The most important of the many many things I've learned from Eddie Izzard is how to be brave and confident by admitting your shortcomings upfront. This is something I've just absorbed from watching him, and I haven't been able to articulate to others precisely how or why it works, or why exactly watching Eddie leads me to learn this lesson.
Fortunately, Eddie can articulate it himself:
Monday, October 11, 2010
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Journalism wanted
This article intrigues me, because it might possibly explain some cognitive dissonance I've been experiencing.
Bob Rae became Premier of Ontario when I was 9 years old (1990) and completely politically unaware. He was in power until I was 14 (1995), at which point I had some degree of political awareness. (My 14-year-old self could have convinced someone who believed their own political awareness was above average that she had as much political awareness as the average citizen.) I read newspapers, although I couldn't always completely follow all the complex political stories. I heard opinions from the adults around me. I didn't routinely seek out multiple mainstream and alternative media opinions on issues, but I think this was typical of the time before the internet.
The major barrier to my being able to assess Rae's performance is that he was the first Premier of Ontario I remember so I had no basis for comparison, but I clearly remember (or, at least, am as certain as I can possibly be that I clearly remember) general public sentiment at the time, and general public sentiment is that it was a Really Bad Government. Every political action that I heard of the Rae government taking at the time was met with "This is a terrible idea because of X, Y, and Z."
However, when I go back and read over the Rae government's policies presented as history, they don't seem anywhere near as bad as the public sentiment I remember at the time made them out to be. This has been flummoxing me for quite a while and I've been thinking hard about it. Is there some aspect that's missing from the historical accounts I've read (which, as far as I can tell, are neutral and factual)? Were the adults around me and the headline/lede/general gist of the newspaper articles misinformed or misinforming me?
If what this article is true, that explains everything. It would also be hella terrifying. So I would very much like to know either way if the article is true.
The problem is that the author has a perceived conflict of interest, in that he has been an organizer and candidate for the NDP. I know nothing about the author as an individual and have no specific reasons to doubt his credibility, but his CV suggests partisanship.
I'd very much like to see this article painstakingly fact-checked by someone who is by all standards politically neutral, to the extent that everything is true is footnoted with names and dates. I'm in no way blaming the author for not footnoting - I totally understand it's well beyond the scope and word count of a Globe and Mail article - but we the people need to know with certainty what the truth is.
If this article is true, it sounds like people - some of whom are very loud, some of whom are very influential - are going to denounce it, and basis for that denunciation is going to be that the author is thought of as partisan. And, interestingly, if the article is false, it will produce exactly the same reaction from exactly the same quarters. We need irreproachable, independent verification.
When the NDP won government in Ontario exactly 20 years ago, it constituted the greatest advance for social democracy in North American history.
It’s true that British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba had all elected NDP governments and that progressives had won small victories in various parts of the United States. But none of them (I hope this doesn’t hurt their feelings) mattered in the same way Ontario then did. It was the economic heartland of Canada, the home of much of Canada's industry and finance. What happened in Ontario impacted all Canadians. Now it was under the control of Bob Rae and the New Democrats.
Reflecting this reality, within months Mr. Rae's government faced an unrelenting, brutal four-year onslaught that was unprecedented in Canadian history.
The attacks came from all sides. It is no exaggeration to say hysterical fear-mongering and sabotage was the order of the day. Launched within the very first year of the new government, the attackers included every manner of business big and small, both Canadian and American-owned, almost all private media, the police (especially in Toronto), landlords and lobbying/government relations firms. Their goal was clear, and they had the money and power to achieve it.
They were determined to undermine the government every step of the way, to frustrate the implementation of its plans and to assure its ultimate defeat. In all three goals they were successful. The considerable achievements of the government – often forgotten or dismissed –were wrought in the face of a deep recession and ferocious obstruction.
Bob Rae became Premier of Ontario when I was 9 years old (1990) and completely politically unaware. He was in power until I was 14 (1995), at which point I had some degree of political awareness. (My 14-year-old self could have convinced someone who believed their own political awareness was above average that she had as much political awareness as the average citizen.) I read newspapers, although I couldn't always completely follow all the complex political stories. I heard opinions from the adults around me. I didn't routinely seek out multiple mainstream and alternative media opinions on issues, but I think this was typical of the time before the internet.
The major barrier to my being able to assess Rae's performance is that he was the first Premier of Ontario I remember so I had no basis for comparison, but I clearly remember (or, at least, am as certain as I can possibly be that I clearly remember) general public sentiment at the time, and general public sentiment is that it was a Really Bad Government. Every political action that I heard of the Rae government taking at the time was met with "This is a terrible idea because of X, Y, and Z."
However, when I go back and read over the Rae government's policies presented as history, they don't seem anywhere near as bad as the public sentiment I remember at the time made them out to be. This has been flummoxing me for quite a while and I've been thinking hard about it. Is there some aspect that's missing from the historical accounts I've read (which, as far as I can tell, are neutral and factual)? Were the adults around me and the headline/lede/general gist of the newspaper articles misinformed or misinforming me?
