Could work if the prom doesn't take itself seriously. Actually, would work well since the prom comes AFTER the break-up
Life is Good:
Excuse Me, I Think I've Got a Heartache - Cake
Are we going for irony here?
Mental Breakdown:
I Just Can't Wait To Be King - from the Lion King
Hey, if it's a really thorough mental breakdown, why not?
Driving:
Your Little Body Is Slowly Breaking Down - from Evita
Well, I'm not a good driver...actually, this would work if I had a car I'm emotionally attached to and I'm driving it on its last trip ever before it dies
Flashback:
Prologue from Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat
Flashback to what?
Getting Back Together:
Find Your Grail - from Spamalot
That could work actually!
Wedding:
Hallelujah - Rufus Wainwright
For an emotionally complicated wedding, yes!
Paying the Dues:
Yellow Submarine - The Beatles
Am I paying the dues by working on a ship?
The Night Before The War:
Space Man - Smash Mouth
Am I in the air force?
Final Battle:
Attack of the Radioactive Hamsters from a Planet Near Mars - Weird Al Yankovic
I don't think this movie is taking itself very seriously
Moment of Triumph:
Earth Intruders - Björk
Okay, so this movie clearly involves a futuristic space battle. It would work though!
Death Scene:
This Jesus Must Die - from Jesus Christ Superstar
So now I'm the messiah too?
Funeral Song:
Good Morning Starshine - from Hair
Well, if I'm the messiah people are going to have to celebrate my death at some point...
End Credits:
Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps - Cake
Okay then, not the weirdest thing
Okay, so I'm secretly and unknowingly the messiah in a futuristic universe that includes space battles and where half the time the emotions of a situation are the opposite of what they should be.
Also, I don't think my iTunes knows how to shuffle very well. That wasn't nearly random enough.
Shuffle your playlist and press play. For each question type the song that's playing. Then press next and type the next song for the next question.
Opening Credits:
Knuckle Down - Ani DiFranco
That could work
Waking Up:
Another Brick In The Wall (Part 1) - Pink Floyd
Wow, that's going to be an intense day...
First Day At School:
Baby's in Black - The Beatles
This is going to be a weird story...
Falling In Love:
I've Got a Crush on Your - Ella Fitzgerald
My iTunes is smart!
Fight Song:
In My Life - The Beatles
I want to see a fight scene to that song!
Breaking Up:
Don't Download This Song - Weird Al Yankovic
Again, I want to see a breakup scene to that song!
Prom:
Outta Me, Onto You - Ani DiFranco
Could work if the prom doesn't take itself seriously. Actually, would work well since the prom comes AFTER the break-up
Life is Good:
Excuse Me, I Think I've Got a Heartache - Cake
Are we going for irony here?
Mental Breakdown:
I Just Can't Wait To Be King - from the Lion King
Hey, if it's a really thorough mental breakdown, why not?
Driving:
Your Little Body Is Slowly Breaking Down - from Evita
Well, I'm not a good driver...actually, this would work if I had a car I'm emotionally attached to and I'm driving it on its last trip ever before it dies
Flashback:
Prologue from Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat
Flashback to what?
Getting Back Together:
Find Your Grail - from Spamalot
That could work actually!
Wedding:
Hallelujah - Rufus Wainwright
For an emotionally complicated wedding, yes!
Paying the Dues:
Yellow Submarine - The Beatles
Am I paying the dues by working on a ship?
The Night Before The War:
Space Man - Smash Mouth
Am I in the air force?
Final Battle:
Attack of the Radioactive Hamsters from a Planet Near Mars - Weird Al Yankovic
I don't think this movie is taking itself very seriously
Moment of Triumph:
Earth Intruders - Björk
Okay, so this movie clearly involves a futuristic space battle. It would work though!
Death Scene:
This Jesus Must Die - from Jesus Christ Superstar
So now I'm the messiah too?
Funeral Song:
Good Morning Starshine - from Hair
Well, if I'm the messiah people are going to have to celebrate my death at some point...
End Credits:
Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps - Cake
Okay then, not the weirdest thing
Okay, so I'm secretly and unknowingly the messiah in a futuristic universe that includes space battles and where half the time the emotions of a situation are the opposite of what they should be.
Also, I don't think my iTunes knows how to shuffle very well. That wasn't nearly random enough.
School buses
So apparently in the US they do or used to bus students around to different schools so that schools would be more balanced racially.
It's obviously a big and loaded issue, but there's one thing I'm surprised they didn't mention: taking the school bus SUCKS!
I took the schoolbus in grades 6-8. Before and after that, my schools were close enough to our house that I could walk or my parents would drive me depending on circumstances.
The major problem with the schoolbus was you were trapped. You had no freedom. You had to be on that bus at that specific time, and you had no other choices. In grade 5 we could stop at Becker's for candy on the way to school, or go in early and join the pick-up soccer game, or sleep in a bit (or watch Jem and Punky Brewster) and get to school just in time for the bell. On the way home we could go to a friend's house or run home really fast to watch Ninja Turtles or dawdle and play Ninja Turtles. Then suddenly in Grade 6 we had to take the bus and all these options were gone. The bus got us to school half an hour before the bell - no more, no less. If you were a victim of bullying, you were trapped on the bus with your bullies, and you had to kill half an hour in the mornings before classes started instead of showing up just before the bell to minimize bullying opportunities. You couldn't go to the store and buy candy, you couldn't go to a friend's house without a note from your parents stamped by the office to let you on your friend's bus, there was just no freedom whatsoever.
My high school was closer than my middle school so I didn't have to take the bus any more. This was especially useful in OAC when we had spares. In my last semester of high school, I had first and last period spare, so I could sleep in a bit (which also eliminated bathroom battles with my sister, who had a class first period) and go to school for 10, then take three classes in a row and go home at 2 if I had nothing to do, or stay as needed for extra-curricular or social reasons. However, a classmate with a similar schedule who took the bus had to hang around the school from like 8:00 to 3:30 with nothing to do for hours. (Some people had cars in high school, but not enough that you could make policy on that assumption.)
Frankly, on a personal level, I would be pretty pissed off if someone tried to take that freedom away from me for the purpose of greater racial integration. Nothing against the people in the other school or the neighbourhood the other school is in, it's just the limitations of being dependent on a school bus. I'm rather surprised this hasn't come up as one of the factors.
It's obviously a big and loaded issue, but there's one thing I'm surprised they didn't mention: taking the school bus SUCKS!
I took the schoolbus in grades 6-8. Before and after that, my schools were close enough to our house that I could walk or my parents would drive me depending on circumstances.
The major problem with the schoolbus was you were trapped. You had no freedom. You had to be on that bus at that specific time, and you had no other choices. In grade 5 we could stop at Becker's for candy on the way to school, or go in early and join the pick-up soccer game, or sleep in a bit (or watch Jem and Punky Brewster) and get to school just in time for the bell. On the way home we could go to a friend's house or run home really fast to watch Ninja Turtles or dawdle and play Ninja Turtles. Then suddenly in Grade 6 we had to take the bus and all these options were gone. The bus got us to school half an hour before the bell - no more, no less. If you were a victim of bullying, you were trapped on the bus with your bullies, and you had to kill half an hour in the mornings before classes started instead of showing up just before the bell to minimize bullying opportunities. You couldn't go to the store and buy candy, you couldn't go to a friend's house without a note from your parents stamped by the office to let you on your friend's bus, there was just no freedom whatsoever.
My high school was closer than my middle school so I didn't have to take the bus any more. This was especially useful in OAC when we had spares. In my last semester of high school, I had first and last period spare, so I could sleep in a bit (which also eliminated bathroom battles with my sister, who had a class first period) and go to school for 10, then take three classes in a row and go home at 2 if I had nothing to do, or stay as needed for extra-curricular or social reasons. However, a classmate with a similar schedule who took the bus had to hang around the school from like 8:00 to 3:30 with nothing to do for hours. (Some people had cars in high school, but not enough that you could make policy on that assumption.)
