Eddie Izzard once again raises the bar for both awesomeness and lunacy

In January, Eddie Izzard raised the bar for human awesomeness everywhere.

Now he's just outdone himself. He is running over 1,000 miles around the entire UK to raise money for a charity called Sport Relief. That's a marathon a day for over a month.

The man is well into his 40s, has been in training for only four weeks, and apparently already has a hamstring injury going in.

He's a looney.

I must send money.

This is particularly interesting as a fundraising strategy because it's so excessive. If Eddie hadn't done anything at all for this charity, no one would have noticed. If he had donated some money or done a benefit gig or autographed some spare merch and donated it to be auctioned off, people would applaud his generosity. If he had run a single marathon and tweeted a sponsorship link, he would have gotten a huge wave of donations (he has half a million twitter followers and a marathon is inherently impressive) and that would have been considered above and beyond in and of itself. But instead he's Terry Foxing it (plus one leg, minus cancer, plus 25 years of age, minus years of athletic training = you do the math) with insufficient preparation. This is ridiculous. He's going to be miserable. He probably already is miserable. He might do permanent damage.

And this is why I feel moved to donate.

Not because I want Eddie to suffer, but because I like Eddie and I don't want his suffering to be in vain. I'm not so very into athletic charities, and I never feel particularly inspired to donate when people (even people I know personally) are running marathons or climbing the CN Tower. That's suffering too, and I don't want those people to suffer either, but it's a reasonable amount for self-inflicted suffering - a few hours and then you can go home and go to sleep and never run again in your life if you don't want to. But Eddie runs a marathon, then has do it again the next day, and again the next day, for an interminable month.

So he's getting a donation out of me (and I'll probably donate more out of sympathy if he ends up having to quit early), but I'm also going to have to reflect carefully on my donation standards. I don't want to make a world where you have to do something this crazy and painful to move people to raise money.

Which, now that I think about it, might be the intention behind this lunacy in the first place.

You can stalk follow Eddie's progress here and here, and donate here.

Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: childfree ring

This idea started here and was enhanced by this.

Childfree people don't want to be in a relationship with non-childfree people, and vice versa. There's just no point. However, reproductive goals don't always naturally come up in conversation, and it's really presumptuous and kind of creepy to bring them up early on in a potential relationship. ("Want to go for coffee sometime?" "Sure, but I won't bear your children.") This could have the unfortunate result of people ending up emotionally attached to people who would make unsuitable partners. You might be well on your way to falling in love before you discover that one of you wants kids and the other doesn't, so the relationship will necessarily have to end.

Solution: a universally agreed-upon visual signal denoting one's childfree status. It would work the same as a wedding ring. You wear it and anyone who cares can look for it, see that you're childfree, and proceed accordingly. It doesn't necessarily have to be a ring, but it should be subtle, visible, and unisex.

The flaw in this plan is that since a childfree ring is worn only for the benefit of potential mates, wearing one implies that you're on the prowl. After all, if you're in a relationship, the general public doesn't need to know that you're childfree - whether you're CF or not, you still won't bear their children. Not everyone might want to walk around at all times wearing a symbol indicating that they're on the market. (I certainly wouldn't!) But then if you don't wear it all the time, you'll have a romantic comedy meet-cute with the guy in front of you in line at the grocery store and fall in love before you both discover that you're CF and he wants 12 kids. So I wouldn't wear it (although I'd have supermarket guy reading my blog before we got too serious anyway), and if not everyone wears it then it won't work.

Actually, now that I think about it, people who are in the market for a relationship should all blog. Not about looking for a relationship, but about everyday stuff. If I were looking for a relationship and a potential partner read my blog, they'd discover that I'm CF and urbanist and recovering catholic, they'd get a sense of my politics and tastes and neuroses and sense of humour, so any core incompatibilities would be identified immediately and incompatible partners could reject me before I even noticed they were looking. It would be much more efficient.

Why doesn't breast milk go bad?

Serious question. I know it's the natural way to store and dispense milk, but at the same time it's milk that's being kept at 37 degrees. What specifically prevents it from going bad? (Or, if it's more accurate to phrase it this way, what causes it need to be refrigerated when removed from the body?)

Good thing I don't have to drive anywhere

Me two weeks ago: "I have an idea! I'll add some vodka to all this lemonade I'm making!"

Me a week and a half ago: "Lemonade is boring. I'll put it in the back of the fridge and forget about it."

