Antonia Zerbisias has been writing about decriminalization of prostitution.
Some people want to make prostitution go away completely.
Luckily, I know how:
Improve general labour conditions so it's more worthwhile for workers to do something else.
Why would you stand on a street corner waiting to blow strangers if you could earn the same money plus dental standing on a street corner handing out flyers?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tamil
Let's talk about the word Tamil.
Tamil is an ethnicity. They are a people of shared ethnic origin who live in India and Sri Lanka. It is also one of the most, if not the most beautiful-looking languages I've ever seen.
The OED defines Tamil as follows:
The concept is similar to Basque or Punjabi or Uyghur.
There is also a paramilitary organization known as Tamil Tigers. They define themselves as a liberation army, others consider them a terrorist group.
In any case, here's the important part:
Not all Tamils are Tamil Tigers.
It's probably safe to assume that most, if not all, Tamil Tigers are Tamil. However, not every Tamil is a member of the Tamil Tigers. In fact, I'd hazard based on pure demographics that the majority of Tamil people are not involved in the Tamil Tigers at all.
Analogies:
I know many of us first encountered the word Tamil in the phrase "Tamil Tigers", most often in something that was negative about the Tamil Tigers, so our first gut reaction upon hearing the word Tamil is "bad!" However, it is simply an ethnicity and, like all ethnicities, is morally neutral in and of itself and encompasses all types of people.
Tamil is an ethnicity. They are a people of shared ethnic origin who live in India and Sri Lanka. It is also one of the most, if not the most beautiful-looking languages I've ever seen.
The OED defines Tamil as follows:
a. One of a non-Aryan race of people belonging to the Dravidian stock, inhabiting the south-east of India and part of Sri Lanka. b. The language spoken by this people, the leading member of the Dravidian family. Also attrib. or as adj.
The concept is similar to Basque or Punjabi or Uyghur.
There is also a paramilitary organization known as Tamil Tigers. They define themselves as a liberation army, others consider them a terrorist group.
In any case, here's the important part:
Not all Tamils are Tamil Tigers.
It's probably safe to assume that most, if not all, Tamil Tigers are Tamil. However, not every Tamil is a member of the Tamil Tigers. In fact, I'd hazard based on pure demographics that the majority of Tamil people are not involved in the Tamil Tigers at all.
Analogies:
- In Quebec, there is a political party called the Parti Québécois. In the mid-90s, they were working to separate Quebec from Canada. However, not all Québécois want to separate Quebec from Canada. (In fact, as I recall, 51% of them didn't).
- In the UK, there is a political party called the British National Party that is opposed to immigration. However, that does not mean that every British person is opposed to immigration.
- In Ireland, there either is or was an organization called the Irish Republican Army that would bomb things. However, that does not mean that every Irish person is into bombing things.
I know many of us first encountered the word Tamil in the phrase "Tamil Tigers", most often in something that was negative about the Tamil Tigers, so our first gut reaction upon hearing the word Tamil is "bad!" However, it is simply an ethnicity and, like all ethnicities, is morally neutral in and of itself and encompasses all types of people.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
And I'm back
I've been wearing high-heeled black ankle boots as my staple non-summer shoe since I was 15. A couple of weeks ago, my boots broke - the sole cracked and the heel was about to snap off. Unfortunately, spring shoes had just entered stores, and it was particularly difficult to find boots even though we had at least a month of boot weather left. So I was feeling frumpy in running shoes or mary janes while I tried to find a new pair.
Yesterday, I got a new pair. Today I wore them for the first time. It was like coming home again. They're awesome and comfy and chunky and make me tall. I feel kick-ass like Eve Dallas in them, even though Eve Dallas would never wear heels for everyday.
It's amazing how much better you feel when you're wearing your first choice of footwear.
Yesterday, I got a new pair. Today I wore them for the first time. It was like coming home again. They're awesome and comfy and chunky and make me tall. I feel kick-ass like Eve Dallas in them, even though Eve Dallas would never wear heels for everyday.
It's amazing how much better you feel when you're wearing your first choice of footwear.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Wearing your purse diagonally
Conventional wisdom is that when travelling you should wear your purse diagonally so it doesn't get snatched.
But why would the way I wear my purse to walk around the streets of Toronto (strap over right shoulder, body of purse clamped under right arm) be unsuitable for walking around the streets of London or Paris?