Frankly, on a personal level, I would be pretty pissed off if someone tried to take that freedom away from me for the purpose of greater racial integration. Nothing against the people in the other school or the neighbourhood the other school is in, it's just the limitations of being dependent on a school bus. I'm rather surprised this hasn't come up as one of the factors.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Dreaming in black and white
Did people still used to dream in black and white before TV/movies/photography were invented? Because if you were completely unfamiliar with black and white images IRL, black and white dreams would be so bizarrely arbitrary!
Things They Should Invent: proper instructions on how to skip double dutch
I was googling for how to skip double dutch, and everything I can find talks extensively about how you need to get two ropes and two people to turn and one or more people to jump, and how to turn the ropes so they're opposite to each other, all of which I know. And then when it gets to the point that I want to know about, it says "Jump in!" Then it goes on about how you can do all these tricks and stuff, but never actually elaborates HOW to jump. I've never been able to figure this out! The turning isn't the hard part, the jumping is! Give us better instructions people!
What if...
- Suppose someone's got you cornered and is about to beat you up, and your cellphone rings, and you say "Just a moment, I have to take this call." Would that stop them, at least briefly before they go "Hey, wait a second..."
- Suppose you see someone else being attacked, and you just walk in calmly, completely ignoring the fact that there's an attack going on, and start talking to the victim and take them by the hand and lead them out "Oh, there you are, I thought we were supposed to be meeting over on the corner. Come here for a second, I need you to look at my car, the windshield wipers have been acting funny..." Again, would that throw off the attackers just long enough to make an escape?
- Suppose media coverage of the US elections (aside: are they going to be campaigning straight through until November? or do they get a break?) just didn't mention the fact that Hilary Clinton is female and Barack Obama is black. If the media stopped mentioning it as a factor would it continue to be a factor?
- In places where people like to go around shooting abortion doctors, what if the abortion doctors had extremely elite well-trained pregnant bodyguards? So if you shoot at an abortion doctor, a pregnant woman will jump in and take the bullet. Logistical and ethical issues aside, would that be an effective deterrent to the shooters?
- Suppose you see someone else being attacked, and you just walk in calmly, completely ignoring the fact that there's an attack going on, and start talking to the victim and take them by the hand and lead them out "Oh, there you are, I thought we were supposed to be meeting over on the corner. Come here for a second, I need you to look at my car, the windshield wipers have been acting funny..." Again, would that throw off the attackers just long enough to make an escape?
- Suppose media coverage of the US elections (aside: are they going to be campaigning straight through until November? or do they get a break?) just didn't mention the fact that Hilary Clinton is female and Barack Obama is black. If the media stopped mentioning it as a factor would it continue to be a factor?
- In places where people like to go around shooting abortion doctors, what if the abortion doctors had extremely elite well-trained pregnant bodyguards? So if you shoot at an abortion doctor, a pregnant woman will jump in and take the bullet. Logistical and ethical issues aside, would that be an effective deterrent to the shooters?
Friday, February 08, 2008
Things They Should Invent: "comfortism" as a separate concept from materialism
Materialism is about having things. "Comfortism" (still taking suggestions for a better word) is about the ease and/or comfort that those things bring to your life. It would be very helpful to separate those concepts.
I love my ipod not because it's a sleeky shiny pricey toy, but because carrying around all my music at once makes life more pleasant. I love my appliances not because they're the very latest thing in energy-efficient appliances, but because they make life so much easier. I love my computer not because it looks cool and was when I bought it faster than anyone else's computer, but because it allows me to do whatever I need or want to do without any waiting or technical difficulties.
These motivations for owning consumer goods should not be given the same label as the motivations of someone who wants to own something to show off or be cool or impress other people or so people will go "Whoa, they have a solid gold Hummer, they must be rich!" (If people actually have these motivations - I've found that people are quick to ascribe truly materialistic motivations to others, but if you ask people about their own motivations it's for ease or comfort or convenience).
I love my ipod not because it's a sleeky shiny pricey toy, but because carrying around all my music at once makes life more pleasant. I love my appliances not because they're the very latest thing in energy-efficient appliances, but because they make life so much easier. I love my computer not because it looks cool and was when I bought it faster than anyone else's computer, but because it allows me to do whatever I need or want to do without any waiting or technical difficulties.
These motivations for owning consumer goods should not be given the same label as the motivations of someone who wants to own something to show off or be cool or impress other people or so people will go "Whoa, they have a solid gold Hummer, they must be rich!" (If people actually have these motivations - I've found that people are quick to ascribe truly materialistic motivations to others, but if you ask people about their own motivations it's for ease or comfort or convenience).
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The problem with holding conventional opinions
The problem with conventional opinions is that to the onlooker, a conventional opinion that you've blindly accepted without a second of critical thought looks exactly the same as a conventional opinion that you've analyzed deeply.
Suppose I say, "I don't believe in photons". Regardless of how sensible you think that opinion is, it's clear that I've thought about it rather than unquestioningly accepting what I was taught in science class.
However, if I say, "I think democracy is a good thing," you have no way of telling whether I've given the matter any thought or whether I'm just blindly accepting society's opinion.
Suppose I say, "I don't believe in photons". Regardless of how sensible you think that opinion is, it's clear that I've thought about it rather than unquestioningly accepting what I was taught in science class.
However, if I say, "I think democracy is a good thing," you have no way of telling whether I've given the matter any thought or whether I'm just blindly accepting society's opinion.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Deep thoughts on US politics
Barack Obama's name always sounds backwards to me. He should switch it around and be Obama Barack instead. Plus, then he's be higher up on the ballot.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Open Letter to my Subconscious
Dear Subconscious:
Sex is a nice thing to dream about. So is flying. A quest or adventure dream is always good. Being a character in any work of fiction is a fun way to spend a night, and being given a plot that I can use to write my own fiction is always worthwhile. Barring that, I can appreciate any dream that will make a good anecdote, even if it is a nightmare.
So why the fuck did you make me spend all last night being 11 years old and stuck in the back of my parents' car while they drove all over suburbia doing boring errands???? Frankly, I'd rather have had a panic attack dream that woke me up at 4 in the morning! At least then once I'd recovered my equilibrium I could get some gaming in before my alarm went off!
Sex is a nice thing to dream about. So is flying. A quest or adventure dream is always good. Being a character in any work of fiction is a fun way to spend a night, and being given a plot that I can use to write my own fiction is always worthwhile. Barring that, I can appreciate any dream that will make a good anecdote, even if it is a nightmare.
So why the fuck did you make me spend all last night being 11 years old and stuck in the back of my parents' car while they drove all over suburbia doing boring errands???? Frankly, I'd rather have had a panic attack dream that woke me up at 4 in the morning! At least then once I'd recovered my equilibrium I could get some gaming in before my alarm went off!
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Analogy for why I am not a musician
In Grade 12, my English teacher made us memorize the "To be or not to be" soliloquy from Hamlet, which was a perfectly normal assignment. On the test, we had to write out the soliloquy. Perfectly reasonable, right? Except that he was also marking us on whether we had memorized the exact punctuation! This was really surprising, since he also taught Drama, so I figured he would appreciate that the punctuation is not that relevant. As long as you know the words and understand their meaning and emotional arc, it doesn't matter if there's a period or a comma or a semi-colon or a colon or a dash between "To be or not to be" and "that is the question".
I stopped music when I came to the realization that I was never expressing myself artistically or creatively through that medium. I know other people do, but it doesn't work that way for me. When I worked on music - and I did have to practice and work extremely hard just to be competent - it was like memorizing the punctuation in Shakespeare. The more I worked the more I knew about music, the more familiar I was with the mechanics of the piece, the better I could play the piece, the more it became something my fingers could do automatically without involving my brain, but it was never artistic or creative. It never had soul, just like memorizing the punctuation in Shakespeare isn't going to give your performance soul.