Me an hour ago: "Hey, there's some lemonade in here!"

Me half an hour ago: "You know, I'm feeling awfully mellow..."

Awwwww of the day

This dog has a guide dog!

Things They Should Study: do linguistic innovation and fashion trends diffuse along the same paths?

My only basis for this hypothesis is a very small sample of empirical evidence. If I pick up fashion ideas from someone, I also pick up word choices from them. I've also noticed that people who might be picking up fashion ideas from me (it sounds egotistical to assert definitively that they are, but there are one or two things I was definitely wearing first) also pick up word choices from me.

Of course, this is all complicated by multiple languages and genders and looks. I pick up all kinds of words and phrases from people whose clothes I'd never wear.

What I would write if I were a journalist

If I had access journalist-calibre resources and research skills, I would do a search of as many media sources as humanly possible to find every instance of "Assuming X% interest", "Assuming an X% return" or synonymous in personal financial advice articles written in, say, the past 10 years before the current economic crisis.

Why? Because I have a hunch that the interest rate assumption was most often 10%. I'd conservatively estimate that the average was close to 8%, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if it approaches 10%.

So why is this relevant? Because, since the economic crisis, especially in reference to the Madoff thingy, I've seen commentators saying that people should have seen that something was wrong because returns were so high, citing returns of around 14%. I can google up this Margaret Wente article and distinctly remember hearing it discussed on Metro Morning around the same time (that would be either Andy Barrie or Michael Hlinka), but I know I've seen it elsewhere too.

Now, I would never have invested in the Madoff thingy because I have no risk tolerance and because I wouldn't have understood how it was supposed to have worked. However, I would have considered those factors personal faults, not indications that there was something wrong with the investment. And despite the fact that I'm so excessively cautious about investment, it never would have occurred to me that the 14% return was a sign something must be wrong. Even if I'd known it was significantly exceeding market averages, I would have just assumed that these people know how to invest properly.

Why would I have thought this? Because I've heard the phrase "Assuming 10% interest" bandied about so often. I've seen it casually and thoughtlessly mentioned in so many financial advice articles that I'm always surprised when I see a more sensible (but still higher than I could ever achieve) 7% used instead. In literally every conversation I've ever been in about what we'd do if we won the lottery, someone would mention investing some portion of the winnings at 10% returns and living off that forever. When I've asked people how, exactly, you get 10% returns, my question has been waved off with an implication that if you know how to invest like a proper grownup, it's easy.

Now, I do see that 10% makes the math easy. However, it doesn't appear to be especially realistic. But I wonder if its pervasiveness as an example led people to take on more financial risk than they can handle with the assumption that they should be getting that level of returns?

I can't stop listening to this song

Take Your Mama - Scissor Sisters

I'm having a relativity crisis

I did my first practicum seven years ago. That's a quarter of my life!

When I did my practicum, I was 21 years old. Seven years before then, I was 14 years old. The difference between 14 and 21 is HUGE. The difference between 21 and 28 not so much.

This is weirding me out more than it should.

Things They Should Study: is there a correlation between childhood stuffed animals and materialism?

When I was in Grade 5, our teacher played John Lennon's Imagine for us. I listened to the song, following along the lyrics sheet, briefly scandalized by the use of the word "hell" but agreeing wholeheartedly with the sentiment. Until we got to the line "Imagine no possessions." Then I was scared: this man obviously wanted to take Smurfy away!

Smurfy is, as you might have guessed, a toy smurf. He has been with me my whole life, and for a good chunk of my life was my best friend - for a few dark years, my only friend. When the world gets too scary, Smurfy is there. After a long day being tormented by my bullies, I'd go to my room, cuddle up with Smurfy, and all would be right with the world. I still have him, and to this day there is a certain shade of comfort that only he can bring.

I'm sure only the most cold-hearted curmudgeon would characterize my relationship with Smurfy as materialistic. And yet, he is, strictly speaking, an object, a material possession, that I am emotionally attached to. The rest of my possessions I like for their function, perhaps combined with their aesthetics. With the exception of a few difficult-to-fit-and-discontinued pieces of clothing, I could do without them or replace them without blinking an eye. But Smurfy I need, and another stuffed animal can't do the job nearly as well. The emotional attachment to an object is there, developed at a very early age.