But why would the way I wear my purse to walk around the streets of Toronto (strap over right shoulder, body of purse clamped under right arm) be unsuitable for walking around the streets of London or Paris?
Toggle
The saddest thing about the character of Toggle in Doonesbury is that he lives with his mother in a trailer.
The man is a wounded veteran. He should be receiving enough of a pension or whatever it's called to afford his own place. If he needs to live with his mother for medical reasons or she needs to live with him because her house was foreclosed, he should still at the very least be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment or a small bungalow (whichever is most appropriate to their geographical area) in a decent working-class neighbourhood.
The strip doesn't emphasize this very much, but I really think for him to be living in his mother's trailer is truly a tragedy.
The man is a wounded veteran. He should be receiving enough of a pension or whatever it's called to afford his own place. If he needs to live with his mother for medical reasons or she needs to live with him because her house was foreclosed, he should still at the very least be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment or a small bungalow (whichever is most appropriate to their geographical area) in a decent working-class neighbourhood.
The strip doesn't emphasize this very much, but I really think for him to be living in his mother's trailer is truly a tragedy.
Questions I want J.D. Robb to answer
In the In Death books, Summerset is Roarke's butler. He calls him Sir and everything.
But a few books in, we learn that Summerset used to be Roarke's unofficial foster father. So when and where and how did the balance of power in the relationship switch? Going from being a foster father to calling him Sir is no small thing. Even if it is a kind of long con, it's got to chafe every once in a while. (And if it were a long con, they're still keeping it up in private. Summerset does actually carry out butler responsibilities behind closed doors.)
But a few books in, we learn that Summerset used to be Roarke's unofficial foster father. So when and where and how did the balance of power in the relationship switch? Going from being a foster father to calling him Sir is no small thing. Even if it is a kind of long con, it's got to chafe every once in a while. (And if it were a long con, they're still keeping it up in private. Summerset does actually carry out butler responsibilities behind closed doors.)
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Wanted: someone who knows shorthand
There's a picture in the White House Photostream of a reporter's notes written in shorthand. I now desperately want to know what they say.
Things They Should Invent: temporary foster homes for pets from abusive relationships
Some people don't leave abusive relationships because they don't want to leave their pets behind. Shelters tend not to take pets, so if you don't have the resources to hit the ground running straight out of the abusive relationship, there isn't really anywhere for the pets to go.
Solution: temporary foster homes for the pets. People volunteer to take in a pet that belongs to someone who's in a shelter. It would be organized through the shelter, so all the person fleeing the abusive relationship would have to do is show up at the shelter with the pet, then they sleep at the shelter and their pet sleeps at a safe house somewhere.
The pet would have to live in a different neighbourhood from where its human was fleeing, so the abuser doesn't run into the foster human walking down the street with their dog or something, and for the same reason they might have to keep out of major dog parks. The pet and its human could get time to visit each other, it's just that the human has to spend the night at the shelter and the pet has to spend the night at the foster home. In fact, this could even work for households that normally aren't good candidates to foster a pet because they're away all day, because the pet's own human would probably be happy to come in and do midday walkies.
So the pet gets a safe place to stay, its human can flee the abusive situation, and households that might not normally be able to foster a pet can do so with the assistance of the pet's own human. Win-win-win.
Solution: temporary foster homes for the pets. People volunteer to take in a pet that belongs to someone who's in a shelter. It would be organized through the shelter, so all the person fleeing the abusive relationship would have to do is show up at the shelter with the pet, then they sleep at the shelter and their pet sleeps at a safe house somewhere.
The pet would have to live in a different neighbourhood from where its human was fleeing, so the abuser doesn't run into the foster human walking down the street with their dog or something, and for the same reason they might have to keep out of major dog parks. The pet and its human could get time to visit each other, it's just that the human has to spend the night at the shelter and the pet has to spend the night at the foster home. In fact, this could even work for households that normally aren't good candidates to foster a pet because they're away all day, because the pet's own human would probably be happy to come in and do midday walkies.
So the pet gets a safe place to stay, its human can flee the abusive situation, and households that might not normally be able to foster a pet can do so with the assistance of the pet's own human. Win-win-win.