If what this article is true, that explains everything. It would also be hella terrifying. So I would very much like to know either way if the article is true.
The problem is that the author has a perceived conflict of interest, in that he has been an organizer and candidate for the NDP. I know nothing about the author as an individual and have no specific reasons to doubt his credibility, but his CV suggests partisanship.
I'd very much like to see this article painstakingly fact-checked by someone who is by all standards politically neutral, to the extent that everything is true is footnoted with names and dates. I'm in no way blaming the author for not footnoting - I totally understand it's well beyond the scope and word count of a Globe and Mail article - but we the people need to know with certainty what the truth is.
If this article is true, it sounds like people - some of whom are very loud, some of whom are very influential - are going to denounce it, and basis for that denunciation is going to be that the author is thought of as partisan. And, interestingly, if the article is false, it will produce exactly the same reaction from exactly the same quarters. We need irreproachable, independent verification.
Une nouvelle révolution tranquille?
The following is from La langue et le nombril, Chantal Bouchard's fascinating sociolinguistic history of Quebec. The typos, which are undoubtedly legion, are my own:
Rather reminds me of certain aspects of today's political environment.
Wouldn't that be fun?
Septembre 1959. Le premier ministre du Québec, Maurice Duplessis, meurt brutalement des suites d'un attaque ardiaque au cours d'un voyage à Sherfferville. Dans une allocation retransmise à la radio à l'occasion de sa nomination, son successeur, Paul Sauvé, ouvre son discours par le mot: "Désormais..."
Le nouveau premier ministre n'était d'évidence pas le seul à avoir ressenti les dernières années du règne de Maurice Duplessis comme un frein, un blocage qui retardaient l'évolution d'une société en pleine ébullition. La génération montante de jeunes gens plus instruits acceptait de plus en plus difficilement le caractère ultra-conservateur du gouvernment du Québec qui, par ses alliances avec le clergé, d'un part, et la grande industrie anglo-canadienne de l'autre, tentait de perpétuer une structure sociale devenue inadéquate et où les jeunes gens ne trouvaient pas leur place.
Rather reminds me of certain aspects of today's political environment.
Il en allait de même dans le monde ouvrier qui, cherchant à s'organiser, se heurtait à un pouvoir politique répressif. C'est ainsi qu'à l'occasion des grandes grèves de cette époque, de jeunes intellectuels et des ouvriers s'allièrent contre un ordre public devenu intolérable.
Wouldn't that be fun?
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Choosing female titles in English
Lately I've had a number of different people have a number of different kinds of confusion over which female title to choose when writing in English, so I thought I'd put together a bit of a primer.
Please note that, in all cases, no matter what other factors are in play, the stated preference of the individual being referred to takes precedence over any and all other considerations.
Ms. is the English generic, and as a general rule you should only use Mrs. or Miss if you know the person being referred to prefers that form of address.
However, people who are, for whatever reason, naturally disinclined to use Ms. usually aren't comfortable with that guideline. I've found some people's visceral response to my instruction to use Ms. is "Yeah, but..." So here are some more ways of thinking about it to determine if that "Yeah, but..." is founded.
Do you want to use Mrs.? Is the subject married? If so, is the surname with which you want to use Mrs. her husband's surname? If the answer to either of these questions is no, you must not use Mrs. Technically, Mrs. means "wife of" and is used with the subject's husband's name. It is technically incorrect to use it with a surname other than the subject's husband's, so you may not refer to anyone as Mrs. Maidenname. Divorced women may correctly choose to use Mrs. with their ex-husband's surname, but there's too much potential for offence in calling someone who isn't married "Mrs." unless you know her preferences. Women who have a wife rather than a husband may also correctly choose use Mrs. with their wife's surname, but, again, there's too much potential for offence in introducing such patriarchal connotations unless you know her preferences.
Note that Ms. does not imply unmarriedness. It does not presume to comment on marital status.
Do you want to use Miss? Traditionally, Miss means unmarried, but it also has negative connotations for many people. It can be insulting to young women who want to be seen as mature and grown-up, and it can be insulting to older women who don't want to be thought of as spinsters. The most effective way to explain the precise flavour of the negative connotations is to think of Miss as an accusation of virginity. (Yes, this example is in poor taste, but it's by far the most effective way to explain the negative connotations to someone who doesn't grok them.) When you find yourself reaching for Miss, ask yourself: do you think the subject would want people to think that she's a virgin (regardless of whether she actually is)? If you were in her position, would you want people to think of you as a virgin? If the answer is no, you must not use Miss. So if the subject is 12 years old, Miss is probably okay. If she's 30 years old, it would probably be a diss. If she's 18 years old, it would be rather condescending.
Note that Ms. does not imply non-virginity. It does not presume to comment on personal history.