I know John Lennon didn't really want to take my Smurfy away. I know most people wouldn't characterize a child clutching a stuffed animal as materialistic. I know that whether people characterize me as materialistic will vary according to how much they like me and what point they're trying to prove. And I'm not suggesting or even hinting that parents should deny their children stuffed animals so they don't become materialistic - I would never deny another child the comfort that Smurfy has brought me.

But I can't help but wonder, does this emotional attachment to an object early on lead to materialism later in life? Or, conversely, does it reduce materialism because ordinary consumer goods will never be your best friend like that one stuffed animal is?

Like red but not quite

I own very few pink clothes. In fact, apart from subtle pink eyeshadow (which really is the best neutral for green eyes) I have very few pink things in my life. And for every one of those things I can tell you exactly why I got it despite the fact that it's pink.

My best colours are red and purple, so you'd think I'd have some pink in there as well. But I don't. Why?

Because pink is for girls.

I totally internalized this attitude and haven't even thought about it critically until just now, but my whole life pink has been spoken of disparagingly. It's for girls, it's for babies. Parents throw up their hands in despair when their toddler/preschooler daughter wants to wear girly pink things. People complain of the Barbie aisle being an explosion of pink. If a woman is behaving ditzily and happens to be wearing pink, you can be sure that the pink will be mentioned when the story is retold. Whenever I've been shopping and a salesperson has suggested something pink, I've said without a second thought "No, I'm not really a pink person." Why not? Because I'm not pretty, because I'm not ditzy, because I'm not a dainty blonde.

You know what? Fuck that.

As we all know, dissing or opposing or disparaging or rejecting things because they're allegedly girly leads to a society of assholes. I'm not going to be someone who does that. I don't actively like pink the way I actively like makeup and heels and the other femme trappings I loudly embrace, but my reasons for claiming to dislike it are not valid, so I'm going to give it an equal chance.

I hereby resolve, from now on, I will not relegate pink to a colour of last resort. If I see a suitable clothing item in pink, I'll give it just as much consideration as I would if it were red or purple. I also resolve that to add at least one new pink item to my wardrobe within the next year. (Q: Why such a long timeframe? A: Because I can't reasonably plan on finding a suitable item in any one given colour in any one given season. I'm trying to be realistic.)

If you also find yourself in the position of having automatically and unreflectedly rejected pink because it's for girls, I encourage you to do the same.

Pseudo-Kosher

Whenever I have cow milk and goat milk in the fridge at the same time, one of them goes bad way before it should.

I'm pretty sure it's not a rule of Kosher not to mix cow and goat milk (they seem like they'd be equally-hoofed?) but doesn't it sound like one?

Currently pissing me off

A good part of my politics are based on the thought "What if [bad thing] happens?" I want mechanisms to be in place so that I, and everyone else, can get through the bad thing without too much damage.

But it pisses me off when people work against me politically on the sole or primary basis that they find the "What if [bad thing] happens?" approach pessimistic, and choose to believe that [bad thing] won't happen, because, golly, it just gets them down to plan for bad things! So because of this, they don't want to sacrifice a negligible amount of money or convenience to help build a safety net.

This is particularly irksome because in my adult life the two things I've been most pessimistic about that people have most tried to change my mind about are the following:

1. What if the Great Depression happens again?
2. What if I buy a condo and then soon afterwards unexpectedly need to access the assets invested in it but the value of the condo has dropped in the meantime?

I've been worrying about these things since...I guess it would be 2003, when I read Ten Lost Years and when I started looking at what goes into buying a condo. People tried like crazy to convince me not to worry about them, not to make life decisions based on these possibilities, and certainly not to waste our tax money insisting on a social safety net that would get everyone through these disasters.

And then, a year or two ago...they kind of happened.

And yet, when I'm pessimistic, people still try to talk me out of it and work against addressing it politically.

Anyone know the Sims 3 food icons?

One of my Sims (dude on the right) wants to make Kate Pistachio's (lady on the left) favourite meal. The internet tells me that you find out another Sim's favourite food by chatting until they start talking about food. So I had them chatting and my Sim's thought bubble showed the cartoon icon (like on the Simology page) for his own favourite food. Then Kate came back with this icon.

But I can't tell what it is!

Anyone know which food that's supposed to be the icon for?

Edit: Never mind, I figured it out by going into Create a Sim and looking at the bit where you can edit their food preferences. (Can't believe I didn't think of that right away!) Apparently that picture's supposed to be ratatouille. So, for the googlers: Kate Pistachio's favourite food is ratatouille.

