Lots of people eat at the computer. However, the problem with eating at the computer is that if you're eating finger food, your keyboard and mouse get dirty.
Someone should come up with a way to package finger foods (chips, popcorn, carrot sticks, etc.) so that you can eat them without touching them - either through clever packaging or by providing a utensil.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
What kind of jobs require a high school diploma?
Conventional wisdom is that you'll have better job opportunities if you finish high school than if you drop out.
What kinds of jobs require a high school diploma? Because of the way my job history turned out, I've never had or applied for a job that was specifically looking for a high school diploma. What kinds of skills that you learn in high school are they looking for?
What kinds of jobs require a high school diploma? Because of the way my job history turned out, I've never had or applied for a job that was specifically looking for a high school diploma. What kinds of skills that you learn in high school are they looking for?
Things They Should Invent: opposite of decimate
The literal meaning of decimate is to kill 1/10 of the population, but it has taken on a figurative meaning of massive epic death. (My theory is that it has taken on this figurative meaning because it's a really scary sounding word, based on pure aural aesthetics).
We need another word - equally scary sounding - to handle the figurative meaning of decimate by having a literal meaning that's the exact opposite: to kill 9/10 of the population and leave only 1/10 alive.
Suggestions welcome.
We need another word - equally scary sounding - to handle the figurative meaning of decimate by having a literal meaning that's the exact opposite: to kill 9/10 of the population and leave only 1/10 alive.
Suggestions welcome.
Friday, May 22, 2009
More information on inter-dog interaction please
Reading Antonia Z talk about dog park drama reminds me of a problem I've been having in my dog research.
I don't know much about inter-dog interaction, and I'm not finding much information about it.
Most of the information I am finding has to do with integrating a new dog into the household. That's not what I'm looking to do. I'm looking for what I need to know when I'm walking a dog and he meets another dog. Should I make my guy sit? Should I let them just walk up and sniff each other? Should I get the other dog's human's permission first? How much slack do I give my guy on the leash? What behaviour is normal? What behaviour requires human intervention? How is this different on-leash vs. off-leash vs. if one dog is leashed and the other isn't? (I've heard there are differences, I don't know what they are.) How do I protect my dog if the other dog gets nasty? How can I tell when he's getting nasty vs. just playing vs. attempting to mate? (Should I let them mate if they want to? It seems rude to stop them, but it seems like other humans would frown on me if I didn't intervene. And it seems vaguely inappropriate to ask the other dog's human's permission on behalf of my own dog.)
Ms. Z's article mentioned that puppies upset the balance in a pack. How? What should I do with this information if I have a puppy? What should I do with this information if I have an adult dog? What if my dog is little and there are big dogs around? What if my dog is big and there are little dogs around?
The information I have found googling dog park etiquette is either not about behaviour (e.g. make sure your dog is immunized and comes when you call him) or seems to assume that you can already read dog behaviour and know where the boundaries are. I don't know where the boundaries are and I'm not confident in my ability to read dog behaviour.
I've looked for this information and have not found it. If I had lower standards, I would totally assume it's all completely obvious when you see it happen and no further research and education are required. And if I had lower standards, I could totally walk over to the pet store and buy a puppy, who would then proceed to encounter another dog, and I'd be there with no idea what to do or expect.
This information needs to not only be available but obvious. It needs to fall into people's laps like the basics of crate training and sit-stay do, like the importance of spaying and neutering. I will get a shelter or rescue dog, and because of that I'll be able to ask his foster humans for tips on how he, personally, interacts with other dogs. But people who would buy from a pet store are also the people who are less likely to do as extensive research. So if information about inter-dog interaction is not made easy to stumble upon, these people with their store-bought puppies are going to be disturbing your dog park.
I don't know much about inter-dog interaction, and I'm not finding much information about it.
