Rules I would make if I were omnipotent

1. Anyone who uses any sort of allusion to participation in a sex act as an insult or a negative adjective receives a lifetime ban from pleasurable participation in said sex act.

2. Anyone who has being diagnosed with a terminal illness and has less than a year left to live is exempted from all laws and regulations intended to protect their personal health and safety (providing this exemption does not put the health and safety of others at risk).

On religious arbitration

The media's coverage of the Sharia law issue in particular and religious arbitration in general is a tragic failure of semantics.

The real issue was that people who aren't trained to interpret Ontario law were being permitted to make legally binding arbitration decisions. It didn't actually have anything to do with religion, except for the fact that some of the people providing arbitration happened to be religious leaders who were doing it in accordance with their interpretation of their religion.

And now that it's been rescinded, the media is bumbling again by making it sound like people are no longer permitted to get disputes mediated by their religious leaders. That is utterly ridiculous. You can get your dispute mediated by your religious leader, the same way you can get it mediated by your grandmother or your boss or your garbageman. You go to the religious leader, say "Bob and I are having a disagreement. Can you help us work this out?" And some religions might have formal method for doing this, which is their prerogative. The only difference is it's not legally binding. So you and Bob can agree between the two of you to go with whatever the religious leader decides, you just can't sue each other for breach of contract after. If you do want it to be legally binding, you have to get a legal contract drawn up by a lawyer or someone else who is trained in interpreting law, and then it will be legally binding unless it is unlawful in the first place.

Things I Don't Understand: anti-medical-testing sentiment

Ontario recently increased the number of genetic tests that they do on newborn babies, but there are some people who are opposed to this. I'd assume it's for financial reasons or something because, although I don't think money is a good reason, I can't conceive of any other idea why people would be opposed to testing newborns for genetic diseases.

But there are other situations where I've heard of people being opposed to preventive medical testing, and they make less and less sense.

For example, breast cancer. They've identified I think two genes that increase a woman's (I'm not sure whether it also applies to men) risk of breast cancer, but some people are opposed to testing everyone for them unless they already have a strong family history. I don't feel particularly deprived that I don't get this test because there has not been a single instance of breast cancer in my family, but it certainly wouldn't bother me if my doctor proposed testing me for breast cancer genes.

It also came up a few years ago that breast self-exams are ineffective when you look at it from a statistical perspective. Since this happened I've noticed that my health care providers have been putting less emphasis on encouraging me to examine my breasts, but I've also noticed a small but vocal "Self-exams are BAD!" contingent. I don't understand that. It takes 30 seconds in the shower once a month, and consumes no resources whatsoever. Not actively encouraging women to examine their breasts is one thing, but actively discouraging it? WTF?

Then there's pregnancy tests. There was talk a while back of systematically giving every girl and woman of potentially fertile age a pregnancy test when she is admitted to the hospital or ER, just to make sure she isn't pregnant. Some people thought this was HORRIBLE to do without the woman's consent, and particularly horrible to do to underage girls without their and their parents' consent. Personally, if I were underage and in distress and admitted to the hospital with my overprotective parents by my side (and they'd probably be more overprotective than usual because I was hurt), I would much rather have them take some blood or urine and just quietly test it than have them ask me the (embarrassing when you're a young teen) questions of "Are you pregnant? Is it at all possible that you might be pregnant? How do you know? What makes you say that? Are you sure?" If I'm in the hospital for something of which the treatment could have an effect on a potential pregnancy, they're going to be taking blood and/or urine anyway, so they may as well just test for pregnancy and spare me the Spanish Inquisition.

On a similar note, there's STD (or do I have to say STI now?) tests. I am systematically tested for STDs every year when I get my pap smear, and for certain STDs every time I give blood. I have no problem with this. I know that there is no possible way that I have an STD, but if they want to test for it, fine. What they do with my blood or pap culture in the lab has no effect whatsoever on me, and this improves my credibility every time I say "There's no possible way I have an STD," and the test comes back negative, corroborating my statement. But I've heard of people getting INSULTED and OFFENDED at the idea of their being tested for STDs. Why? The test doesn't give you an STD. It doesn't change your morals or your sexual behaviour. In fact, it provides documentary evidence supporting that you are representing your sexual behaviour correctly.

So why does the idea of the blood lab running more tests than the patient thinks are strictly necessary bother people so much?

Heir to the Glimmering World by Cynthia Ozick

I'm not quite sure what to make of this book. I'm not quite sure why it has the title that it does. Any assessment that I might make is overshadowed by the fact that, throughout the second half of the book, random chapters narrated by an omniscient narrator suddenly pop up. The ostensible first-person narrator is the protagonist, but these random third-person chapters contain information about other people that she could never have known. It really made me think that the author lost control of the story.

The plot itself is okay, but nothing I'm too enthusiastic about. I don't really care that much about the characters, and I don't think I'd ever pick up the book again - not out of dislike, but simply because I already read it. I guess this book didn't work on me.