Open Letter to GO Transit
Dear GO Transit:
As you know, on trains travelling westbound on the Lakeshore West line, not every car can disembark at Appleby station. You address this situation by reading out the numbers of the cars that aren't going to open their doors at Appleby and asking people in those cars to move towards the middle of the train .
These instructions are not helpful. First of all, not everyone who gets on a GO train knows where they are relative to the middle of the train. If the train was already on the platform when you got there and you walked out of the stairs directly onto a crowded and narrow platform, there isn't an opportunity to step back and take stock of the whole train. You just think "Oh good, I didn't miss the train."
Second, the order in which you read out the numbers of the non-Appleby cars gives the impression that people should move towards the back of the train. I can't articulate exactly why it does this, but there were three other people on the train - all competent adults and native speakers of English - who got this impression as well, and waiting for the train home I met two more who had had the same problem on their outbound train. We all found ourselves at the back of the backmost car, staring through the inter-car door at a locomotive, entirely uncertain whether we'd ever be able to get off this train. There then followed a frantic sprint back towards the front of the train, through four moving train cars (and some of us find walking between moving train cars kind of scary), me in dress up shoes that I didn't expect to be sprinting through a moving train in, entirely uncertain whether we'd a) ever make it in time and b) were even running in the right direction. We did make it, but if there had been luggage or reduced mobility or small children, someone would have been left behind.
The people most likely to misinterpret your instructions are those who don't travel that line or that station on a regular basis. These are also going to be the passengers least equipped to find their way if they end up getting off at the wrong station. You get it wrong for these people, you've stranded them somewhere completely unfamiliar and likely ruined their day (and interfered with the plans of whomever or whatever they were going out to a strange city for).
So what you need to do is:
1. Instruct these passengers to move towards the front (or, if applicable in other situations, towards the back) of the train even if their ultimate destination is the middle, giving them the number of the first safe car so they know when to stop. It's better to have people wandering a car or two past the middle in the right direction than to send them off even further in the wrong direction.
2. Read out the numbers of the non-Appleby cars in the opposite order of what you've been doing. Just do it. If six people that I encountered yesterday were confused by it, others will be too.
Sincerely,
The girl who now has blisters
As you know, on trains travelling westbound on the Lakeshore West line, not every car can disembark at Appleby station. You address this situation by reading out the numbers of the cars that aren't going to open their doors at Appleby and asking people in those cars to move towards the middle of the train .
These instructions are not helpful. First of all, not everyone who gets on a GO train knows where they are relative to the middle of the train. If the train was already on the platform when you got there and you walked out of the stairs directly onto a crowded and narrow platform, there isn't an opportunity to step back and take stock of the whole train. You just think "Oh good, I didn't miss the train."
Second, the order in which you read out the numbers of the non-Appleby cars gives the impression that people should move towards the back of the train. I can't articulate exactly why it does this, but there were three other people on the train - all competent adults and native speakers of English - who got this impression as well, and waiting for the train home I met two more who had had the same problem on their outbound train. We all found ourselves at the back of the backmost car, staring through the inter-car door at a locomotive, entirely uncertain whether we'd ever be able to get off this train. There then followed a frantic sprint back towards the front of the train, through four moving train cars (and some of us find walking between moving train cars kind of scary), me in dress up shoes that I didn't expect to be sprinting through a moving train in, entirely uncertain whether we'd a) ever make it in time and b) were even running in the right direction. We did make it, but if there had been luggage or reduced mobility or small children, someone would have been left behind.
The people most likely to misinterpret your instructions are those who don't travel that line or that station on a regular basis. These are also going to be the passengers least equipped to find their way if they end up getting off at the wrong station. You get it wrong for these people, you've stranded them somewhere completely unfamiliar and likely ruined their day (and interfered with the plans of whomever or whatever they were going out to a strange city for).
So what you need to do is:
1. Instruct these passengers to move towards the front (or, if applicable in other situations, towards the back) of the train even if their ultimate destination is the middle, giving them the number of the first safe car so they know when to stop. It's better to have people wandering a car or two past the middle in the right direction than to send them off even further in the wrong direction.
2. Read out the numbers of the non-Appleby cars in the opposite order of what you've been doing. Just do it. If six people that I encountered yesterday were confused by it, others will be too.
