Mitch Potter at the Star seems to think that George W. Bush's not being particularly offended that he had shoes thrown at him is a sign of obliviousness and Bush should have been more offended.
First of all, I don't think not being bothered by the shoes is a sign of obliviousness, it's just a sign that shoes have no emotional weight for Bush, as they don't for most of us I suspect. If someone disses you with something that's intended as a dis but just doesn't feel like a dis to you, you aren't going to feel offended even if you understand intellectually that it was intended as a really hardcore dis.
For example, in Quebec profanity, crisse can be pretty hardcore. But when we as anglos hear it, it doesn't carry that emotional weight. We hear and react emotionally to "Christ!", even when we understand intellectually that the speaker meant "Motherfucker!" (Yes, I know it's more often used adjectivally, but it's the best cognate example I can think of at the moment. If you have anything better, please post in the comments.)
So what I'm wondering is what sort of reaction does this columnist think would be appropriate? How would a person express offence on something that they don't even feel is much of a dis in a way appropriately becoming a head of state, and that would be more helpful to the situation than just brushing it off? (Especially considering that he's already invaded and is occupying his country?)
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Childfree for Dummies: Part II
Think about pets. There are some pets you're really into. (Doggies? Kitties? Bunnies?) You think they're adorable and have or want one yourself and are interested in all your friends' stories about their pets of that species.
Then there are other pets you're not that into. (Budgies? Goldfish?) Logically you can appreciate them and give them basic pet respect, and one in a while they can be cute, but you skip right over them when you go to the pet store to objectify puppies and scroll right past them on Cute Overload.
Think about the pets you're not that into. Think about how you'd feel about owning one. Now think about how you'd feel about owning one that you have to keep for the rest of your life and it would have full human rights.
That's how I feel about having kids.
Then there are other pets you're not that into. (Budgies? Goldfish?) Logically you can appreciate them and give them basic pet respect, and one in a while they can be cute, but you skip right over them when you go to the pet store to objectify puppies and scroll right past them on Cute Overload.
Think about the pets you're not that into. Think about how you'd feel about owning one. Now think about how you'd feel about owning one that you have to keep for the rest of your life and it would have full human rights.
That's how I feel about having kids.
My 2009 New Year's resolution
In keeping with my tradition of reckless and irresponsible resolutions, my 2009 New Year's resolution is Shut Up And Buy It Already!
I recently realized that the vast majority of things I buy make me happy, and those that don't (most often cosmetics misfires) feel like acceptable collateral damage. Unsuccessful purchases don't feel bad for very long, denying myself a purchase because "Oh, I shouldn't!" doesn't feel good (not even when I appeal to my base and very unattractive need to feel smug and superior), and successful purchases always feel very good.
Therefore, as long as I'm employed and the purchase won't put me into the red or require breaking into my emergency funds, I will buy everything I covet. If I regret a purchase, I will learn from the experience. Since I've never messed up financially, I can afford a few learning experiences if necessary.
I recently realized that the vast majority of things I buy make me happy, and those that don't (most often cosmetics misfires) feel like acceptable collateral damage. Unsuccessful purchases don't feel bad for very long, denying myself a purchase because "Oh, I shouldn't!" doesn't feel good (not even when I appeal to my base and very unattractive need to feel smug and superior), and successful purchases always feel very good.
Therefore, as long as I'm employed and the purchase won't put me into the red or require breaking into my emergency funds, I will buy everything I covet. If I regret a purchase, I will learn from the experience. Since I've never messed up financially, I can afford a few learning experiences if necessary.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Someone must make this youtube mashup!
Remember this from back when Knut Eisbär-Baby was little and cute?
Someone recently mentioned to me that the problem with this video is that the soundtrack is cute. The soundtrack doesn't need to be cute, because the bear is already the cutest thing ever! The soundtrack is just overkill, making a stupid schmaltzy mess of what should be a genuine AWWWW! moment.
So what this video needs is a vaguely bad-ass soundtrack. Off the top of my head, I recommend Fifty Cent's If I Can't. (Content warning 1: NSFW unless you're wearing headphones, unless your boss cares what you listen to even if you are wearing headphones - it's hip hop, with the corresponding lyrics and themes. Content warning 2: Yes, I linked to the jungle book remix. Because I can.)
Better suggestions are welcome. But someone needs to make this.