If you're going to get it wrong, Ms. is the best way to get it wrong. Calling a woman Ms. when she prefers something else is like calling a man Mr. when he prefers something else. If it's a mistake, it's a perfectly understandable mistake. For example, suppose you meet a man you know nothing about except that his name is John Smith. So you address him as "Mr. Smith." No problems there. But it turns out Mr. Smith is actually in the military, and is properly addressed as Col. Smith. That's fine, and you'll use it in the future. But you had no way of knowing that going in, so your use of Mr. was perfectly understandable. However, suppose when you meet Col. Smith he's wearing his uniform so you can see he's in the military. But you don't know your rank insignia very well, so you end up calling him Sgt. Smith. That would be a huge diss! Or suppose you remember that he doesn't go by Mr. but don't remember what it is he does, so you take a guess and call him Dr. Smith. That would just be weird! Unless you're absolutely certain of what his actual title is, Mr. is the best way to get it wrong. Similarly, Ms. is the best way to get it wrong.
Pour les francophones: Oui, le titre féminin utilisé par défaut en français est Madame. Mais Madame, dans le sens du titre défaut, ne se traduit pas par Mrs.! Mrs. est manifestement incorrect si la personne en question n'est pas mariée ou n'utilise pas le nom de famille de son mari. Le titre défaut féminin en anglais doit être Ms.
When translating from French to English: Always always always translate Madame/Mme. as Ms., unless you specifically know the subject prefers something else.
Please note that, in all cases, no matter what other factors are in play, the stated preference of the individual being referred to takes precedence over any and all other considerations.
Ms. is the English generic, and as a general rule you should only use Mrs. or Miss if you know the person being referred to prefers that form of address.
However, people who are, for whatever reason, naturally disinclined to use Ms. usually aren't comfortable with that guideline. I've found some people's visceral response to my instruction to use Ms. is "Yeah, but..." So here are some more ways of thinking about it to determine if that "Yeah, but..." is founded.
Do you want to use Mrs.? Is the subject married? If so, is the surname with which you want to use Mrs. her husband's surname? If the answer to either of these questions is no, you must not use Mrs. Technically, Mrs. means "wife of" and is used with the subject's husband's name. It is technically incorrect to use it with a surname other than the subject's husband's, so you may not refer to anyone as Mrs. Maidenname. Divorced women may correctly choose to use Mrs. with their ex-husband's surname, but there's too much potential for offence in calling someone who isn't married "Mrs." unless you know her preferences. Women who have a wife rather than a husband may also correctly choose use Mrs. with their wife's surname, but, again, there's too much potential for offence in introducing such patriarchal connotations unless you know her preferences.
Note that Ms. does not imply unmarriedness. It does not presume to comment on marital status.
Do you want to use Miss? Traditionally, Miss means unmarried, but it also has negative connotations for many people. It can be insulting to young women who want to be seen as mature and grown-up, and it can be insulting to older women who don't want to be thought of as spinsters. The most effective way to explain the precise flavour of the negative connotations is to think of Miss as an accusation of virginity. (Yes, this example is in poor taste, but it's by far the most effective way to explain the negative connotations to someone who doesn't grok them.) When you find yourself reaching for Miss, ask yourself: do you think the subject would want people to think that she's a virgin (regardless of whether she actually is)? If you were in her position, would you want people to think of you as a virgin? If the answer is no, you must not use Miss. So if the subject is 12 years old, Miss is probably okay. If she's 30 years old, it would probably be a diss. If she's 18 years old, it would be rather condescending.
Note that Ms. does not imply non-virginity. It does not presume to comment on personal history.
If you're going to get it wrong, Ms. is the best way to get it wrong. Calling a woman Ms. when she prefers something else is like calling a man Mr. when he prefers something else. If it's a mistake, it's a perfectly understandable mistake. For example, suppose you meet a man you know nothing about except that his name is John Smith. So you address him as "Mr. Smith." No problems there. But it turns out Mr. Smith is actually in the military, and is properly addressed as Col. Smith. That's fine, and you'll use it in the future. But you had no way of knowing that going in, so your use of Mr. was perfectly understandable. However, suppose when you meet Col. Smith he's wearing his uniform so you can see he's in the military. But you don't know your rank insignia very well, so you end up calling him Sgt. Smith. That would be a huge diss! Or suppose you remember that he doesn't go by Mr. but don't remember what it is he does, so you take a guess and call him Dr. Smith. That would just be weird! Unless you're absolutely certain of what his actual title is, Mr. is the best way to get it wrong. Similarly, Ms. is the best way to get it wrong.
Pour les francophones: Oui, le titre féminin utilisé par défaut en français est Madame. Mais Madame, dans le sens du titre défaut, ne se traduit pas par Mrs.! Mrs. est manifestement incorrect si la personne en question n'est pas mariée ou n'utilise pas le nom de famille de son mari. Le titre défaut féminin en anglais doit être Ms.