Now I'm quite good at learning new things. I can pick up a book and learn fingerings and/or embouchure, then pick up an instrument and practice relentlessly, and with hard work I will eventually be able to play all the notes as written. But that doesn't make me a musician any more than a voice synthesizer reciting Shakespeare is an actor. I can learn knowledge and technical skills, but I can't fake having soul. I had to leave the church for that reason, and I also had to stop being a musician for that reason.
This always reminds me of this commercial. She wanted to be a gymnast, she was too tall, so she ended up being a pole vaulter. So impossible is nothing? No...being a gymnast was impossible because she was too tall. You can't set out to do one thing, fail, end up doing a completely different thing, and declare success on that basis. I can't go around saying "I always wanted to be a musician but I don't have the soul for it, so I ended up being a translator. See, you can do anything you put your mind to!" Not that people should be castigated when their original plans don't work out so they switch directions to something more suitable, but you can't use that situation to illustrate the idea that impossible is nothing.
I stopped music when I came to the realization that I was never expressing myself artistically or creatively through that medium. I know other people do, but it doesn't work that way for me. When I worked on music - and I did have to practice and work extremely hard just to be competent - it was like memorizing the punctuation in Shakespeare. The more I worked the more I knew about music, the more familiar I was with the mechanics of the piece, the better I could play the piece, the more it became something my fingers could do automatically without involving my brain, but it was never artistic or creative. It never had soul, just like memorizing the punctuation in Shakespeare isn't going to give your performance soul.
Now I'm quite good at learning new things. I can pick up a book and learn fingerings and/or embouchure, then pick up an instrument and practice relentlessly, and with hard work I will eventually be able to play all the notes as written. But that doesn't make me a musician any more than a voice synthesizer reciting Shakespeare is an actor. I can learn knowledge and technical skills, but I can't fake having soul. I had to leave the church for that reason, and I also had to stop being a musician for that reason.
This always reminds me of this commercial. She wanted to be a gymnast, she was too tall, so she ended up being a pole vaulter. So impossible is nothing? No...being a gymnast was impossible because she was too tall. You can't set out to do one thing, fail, end up doing a completely different thing, and declare success on that basis. I can't go around saying "I always wanted to be a musician but I don't have the soul for it, so I ended up being a translator. See, you can do anything you put your mind to!" Not that people should be castigated when their original plans don't work out so they switch directions to something more suitable, but you can't use that situation to illustrate the idea that impossible is nothing.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
A statement that is perfectly logical today but was utterly nonsensical a few short years ago
"I have a phone full of videos."
Thank you to Tabatha Southey for successfully articulating what I haven't been able to yet
"Saying, "I'm a feminist," is almost like saying, "I have no problem with Pakistanis" - we're all just going to assume that one, okay? Unless you say otherwise."
I'd love to link but the Globe & Mail won't let me
Friday, February 01, 2008
A playlist for the aliens
They're broadcasting Across The Universe into space (the original Beatles song, not the movie).
Very appropriate from the point of view of us down here on Earth, I freely admit, but is that really the best thing to send to the aliens? A lot of the meaning is in the lyrics, so they would have to be able to manage the concept of music, then recognize the many different instruments, then recognize that some of the sound is vocal, then have the concept of verbal language, then work out the English language except that one sentence is Sanskrit. I think even Hoshi Sato would have trouble working out a language if the occasional sentence was in another language. Plus, if it's the recording I think it is, there are some birds and stuff in the recording, which is non-linguistic (or, if it's linguistic it's another language completely irrelevant to the message) vocalizations from a whole nother species! That's an awful lot for the aliens to work out!
Better music to broadcast out to the aliens would be something with no lyrics, only one instrument, and a very clear structure so they can see there's intelligence behind it. Goldberg Variations anyone?
Very appropriate from the point of view of us down here on Earth, I freely admit, but is that really the best thing to send to the aliens? A lot of the meaning is in the lyrics, so they would have to be able to manage the concept of music, then recognize the many different instruments, then recognize that some of the sound is vocal, then have the concept of verbal language, then work out the English language except that one sentence is Sanskrit. I think even Hoshi Sato would have trouble working out a language if the occasional sentence was in another language. Plus, if it's the recording I think it is, there are some birds and stuff in the recording, which is non-linguistic (or, if it's linguistic it's another language completely irrelevant to the message) vocalizations from a whole nother species! That's an awful lot for the aliens to work out!
Better music to broadcast out to the aliens would be something with no lyrics, only one instrument, and a very clear structure so they can see there's intelligence behind it. Goldberg Variations anyone?
Sidewalks
Is it just me, or are people not being nearly as diligent about clearing their sidewalks this year?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Things They Should Invent: stop tasing people as part of training
Often much is made of the fact that police officers and taser salespeople get tased as part of their training.
I think this is a shitty idea and they should stop it immediately.
Why? Because the person being tased might live.
Stick with me, I'm going somewhere with this.
Every once in a while people die from being tased, and we aren't sure exactly why. They don't know when they tase a person whether they'll die or not. So a taser isn't actually a safe stun gun, it isn't like setting your phaser to stun, it's a randomly lethal weapon. Believe me, if they were reliable never-lethal stun guns, I'd have one in my night table and one in my purse - whether they were legal or not!
If you've never been tased, you appreciate how they're randomly lethal, because you have no idea whether you'd survive a tasing or not (and what you'd experience while dying). But if you've been tased and then walked away with nothing more than a bit of a headache (or whatever), then you're more likely to think "Hey, it's no big deal! I've survived it myself!"
I think this is a shitty idea and they should stop it immediately.
Why? Because the person being tased might live.
Stick with me, I'm going somewhere with this.
Every once in a while people die from being tased, and we aren't sure exactly why. They don't know when they tase a person whether they'll die or not. So a taser isn't actually a safe stun gun, it isn't like setting your phaser to stun, it's a randomly lethal weapon. Believe me, if they were reliable never-lethal stun guns, I'd have one in my night table and one in my purse - whether they were legal or not!
If you've never been tased, you appreciate how they're randomly lethal, because you have no idea whether you'd survive a tasing or not (and what you'd experience while dying). But if you've been tased and then walked away with nothing more than a bit of a headache (or whatever), then you're more likely to think "Hey, it's no big deal! I've survived it myself!"
New Rule: stop staying "Googlegänger", start saying "Doppelgoogler"
It has come to my attention that people are using the word "Googlegänger" to mean another person who comes up when you google yourself.
Good, well-intentioned coinage, but unfortunately it's wrong.
Googlegänger is a blend of "Google" and the German "Dopplegänger", meaning an exact double of a person. "Dopplegänger" itself is a blend of "dopple" meaning double, and "gänger" meaning literally "goer".
So as you can see, whoever coined "Googlegänger" inadvertently chose the wrong part of Dopplegänger to retain. A more accurate word would be "Doppelgoogler".
As a special incentive program, I have been authorized to permit anyone who switches from Googlegänger" to "Doppelgoogler" to use an umlaut on the O of their choice for purely aesthetic reasons, even though it is lexically incorrect.
Good, well-intentioned coinage, but unfortunately it's wrong.
Googlegänger is a blend of "Google" and the German "Dopplegänger", meaning an exact double of a person. "Dopplegänger" itself is a blend of "dopple" meaning double, and "gänger" meaning literally "goer".
So as you can see, whoever coined "Googlegänger" inadvertently chose the wrong part of Dopplegänger to retain. A more accurate word would be "Doppelgoogler".
As a special incentive program, I have been authorized to permit anyone who switches from Googlegänger" to "Doppelgoogler" to use an umlaut on the O of their choice for purely aesthetic reasons, even though it is lexically incorrect.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
How to be funny
Anything can be funny, no matter how offensive. The trick is, it has to be funnier than it is offensive. You get positive points for funny, you get negative points for offensive. If your net result is >0, you're funny. In theory, you can say something that's -10^100 offensive, and it will work if and only if it's +(10^100)+1 funny. This is why Sarah Silverman tends to work for me.