Most of the information I am finding has to do with integrating a new dog into the household. That's not what I'm looking to do. I'm looking for what I need to know when I'm walking a dog and he meets another dog. Should I make my guy sit? Should I let them just walk up and sniff each other? Should I get the other dog's human's permission first? How much slack do I give my guy on the leash? What behaviour is normal? What behaviour requires human intervention? How is this different on-leash vs. off-leash vs. if one dog is leashed and the other isn't? (I've heard there are differences, I don't know what they are.) How do I protect my dog if the other dog gets nasty? How can I tell when he's getting nasty vs. just playing vs. attempting to mate? (Should I let them mate if they want to? It seems rude to stop them, but it seems like other humans would frown on me if I didn't intervene. And it seems vaguely inappropriate to ask the other dog's human's permission on behalf of my own dog.)
Ms. Z's article mentioned that puppies upset the balance in a pack. How? What should I do with this information if I have a puppy? What should I do with this information if I have an adult dog? What if my dog is little and there are big dogs around? What if my dog is big and there are little dogs around?
The information I have found googling dog park etiquette is either not about behaviour (e.g. make sure your dog is immunized and comes when you call him) or seems to assume that you can already read dog behaviour and know where the boundaries are. I don't know where the boundaries are and I'm not confident in my ability to read dog behaviour.
I've looked for this information and have not found it. If I had lower standards, I would totally assume it's all completely obvious when you see it happen and no further research and education are required. And if I had lower standards, I could totally walk over to the pet store and buy a puppy, who would then proceed to encounter another dog, and I'd be there with no idea what to do or expect.
This information needs to not only be available but obvious. It needs to fall into people's laps like the basics of crate training and sit-stay do, like the importance of spaying and neutering. I will get a shelter or rescue dog, and because of that I'll be able to ask his foster humans for tips on how he, personally, interacts with other dogs. But people who would buy from a pet store are also the people who are less likely to do as extensive research. So if information about inter-dog interaction is not made easy to stumble upon, these people with their store-bought puppies are going to be disturbing your dog park.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Why do employers even allow employees to negotiate their salaries?
Conventional wisdom is that generally you should negotiate your salary when you're hired.
Why do employers allow this? I can't imagine how you would budget if you aren' certain what your employees' salaries are going to be.
Why do employers allow this? I can't imagine how you would budget if you aren' certain what your employees' salaries are going to be.
Homophobia is going to die out
This train of thought is inspired by, but ultimately unrelated to, watching Ellen Degeneres give a commencement speech.
Ellen Degeneres came out in 1997, when I was 16. Will and Grace first aired in 1998, when I was 17. Both were crucial to opening my mind. It was huge to see that these people are queer and...they were there, they were people, not much happened. Before this, I had never heard homosexuality spoken of as anything but A Problem, but suddenly it was just quietly there.
I graduated from university in 2003. It is now 2009. The people who are graduating from university this year were 10 when Ellen came out and 11 when Will and Grace first aired. They may or may not have been old enough to be aware of queerness before these TV shows.
The people who are graduating from high school this year were 6 when Ellen came out and 7 when Will and Grace first aired. They weren't even old enough to grok the concept of sexuality, never mind homosexuality. No mental shift necessary. Their homophobic parents must look like Archie Bunker to them.
Ten years from now, my generation of people who were still young enough to have experienced this cultural shift in adolescence will be pushing a respectable 40. The majority of all adults will have spent their entire adult life with queerness as no big deal, and Will and Grace will look like a minstrel show.
We're going to get there.
Ellen Degeneres came out in 1997, when I was 16. Will and Grace first aired in 1998, when I was 17. Both were crucial to opening my mind. It was huge to see that these people are queer and...they were there, they were people, not much happened. Before this, I had never heard homosexuality spoken of as anything but A Problem, but suddenly it was just quietly there.
I graduated from university in 2003. It is now 2009. The people who are graduating from university this year were 10 when Ellen came out and 11 when Will and Grace first aired. They may or may not have been old enough to be aware of queerness before these TV shows.
The people who are graduating from high school this year were 6 when Ellen came out and 7 when Will and Grace first aired. They weren't even old enough to grok the concept of sexuality, never mind homosexuality. No mental shift necessary. Their homophobic parents must look like Archie Bunker to them.