When translating from French to English: Always always always translate Madame/Mme. as Ms., unless you specifically know the subject prefers something else.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Things They Should Study: do countries' political positions correlate with the strength of their economies?
Quick, name a European country that's having economic problems. Just keep the name of that country in mind when you click the link further down in this post.
A while back, I was pondering the fact that when we hear about European economic problems, we never hear about Scandinavian countries. We keep seeing articles about how this economic crisis shows that the European socialist model is unsustainable, but Scandinavia, which is generally considered the epitome of European socialism, is never mentioned.
Now think of the countries that are mentioned in conjunction with the economic crisis, like the country that you thought of at the beginning of this post.
Now click here to see where European governments fall on the political compass.
At first glance there seems to be a correlation, doesn't there?
I don't have the economic or political knowledge to conduct a proper analysis and determine definitively if there is in fact a correlation. But it would be really interesting if someone who does have the knowledge could do this.
A while back, I was pondering the fact that when we hear about European economic problems, we never hear about Scandinavian countries. We keep seeing articles about how this economic crisis shows that the European socialist model is unsustainable, but Scandinavia, which is generally considered the epitome of European socialism, is never mentioned.
Now think of the countries that are mentioned in conjunction with the economic crisis, like the country that you thought of at the beginning of this post.
Now click here to see where European governments fall on the political compass.
At first glance there seems to be a correlation, doesn't there?
I don't have the economic or political knowledge to conduct a proper analysis and determine definitively if there is in fact a correlation. But it would be really interesting if someone who does have the knowledge could do this.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Things They Should Invent Words For
We need a word for when a government policy doesn't work quite as well as it's intended to, so then, instead of calling for it to be improved, people call for another policy that does the exact opposite.
For example, suppose the government has a "Free widgets for all!" policy that receives wide popular support. But it doesn't work as well as planned. There are delays in distributing the widgets, some people don't get the widgets that are due to them, some of the widgets go missing, etc. So then, next election cycle, people suddenly start calling for widgets to be banned.
That doesn't make sense, does it? Widgets are still good and important insofar as they were ever good and important. The people who didn't get widgets still need widgets. The people who did get widgets still use their widgets. Banning widgets will in no way solve the problems caused by inadequate widget distribution.
And yet, all too often, politics plays out this way. We need a name for this phenomenon.
For example, suppose the government has a "Free widgets for all!" policy that receives wide popular support. But it doesn't work as well as planned. There are delays in distributing the widgets, some people don't get the widgets that are due to them, some of the widgets go missing, etc. So then, next election cycle, people suddenly start calling for widgets to be banned.
That doesn't make sense, does it? Widgets are still good and important insofar as they were ever good and important. The people who didn't get widgets still need widgets. The people who did get widgets still use their widgets. Banning widgets will in no way solve the problems caused by inadequate widget distribution.
And yet, all too often, politics plays out this way. We need a name for this phenomenon.
How does ignorance affect your voting habits?
Yesterday I was playing with a British website from their last election called Vote For Policies. It shows you different parties' platforms on different issues without telling you which platform belongs to which party. You pick your favourite platform for each issue, and then at the end it tells you which parties you've picked. Brilliant idea! I want someone to make something like that for Canada (and ideally for the upcoming Toronto election!)
But what was most interesting about this for me is the effect of my own ignorance on the platforms I chose. I don't know a whole lot about UK politics. The site provided six different platforms, but I could only name four UK political parties going in. I'm certainly not familiar enough with the parties to recognize from their language which platform belongs to whom. (I could sometimes recognize from language choices whether a particular statement was left-wing or right-wing, and I could see some patterns as I went through the quiz, so after I while I could say "This statement I'm reading now was made by the same party that I chose for the last issue", but I couldn't determine that a particular statement originated from the Labour party or whatever.) I'm also rather ignorant of the specific details of political issues in the UK. I couldn't even tell what apparent problem some platform items were meant to address, like at all.
But, at the same time, I'm not 100% ignorant. The UK political system is analogous to ours. (The parties even have the decency to use the same colours!) I can read words and understand things, and many issues are generally universal - money is finite, the economy's a shambles, people need health care, people need jobs, Kids Today are a disgrace. I'm sure I could convince a British person that I'm about as informed as the average citizen if I really had to. (This wouldn't be true, but I could convince someone, especially if they themselves believe that they're more informed than the average citizen.)
So here's where it gets interesting. My results were absolutely linear: the more ignorant I was about an issue, the more right-wing a platform I chose; the more informed I was about an issue, the more left-wing a platform I chose. Absolutely linear, no exceptions, no outliers. It's not the parties I picked that's so interesting, it's how my ignorance affected my choices! This is very informative and incredibly helpful to be aware of.
If you're about as ignorant as me of UK politics, I highly recommend taking the quiz yourself and seeing if any patterns emerge. I find it extremely valuable to know how my own ignorance affects my choices. Maybe you will too.