The thing most people don't realize is the audience gets to delegate these points however they like. The comedian doesn't get any say in it (which is why people who insist that they're funny even when the audience doesn't agree come across as mad crazy assholic). If the audience finds it more offensive than it is funny, the comedian loses.
I had this big long explanation about how to calculate whether something is going to be offensive to the audience, but I just realized it comes down to one simple thing: if the audience identifies with the victim of the joke, and they feel like the comedian is a threat to them - like the comedian wants to hurt them and then laugh at them for it.
So if a comedian wants to tell a joke with an offensive element to it and wants to maximize the chances of the audience finding it funny, what they have to do is disarm themselves and/or empower the audience until they get to the point where even if they audience identifies with the victim, the comedian is so powerless ineffective that they couldn't actually hurt the victim. Again, I think this is why Sarah Silverman works - her character is such an ineffective person that she couldn't successfully act on her offensive impulses even if she tried. (I can't think of an example offhand, but I have seen comedians go too far with this, casting themselves as the victim in a that I can identify with, and leaving me uncomfortable because now I feel like the whole world wants to hurt me and laugh at me for it.)
As usual, Eddie Izzard is very good at this. In his Heimlich Manoeuvre bit, he takes a joke just up to the point where he's about to pose a threat to the audience, then promptly disarms himself, all in about 30 seconds.
The part I'm talking about starts at 2:00:
Watch from 2:00 to 2:22, then pause just after he says "Your hymen's been removed?... You need it removed?"
Now if this joke were being worked out for the first time, the obvious next step would be for him to thrust his groin or something. But that would ruin everything. The audience would be sitting there, imagining themselves choking to death in a restaurant, and suddenly someone comes up and starts trying to have sex with them. That's not fun at all!
Now press play and watch how Eddie gets himself out of this one.
First he mimes surgical equipment - pretend surgical equipment that doesn't exist in reality. So now whatever this idiot has in mind, at least he isn't going to try to stick his dick in you while you're choking to death. Then he says "I don't know how to remove a hymen." BOOM, threat eliminated. He doesn't even know to stick his dick in places, so he's no threat at all! In fact, since the audience does know how to remove a hymen, he's put us in the position of power. We can now feel slightly superior in any number of ways, ranging from "Good, let's keep it that way," to "Come on, we don't believe that for a minute," to "Why don't you come here and I'll show you?" That's got just about everyone in the audience covered.
The net effect isn't hugely funny, but it does end up with positive points because he was able to make his little "Heimlich manoeuvre sounds like hymen removal" joke while not making anyone in the audience feel like he wants to rape us while we're choking to death or would think it's funny if someone raped us while choking to death. And all because he's willing to swallow his ego enough to pretend for a moment that he doesn't know how to have sex.
The thing most people don't realize is the audience gets to delegate these points however they like. The comedian doesn't get any say in it (which is why people who insist that they're funny even when the audience doesn't agree come across as mad crazy assholic). If the audience finds it more offensive than it is funny, the comedian loses.
I had this big long explanation about how to calculate whether something is going to be offensive to the audience, but I just realized it comes down to one simple thing: if the audience identifies with the victim of the joke, and they feel like the comedian is a threat to them - like the comedian wants to hurt them and then laugh at them for it.
So if a comedian wants to tell a joke with an offensive element to it and wants to maximize the chances of the audience finding it funny, what they have to do is disarm themselves and/or empower the audience until they get to the point where even if they audience identifies with the victim, the comedian is so powerless ineffective that they couldn't actually hurt the victim. Again, I think this is why Sarah Silverman works - her character is such an ineffective person that she couldn't successfully act on her offensive impulses even if she tried. (I can't think of an example offhand, but I have seen comedians go too far with this, casting themselves as the victim in a that I can identify with, and leaving me uncomfortable because now I feel like the whole world wants to hurt me and laugh at me for it.)
As usual, Eddie Izzard is very good at this. In his Heimlich Manoeuvre bit, he takes a joke just up to the point where he's about to pose a threat to the audience, then promptly disarms himself, all in about 30 seconds.
The part I'm talking about starts at 2:00:
Watch from 2:00 to 2:22, then pause just after he says "Your hymen's been removed?... You need it removed?"
Now if this joke were being worked out for the first time, the obvious next step would be for him to thrust his groin or something. But that would ruin everything. The audience would be sitting there, imagining themselves choking to death in a restaurant, and suddenly someone comes up and starts trying to have sex with them. That's not fun at all!
Now press play and watch how Eddie gets himself out of this one.
First he mimes surgical equipment - pretend surgical equipment that doesn't exist in reality. So now whatever this idiot has in mind, at least he isn't going to try to stick his dick in you while you're choking to death. Then he says "I don't know how to remove a hymen." BOOM, threat eliminated. He doesn't even know to stick his dick in places, so he's no threat at all! In fact, since the audience does know how to remove a hymen, he's put us in the position of power. We can now feel slightly superior in any number of ways, ranging from "Good, let's keep it that way," to "Come on, we don't believe that for a minute," to "Why don't you come here and I'll show you?" That's got just about everyone in the audience covered.
The net effect isn't hugely funny, but it does end up with positive points because he was able to make his little "Heimlich manoeuvre sounds like hymen removal" joke while not making anyone in the audience feel like he wants to rape us while we're choking to death or would think it's funny if someone raped us while choking to death. And all because he's willing to swallow his ego enough to pretend for a moment that he doesn't know how to have sex.
Let's all stop being feminists
From last Saturday's Globe and Mail: Is Feminism Going Out of Style?
This article has inspired me: let's declare feminism obsolete! I have a much better idea anyway:
Every time you have an opinion that would normally fall under the category of feminism, pluralize it in a gender-inclusive way.
Instead of 10 million women use prescription contraception, 10 million Canadian families rely on prescription contraception (heterosexist, yes, but perhaps that's a safe bet since we're talking contraception?)
Instead of women in Prince Edward Island don't have access to abortion, the entire province of Prince Edward Island is without access to abortion!
Instead of the media is paying too much attention to Hilary Clinton's clothes and husband, the media is paying too much attention to presidential candidates' clothes and spouses instead of focusing on the real issue!
These aren't women's issues, thus declaring them irrelevant to half the population. These are major social issues that affect people everywhere!
This article has inspired me: let's declare feminism obsolete! I have a much better idea anyway:
Every time you have an opinion that would normally fall under the category of feminism, pluralize it in a gender-inclusive way.
Instead of 10 million women use prescription contraception, 10 million Canadian families rely on prescription contraception (heterosexist, yes, but perhaps that's a safe bet since we're talking contraception?)
Instead of women in Prince Edward Island don't have access to abortion, the entire province of Prince Edward Island is without access to abortion!
Instead of the media is paying too much attention to Hilary Clinton's clothes and husband, the media is paying too much attention to presidential candidates' clothes and spouses instead of focusing on the real issue!
These aren't women's issues, thus declaring them irrelevant to half the population. These are major social issues that affect people everywhere!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Stupidest thing ever EVER!
So it seems some pathetic losers who need to get a life are going to picket Heath Ledger's funeral. Because apparently he once played a gay character in some movie or another.
Apart from how tasteless and idiotic that is, I have a serious question:
What, specifically, are they trying to accomplish?
I mean that literally. When you're picketing or protesting, you have a specific tangible goal. You want a better collective agreement or you want trans fats banned or you want war to stop. Usually if the right person signs a piece of paper that says the right thing, you've won.
But in this case, what is their goal? He can't UNplay a gay character. And even if he could, he's dead now so he can't do anything about it.