Sincerely,
The girl who now has blisters
Friday, May 08, 2009
Louise Marie Longhairs
Quite a while back I googled upon the fact that one of the few hairdressers specializing in long hair is right here in Toronto. Last time I visited a hairdresser (as a child) I came away looking like a boy. Since then I've been growing my hair extremely long to assert my femininity and eschewing all hairdressers. But, pushing 30, I was starting to think I might want better than just plain length with the split ends trimmed off by myself or my mother.
However, I was hesitant. Surely the website copy is hyperbole. Surely she has posted only positive testimonials and culled out all the negative ones (who knows how many there are?) And what's up with wanting to sell me all these pricey products? But I kept fixating on the idea, so I decided to give it a try. Worst case I'm out a bit of money and I'll stop fixating. So, last December, I went. The first time I'd been to a hairdresser in over two decades.
First thing that struck me is it's safe. No cooler-than-thou, no drama, you can talk frankly and realistically. Even the physical environment is safe. There's only one chair so you get her full attention, and it's set up so that passers-by can't see into the windows. (The idea of getting my hair done in full view of passers-by has always weirded me out). As we chatted, she accepted that my hair is in fact oily and straight. I've had so many people tell me "It isn't really oily, you just need to wash it less!" or "It isn't really straight, you just need to scrunch it!" that it's a relief to be taken at my word. She does want you to use her products (which do do what they say they do), but apart from that there's no pressure. As her site implies, she does recommend dietary/lifestyle changes, but she doesn't pressure. She informs me of stuff and if I'm not immediately into it, it's up to me to come to her if I change my mind. It's the Ani Difranco take what you can use and leave the rest approach.
So now you're thinking "Okay, but what did she do for your hair?"
I noticed results instantly, and I was able to duplicate them at home. Before I used her system, my hair would go hopelessly oily about 16 hours after I washed it. If I wanted to go to work in the morning then go out at night, I'd have to wash after work so my hair would look civilized at 11 pm. With LML's products, I wake up in the morning and it still looks civilized. It now takes 32 hours to go hopeless, so strictly speaking for the first time in my life I could get away with skipping a day. My hair was immediately less flat at the scalp, and it's been constantly improving as I continue to work on it. Length has increased noticeably, and I have brand new growth that is already two or three inches long.
The cut itself led my co-worker to ask me "Um...this is going to sound really weird...but did your hair just get longer or something?" I can now wear it down much more readily, and it moves quite interestingly (which is something I'd never given any thought to before). I feel generally sexier now, and more confident in my hair's ability to fulfill its various functions. In my professional life, it looks like it's on purpose rather than a result of benign neglect, and in my personal life it's better able to serve as a tool for seduction.
What I really appreciate about these products (and never would have ever expected) is if you do it wrong they still help your hair. It doesn't wreck anything, the results were just suboptimal. For weeks I was conditioning wrong but still noticing improvements in my hair. When I started conditioning right, it just started improving faster and more.
All these results aren't effortless. You have to put thought into your morning hair routine, you have to do some things differently with these products to the point where you're even retraining muscle memory (I can't tell you how many times I've done it wrong out of lifelong habit). It is work. But it does get the results it says it does.
This is an unconventional approach and not for everyone, but it is exactly what it says it is and does do the job to an extent I'd never before thought possible. I'd recommend looking a Louise Marie's website and seeing if it sounds like something you'd like. She wrote it herself, that is what it is. If it sounds good, go for it. If it doesn't sound like what you want, it's not for you.
However, I was hesitant. Surely the website copy is hyperbole. Surely she has posted only positive testimonials and culled out all the negative ones (who knows how many there are?) And what's up with wanting to sell me all these pricey products? But I kept fixating on the idea, so I decided to give it a try. Worst case I'm out a bit of money and I'll stop fixating. So, last December, I went. The first time I'd been to a hairdresser in over two decades.
First thing that struck me is it's safe. No cooler-than-thou, no drama, you can talk frankly and realistically. Even the physical environment is safe. There's only one chair so you get her full attention, and it's set up so that passers-by can't see into the windows. (The idea of getting my hair done in full view of passers-by has always weirded me out). As we chatted, she accepted that my hair is in fact oily and straight. I've had so many people tell me "It isn't really oily, you just need to wash it less!" or "It isn't really straight, you just need to scrunch it!" that it's a relief to be taken at my word. She does want you to use her products (which do do what they say they do), but apart from that there's no pressure. As her site implies, she does recommend dietary/lifestyle changes, but she doesn't pressure. She informs me of stuff and if I'm not immediately into it, it's up to me to come to her if I change my mind. It's the Ani Difranco take what you can use and leave the rest approach.