Ten years from now, my generation of people who were still young enough to have experienced this cultural shift in adolescence will be pushing a respectable 40. The majority of all adults will have spent their entire adult life with queerness as no big deal, and Will and Grace will look like a minstrel show.
We're going to get there.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Things They Should Study: how incompetent can you be and still successfully run a business?
This train of thought started with Bill Hendrickson on Big Love. He's an idiot, but he owns his own successful business.
Then I started thinking about real life, and it occurs to me that I've encountered more than one person who is an idiot and runs their business poorly, but their business continues to exist for years and years and years.
How can this be? Someone should study the incompetence tolerance of enterpreneurship.
Then this got me thinking that maybe I'm grossly overestimating how difficult it is to run a business. It all seems impenetrable to me, but if these idiots are doing it, maybe it isn't that hard? But then if it were THAT easy, wouldn't way more people run their own businesses instead of working for someone else? Think about how hard it is to find a decent job. If any old idiot could just start a business, wouldn't everyone just do that rather than running around sending their resume everywhere?
Then I started thinking about real life, and it occurs to me that I've encountered more than one person who is an idiot and runs their business poorly, but their business continues to exist for years and years and years.
How can this be? Someone should study the incompetence tolerance of enterpreneurship.
Then this got me thinking that maybe I'm grossly overestimating how difficult it is to run a business. It all seems impenetrable to me, but if these idiots are doing it, maybe it isn't that hard? But then if it were THAT easy, wouldn't way more people run their own businesses instead of working for someone else? Think about how hard it is to find a decent job. If any old idiot could just start a business, wouldn't everyone just do that rather than running around sending their resume everywhere?
Things They Should Invent: kiva for the abortion underground
Broadsheet talks about the lengths to which women in Ireland must go to seek abortions outside of the country.
One of the main problems is that it costs several thousand dollars, and not everyone and pull together several thousand dollars on such short notice. However, it occurs to me that a good number of the people who can't pull together several thousand dollars on short notice might be able to come up with that amount over the period of, say, a year.
What if there were some way to quickly loan money to these abortion patients? I can't think of any major lender who would do that. But what if it followed the Kiva model?
Kiva, for those of you who aren't already familiar with it, is a website that enables ordinary individuals to fund microloans to third-world entrepreneurs. It is extremely awesome and you should check it out even if you don't like my invention.
So to adapt this model for the abortion underground, anyone who wants to can contribute to a loan, and people who need abortions can take out loans that they pay back over a year. It would have to be more anonymous than Kiva, but otherwise it's essentially the same.
With Kiva, the money is credited back to the lender's account as the loan recipient repays it. For example, when the loan recipient pays back 10% of the loan, each of the lenders' accounts is credited with 10% of the amount that they lended. Most lenders immediately roll this amount over into another loan, but you can withdraw it if you want.
The system for the abortion underground would work the same, but with one exception: if you, your partner, your dependent, or your dependent's partner ever requires an abortion, you can withdraw the full cost from the funding pool immediately and with no hassle. Most people who can become pregnant (and, I assume, a good number of people whose partner or dependents can become pregnant) have at least given thought as to how they would go about getting an abortion should the need ever arise. Those who have the money do their research and go "Oh, so it costs $X? I have $X in my savings account, no problem!" then merrily go about their lives, perhaps keeping an eye on their financial arrangements to make sure they have $X liquid at all times. It would be practically no effort to put the $X that you have quietly earmarked as your abortion fund into the general funding pool, knowing that you can access it at any time if need be and in the meantime other people can benefit from it. The only sacrifice would be potential investment income, which in today's economy is negligible.
One of the main problems is that it costs several thousand dollars, and not everyone and pull together several thousand dollars on such short notice. However, it occurs to me that a good number of the people who can't pull together several thousand dollars on short notice might be able to come up with that amount over the period of, say, a year.
What if there were some way to quickly loan money to these abortion patients? I can't think of any major lender who would do that. But what if it followed the Kiva model?
Kiva, for those of you who aren't already familiar with it, is a website that enables ordinary individuals to fund microloans to third-world entrepreneurs. It is extremely awesome and you should check it out even if you don't like my invention.