(Aside: when I hear about things like this, sometimes my first thought is that someone of the same sex should walk up to them and give them a big ol' snog. Which of course is completely inappropriate - everyone should have the right to go around in public and even protest stupid things in public without having unwanted snogging forced on them. Plus it disturbs me that I'm thinking in terms of using sexuality as a weapon. But I do wonder what the legal status would be if you gave them due warning: "If you keep gaybashing him, I will kiss you - with tongue! If you shut up now, I will not kiss you." And then they keep up with the gaybashing so you kiss them. Would that be any less assault than unwanted snogging with no warning?)
Apart from how tasteless and idiotic that is, I have a serious question:
What, specifically, are they trying to accomplish?
I mean that literally. When you're picketing or protesting, you have a specific tangible goal. You want a better collective agreement or you want trans fats banned or you want war to stop. Usually if the right person signs a piece of paper that says the right thing, you've won.
But in this case, what is their goal? He can't UNplay a gay character. And even if he could, he's dead now so he can't do anything about it.
(Aside: when I hear about things like this, sometimes my first thought is that someone of the same sex should walk up to them and give them a big ol' snog. Which of course is completely inappropriate - everyone should have the right to go around in public and even protest stupid things in public without having unwanted snogging forced on them. Plus it disturbs me that I'm thinking in terms of using sexuality as a weapon. But I do wonder what the legal status would be if you gave them due warning: "If you keep gaybashing him, I will kiss you - with tongue! If you shut up now, I will not kiss you." And then they keep up with the gaybashing so you kiss them. Would that be any less assault than unwanted snogging with no warning?)
Monday, January 28, 2008
Did someone die?
From my normally eerily prescient iTunes:
Aerosmith's Full Circle
k.d. lang's cover of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah
The Beatles' Let It Be
If someone died, I think I'm going to delete all my music and never listen to music again...
Aerosmith's Full Circle
k.d. lang's cover of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah
The Beatles' Let It Be
If someone died, I think I'm going to delete all my music and never listen to music again...
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Religious theory
I have a bunch of long posts in mind, and I'm too lazy to type them all out. So instead here's my latest religious theory:
If the messiah is in fact going to be born of a virgin impregnated by the holy spirit as postulated in the bible, it has already happened.
Why? Because between 2000 years of missionaries and evangelism, and today's mass media capabilities, everyone's already heard the story. So here's how it would go down today:
Archangel Gabriel: "Do not be afraid, for I bring you glad tidings. You have been blessed among women!"
Virgin: "Oh no you don't! I heard what happened to the last girl you said that to!"
If the messiah is in fact going to be born of a virgin impregnated by the holy spirit as postulated in the bible, it has already happened.
Why? Because between 2000 years of missionaries and evangelism, and today's mass media capabilities, everyone's already heard the story. So here's how it would go down today:
Archangel Gabriel: "Do not be afraid, for I bring you glad tidings. You have been blessed among women!"
Virgin: "Oh no you don't! I heard what happened to the last girl you said that to!"
Cringe
The only thing worse than googling something and accidentally landing on one of my own translations is googling something and landing on a text that contains all the worst features of my translations, but I can't tell if it's something I did or if someone else just wrote it in English in a way that sounds like my translations.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Apartment etiquette question
There are two flyers on my neighbour's door, and they've been there for a couple of days. It kind of screams "I'm not home!" I have never, to my knowledge, met the people* who live there and have no idea whether or not they're home. The only people who will see the flyers on the door are people who live on or have business on this floor, unless someone is specifically skulking through the building casing the joint.
One flyer is advertising from the developer advertising another one of its developments, the other is information from management on how an ongoing problem is being addressed (sort of falls under "Good to know" but doesn't require action).
Should I take the flyers off? Should I recycle them? Should I attempt to slip them under the door (doesn't always work depending on how the door is) and risk being caught messing around on my neighbour's door?
*Interesting that I assume multiple people live there, even though it's a one-bedroom that I'd consider too small for a couple. I was talking to my newspaper carrier the other day, and he also assumed that two people live in my apartment. I did nothing to disavow him of the notion, if that is in fact the proper use of disavow. I'm too lazy to google it but apparently not too lazy to type out this whole sentence.
One flyer is advertising from the developer advertising another one of its developments, the other is information from management on how an ongoing problem is being addressed (sort of falls under "Good to know" but doesn't require action).
Should I take the flyers off? Should I recycle them? Should I attempt to slip them under the door (doesn't always work depending on how the door is) and risk being caught messing around on my neighbour's door?
*Interesting that I assume multiple people live there, even though it's a one-bedroom that I'd consider too small for a couple. I was talking to my newspaper carrier the other day, and he also assumed that two people live in my apartment. I did nothing to disavow him of the notion, if that is in fact the proper use of disavow. I'm too lazy to google it but apparently not too lazy to type out this whole sentence.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Scary
Dr. Morgentaler looks frighteningly like my father. Every time I see a picture of him, I get this massive wave of cognitive dissonance.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
My kingdom for a time machine
It's one of those "Do the impossible at any price" situations at work, so it looks like I'll be incommunicado for the rest of the week.
If you're bored, look up Danny Bhoy on Youtube. He's far better than I expected.
If you're bored, look up Danny Bhoy on Youtube. He's far better than I expected.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Trusting strangers
This is a tangent to a larger post I've got festering in my brain, but I think it's turned into its own separate idea:
We all know that in general the prudent thing, for women especially, is to have a certain wariness of strange men (if you care to discuss this point, wait for my next post on the subject; for this post we're taking it as a given). I've heard a number of times of situations where the men involved take offence at this - like when a woman steps back from the curb as they pull up in their car, or waits for the next elevator, or namedrops her boyfriend, or turns up the chill as a precautionary measure, they take offence that she is apparently presuming they're rapists or they're only after one thing or whatever. I can't speak to the mindset behind this attitude or the actual trustworthiness of the people who feel this way, I've just heard from several discrete sources that it exists.
However, I'm the complete opposite in terms of my expectations. I'm always a wee bit surprised when people trust me. I start talking to a baby (my ovaries make me!) and its grownup is amused and sometimes even actively encourages the "conversation." A fellow resident whom I don't actually know holds the access-control door open for me instead of making me beep myself in. I'm short a quarter, the coffee shop lady spots me from the tip jar and says I can get it next time. The beepy security label is right on the back of the waistband of the pants - the part that's crucial to whether they gap or not - and the saleslady is all "Sure, no problem," when I ask her if she could possibly remove it.
Now, I am trustworthy. I'm not going to steal your baby or rob your apartment or shoplift your pants or cheat you out of your quarter. But people have no way of knowing that. I mean, they can probably tell by looking at me that I couldn't beat them up, but apart from that I'm still a complete stranger without any particular credentials. I know part of the reason why I'm surprised people trust me is because in childhood and adolescence they didn't because of my youth, so going into a store and not being treated like a shoplifter is somewhat novel. But mostly I'm surprised because they have no particular reason to trust me any more than anyone else.
I think it would be interesting to study this in broader society. Who are the people who expect to be trusted on the basis that they are in fact trustworthy? Who are the people who don't expect to be trusted on the basis that they are strangers? Which of these people are actually trustworthy? How much do they trust strangers? Does their empirical experience of being trusted or not affect what they expect from strangers?
We all know that in general the prudent thing, for women especially, is to have a certain wariness of strange men (if you care to discuss this point, wait for my next post on the subject; for this post we're taking it as a given). I've heard a number of times of situations where the men involved take offence at this - like when a woman steps back from the curb as they pull up in their car, or waits for the next elevator, or namedrops her boyfriend, or turns up the chill as a precautionary measure, they take offence that she is apparently presuming they're rapists or they're only after one thing or whatever. I can't speak to the mindset behind this attitude or the actual trustworthiness of the people who feel this way, I've just heard from several discrete sources that it exists.