So now you're thinking "Okay, but what did she do for your hair?"
I noticed results instantly, and I was able to duplicate them at home. Before I used her system, my hair would go hopelessly oily about 16 hours after I washed it. If I wanted to go to work in the morning then go out at night, I'd have to wash after work so my hair would look civilized at 11 pm. With LML's products, I wake up in the morning and it still looks civilized. It now takes 32 hours to go hopeless, so strictly speaking for the first time in my life I could get away with skipping a day. My hair was immediately less flat at the scalp, and it's been constantly improving as I continue to work on it. Length has increased noticeably, and I have brand new growth that is already two or three inches long.
The cut itself led my co-worker to ask me "Um...this is going to sound really weird...but did your hair just get longer or something?" I can now wear it down much more readily, and it moves quite interestingly (which is something I'd never given any thought to before). I feel generally sexier now, and more confident in my hair's ability to fulfill its various functions. In my professional life, it looks like it's on purpose rather than a result of benign neglect, and in my personal life it's better able to serve as a tool for seduction.
What I really appreciate about these products (and never would have ever expected) is if you do it wrong they still help your hair. It doesn't wreck anything, the results were just suboptimal. For weeks I was conditioning wrong but still noticing improvements in my hair. When I started conditioning right, it just started improving faster and more.
All these results aren't effortless. You have to put thought into your morning hair routine, you have to do some things differently with these products to the point where you're even retraining muscle memory (I can't tell you how many times I've done it wrong out of lifelong habit). It is work. But it does get the results it says it does.
This is an unconventional approach and not for everyone, but it is exactly what it says it is and does do the job to an extent I'd never before thought possible. I'd recommend looking a Louise Marie's website and seeing if it sounds like something you'd like. She wrote it herself, that is what it is. If it sounds good, go for it. If it doesn't sound like what you want, it's not for you.
Also
My twitter feed should be showing at the top of the left-hand column. I suck at layouts and graphic design, so I have no idea whether this is a good way to do that. Any thoughts on a more appropriate location or how to incorporate it less fuglyly are welcome.
I wonder if Twitter makes people more likely to give others the benefit of the doubt
I've heard before people theorizing that twitter and texting make people rude because messages must necessarily be so terse.
I'm wondering if the opposite might be true - I wonder if extensive use of twitter and/or texting will make people more likely to give others the benefit of the doubt.
When you receive an ambiguous message on twitter, you practically have to assume the sender's intentions are benign specifically because of the restrictions of the medium. The whole thing would have imploded by now if people didn't. So I wonder if a person who is accustomed to that medium will be more likely to give people IRL the benefit of the doubt on statements that could be ambiguous.
I'm wondering if the opposite might be true - I wonder if extensive use of twitter and/or texting will make people more likely to give others the benefit of the doubt.
When you receive an ambiguous message on twitter, you practically have to assume the sender's intentions are benign specifically because of the restrictions of the medium. The whole thing would have imploded by now if people didn't. So I wonder if a person who is accustomed to that medium will be more likely to give people IRL the benefit of the doubt on statements that could be ambiguous.
Don't force our Olympic athletes to make a political statement
In what is possibly the most bizarre Parliamentary motion I have ever seen or heard of, a our parliamentarians voted that Olympic athlete's uniforms should include seal skin.
Regardless of how you feel about seal skin, the problem here is that they are forcing the athletes to wear a political statement. It is quite obvious from the motion that the goal is solely political and the seal skin serves no particular athletic purpose. So to have the athletes wear it would be to force them to walk around implying that they, as individuals, support the seal hunt.
Because it's a divisive issue, I'm sure at least some of them don't. And I'm sure at least some of the people who don't find the idea of wearing seal skin actively repulsive.
Our general societal standards are that Olympic athletes are to be admired and respected and looked up to. Elite athleticism is considered an honourable endeavour. These people spend years and years pushing their body to the very physical limits humanly possible to win glory for their country. Their diet and workout regime and entire lifestyle is taken over for their entire young adult life to serve the purpose of winning medals for Canada. Even if, like me, you aren't so very into sports or nationalism, you can at least see why our political policy and our parliamentarians should be treating our Olympic athletes with respect.