So to adapt this model for the abortion underground, anyone who wants to can contribute to a loan, and people who need abortions can take out loans that they pay back over a year. It would have to be more anonymous than Kiva, but otherwise it's essentially the same.
With Kiva, the money is credited back to the lender's account as the loan recipient repays it. For example, when the loan recipient pays back 10% of the loan, each of the lenders' accounts is credited with 10% of the amount that they lended. Most lenders immediately roll this amount over into another loan, but you can withdraw it if you want.
The system for the abortion underground would work the same, but with one exception: if you, your partner, your dependent, or your dependent's partner ever requires an abortion, you can withdraw the full cost from the funding pool immediately and with no hassle. Most people who can become pregnant (and, I assume, a good number of people whose partner or dependents can become pregnant) have at least given thought as to how they would go about getting an abortion should the need ever arise. Those who have the money do their research and go "Oh, so it costs $X? I have $X in my savings account, no problem!" then merrily go about their lives, perhaps keeping an eye on their financial arrangements to make sure they have $X liquid at all times. It would be practically no effort to put the $X that you have quietly earmarked as your abortion fund into the general funding pool, knowing that you can access it at any time if need be and in the meantime other people can benefit from it. The only sacrifice would be potential investment income, which in today's economy is negligible.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Things They Should Invent: Cosby Show prequel
If I remember my Cosby Show chronology correctly, Cliff and Clair started sprogging before they finished their professional degrees. That means that the first few years were a madhouse. Clair would have been pregnant while in law school, she's articling and Cliff is interning and they have a toddler running around and another on the way, Clair having to take multiple and closely-spaced maternity leaves (in the 60s and 70s!)
That would have been way more interesting!
That would have been way more interesting!
Another theory on why urban people seem rude to exurban people
Conventional wisdom/gross generalizations etc. have it that exurban people tend to think that urban people are rude because we don't pay any particular attention to random other people whose paths we cross, whereas in smaller communities it's more common to say hi to and maybe even chat with people.
I've blogged before about how I think this might be due to our higher density. I cross paths with 100 people on the way to the subway - I can't say hi to all of them, I'd be walking down the street waving and nodding like the Queen! But it also occurs to me that part of the difference might be due to driving/walking/transit patterns.
If you live in a rural area and you need to go to the grocery store, you get in your car and drive there. While in transit, you are in a car, and anyone you cross paths with is in a car. Generally we are not obligated to greet cars. People tend to greet individuals they know and I have heard of people in small towns who wave at every car, but I seriously doubt anyone's feelings would be hurt if they're driving along and the stranger driving in the opposite direction fails to wave at them. You're more socially switched off while en route, and tend to switch back on when you reach your destination. Once there, you switch back on and start talking to people again.
If you live in a city and you need to go to the grocery store, you walk. While in transit, you are on foot, and anyone you cross paths with is on foot. But even though we're crossing paths with real people, we still seem to have mutually agreed to switch off in transit because if we don't we'll never get any downtime.
Add to this the high density, and we're probably encountering but not engaging more people in a day than a rural person might encounter face to face in a day (depending on the size and nature of their workplace - it stands if you compare grocery run to grocery run, but to compare day to day there are too many variables). So then when exurban people come here, they get ignored by more people than they might even see in one day back home. That might make a person feel dissed.
I've blogged before about how I think this might be due to our higher density. I cross paths with 100 people on the way to the subway - I can't say hi to all of them, I'd be walking down the street waving and nodding like the Queen! But it also occurs to me that part of the difference might be due to driving/walking/transit patterns.
If you live in a rural area and you need to go to the grocery store, you get in your car and drive there. While in transit, you are in a car, and anyone you cross paths with is in a car. Generally we are not obligated to greet cars. People tend to greet individuals they know and I have heard of people in small towns who wave at every car, but I seriously doubt anyone's feelings would be hurt if they're driving along and the stranger driving in the opposite direction fails to wave at them. You're more socially switched off while en route, and tend to switch back on when you reach your destination. Once there, you switch back on and start talking to people again.