However, I'm the complete opposite in terms of my expectations. I'm always a wee bit surprised when people trust me. I start talking to a baby (my ovaries make me!) and its grownup is amused and sometimes even actively encourages the "conversation." A fellow resident whom I don't actually know holds the access-control door open for me instead of making me beep myself in. I'm short a quarter, the coffee shop lady spots me from the tip jar and says I can get it next time. The beepy security label is right on the back of the waistband of the pants - the part that's crucial to whether they gap or not - and the saleslady is all "Sure, no problem," when I ask her if she could possibly remove it.
Now, I am trustworthy. I'm not going to steal your baby or rob your apartment or shoplift your pants or cheat you out of your quarter. But people have no way of knowing that. I mean, they can probably tell by looking at me that I couldn't beat them up, but apart from that I'm still a complete stranger without any particular credentials. I know part of the reason why I'm surprised people trust me is because in childhood and adolescence they didn't because of my youth, so going into a store and not being treated like a shoplifter is somewhat novel. But mostly I'm surprised because they have no particular reason to trust me any more than anyone else.
I think it would be interesting to study this in broader society. Who are the people who expect to be trusted on the basis that they are in fact trustworthy? Who are the people who don't expect to be trusted on the basis that they are strangers? Which of these people are actually trustworthy? How much do they trust strangers? Does their empirical experience of being trusted or not affect what they expect from strangers?
Band name, free for the taking
I think Eisbär-Baby would make a good band name. In English, at least - it would probably sound ridiculous in German. (For those of you who don't read German, anything on that page with the word "Bild" in it is going to have adorable pictures.)
Saturday, January 12, 2008
I wonder if there's a comedy kissing etiquette
I'm watching Whose Line, and I noticed that when people kiss - even if it's making out type kissing - they don't move their lips at all. They just press their mouths together and use their other body language to communicate that they're supposed to be making out. At first I thought it was just because the boys didn't want to kiss each other too enthusiastically, but it happens in boy-girl kisses too.
Now I know that in film and TV and theatre when characters are kissing, the actors kiss properly. But I haven't seen that much improv outside of Whose Line and I've never paid much attention to kissing in sketch comedy etc. I wonder if this is some general rule of stage etiquette in improve and/or sketch comedy, or if it's just exclusive to American Whose Line?
Now I know that in film and TV and theatre when characters are kissing, the actors kiss properly. But I haven't seen that much improv outside of Whose Line and I've never paid much attention to kissing in sketch comedy etc. I wonder if this is some general rule of stage etiquette in improve and/or sketch comedy, or if it's just exclusive to American Whose Line?
What I appreciate about Ugly Betty
One thing I really appreciate about Ugly Betty is that Betty has a sex life, and no one makes a big deal of the fact. Yes, some of the catty people at Mode have commented that they don't want that mental picture, but no one has ever said or implied "OMG, you get sex even though you're ugly?"
It was once mentioned that a certain night was Betty and Henry's first night together, but it was never implied that Betty was a virgin then, which means she's had at least one partner before. Yes, it was probably Walter, and yes, Walter is unappealing. But Henry is smart and kind and attractive and clearly loves and respects Betty. Yes, he is labelled as a dork and given ridiculous glasses, but he still is an appealing person. Plus he could get with Charlie (who is probably the prettiest non-plastic person on the show), but there is never even a hint of "You could have Charlie and you went for Betty????" or any mention that he's so good to be able to see beyond the superficial. It is simply presented as an unquestioned given that Betty has sex just like anyone else.
My adolescent self could really have benefited from seeing that - someone who looks like me and is presented as just as unattractive as I was (and who is/was bullied and belittled by the cool girls) gets to have sex with an appealing partner (and, at the age of 23, has had at least one other partner) and this isn't even unusual enough to be worth commenting on, overtly or tacitly.
It was once mentioned that a certain night was Betty and Henry's first night together, but it was never implied that Betty was a virgin then, which means she's had at least one partner before. Yes, it was probably Walter, and yes, Walter is unappealing. But Henry is smart and kind and attractive and clearly loves and respects Betty. Yes, he is labelled as a dork and given ridiculous glasses, but he still is an appealing person. Plus he could get with Charlie (who is probably the prettiest non-plastic person on the show), but there is never even a hint of "You could have Charlie and you went for Betty????" or any mention that he's so good to be able to see beyond the superficial. It is simply presented as an unquestioned given that Betty has sex just like anyone else.
My adolescent self could really have benefited from seeing that - someone who looks like me and is presented as just as unattractive as I was (and who is/was bullied and belittled by the cool girls) gets to have sex with an appealing partner (and, at the age of 23, has had at least one other partner) and this isn't even unusual enough to be worth commenting on, overtly or tacitly.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Best sleepwalk ever?
Last night I went to bed wearing black socks.
This morning I woke up wearing white socks.
I was alone in the apartment all night and have no memory of dreaming or waking up.
This morning I woke up wearing white socks.
I was alone in the apartment all night and have no memory of dreaming or waking up.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Stupidest rule ever of the day
So they're making a rule that men who've had sex with another man in the past five years can't be organ donors.
Okay, so here's the thing: you've got a braindead corpse being kept alive by machines until you can figure out whether any of his organs can be used.
How do you know who he's had sex with and how he had sex with them and when he had sex with them?
The only possible way you can find out is to ask other people.
Now if his next of kin is his same-sex partner, you've got your answer right there. But if his next of kin is a family member, he may or may not be out to them, depending on family dynamics. And it's also less likely they'll know when and with whom he has had sex. Do you know when and with whom your immediate family members have had sex? Do they know this about you? You can probably hazard a guess, but most likely don't know for sure.
But if he has had sex with men but not out to his family, you're not going to be able to get correct information. If he has had sex with men and his next of kin is his wife, you'll probably get information that's patently wrong. If he's highly closeted, on the downlow or going to sex workers (or being a sex worker), not only are his survivors not going to know about his activities, but it's more likely that he's engaging in riskier activities.
Basically, the riskier the prospective donor's activities, the less likely it is that the transplant team will be able to get accurate information about them. So this rule isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.
What they should be doing instead is working on a way to test donated organs for HIV or whatever else, like how they test all the blood that's going into the blood bank.
Okay, so here's the thing: you've got a braindead corpse being kept alive by machines until you can figure out whether any of his organs can be used.
How do you know who he's had sex with and how he had sex with them and when he had sex with them?
The only possible way you can find out is to ask other people.
Now if his next of kin is his same-sex partner, you've got your answer right there. But if his next of kin is a family member, he may or may not be out to them, depending on family dynamics. And it's also less likely they'll know when and with whom he has had sex. Do you know when and with whom your immediate family members have had sex? Do they know this about you? You can probably hazard a guess, but most likely don't know for sure.
But if he has had sex with men but not out to his family, you're not going to be able to get correct information. If he has had sex with men and his next of kin is his wife, you'll probably get information that's patently wrong. If he's highly closeted, on the downlow or going to sex workers (or being a sex worker), not only are his survivors not going to know about his activities, but it's more likely that he's engaging in riskier activities.
Basically, the riskier the prospective donor's activities, the less likely it is that the transplant team will be able to get accurate information about them. So this rule isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.
What they should be doing instead is working on a way to test donated organs for HIV or whatever else, like how they test all the blood that's going into the blood bank.
Am I reading these numbers right?
Check out the chart at the bottom of this article. (I can't copy it here, the formatting won't hold.)
It looks like it's saying that 10,714,415 prescriptions for contraception were dispensed in Canada in the last year, 9,890,599 of which were for oral contraceptives.
Is that what it's saying? Because that is a shitload of contraception! Don't get me wrong, I love contraception, I'm just not sure if the numbers can work out.
The population of Canada is 33 million. So that means that nearly 1/3 of all Canadians are on some kind of contraception. But only women would be taking these prescriptions. So that means that 2/3 of all females are using contraception. But contraception is biologically unnecessary before adolescence and after the age of about fifty, not to mention women who are trying to conceive or pregnant or not sexually active or tubalized or using non-prescription contraception or whose partner is female or whose partner is vasectomized. Does this work out? Is there actually room in our population for 33 million for 10 million women who are in the market for contraception? Or am I missing something?