But what was most interesting about this for me is the effect of my own ignorance on the platforms I chose. I don't know a whole lot about UK politics. The site provided six different platforms, but I could only name four UK political parties going in. I'm certainly not familiar enough with the parties to recognize from their language which platform belongs to whom. (I could sometimes recognize from language choices whether a particular statement was left-wing or right-wing, and I could see some patterns as I went through the quiz, so after I while I could say "This statement I'm reading now was made by the same party that I chose for the last issue", but I couldn't determine that a particular statement originated from the Labour party or whatever.) I'm also rather ignorant of the specific details of political issues in the UK. I couldn't even tell what apparent problem some platform items were meant to address, like at all.
But, at the same time, I'm not 100% ignorant. The UK political system is analogous to ours. (The parties even have the decency to use the same colours!) I can read words and understand things, and many issues are generally universal - money is finite, the economy's a shambles, people need health care, people need jobs, Kids Today are a disgrace. I'm sure I could convince a British person that I'm about as informed as the average citizen if I really had to. (This wouldn't be true, but I could convince someone, especially if they themselves believe that they're more informed than the average citizen.)
So here's where it gets interesting. My results were absolutely linear: the more ignorant I was about an issue, the more right-wing a platform I chose; the more informed I was about an issue, the more left-wing a platform I chose. Absolutely linear, no exceptions, no outliers. It's not the parties I picked that's so interesting, it's how my ignorance affected my choices! This is very informative and incredibly helpful to be aware of.
If you're about as ignorant as me of UK politics, I highly recommend taking the quiz yourself and seeing if any patterns emerge. I find it extremely valuable to know how my own ignorance affects my choices. Maybe you will too.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Salesmanship
A number of times, I've had sales people be very uncomfortably pushy about trying to sell me warranties or protection plans, so I developed a strategy. I tell them that my parents always told me never to pay more than 10% of the purchase price for the protection plan, so if the item fails I'll make my parents replace it for me. None of that is actually true, but it has always worked. I mean, you can't exactly argue with it, can you?
Today the sales guy bested me. When I pulled out the 10% number, he immediately and without missing a beat reduced the price of the warranty down to 10%. So I bought it. I mean, I couldn't exactly argue with him, could I?
Well done to you, sir!
Today the sales guy bested me. When I pulled out the 10% number, he immediately and without missing a beat reduced the price of the warranty down to 10%. So I bought it. I mean, I couldn't exactly argue with him, could I?
Well done to you, sir!
The secret to unhappiness
The secret to unhappiness is wanting other people to feel specific things in specific situations.
This idea originated from this Miss Conduct column. The letter-writer wants her friend to eat and enjoy her food. She wants a specific action and a specific response to that action. Then she's having all kinds of angst because Friend isn't eating her food, or because Friend is eating and enjoying other food. If LW would content herself with everyone enjoying themselves at the get-together, she'd be happy. But because she wants Friend to do something very specific and feel something very specific in response to it, she's unhappy.
Then I saw this Anthony Wolf column. He wants kids to be interested and engaged in non-electronic experiences. The fact that the kid is interested and engaged in a youtube video doesn't make him happy. If the kid were to go mountain-biking and not be interested or engaged, that wouldn't make him happy.
I think people who find themselves wanting others to feel specific things under specific circumstances need to take a step back and ask themselves: do you want the other person to do that particular thing, or do you want them to feel that particular feeling? If you want them to do the thing, give them the opportunity to do the thing and accept that they will experience it in their own way. If you want them to feel the feeling, look for things that will actually make them feel the feeling, not things you think should make them feel the feeling. Otherwise, you'll never be happy.
This idea originated from this Miss Conduct column. The letter-writer wants her friend to eat and enjoy her food. She wants a specific action and a specific response to that action. Then she's having all kinds of angst because Friend isn't eating her food, or because Friend is eating and enjoying other food. If LW would content herself with everyone enjoying themselves at the get-together, she'd be happy. But because she wants Friend to do something very specific and feel something very specific in response to it, she's unhappy.
Then I saw this Anthony Wolf column. He wants kids to be interested and engaged in non-electronic experiences. The fact that the kid is interested and engaged in a youtube video doesn't make him happy. If the kid were to go mountain-biking and not be interested or engaged, that wouldn't make him happy.
I think people who find themselves wanting others to feel specific things under specific circumstances need to take a step back and ask themselves: do you want the other person to do that particular thing, or do you want them to feel that particular feeling? If you want them to do the thing, give them the opportunity to do the thing and accept that they will experience it in their own way. If you want them to feel the feeling, look for things that will actually make them feel the feeling, not things you think should make them feel the feeling. Otherwise, you'll never be happy.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Things They Should Invent: sanitary recycle/reuse of partially-used toiletries
The clutter in my apartment includes half-full bottles of drugstore shampoo from before I went no cone, and sticks of deodorant that I've used only a few times before discovering that they don't work well with my fussy body chemistry.