If you live in a city and you need to go to the grocery store, you walk. While in transit, you are on foot, and anyone you cross paths with is on foot. But even though we're crossing paths with real people, we still seem to have mutually agreed to switch off in transit because if we don't we'll never get any downtime.
Add to this the high density, and we're probably encountering but not engaging more people in a day than a rural person might encounter face to face in a day (depending on the size and nature of their workplace - it stands if you compare grocery run to grocery run, but to compare day to day there are too many variables). So then when exurban people come here, they get ignored by more people than they might even see in one day back home. That might make a person feel dissed.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Slogan challenge
Apparently on Mother's Day in downtown Toronto, there was a march in support of funding for invitro fertilization, there was a walk to raise money for brain cancer research, and there was the ongoing Tamil protest.
The challenge: think of a slogan or chant that would work for all three of these events.
Whoever can do this wins at life.
The challenge: think of a slogan or chant that would work for all three of these events.
Whoever can do this wins at life.
The clearest dream I've ever had
I have record this one before I forget. It's significant because it was extremely clear, possibly the clearest dream I've ever had.
I was with some of my cousins in the attic of my great-grandmother's house, and we found a secret trunk containing an extensive collection WWI artifacts (uniforms, letters, weapons, etc.) that belonged to my great-grandfather. It was a very important historical find and would ultimately be donated to a museum. That great-grandmother's house existed in reality and that great-grandfather - her IRL husband - was in fact a WWI veteran. Given the clarity of the dream, I would be certain my family has a cache of historical artifacts somewhere, except that IRL:
- We already know about the WWI artifacts that great-grandfather left behind (just a few things, not an extensive collection) and they were donated to a museum already.
- The great-grandmother passed away at least 15 years ago and her house was cleaned out. Anything in the attic would have been found back then.
- I've never been in the attic of that house, at all, ever. And the cousins who were helping me were from the other side of the family - they are not at all related to that great-grandmother.
- All the artifacts were completely illogical. For example, the belt buckles were made out of wood, the in-dream reasoning being that they didn't have metal back then. The letters were written in some non-European language on papyrus scrolls with quills. The weapons (in this dream he took his weapons home from the war with him!) functioned on alchemic principles.
But it was so ridiculously clear, unlike any dream I've ever had.
I was with some of my cousins in the attic of my great-grandmother's house, and we found a secret trunk containing an extensive collection WWI artifacts (uniforms, letters, weapons, etc.) that belonged to my great-grandfather. It was a very important historical find and would ultimately be donated to a museum. That great-grandmother's house existed in reality and that great-grandfather - her IRL husband - was in fact a WWI veteran. Given the clarity of the dream, I would be certain my family has a cache of historical artifacts somewhere, except that IRL:
- We already know about the WWI artifacts that great-grandfather left behind (just a few things, not an extensive collection) and they were donated to a museum already.
- The great-grandmother passed away at least 15 years ago and her house was cleaned out. Anything in the attic would have been found back then.
- I've never been in the attic of that house, at all, ever. And the cousins who were helping me were from the other side of the family - they are not at all related to that great-grandmother.
- All the artifacts were completely illogical. For example, the belt buckles were made out of wood, the in-dream reasoning being that they didn't have metal back then. The letters were written in some non-European language on papyrus scrolls with quills. The weapons (in this dream he took his weapons home from the war with him!) functioned on alchemic principles.
But it was so ridiculously clear, unlike any dream I've ever had.
Bad logic from Annie's Mailbox
Annie's mailbox response to a parent whose son's girlfriend doesn't have a curfew:
Yeah yeah yeah, I know that's the conventional wisdom. But think back, in first person, to your own adolescence. Think about the first time you, personally, didn't have a curfew, or it wasn't enforceable, or it was otherwise feasible for you to stay out however long you wanted.
Did you feel insecure? Did you feel like your parents didn't care about you?
I don't know about you, but I felt pretty much neutral about the whole thing. I didn't even feel anything strong enough to say I felt liberated. It was just "Finally I can let the evening's activities take their natural course without having to be home at some completely arbitrary time." Since then I have once in a while felt a glimmer of liberation, just like how I sometimes revel in the fact that I can sleep until noon and eat junk food for breakfast and no one will stop me, but overall it was a small sigh of relief that life was now more reasonable.