It looks like it's saying that 10,714,415 prescriptions for contraception were dispensed in Canada in the last year, 9,890,599 of which were for oral contraceptives.
Is that what it's saying? Because that is a shitload of contraception! Don't get me wrong, I love contraception, I'm just not sure if the numbers can work out.
The population of Canada is 33 million. So that means that nearly 1/3 of all Canadians are on some kind of contraception. But only women would be taking these prescriptions. So that means that 2/3 of all females are using contraception. But contraception is biologically unnecessary before adolescence and after the age of about fifty, not to mention women who are trying to conceive or pregnant or not sexually active or tubalized or using non-prescription contraception or whose partner is female or whose partner is vasectomized. Does this work out? Is there actually room in our population for 33 million for 10 million women who are in the market for contraception? Or am I missing something?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Eddie Izzard gets political
Eddie-baby (a.k.a. Frank) gets political, gets a standing O from George Clooney, confuses Angelina Jolie, and manages to incorporate the words "toilet" and "poo."
(Aside: is it just me, or do at least two of those documentaries sound like made-up comedy descriptions?)
(Aside: is it just me, or do at least two of those documentaries sound like made-up comedy descriptions?)
Sibling rivalry
A writer in the Globe and Mail proposes that parents shouldn't mediate their kids' sibling conflicts, instead leaving the kids to work it out themselves.
Here's what I want to know: how exactly does he think the kids are going to work out their conflicts? Because when I was a kid, I didn't have any secret conflict-resolution skills that I was lazily not using - I seriously had no idea whatsoever how to get my sister to leave me alone. In fact, even with my adult interpersonal skills, I still have no idea how I could have gotten her to leave me alone within the limitations placed on me as a kid.
As an example, let's look at the most annoying and pervasive sibling problem I had: my sister would keep opening the door when I was in my room with the door closed. It didn't matter what I was doing, it didn't matter if there was a risk that I was changing clothes, it didn't matter if I had just gone into my room and closed the door specifically to get away from her, she would keep trying to open the door. If I blockaded the door, she'd keep pushing at it trying to get in. Countless hours were wasted pitting my superior mass against her superior strength, trying to get her to leave me the fuck alone so I could have a moment's peace. (This also meant I could never let my guard down even when in my own room with the door closed because I never knew when she'd come by and open the door, so if I wanted real privacy I had to physically barricade the door, which was also difficult because I'm not strong enough to move the larger pieces of furniture single-handedly.
So how would Mr. Wolf have my adolescent self solve this problem?
My adult self can think of a number of approaches. The first thing I'd do if this happened to me today is say "Well, if you aren't going to respect my basic need for privacy, I'll just be going home then." Then I'd go home. But as a kid I didn't have my very own apartment in an access-controlled building, conveniently located in another city. If someone was trying to open the door to my apartment despite my attempts to keep them out, I'd call the police. I think I could even make an argument for calling the police if I had a housemate who was trying to open the door to my bedroom despite my attempts to keep them out. But calling the police because your little sister is bugging you is considered frivolous, and even if it was an option I didn't have a phone line in my room or a cellphone of my own. Another thing I could do as an adult is install some locks on the door to my room, but when I was a kid my parents wouldn't let me do this. I suppose as a last resort, my adult self would go and crash elsewhere, with a friend or at a hotel, but as a kid I couldn't do this either.
But even now, pushing 30, passing as a competent adult in a professional work environment on a daily basis, having even taken conflict resolution training, I still haven't the slightest idea how my adolescent self could have resolved that situation with all the restrictions placed on her, short of going "Moooom, make her leave me alone!" So I'd love to know how exactly Mr. Wolf thinks adolescents are going to resolve their own sibling rivalry.
Here's what I want to know: how exactly does he think the kids are going to work out their conflicts? Because when I was a kid, I didn't have any secret conflict-resolution skills that I was lazily not using - I seriously had no idea whatsoever how to get my sister to leave me alone. In fact, even with my adult interpersonal skills, I still have no idea how I could have gotten her to leave me alone within the limitations placed on me as a kid.
As an example, let's look at the most annoying and pervasive sibling problem I had: my sister would keep opening the door when I was in my room with the door closed. It didn't matter what I was doing, it didn't matter if there was a risk that I was changing clothes, it didn't matter if I had just gone into my room and closed the door specifically to get away from her, she would keep trying to open the door. If I blockaded the door, she'd keep pushing at it trying to get in. Countless hours were wasted pitting my superior mass against her superior strength, trying to get her to leave me the fuck alone so I could have a moment's peace. (This also meant I could never let my guard down even when in my own room with the door closed because I never knew when she'd come by and open the door, so if I wanted real privacy I had to physically barricade the door, which was also difficult because I'm not strong enough to move the larger pieces of furniture single-handedly.
So how would Mr. Wolf have my adolescent self solve this problem?
My adult self can think of a number of approaches. The first thing I'd do if this happened to me today is say "Well, if you aren't going to respect my basic need for privacy, I'll just be going home then." Then I'd go home. But as a kid I didn't have my very own apartment in an access-controlled building, conveniently located in another city. If someone was trying to open the door to my apartment despite my attempts to keep them out, I'd call the police. I think I could even make an argument for calling the police if I had a housemate who was trying to open the door to my bedroom despite my attempts to keep them out. But calling the police because your little sister is bugging you is considered frivolous, and even if it was an option I didn't have a phone line in my room or a cellphone of my own. Another thing I could do as an adult is install some locks on the door to my room, but when I was a kid my parents wouldn't let me do this. I suppose as a last resort, my adult self would go and crash elsewhere, with a friend or at a hotel, but as a kid I couldn't do this either.
But even now, pushing 30, passing as a competent adult in a professional work environment on a daily basis, having even taken conflict resolution training, I still haven't the slightest idea how my adolescent self could have resolved that situation with all the restrictions placed on her, short of going "Moooom, make her leave me alone!" So I'd love to know how exactly Mr. Wolf thinks adolescents are going to resolve their own sibling rivalry.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Talk shows
Some sources say that Leno, Stewart, Colbert, etc. aren't allowed to write their own material during the writers strike.
Thing is, they can't stop them. And I'm not trying to imply that talk show hosts are going to flaunt union rules. Even if everyone wants to obey the union rules to the letter and the consequences are as severe as humanly possible, they are still going to write material for themselves, whether they want to or not.
Why? Imagine this: you're going to be on TV tonight. There's no getting out of it. And no one is going to provide you with the script. Just you, the cameras, and thousands (millions?) of viewers.
You're mentally writing material already, aren't you?
It's humanly impossible not to write for yourself under these circumstances.
This whole situation also has me wondering how talk shows work. Under normal circumstances, do the shows seek out the guests, or do the guests seek out the shows? Because getting a really good guest is a coup for a talk show, but being on a talk show is a coup for an unknown. So who's chasing whom?
Thing is, they can't stop them. And I'm not trying to imply that talk show hosts are going to flaunt union rules. Even if everyone wants to obey the union rules to the letter and the consequences are as severe as humanly possible, they are still going to write material for themselves, whether they want to or not.
Why? Imagine this: you're going to be on TV tonight. There's no getting out of it. And no one is going to provide you with the script. Just you, the cameras, and thousands (millions?) of viewers.
You're mentally writing material already, aren't you?
It's humanly impossible not to write for yourself under these circumstances.
This whole situation also has me wondering how talk shows work. Under normal circumstances, do the shows seek out the guests, or do the guests seek out the shows? Because getting a really good guest is a coup for a talk show, but being on a talk show is a coup for an unknown. So who's chasing whom?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
What should I do with an unwanted lightbulb?
I bought a specialty lightbulb for this lamp I have that takes weird bulbs, but it turned out to be the wrong kind of lightbulb. I don't want to return it to the store because I bought it at a supermarket and it only cost a couple of bucks (and they don't have the kind of bulb I really need, so I'd be tying up the customer service line during rush hour for a refund that isn't even enough for paper money).