Someone recently mentioned to me that the problem with this video is that the soundtrack is cute. The soundtrack doesn't need to be cute, because the bear is already the cutest thing ever! The soundtrack is just overkill, making a stupid schmaltzy mess of what should be a genuine AWWWW! moment.
So what this video needs is a vaguely bad-ass soundtrack. Off the top of my head, I recommend Fifty Cent's If I Can't. (Content warning 1: NSFW unless you're wearing headphones, unless your boss cares what you listen to even if you are wearing headphones - it's hip hop, with the corresponding lyrics and themes. Content warning 2: Yes, I linked to the jungle book remix. Because I can.)
Better suggestions are welcome. But someone needs to make this.
Majel Barrett died! :(
Lwaxana Troi, the voice of the Enterprise computer, Mrs. Roddenberry. Passed away yesterday at the age of 76 from leukemia.
The National Post, of all places, has a best-of.
The National Post, of all places, has a best-of.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Do extroverts really deliberately not talk to people (even when they have something to say) for the sole purpose of spiting them?
I've heard this sentiment many times; the most recent iteration come from today's Dear Prudence:
This lady seems to think that her stepchildren aren't talking for the sole purpose of spiting everyone else. This is odd to me, because it seems so bloody obvious to me that they're feeling shy and awkward and uncomfortable in the home of all these near-strangers (their stepmother's family of origin). They clearly just can't think of anything to say - or perhaps can't think of anything to say that's of sufficient interest and doesn't push any hot buttons. (For example, I know full well that people don't want to hear about the organic hair products I'm recently obsessed with, and the strange mistakes that came up in the text I was quality controlling don't make a good story to people without a solid grounding in comparative stylistics. And we can all think of that one person whom you just shouldn't get started on politics, so a whole wack of topics are right out if that person is there.)
However, this lady thinks they're doing it on purpose and out of spite. Therefore, it stands to reason that not talking even though she has something productive to say is something she might conceivabely do out of spite (because how else would it occur to her that this might be their motivation?)
Do extros actually do that? How egotistical is that train of thought - "I will deprive them of my wit and wisdom because what I have to say is so fucking special that it WILL be missed!" Do they never find themselves at a loss of what to say?
In the meantime, here's a helpful hint: whatever fascinating thing you think the non-talker has to say, they aren't aware that they have it or aren't aware that it might be of interest. So (assuming it isn't too personal) ask them about it!
My husband has three children from his first marriage. Every year the three of them—now ages 16, 21, and 25—come to my mother's Christmas party and line up on the couch sullenly, grimly, and silently. This rudeness is extremely embarrassing to me in front of my other relatives. Worse, my husband is kind of powerless when it comes to his kids and tends to join them, silent, on the couch. I would just like to have them not come, because I don't think I can make them talk, but this thought distresses my mother no end. What do I do?
This lady seems to think that her stepchildren aren't talking for the sole purpose of spiting everyone else. This is odd to me, because it seems so bloody obvious to me that they're feeling shy and awkward and uncomfortable in the home of all these near-strangers (their stepmother's family of origin). They clearly just can't think of anything to say - or perhaps can't think of anything to say that's of sufficient interest and doesn't push any hot buttons. (For example, I know full well that people don't want to hear about the organic hair products I'm recently obsessed with, and the strange mistakes that came up in the text I was quality controlling don't make a good story to people without a solid grounding in comparative stylistics. And we can all think of that one person whom you just shouldn't get started on politics, so a whole wack of topics are right out if that person is there.)
However, this lady thinks they're doing it on purpose and out of spite. Therefore, it stands to reason that not talking even though she has something productive to say is something she might conceivabely do out of spite (because how else would it occur to her that this might be their motivation?)
Do extros actually do that? How egotistical is that train of thought - "I will deprive them of my wit and wisdom because what I have to say is so fucking special that it WILL be missed!" Do they never find themselves at a loss of what to say?
In the meantime, here's a helpful hint: whatever fascinating thing you think the non-talker has to say, they aren't aware that they have it or aren't aware that it might be of interest. So (assuming it isn't too personal) ask them about it!
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Noblesse oblige
I think I'm better able to articulate what's bothering me about criticism of Montadhar Al-Zaydi. Yes, throwing a shoe is imperfect behaviour, but we all lose our temper every once in a while.