In the aftermath of the Wellesley fire, the list of needed items included shampoo and deodorant.
Obviously, it would be a grave insult to give the Wellesley fire evacuees my half-empty, partially-used toiletries. That would be arrogant and demeaning and condescending and undignifying.
But the question remains: what can I do with them? I'm never going to use them myself because they make things worse, so basically they'll eventually end up in the garbage at some point. But, at the same time, there are plenty of people - some of whom might even be reading this - who could (objectively speaking and if you eliminated the "Eww, gross, used toiletries!" factor) make perfectly good use of half a bottle of herbal essences or a twice-used stick of deo. They only make things worse for me because of things that are particular to my body chemistry; they'd work perfectly well for plenty of other people.
So what they need to invent is a way to collect partially-used toiletries, sanitize them beyond reproach, and redistribute them (possibly repackaging them too) to people in need. It will unclutter our bathroom cupboards, help people in need, and help save the environment. Win-win-win!
In the aftermath of the Wellesley fire, the list of needed items included shampoo and deodorant.
Obviously, it would be a grave insult to give the Wellesley fire evacuees my half-empty, partially-used toiletries. That would be arrogant and demeaning and condescending and undignifying.
But the question remains: what can I do with them? I'm never going to use them myself because they make things worse, so basically they'll eventually end up in the garbage at some point. But, at the same time, there are plenty of people - some of whom might even be reading this - who could (objectively speaking and if you eliminated the "Eww, gross, used toiletries!" factor) make perfectly good use of half a bottle of herbal essences or a twice-used stick of deo. They only make things worse for me because of things that are particular to my body chemistry; they'd work perfectly well for plenty of other people.
So what they need to invent is a way to collect partially-used toiletries, sanitize them beyond reproach, and redistribute them (possibly repackaging them too) to people in need. It will unclutter our bathroom cupboards, help people in need, and help save the environment. Win-win-win!
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Things They Should Study: what percentage of medical appointments are due to red tape?
Most of the medical appointments I've had in my adult life have been to renew my birth control prescription. Red tape requires that I see a doctor to keep taking the same medication I've always been taking.
My employer requires a doctor's note if you want to get your workstation ergonomized. My insurance requires a note from your primary care physician before it will cover the services of certain specialists.
After getting strep throat every year for most of my life, I can recognize it. However, I still have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for antibiotics.
Gardasil required four doctor's appointments: one to get the prescription, and three to have the doctor administer it.
Apart from a minimal amount of psychiatry, all the medical attention I've received in my adult life has been because of red tape. I didn't actually want or need to go to a doctor, I already knew what I needed, the doctor was just the gatekeeper.
In light of the idea that was recently floating around in Quebec to have patients pay a user fee every time they go to a doctor, I wonder what percentage of all medical appointments are like this? It really is not fair at all to make rules that the doctor has to be the gatekeeper even when you know what you need, and then charge people for going to the doctor.
My employer requires a doctor's note if you want to get your workstation ergonomized. My insurance requires a note from your primary care physician before it will cover the services of certain specialists.
After getting strep throat every year for most of my life, I can recognize it. However, I still have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for antibiotics.
Gardasil required four doctor's appointments: one to get the prescription, and three to have the doctor administer it.
Apart from a minimal amount of psychiatry, all the medical attention I've received in my adult life has been because of red tape. I didn't actually want or need to go to a doctor, I already knew what I needed, the doctor was just the gatekeeper.
In light of the idea that was recently floating around in Quebec to have patients pay a user fee every time they go to a doctor, I wonder what percentage of all medical appointments are like this? It really is not fair at all to make rules that the doctor has to be the gatekeeper even when you know what you need, and then charge people for going to the doctor.
Things They Should Invent: technology to mitigate cognitive decline
The following is a scene from Strangers In Death by J.D. Robb. Relevant to understanding this scene but not relevant to the blog post as a whole: the book is set in the year 2060, Mr. Anders is lying dead in his bed, and Eve is the detective investigating his murder. We join the scene already in progress.
So, if Mr. Anders weren't dead, the computer would wake him up, tell him when and where he is and why it's waking him up, and provide him with breakfast. That would be so helpful to elders in the early stages of cognitive decline!
We already have some of that. I wake up to light, radio, and coffee. We have electronic calendars that will give us pop-up alerts a set time before an appointment. It just needs better coordination. When you enter an appointment into your schedule, that should alert your wakeup system that you need to be awoken, say, 2 hours before the appointment. If you're prescribed a new medication, not only does the pharmacist put it in your pill sorter thing, but you get an alert when it's time to take it (and additional alerts to get you to eat or not eat or whatever the medication requires). People who might not be remembering to eat proper could have a standing order from Grocery Gateway of ready-to-eat/microwavable foods that meet their tastes and nutritional needs. People who are inclined to wander could have the GPS on their phone lead them back to where they need to be.