So now I just have this weird lightbulb that no one in the world uses. I don't and never will have any use for it, but I don't want to just throw a perfectly good lightbulb in the garbage. Any thoughts on what I can do with it?
So now I just have this weird lightbulb that no one in the world uses. I don't and never will have any use for it, but I don't want to just throw a perfectly good lightbulb in the garbage. Any thoughts on what I can do with it?
My new favourite lego animation
Okay, I was (and still am) impressed by the Lego Eddie Izzard sketches, but this is even better. A Lego version of Weird Al's White & Nerdy!
And if you're going WTF, this is the original.
And if you're going WTF, this is the original.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Things I Don't Understand: not posting prices or floorplans
I've been looking at condo websites lately, and some of them make no mention whatsoever of price, and/or don't provide floor plans for suites.
What on earth is their motivation in doing that? This is the most basic of information! Why wouldn't they want their website to answer "Should I even bother looking?" Why would they want people to come all the way to their sales centre just to find out that the building has nothing to offer them? Yes, granite countertops and a state-of-the-art fitness centre are nice, but they're meaningless if the whole building is out of your price range or if there isn't enough room in the suite layout for you to manoeuvre your wheelchair.
What on earth is their motivation in doing that? This is the most basic of information! Why wouldn't they want their website to answer "Should I even bother looking?" Why would they want people to come all the way to their sales centre just to find out that the building has nothing to offer them? Yes, granite countertops and a state-of-the-art fitness centre are nice, but they're meaningless if the whole building is out of your price range or if there isn't enough room in the suite layout for you to manoeuvre your wheelchair.
Things They Should Invent: transposable kareoke
You know how some songs are just in a bad key, so you either have to sing them uncomfortably high or uncomfortably low for your vocal range? They should make kareoke machines that can overcome this problem by transposing the songs at the touch of a button, so if your favourite song is in a bad key you can sing it half an octave higher.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Dispatch from behind the lines of the War on Christmas
I have a shocking confession to make. The allegations are true, there really is a War on Christmas, and I am one of its operatives. And I am here today to tell you all about our modus operandi.
I could get done for treason for confessing this, but it's a matter of conscience. Lately many innocent civilians have been accused of being our operatives, and given what happens to suspected enemy combattants these days I feel the need to protect these innocent civilians by disclosing our true methods.
Misconception: We say things like "Happy Holidays!" and "Season's Greetings!"
Fact: We say things like "Good morning!" and "Have a nice day!"
Misconception: We play music like "Frosty the Snowman" and "Jingle Bells"
Fact: We play music like "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Shine On You Crazy Diamond"
Misconception: We decorate with pine trees and snowflakes
Fact: We decorate with throw pillows and area rugs
Misconception: We try to convince you to buy buy buy the most perfect present ever for every single person you've ever met.
Fact: We wish you'd stop it with the fucking shopping already because we just want to pick up a carton of milk and some toilet paper without waiting in all these fucking lines!
Misconception: We're the ones suggesting that the the office or the school or whatever have a "holiday party" or a "winter party" with potluck and gifts.
Fact: We're the ones suggesting that we all pool our money and order pizza since we're all going to be working through lunch and eating at our desks anyway.
Misconception: We think that Christmas is really a pagan holiday so everyone should celebrate it regardless of how religious they feel about it.
Fact: We think that Christmas is on a Tuesday so we should watch that DVD since there's nothing on TV anyway.
So remember: If someone greets you with "Happy Holidays" while buying plastic snowmen that sing "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas" for their "seasonal celebration", they're just an innocent civilian with a questionable sense of taste. Our operatives are much more insidious than that. The people you really want to watch out for are the ones who say "Hi, how are you? How was your weekend?" while shopping for bread, eggs, and argyle socks and listening to Radiohead.
I could get done for treason for confessing this, but it's a matter of conscience. Lately many innocent civilians have been accused of being our operatives, and given what happens to suspected enemy combattants these days I feel the need to protect these innocent civilians by disclosing our true methods.
Misconception: We say things like "Happy Holidays!" and "Season's Greetings!"
Fact: We say things like "Good morning!" and "Have a nice day!"
Misconception: We play music like "Frosty the Snowman" and "Jingle Bells"
Fact: We play music like "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Shine On You Crazy Diamond"
Misconception: We decorate with pine trees and snowflakes
Fact: We decorate with throw pillows and area rugs
Misconception: We try to convince you to buy buy buy the most perfect present ever for every single person you've ever met.
Fact: We wish you'd stop it with the fucking shopping already because we just want to pick up a carton of milk and some toilet paper without waiting in all these fucking lines!
Misconception: We're the ones suggesting that the the office or the school or whatever have a "holiday party" or a "winter party" with potluck and gifts.
Fact: We're the ones suggesting that we all pool our money and order pizza since we're all going to be working through lunch and eating at our desks anyway.
Misconception: We think that Christmas is really a pagan holiday so everyone should celebrate it regardless of how religious they feel about it.
Fact: We think that Christmas is on a Tuesday so we should watch that DVD since there's nothing on TV anyway.
So remember: If someone greets you with "Happy Holidays" while buying plastic snowmen that sing "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas" for their "seasonal celebration", they're just an innocent civilian with a questionable sense of taste. Our operatives are much more insidious than that. The people you really want to watch out for are the ones who say "Hi, how are you? How was your weekend?" while shopping for bread, eggs, and argyle socks and listening to Radiohead.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Another characteristic of the two solitudes
I've noticed that Francophones and Anglophones seem to have different relationships with their mother tongues. When I ask an Anglophone to read something and tell me about the meaning, they tell me the message they get from it first, and reach for a dictionary second. When I ask a Francophone the same thing, they reach for the Robert first and only give me the instinctive vibe they get from the text if I specifically ask them to do so. It's like Francophones are more prescriptive and Anglophones are more descriptive - for them, the language is more a set of rules that needs to be followed, and for us it's more a tool to make do what we want.
I always find it interesting when I see this characteristic manifested in the broader culture, outside my usual niche of the language professions. For example, I just saw an ad on TV for Desjardins, with the motto "conjuguer avoirs et êtres".
We could never have that in English! Could you imagine, a financial institution with a motto that's a play on words of grammatical rules? But in French, it's appropriate and decently witty!
My first thought is that this is a sign of anti-intellectualism in our culture - any mention of grammar would be seen as pretentious or elitist or ridiculously fussy - but I think it's more complicated than that. We seriously do have different relationships with our languages. Verb conjugation is more important in French because there are more things that need to happen there and more ways of getting it wrong (and, more importantly, of getting it wrong in a way that changes the meaning), while spelling is more important in English. That's why they have dictées while we have spelling bees.
That's an area for further research, if it hasn't been done yet (watch me once again fall into the trap of blogging without googling). Do the language mistakes that are most likely to change meaning affect/reflect the people's relationship with their language?
I always find it interesting when I see this characteristic manifested in the broader culture, outside my usual niche of the language professions. For example, I just saw an ad on TV for Desjardins, with the motto "conjuguer avoirs et êtres".
We could never have that in English! Could you imagine, a financial institution with a motto that's a play on words of grammatical rules? But in French, it's appropriate and decently witty!
My first thought is that this is a sign of anti-intellectualism in our culture - any mention of grammar would be seen as pretentious or elitist or ridiculously fussy - but I think it's more complicated than that. We seriously do have different relationships with our languages. Verb conjugation is more important in French because there are more things that need to happen there and more ways of getting it wrong (and, more importantly, of getting it wrong in a way that changes the meaning), while spelling is more important in English. That's why they have dictées while we have spelling bees.
That's an area for further research, if it hasn't been done yet (watch me once again fall into the trap of blogging without googling). Do the language mistakes that are most likely to change meaning affect/reflect the people's relationship with their language?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)