The problem is that some people are acting like this imperfect behaviour is some egregious sin because it happened in the presence of a dignitary (like it or not, George W. Bush is a dignitary), as if to say "How dare you expose our dignitary to your lowly proletarian emotions!" They are demanding that Mr. Al-Zaydi be the bigger person because there's a dignitary in the room. This is contrary to basic chivalyr, it's contrary to noblesse oblige, and it's contrary to the basic American principle of equality.
We need our dignitaries to be the bigger person. We need the then-Queen of England visiting bombed-out sections of London, symbolically keeping her family in London instead of fleeing to safety in the countryside. We need Pope John Paul II meeting with and forgiving the guy who tried to assassinate him. We need Adrienne Clarkson inviting the kid who wrongfully got kicked out of Rideau Hall to tea.
But demanding the commoner to be a bigger person is like Marie Antoinette, playing at being a peasant, milking cows that the servants have bathed ahead of time so that Her Majesty will not be offended by the smell.
The noble thing for George W. Bush to do would be to insist that this incident be treated just the same as throwing a shoe at an ordinary person.
The problem is that some people are acting like this imperfect behaviour is some egregious sin because it happened in the presence of a dignitary (like it or not, George W. Bush is a dignitary), as if to say "How dare you expose our dignitary to your lowly proletarian emotions!" They are demanding that Mr. Al-Zaydi be the bigger person because there's a dignitary in the room. This is contrary to basic chivalyr, it's contrary to noblesse oblige, and it's contrary to the basic American principle of equality.
We need our dignitaries to be the bigger person. We need the then-Queen of England visiting bombed-out sections of London, symbolically keeping her family in London instead of fleeing to safety in the countryside. We need Pope John Paul II meeting with and forgiving the guy who tried to assassinate him. We need Adrienne Clarkson inviting the kid who wrongfully got kicked out of Rideau Hall to tea.
But demanding the commoner to be a bigger person is like Marie Antoinette, playing at being a peasant, milking cows that the servants have bathed ahead of time so that Her Majesty will not be offended by the smell.
The noble thing for George W. Bush to do would be to insist that this incident be treated just the same as throwing a shoe at an ordinary person.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Things They Should Study: is it easier to become rich or educated?
A while back someone somewhere in my comments (sorry, I'm blanking on who and where) mentioned that there are people who decry academics as elitist, but don't do the same for rich people because they (the decriers) aspire/expect to be rich one day themselves.
Someone should study whether it is in fact easier to become educated or rich. They'd need to do it by thresholds. For example, is it easier to become a millionaire or to get a PhD? What about a master's degree? What about a billionaire?
Someone should study whether it is in fact easier to become educated or rich. They'd need to do it by thresholds. For example, is it easier to become a millionaire or to get a PhD? What about a master's degree? What about a billionaire?
Things I need mnemonics for
1. practice/practise (I know practise is the verb, but I want it to have a mnemonic on principle)
2. allemand/allemagne (one of them capitalizes but I forget which, so that should be included in the mnemonic)
3. continual/continuous (I have to look it up every. single. fucking. time.)
2. allemand/allemagne (one of them capitalizes but I forget which, so that should be included in the mnemonic)
3. continual/continuous (I have to look it up every. single. fucking. time.)
For thinking about
Forget everything you know about Montadhar Al-Zaydi for a second.
Imagine someone throws shoes at you. You duck, they miss, you are uninjured.
Would it even occur to you to press charges?
I don't think it would even occur to me. I'd want to get away from them or for them to be removed from where I am, but once that's done there's not much more than WTF. If the shoes hit me and broke my glasses or damaged my teeth or hurt my eye or bruised my face, it would probably occur to me to press charges. But if I was uninjured, I'd probably get no further than flummoxed and glad it's over.
Now you can remember everything you know about Montadhar Al-Zaydi again.
Politically, the best possible thing George W. Bush could do is inisite that Mr. Al-Zaydi be freed and no charges be pressed on the basis that he was simply exercising the rights and freedoms that the US has so generously won for him.
But since that's not gonna happen, you can sign a petition to have him freed. (h/t L-girl)
Imagine someone throws shoes at you. You duck, they miss, you are uninjured.
Would it even occur to you to press charges?
I don't think it would even occur to me. I'd want to get away from them or for them to be removed from where I am, but once that's done there's not much more than WTF. If the shoes hit me and broke my glasses or damaged my teeth or hurt my eye or bruised my face, it would probably occur to me to press charges. But if I was uninjured, I'd probably get no further than flummoxed and glad it's over.