Are we also not wearing enough hats?

I find it presumptuous and just...weird to say that the IUD is being underused in Canada and is "due for a comeback" just because we use it at a lower rate than in other countries.

I use the birth control method that's best for me (i.e. the pill). The IUD doesn't have the primary characteristics I look for in a birth control method (i.e. hormonal and allows for regular monthly menstruation). It's basic human respect to assume that other people are also using the method that's best for them, and if they aren't they'll take it up with their doctor.

Not meeting statistical averages for birth control choices in the general population isn't a problem; leading people to think that this is a problem is a problem.

Things They Should Invent: extreme public service

I've always thought strikes are ill-advised in situations where there isn't a competitor. If Stelco goes on strike you can buy steel from Dofasco, but if the TTC goes on strike it's not like you can take another subway. And when the strikers are public sector, there is the additional disadvantage of stirring up anti-public-service sentiment among the general public.

So here's my idea for a better kind of job action: extreme public service. Ignore the employer's red tape and make things as easy as possible for the public at the expense of the employer.

This idea was inspired by something I read during one of the TTC strike scares, where someone suggested that an effective job action would be for them to stop collecting/enforcing fares. Anyone can just walk into the subway and no one will stop them.

So how does this apply to the current City strike? Garbage collectors could pick up anything, regardless of quantity or whether it's properly sorted and packaged. Perhaps they could also throw recycling and organics in with the regular garbage so the city doesn't get recycling revenues, but the optics of that might be bad. The people in charge of the ferries could waive fares and let anyone go to the islands for free. Social assistance caseworkers could blindly accept every application and grant them full benefits instead of screening people. (The problem is they might have to warn applicants, in case their files get reviewed later.) The people responsible for issuing permits could issue them for free, and the people responsible for enforcing them could casually neglect to do so. I can't think of anything for child care and elder care workers to do, but there must be something.

I don't know anything about the legality of this. It might be illegal or it might be the kind of thing that leads to disciplinary action from the employer (after all, it's like the opposite of work to rule) but it would keep the public on-side while inconveniencing the employer.

This blew my mind several different ways

From City of Toronto Strike blog (but not terribly related to the strike so you can go ahead and keep reading even if you don't like what I generally have to say about the strike):

Today a couple of 40-ish men approached looking festive in not-quite-matching pink shirts and funky shoes. I approached them as we do to be helpful and to avoid line-crashing, and said, “We’re asking people what service they need access to in City Hall because not everything is open due to the strike.” Tax collection and permits for example, are closed; Service Canada, the library, and marriage licenses are open.

One of the men flushed slightly and assured me in a southern American accent, “We know where we’re going is open.” But he didn’t tell me what they were doing inside.

They were going to get married, but they were embarrassed/hesitant/afraid/reluctant to tell people!

Imagine that headspace! You're getting married - like in just a few minutes - but you feel that you can't or shouldn't tell randoms! Personally, if my marriage was so forbidden or socially frowned upon, and I was literally on my way to get married, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. "We're getting MARRIED and there's not a damn thing you can do about it! See this piece of paper? Booyah!" But these guys, even though they're in another country where same-sex marriage is totally allowed and on their way to the actual place where same-sex marriages are performed on a daily basis, still didn't feel they could tell people. That's a bit sad, and yet somehow a bit more romantic.

But then think about it the other way around. You're about to get married to your same-sex partner, and in your headspace your relationship is so socially taboo you don't want to openly admit it even in a foreign country. Then you arrive at City Hall only to find demonstrators hindering access! Then it turns out they don't even blink at your same-sex marriage, they just want to make sure you aren't lining up for a service that isn't open, and maybe pass on some literature about why the City's offer is inadequate. That would be cognitive dissonance.

In any case, congratulations, gentlemen, wherever you are.

Sometimes I just want to curl up and cry

I just want to be able to walk down my own street without hearing anti-labour rhetoric that's so hateful it would be modded out of newspaper comment threads. And this in a neighbourhood that's statistically highrise-dwelling and childless.

Things They Should Study: how does commercial sodium content compare with the amount of salt people use when left to their own devices?

Commercial canned soups tend to have an unhealthily high sodium content. Sodium-free or genuinely low-sodium soups tend to be rather bland and people are inclined to want to add salt.

Research idea: give the subjects sodium-free versions of high-sodium commercial soups, instruct them to add salt to taste, and see how the end result compares with the sodium content of commercial soups.