But instead they want to force them to be human billboards for a political statement that they may not agree with - that they may even find repulsive. They might be forcing some of them to choose between their own personal morals and competing in this elite competition that they've spent years training for. This is no way to treat people who have devoted literally their whole lives to what our society considers a laudable and praiseworthy achievement, whose success is considered to reflect well on us all.
If it really is necessary to use the Olympics to promote seal products, they can sell them there among the souvenirs. They can give them away to visitors so people can see how awesome they apparently are. They can hand out literature justifying how being clubbed on the head with a scary pointy thing is really quite a humane way to die. While not everyone would be thrilled with these steps, they are valid ways to achieve that goal.
But using the athletes as human billboards to make a political statement, putting them in a position where they have to imply that they agree with that statement, is completely inappropriate and disrespectful of the athletes as human beings.
Regardless of how you feel about seal skin, the problem here is that they are forcing the athletes to wear a political statement. It is quite obvious from the motion that the goal is solely political and the seal skin serves no particular athletic purpose. So to have the athletes wear it would be to force them to walk around implying that they, as individuals, support the seal hunt.
Because it's a divisive issue, I'm sure at least some of them don't. And I'm sure at least some of the people who don't find the idea of wearing seal skin actively repulsive.
Our general societal standards are that Olympic athletes are to be admired and respected and looked up to. Elite athleticism is considered an honourable endeavour. These people spend years and years pushing their body to the very physical limits humanly possible to win glory for their country. Their diet and workout regime and entire lifestyle is taken over for their entire young adult life to serve the purpose of winning medals for Canada. Even if, like me, you aren't so very into sports or nationalism, you can at least see why our political policy and our parliamentarians should be treating our Olympic athletes with respect.
But instead they want to force them to be human billboards for a political statement that they may not agree with - that they may even find repulsive. They might be forcing some of them to choose between their own personal morals and competing in this elite competition that they've spent years training for. This is no way to treat people who have devoted literally their whole lives to what our society considers a laudable and praiseworthy achievement, whose success is considered to reflect well on us all.
If it really is necessary to use the Olympics to promote seal products, they can sell them there among the souvenirs. They can give them away to visitors so people can see how awesome they apparently are. They can hand out literature justifying how being clubbed on the head with a scary pointy thing is really quite a humane way to die. While not everyone would be thrilled with these steps, they are valid ways to achieve that goal.
But using the athletes as human billboards to make a political statement, putting them in a position where they have to imply that they agree with that statement, is completely inappropriate and disrespectful of the athletes as human beings.
Toronto moment
Based on a snippet of conversation I overheard between two subway drivers, I believe the following occurred on the TTC yesterday morning.
1. A lady accidentally left her umbrella on a train.
2. Lady called the TTC asking after it.
3. Someone on a train found it - either a TTC worker found it or a passenger turned it in.
4. Someone at the TTC coordinated with the lady to determine that it was most convenient for her to pick it up at Finch station.
5. A subway driver took it with him on his train up to Finch station, with the intention of giving it to the collector booth for the lady to pick up.
I got on at Eg where the train was switching drivers, and I overheard the outgoing driver debrief the incoming driver on the umbrella situation, giving her instructions to take it to the collector at Finch so its owner could pick it up.
I'm impressed by all this because it was an ordinary everyday umbrella - the kind that's for sale for a few dollars on those racks that pop up on rainy days at every supermarket and drugstore and corner store and subway station vendor, the kind that's totally going to blow inside out and be ruined within the next two storms. If I had lost that kind of umbrella, I'd just shrug my shoulders and tried to find another one before I had to go back out in the rain, and I think most people would react that way. But the two drivers I saw treated the situation with complete and total respect, without a hint that there was anything unusual about going to all this effort for a cheap umbrella. And based on logistics I'd assume there were at least three other TTC people involved (the person the lady reported the missing umbrella to, the person who found the umbrella, the Finch collector) all of whom must also have been treating the situation with respect.
Very cool.
1. A lady accidentally left her umbrella on a train.
2. Lady called the TTC asking after it.
3. Someone on a train found it - either a TTC worker found it or a passenger turned it in.
4. Someone at the TTC coordinated with the lady to determine that it was most convenient for her to pick it up at Finch station.