Now you can remember everything you know about Montadhar Al-Zaydi again.
Politically, the best possible thing George W. Bush could do is inisite that Mr. Al-Zaydi be freed and no charges be pressed on the basis that he was simply exercising the rights and freedoms that the US has so generously won for him.
But since that's not gonna happen, you can sign a petition to have him freed. (h/t L-girl)
Monday, December 15, 2008
Things They Should Invent: text-only DVD menus
So your DVD menu has nifty visuals and sound bites from the movie all cleverly animated together so it does a little dance as the menu loads and another little dance as the menu goes away. Very nice and we all applaud your talents - until about the fourth time we're going through the menu. Then we really don't care any more, really we don't, we just want to watch the last couple of special features!
Can we have a workaround please?
Can we have a workaround please?
Why we should all be worried about the Dziekanski ruling (plus: the definitive guide to when it's appropriate to use a taser)
They aren't laying charges against the Mounties who tased Robert Dziekanski to death.
This is only one of many recent cases where cops have tased people for acting agitated or erratic (here's another). Even if you aren't opposed to tasers, we need our police to not go around tasing people for acting erratic or agitated.
Why? Think for a second, quietly and to yourself, about situations you, personally, might one day find yourself in where you would require police assistance. You dial 911, you need the police to come quickly and help you because that's their job as police, to come quickly and help you in emergencies. Just think of these situations and how you'd feel.
Wouldn't you most likely be a bit agitated and erratic?
People who need police assistance are going to be agitated and erratic, so the police need to be able to help people who are agitated and erratic, not zap them so they'll shut up!
Tasers were undoubtedly inspired by Star Trek's phasers, which have a harmless stun setting that has never killed anyone, not even heretofore unknown aliens on whom they're being used for the first time ever. I'm sure the ease of stunning with a phaser has informed (consciously or not) people's perception of when it is or is not appropriate to use a taser.
But think about when they actually use phasers on Star Trek. They would never stun someone just for acting erratic. They'd draw them, sure, but they'd try to talk them down. Even if the person started throwing (smallish, non-lethal) stuff, they'd never stun them, they'd just dodge the projectiles. Apart from that one very clever moment in Enterprise when T'Pol was being held hostage by cowboy aliens so Reed stunned her (making the enemy think he'd killed her and therefore that she was no longer useful as a hostage), every single instance of person-to-person phaser fire by a good-guy Starfleet officer has been in response to a direct and immediate threat on their own or someone else's life. The bad guy has started shooting or is about to destroy the ship or something.
I think that's a good guideline on when to use tasers. Think to yourself: "Would a Starfleet officer fire their phasers in this circumstance?" If the answer is no, don't use your taser.
"But," you protest, "Starfleet officers are held to impossibly high standards! They're held up as ideal examples of all that is good and fair and right and just about humanity!"
Yes, yes they are. Just like Mounties.
This is only one of many recent cases where cops have tased people for acting agitated or erratic (here's another). Even if you aren't opposed to tasers, we need our police to not go around tasing people for acting erratic or agitated.
Why? Think for a second, quietly and to yourself, about situations you, personally, might one day find yourself in where you would require police assistance. You dial 911, you need the police to come quickly and help you because that's their job as police, to come quickly and help you in emergencies. Just think of these situations and how you'd feel.
Wouldn't you most likely be a bit agitated and erratic?
People who need police assistance are going to be agitated and erratic, so the police need to be able to help people who are agitated and erratic, not zap them so they'll shut up!
Tasers were undoubtedly inspired by Star Trek's phasers, which have a harmless stun setting that has never killed anyone, not even heretofore unknown aliens on whom they're being used for the first time ever. I'm sure the ease of stunning with a phaser has informed (consciously or not) people's perception of when it is or is not appropriate to use a taser.
But think about when they actually use phasers on Star Trek. They would never stun someone just for acting erratic. They'd draw them, sure, but they'd try to talk them down. Even if the person started throwing (smallish, non-lethal) stuff, they'd never stun them, they'd just dodge the projectiles. Apart from that one very clever moment in Enterprise when T'Pol was being held hostage by cowboy aliens so Reed stunned her (making the enemy think he'd killed her and therefore that she was no longer useful as a hostage), every single instance of person-to-person phaser fire by a good-guy Starfleet officer has been in response to a direct and immediate threat on their own or someone else's life. The bad guy has started shooting or is about to destroy the ship or something.