Actually, if anything made me feel insecure or that my parents didn't care about me, it was arbitrary rules. Arbitrary rules made me feel like my parents didn't care about me, personally, as an individual, with my own personal needs. It made me feel like they were trying to parent an archetype or a stereotype, or trying to pat themselves on the back for being such good parents. "You can't go to that boy's house unless his parents are there. Look at us, we are such good parents, much better than the parents who let their daughters go to boys' houses unsupervised." As it happens, they didn't have to worry about the boy. I couldn't even get him to kiss me. However, I didn't feel comfortable around his father and wasn't about to go to his house if the father was there. How could I feel secure and cared about with rules like that?
You might consider raising his weekday curfew by one hour as long as it doesn't affect his school performance, but giving him unlimited freedom is actually likely to create some insecurities. We feel sorry for Holly, whose parents give the impression they don't care about their daughter.
Yeah yeah yeah, I know that's the conventional wisdom. But think back, in first person, to your own adolescence. Think about the first time you, personally, didn't have a curfew, or it wasn't enforceable, or it was otherwise feasible for you to stay out however long you wanted.
Did you feel insecure? Did you feel like your parents didn't care about you?
I don't know about you, but I felt pretty much neutral about the whole thing. I didn't even feel anything strong enough to say I felt liberated. It was just "Finally I can let the evening's activities take their natural course without having to be home at some completely arbitrary time." Since then I have once in a while felt a glimmer of liberation, just like how I sometimes revel in the fact that I can sleep until noon and eat junk food for breakfast and no one will stop me, but overall it was a small sigh of relief that life was now more reasonable.
Actually, if anything made me feel insecure or that my parents didn't care about me, it was arbitrary rules. Arbitrary rules made me feel like my parents didn't care about me, personally, as an individual, with my own personal needs. It made me feel like they were trying to parent an archetype or a stereotype, or trying to pat themselves on the back for being such good parents. "You can't go to that boy's house unless his parents are there. Look at us, we are such good parents, much better than the parents who let their daughters go to boys' houses unsupervised." As it happens, they didn't have to worry about the boy. I couldn't even get him to kiss me. However, I didn't feel comfortable around his father and wasn't about to go to his house if the father was there. How could I feel secure and cared about with rules like that?
Saturday, May 16, 2009
The problem with fake pashminas
I recently bought a few fake pashminas. They claim to be made of cashmere and silk, but clearly aren't because they only cost like $4 each. The fact that they're fake doesn't bother me - I bought them because the shape and colour was right, and I didn't want to spend too much money since decorative scarves are a new toy in my fashion arsenal and I wasn't sure how much use I'd get out of them.
The problem is that the washing instructions on the tag are washing instructions that would be appropriate for a cashmere-silk blend. Handwash or dryclean, both of which are inconvenient.
I know it isn't really cashmere and silk, I know it's really some sort of polyester, they haven't tricked me into thinking they're real and I'm not trying to trick anyone else into thinking they're real, I just want some nice colourful playthings. So why can't I have the real washing instructions?
The problem is that the washing instructions on the tag are washing instructions that would be appropriate for a cashmere-silk blend. Handwash or dryclean, both of which are inconvenient.
I know it isn't really cashmere and silk, I know it's really some sort of polyester, they haven't tricked me into thinking they're real and I'm not trying to trick anyone else into thinking they're real, I just want some nice colourful playthings. So why can't I have the real washing instructions?
Why is public drunkenness a crime?
Public drunkenness, a.k.a. public intoxication, is something you can be arrest for or charged with.
Why???
Selling alcohol in public places is legal, subject to certain licencing requirements. Drinking alcohol in appropriately-licenced public places is legal. Driving under the influence of alcohol is very much illegal. Drinking alone is socially frowned upon.
So basically, if you want get a perfectly legal and perfectly socially-acceptable buzz on with people who don't live in your household, you're going to have to be drunk in public at some point, even if it's just on your way home.
So why is this a problem?