The biggest concern about the aging population is the cost of caring for elders. One of the biggest reasons for putting elders in expensive, residential care is cognitive decline. If you ask any elder, they'll tell you that they want to stay in their own home as long as possible. This technology is within reach. Someone needs to make it happen.
Behind her, over a gas fireplace where flames simmered gold and red, the view screen popped on."Good morning, Mr. Anders!"
Narrow-eyed, Eve turned to stare at the screen. The computerized female voice struck her as annoyingly perky, and the sunrise colors bleeding onto the screen wouldn’t have been her choice of wake-up call."It’s now seven-fifteen on Tuesday, March eighteenth, twenty-sixty. You have a ten o’clock tee time at the club, with Edmond Luce."
As the computer chirpily reminded Anders what he’d ordered for breakfast, Eve thought: "No egg-white omelette for you this morning, Tom."
Across the room in an ornate sitting area, a miniAutoChef with bright brass fittings beeped twice."Your coffee’s ready! Enjoy your day!"
“Not so much,” Eve murmured.
The screen flipped to the morning’s headline news, anchored by a woman only slightly less perky than the computer. Eve tuned her out.
So, if Mr. Anders weren't dead, the computer would wake him up, tell him when and where he is and why it's waking him up, and provide him with breakfast. That would be so helpful to elders in the early stages of cognitive decline!
We already have some of that. I wake up to light, radio, and coffee. We have electronic calendars that will give us pop-up alerts a set time before an appointment. It just needs better coordination. When you enter an appointment into your schedule, that should alert your wakeup system that you need to be awoken, say, 2 hours before the appointment. If you're prescribed a new medication, not only does the pharmacist put it in your pill sorter thing, but you get an alert when it's time to take it (and additional alerts to get you to eat or not eat or whatever the medication requires). People who might not be remembering to eat proper could have a standing order from Grocery Gateway of ready-to-eat/microwavable foods that meet their tastes and nutritional needs. People who are inclined to wander could have the GPS on their phone lead them back to where they need to be.
The biggest concern about the aging population is the cost of caring for elders. One of the biggest reasons for putting elders in expensive, residential care is cognitive decline. If you ask any elder, they'll tell you that they want to stay in their own home as long as possible. This technology is within reach. Someone needs to make it happen.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
A mission for Toronto language professional, language geeks, and second generation Canadians
One of the many things needed at the Wellesley community centre is interpreters. According to someone who was there on the ground, languages include Arabic, Punjabi, Urdu, Turkish, and Farsi.
I don't know in any official capacity and wasn't there on the ground (and if I'm misconstruing the situation, please do correct me in comments), but based on what I've heard of this situation I don't think an interpreter-quality skill set is necessary. An amateur translator, a second-generation Canadian who can talk to Gramma in the old country's language, or someone with the equivalent of two years' classroom instruction should be able to be of some help.
If this is in your skill set, please do consider popping in to see if you can be of any use. If this is in the skill set of someone you know, please pass on the tinformation.
I don't know in any official capacity and wasn't there on the ground (and if I'm misconstruing the situation, please do correct me in comments), but based on what I've heard of this situation I don't think an interpreter-quality skill set is necessary. An amateur translator, a second-generation Canadian who can talk to Gramma in the old country's language, or someone with the equivalent of two years' classroom instruction should be able to be of some help.
If this is in your skill set, please do consider popping in to see if you can be of any use. If this is in the skill set of someone you know, please pass on the tinformation.
My brilliant new filing system
For years, I've been trying to maintain a filing system where bills and receipts and important documents are sorted into different folders depending on their purpose. It's never worked, because I've always been like "OMG, it's too much work to find the right folder!" (#FirstWorldProblems) and just stuck the document in the front of the drawer to deal with later.
So here's my new system: one folder for each year. Every time I get a new piece of paper I need to keep, I put it in the front of the folder. That's all. So everything's in one folder, but it's basically in chronological order and shouldn't be too difficult to find if I ever need to find it (which I never actually have).
I currently have 7 years of stuff filed, so at the end of the year I just have to grab the oldest folder and shred everything in it, rather than going through every folder or letting stuff I don't need to keep languish and take up space.
I wish I'd thought of this earlier! I really need to learn to embrace my weaknesses more often.
So here's my new system: one folder for each year. Every time I get a new piece of paper I need to keep, I put it in the front of the folder. That's all. So everything's in one folder, but it's basically in chronological order and shouldn't be too difficult to find if I ever need to find it (which I never actually have).
I currently have 7 years of stuff filed, so at the end of the year I just have to grab the oldest folder and shred everything in it, rather than going through every folder or letting stuff I don't need to keep languish and take up space.
I wish I'd thought of this earlier! I really need to learn to embrace my weaknesses more often.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Journalism wanted: contextualize the G20 expenses
Recently in the news: many many dollars were spent at the G20 for many random things.
All the news reports I've seen simply mention large numbers of dollars and the things they were spent on. But what does it actually mean?