5. A subway driver took it with him on his train up to Finch station, with the intention of giving it to the collector booth for the lady to pick up.
I got on at Eg where the train was switching drivers, and I overheard the outgoing driver debrief the incoming driver on the umbrella situation, giving her instructions to take it to the collector at Finch so its owner could pick it up.
I'm impressed by all this because it was an ordinary everyday umbrella - the kind that's for sale for a few dollars on those racks that pop up on rainy days at every supermarket and drugstore and corner store and subway station vendor, the kind that's totally going to blow inside out and be ruined within the next two storms. If I had lost that kind of umbrella, I'd just shrug my shoulders and tried to find another one before I had to go back out in the rain, and I think most people would react that way. But the two drivers I saw treated the situation with complete and total respect, without a hint that there was anything unusual about going to all this effort for a cheap umbrella. And based on logistics I'd assume there were at least three other TTC people involved (the person the lady reported the missing umbrella to, the person who found the umbrella, the Finch collector) all of whom must also have been treating the situation with respect.
Very cool.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Ethical pondering of the moment
I wonder how ethical/unethical it is to mention (when the opportunity presents itself naturally in conversation) that I'm childfree to increase my perceived employability?
It isn't so much an issue with my current employer and perhaps not in the profession as a whole (it would certainly be foolish to discriminate against maternity in a female-dominated profession that claims to desperately need an infusion of young professionals), but I've read several things lately where employers discriminate against maternity, and it occurred to me that my childfree status could be an asset. Up until now I'd been keeping it a bit quiet, because I always thought people perceived it as immaturity.
On one hand, I shouldn't be facilitating discrimination against maternity. On the other, it could be a tipping point in my favour.
It isn't so much an issue with my current employer and perhaps not in the profession as a whole (it would certainly be foolish to discriminate against maternity in a female-dominated profession that claims to desperately need an infusion of young professionals), but I've read several things lately where employers discriminate against maternity, and it occurred to me that my childfree status could be an asset. Up until now I'd been keeping it a bit quiet, because I always thought people perceived it as immaturity.
On one hand, I shouldn't be facilitating discrimination against maternity. On the other, it could be a tipping point in my favour.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Me and my problems
I had some music on, grooving to the music, about to wash my face. As part of grooving to the music, I moved the hand that contained my face scrub, and some of the soap went flying into my eye.
Long story short, I had to cry to get it out. I can't cry on demand - it has to be induced emotionally or by chopping onions. I don't have any whole onions, and going out to buy onions during a rainstorm at night when you can't open your eyes isn't especially convenient. So I've spent the past hour making myself an emotional wreck and crying out all the tears that I have in me. Now it's my bed time and I still have to hang up my wet laundry, take out the garbage, prep my face, hair, teeth and ears for bed, and regain my emotional equilibrium.
Long story short, I had to cry to get it out. I can't cry on demand - it has to be induced emotionally or by chopping onions. I don't have any whole onions, and going out to buy onions during a rainstorm at night when you can't open your eyes isn't especially convenient. So I've spent the past hour making myself an emotional wreck and crying out all the tears that I have in me. Now it's my bed time and I still have to hang up my wet laundry, take out the garbage, prep my face, hair, teeth and ears for bed, and regain my emotional equilibrium.
There's something egregiously wrong with our classification system
A chihuahua and a St. Bernard can both rightfully be called dogs.
And yet a clemintine cannot rightfully be called an orange.
And yet a clemintine cannot rightfully be called an orange.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Is there sign language for "Excuse me"?
There was a group of people speaking (is speaking the right verb? If not, what is?) sign language and blocking the door to the subway station. I found myself trying to remember the sign for "Excuse me" so I could ask them nicely to move. Then I realized that if I could get their attention to sign at them, I wouldn't need to ask them to move because they'd see me trying to come through the door.
It then occurred to me that that would also apply for the "Please give me your attention" meaning of "Excuse me". You tap them on the shoulder or something, then you have their attention and the "Excuse me" isn't necessary.
So is there a sign for "Excuse me"? If so, when is it used?
It then occurred to me that that would also apply for the "Please give me your attention" meaning of "Excuse me". You tap them on the shoulder or something, then you have their attention and the "Excuse me" isn't necessary.
So is there a sign for "Excuse me"? If so, when is it used?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)