If they're worried about disorderly conduct, they can charge people with specific disorderly conduct. Assault, robbery, harassment, disturbing the peace, whatever. But why make my tipsy walk home from the subway illegal?
Some might argue that it's inadvisable, and it may in fact be inadvisable depending on inebriation level and environment. But that's no reason to make it illegal!
Why???
Selling alcohol in public places is legal, subject to certain licencing requirements. Drinking alcohol in appropriately-licenced public places is legal. Driving under the influence of alcohol is very much illegal. Drinking alone is socially frowned upon.
So basically, if you want get a perfectly legal and perfectly socially-acceptable buzz on with people who don't live in your household, you're going to have to be drunk in public at some point, even if it's just on your way home.
So why is this a problem?
If they're worried about disorderly conduct, they can charge people with specific disorderly conduct. Assault, robbery, harassment, disturbing the peace, whatever. But why make my tipsy walk home from the subway illegal?
Some might argue that it's inadvisable, and it may in fact be inadvisable depending on inebriation level and environment. But that's no reason to make it illegal!
Friday, May 15, 2009
Things They Should Invent: short-term allergy medications
Most allergy medications are made for people with hay fever, so they last like 12 or 24 hours.
I don't have hay fever. However, I am allergic to cats, so I need to take allergy meds whenever I visit a cat's house.
The problem is that allergy meds sometimes increase my eye pressure, which is rather unpleasant. And it's rather unpleasant to have this side-effect for 12 hours when I'm only ever in a cat's house for a couple of hours.
Why aren't there any four-hour allergy meds?
I don't have hay fever. However, I am allergic to cats, so I need to take allergy meds whenever I visit a cat's house.
The problem is that allergy meds sometimes increase my eye pressure, which is rather unpleasant. And it's rather unpleasant to have this side-effect for 12 hours when I'm only ever in a cat's house for a couple of hours.
Why aren't there any four-hour allergy meds?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Not that there's anything wrong with that
In society as a whole, the connotation still exists that suggesting that a man is gay or effeminate is a dis, or that suggesting a man is effeminate is a perfectly cromulent way of dissing him for being gay.
This keeps cramping my style.
For example, a while back someone in my office was going around asking people if they had nailpolish. (Q: Why? A: there was a tangle of wires and they needed something paint-like to mark them.) I later asked if I'd found any, and they said "I asked every woman in this office, and none of them have nailpolish!" My inner devil's advocate and my inner Eddie Izzard fan teamed up to come up with "Have you asked any of the men?" But my inner censor vetoed that on the basis that it could be misinterpreted as dissing the men for being gay. Even though none of the men wear nailpolish that I've seen, I don't think suggesting that they might have nailpolish implies that they're gay, and I don't think that implying they're gay is a dis. But an asshole would use those words with that implication, so I couldn't use them.
Then today I found myself wanting to describe someone as the grande dame of his field, but I had to censor myself because, again, it could be misinterpreted as a dis against his sexuality. But grande dame seems to be le mot juste - I can't think of any masculine or unmarked term that does that job, can you?
So my self-expression is limited because homophobes can't keep it behind closed doors.
This keeps cramping my style.
For example, a while back someone in my office was going around asking people if they had nailpolish. (Q: Why? A: there was a tangle of wires and they needed something paint-like to mark them.) I later asked if I'd found any, and they said "I asked every woman in this office, and none of them have nailpolish!" My inner devil's advocate and my inner Eddie Izzard fan teamed up to come up with "Have you asked any of the men?" But my inner censor vetoed that on the basis that it could be misinterpreted as dissing the men for being gay. Even though none of the men wear nailpolish that I've seen, I don't think suggesting that they might have nailpolish implies that they're gay, and I don't think that implying they're gay is a dis. But an asshole would use those words with that implication, so I couldn't use them.
Then today I found myself wanting to describe someone as the grande dame of his field, but I had to censor myself because, again, it could be misinterpreted as a dis against his sexuality. But grande dame seems to be le mot juste - I can't think of any masculine or unmarked term that does that job, can you?
So my self-expression is limited because homophobes can't keep it behind closed doors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)