For example, they say that $300,000 was spent on sunscreen and insect repellent. Notwithstanding my firm and abiding belief that any undertaking requiring insect repellent should be relocated to somewhere that doesn't require insect repellent, how reasonable an amount is that? How many people was it intended to equip? How much sunscreen and insect repellent did they allocate per person? Is that a reasonable amount to allocate per person? Is that a reasonable amount to spend for that quantity of sunscreen and insect repellent? How much would it go for retail? How much would it go for wholesale/bulk? What SPF did they get? How much DEET did they get?
That would be informative. The dollar amounts without context are practically useless. If I wanted to clutch my pearls because an amount greater than my own net worth was spent on supplies and logistics for a large-scale international event, I'd read the Toronto Sun. Do better, legitimate media!
All the news reports I've seen simply mention large numbers of dollars and the things they were spent on. But what does it actually mean?
For example, they say that $300,000 was spent on sunscreen and insect repellent. Notwithstanding my firm and abiding belief that any undertaking requiring insect repellent should be relocated to somewhere that doesn't require insect repellent, how reasonable an amount is that? How many people was it intended to equip? How much sunscreen and insect repellent did they allocate per person? Is that a reasonable amount to allocate per person? Is that a reasonable amount to spend for that quantity of sunscreen and insect repellent? How much would it go for retail? How much would it go for wholesale/bulk? What SPF did they get? How much DEET did they get?
That would be informative. The dollar amounts without context are practically useless. If I wanted to clutch my pearls because an amount greater than my own net worth was spent on supplies and logistics for a large-scale international event, I'd read the Toronto Sun. Do better, legitimate media!
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Things They Should Invent: "Are you knowledgeable enough to vote?" quiz
I'm really struggling with the fact that I have to vote for a school board trustee. I've looked at all my candidates' websites and have some vague thoughts on the matter, but I don't know enough about the issues affecting TDSB and its students. I'm a generally politically aware person, I've been to school myself, and I've read all the candidates' websites. Is that enough? I have no idea. I've never even set foot inside a TDSB school except when I go into one to vote. There could be vast amounts of stuff I'm missing. I think it's inethical for me to vote if I'm doing it in ignorance, and I think it's inethical for me not to vote if I can do it informedly. And I have no way of knowing whether or not I can do it informedly.
I want someone to make an internet quiz that will tell me (and other people) whether I'm knowledgeable enough to vote. Then I could use that information to either choose not to vote, or educate myself some more. Maybe there could be like a total of 100 questions but the quiz randomly selects 10 each time you take it, so you can study up and take the quiz again, but you have to learn more than just the answer to 10 simple questions.
I want someone to make an internet quiz that will tell me (and other people) whether I'm knowledgeable enough to vote. Then I could use that information to either choose not to vote, or educate myself some more. Maybe there could be like a total of 100 questions but the quiz randomly selects 10 each time you take it, so you can study up and take the quiz again, but you have to learn more than just the answer to 10 simple questions.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The real test for the reliability of fire sprinklers
I blogged before that my concern about having fire sprinklers in my home would be what happens if they malfunction.
Whenever I express this concern, all I get is people telling me "But they don't malfunction," and often trying to convince me of their benefit by saying you get a discount on your insurance premiums if you have sprinklers.
So here's the real test: would those insurance companies who are so proudly offering a discount for sprinklers be willing to cover any damage that comes from malfunctioning sprinklers, without any increase in premium?
Whenever I express this concern, all I get is people telling me "But they don't malfunction," and often trying to convince me of their benefit by saying you get a discount on your insurance premiums if you have sprinklers.
So here's the real test: would those insurance companies who are so proudly offering a discount for sprinklers be willing to cover any damage that comes from malfunctioning sprinklers, without any increase in premium?
What could an adult possibly get out of deliberately upsetting a child?
When I was a kid, various adults (especially from my father's branch of the family) would tease me or pretend to do stuff that would make life unpleasant for me ("accidentally" throw out a valued toy, drive away without me, etc.) or otherwise be rather mean to me. My mother would try to comfort me with the in-retrospect bizarre statement "Don't worry, he's just trying to upset you."
But why was he trying to upset me? Why would an adult deliberately try to upset a child? What would they get out of it? Why is it worth doing?
As a kid, I chalked it up to "grownups are weird". But I'm the same age now as my father was when I was born, and I can't fathom, even for the weirdest and most unpleasant of my peers, what reward or enjoyment or amusement they might get out of upsetting a kid that would make it worth the effort.
But why was he trying to upset me? Why would an adult deliberately try to upset a child? What would they get out of it? Why is it worth doing?
As a kid, I chalked it up to "grownups are weird". But I'm the same age now as my father was when I was born, and I can't fathom, even for the weirdest and most unpleasant of my peers, what reward or enjoyment or amusement they might get out of upsetting a kid that would make it worth the effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)