I think that's a good guideline on when to use tasers. Think to yourself: "Would a Starfleet officer fire their phasers in this circumstance?" If the answer is no, don't use your taser.
"But," you protest, "Starfleet officers are held to impossibly high standards! They're held up as ideal examples of all that is good and fair and right and just about humanity!"
Yes, yes they are. Just like Mounties.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Most accurate internet quiz ever!
Have you seen the Cool Person Test? It's astounding! It pegged every nuance of my coolness level with uncanny accuracy!
Click here to take the test.
Click here to take the test.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
OMG, this is a real song!
Remember the episode of the Simpsons where Bleeding Gums Murphy is in the hospital (dying?) and Lisa is running around trying to get someone to play his record on the radio? The song she sings in that episode is real!
The, Mannequin, The
You know you're a langling when you've had Toronto band Die Mannequin on your ipod for like a year, and it only just occurred to you that the first word in their name might be the English verb as opposed to the German definite article.
Complete sentences
When I was in elementary school, we always had to answer written questions in complete sentences. If the question on the worksheet was "What is the capital of Canada?" we had to write "The capital of Canada is Ottawa." Just writing "Ottawa" was wrong.
It just occurred to me that this rule has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.
It just occurred to me that this rule has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.
Brain usage profile
Quiz is here
Your Brain Usage Profile:
Auditory : 44%
Visual : 55%
Left : 55%
Right : 44%
You are somewhat left-hemisphere dominant and show a preference for visual learning, although not extreme in either characteristic. You probably tend to do most things in moderation, but not always.
Your left-hemisphere dominance implies that your learning style is organized and structured, detail oriented and logical. Your visual preference, though, has you seeking stimulation and multiple data. Such an outlook can overwhelm structure and logic and create an almost continuous state of uncertainty and agitation. You may well suffer a feeling of continually trying to "catch up" with yourself.
Your tendency to be organized and logical and attend to details is reasonably well-established which should afford you success regardless of your chosen field of endeavor. You can "size up" situations and take in information rapidly. However, you must then subject that data to being classified and organized which causes you to "lose touch" with the immediacy of the problem.
Your logical and methodical nature hamper you in this regard though in the long run it may work to your advantage since you "learn from experience" and can go through the process more rapidly on subsequent occasions.
You remain predominantly functional in your orientation and practical. Abstraction and theory are secondary to application. In keeping with this, you focus on details until they manifest themselves in a unique pattern and only then work with the "larger whole."
With regards to your career choices, you have a mentality that would be good as a scientist, coach, athlete, design consultant, or an engineering technician. You can "see where you want to go" and even be able to "tell yourself," but find that you are "fighting yourself" at the darndest times.
***
That might explain why I'm never able to figure out if I'm left-brained or right-brained, or auditory or visual - I had no idea it could be so close.
Your Brain Usage Profile:
Auditory : 44%
Visual : 55%
Left : 55%
Right : 44%
You are somewhat left-hemisphere dominant and show a preference for visual learning, although not extreme in either characteristic. You probably tend to do most things in moderation, but not always.
Your left-hemisphere dominance implies that your learning style is organized and structured, detail oriented and logical. Your visual preference, though, has you seeking stimulation and multiple data. Such an outlook can overwhelm structure and logic and create an almost continuous state of uncertainty and agitation. You may well suffer a feeling of continually trying to "catch up" with yourself.
Your tendency to be organized and logical and attend to details is reasonably well-established which should afford you success regardless of your chosen field of endeavor. You can "size up" situations and take in information rapidly. However, you must then subject that data to being classified and organized which causes you to "lose touch" with the immediacy of the problem.
Your logical and methodical nature hamper you in this regard though in the long run it may work to your advantage since you "learn from experience" and can go through the process more rapidly on subsequent occasions.
You remain predominantly functional in your orientation and practical. Abstraction and theory are secondary to application. In keeping with this, you focus on details until they manifest themselves in a unique pattern and only then work with the "larger whole."
With regards to your career choices, you have a mentality that would be good as a scientist, coach, athlete, design consultant, or an engineering technician. You can "see where you want to go" and even be able to "tell yourself," but find that you are "fighting yourself" at the darndest times.
***
That might explain why I'm never able to figure out if I'm left-brained or right-brained, or auditory or visual - I had no idea it could be so close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)