Vendange Chardonnay

This is one of those new tetrapak wines. I have to admit, I felt funny buying it. Like I was being all uber-cheap or something (although it isn't really that cheap - it's $6.95, but it only contains 3 glasses). It reminds me of a drinking box more than anything else, and makes me feel like I'm trying to sneak around, trying to hide the fact that I have wine. I felt vaguely embarrassed about the whole thing.

The wine itself is okay. it's less complex than Chardonnay normally is, but I wasn't expecting too too much because the wine is in a freaking drinking box!

I wouldn't mind this wine if for some reason I wanted to have wine in a situation where it isn't convenient to have a bottle, but it isn't good enough to sell me on the whole tetrapak thing.

Things They Should Invent: cliché carbon dating

When was the last time a safe or a piano fell?
When was the last time people regularly set pies out on windowsills to cool?
When was the last time doctors wore those reflector things on their heads?
When was the last time professors wore academic robes to class?
When was the last time nurses wore nurse costumes instead of scrubs?
When was the last time daily newspapers were regularly delivered by children?
When was the last time people ran away with a bundle tied to the end of a stick?
When was the last time old ladies and housewives regularly wore curlers in the middle of the day?

This blog entry is brought to you by REM sleep

Here are some thoughts on other people's reactions to the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina. I wasn't originally planning on blogging this, but last night a recurring theme in my dreams was that it was absolutely vital that I get this blogged. (These dreams also had cheat codes and easter eggs, so I'm not sure what that means.)

1. Some people say it's tacky and partisan to go around placing blame on the US government at a time like this. However, I think it's very pragmatic to loudly and vehemently blame any relevant government officials for any shortcomings whatsoever. Why? Because if they get a lot of loud blaming, then they and any future governments will put higher priority on disaster prevention and relief, because they know how much blame they'll get if their response is anything less than impeccable.

2. Some people say it's unreasonable to expect everyone to have been rescued. After all, it's not like they can push a button and instantly deploy resources to rescue hundreds of thousands of people. Again, I think that, pragmatically, people should go on loudly complaining about the slowness of the response and the fact that not everyone was rescued. Complain enough, and they're sure to come up with some way to rescue hundreds of thousands of people at the push of a button.

3. There has been talk of abandoning/relocating New Orleans. Then there have been other people who say that's ridiculous - you don't abandon San Francisco because there's an earthquake. I think this is apples and oranges. The thing about New Orleans is it's underwater! The only reason it isn't normally flooded is because of human-created technology. I haven't been able to find out how it got there in the first place ("Hmmm...this would be a perfect place for a city - we just have to move all this water!") but the fact is it isn't naturally habitable land. San Francisco might be on a fault line, but it's not like people could tell when settling there. However, whoever came to New Orleans first must have noticed it was under water, so it's a far less natural place to settle.

Angst! Drama! Eyewear!

I want big movie-star sunglasses, like is just becoming trendy right now. Unfortunately, there are none of those in my price range.

I want small, subtle, feminine indoor glasses. Unfortunately, the only pair that looks decent on me is too big.

I don't know what I did to get such bad karma.

I am terribly cranky about this. Although that might be because I spent 10.5 hours wearing really high heels (My motto: If you can't be assertive, then be six feet tall) and I haven't had my dinner yet.

Mash-up bunny

Someone should do a mash-up of Abba's Fernando with Cake's Perhaps Perhaps Perhaps (which, I know, is a cover of a Spanish-language song called Quizas Quizas Quizas, but I don't know if the Spanish version is musically compatible).

I don't know if they're in compatible keys, but the section of Fernando that starts with "There was something in the air that night..." reminds me of the section of Perhaps Perhaps Perhaps that starts with "If you can't make your mind up..."

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel by Susanna Clarke

This book is not really compelling enough for its length. It clocks in at 782 pages, but it was quite easy to put down. I didn't mind reading it in situations where I normally read, like on the subway, at lunch, during commercial breaks, in waiting rooms, but I didn't really feel compelled to pick it up at other times. This isn't necessarily a problem, but when a book is almost 800 pages long, the reader should want to know what happens next.

The book is about magicians, and one thing that really bothered me was that the rules of magic weren't clearly definied. I'm used to reading magic in the Potterverse where the rules and limits of magic are quite clear, so it was a bit odd having no idea whatsoever what the magicians might do to resolve a particular problem.

Now that I think about it, it would be cool to see a Harry Potter/Strange & Norrell crossover. The two universes are mostly reconcilable - there's just the tricky use of Faerie in the Strange & Norrell universe. There's a challenge for a fanfic writer: reconcile Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell so that it fits into the Potterverse.

Pelee Island Eco Trail

I don't know why it's called "Eco Trail". It's a blend of Vidal and Pinot Blanc, neither of which I'm terribly familiar with, but I quite enjoy the end result. It's very refreshing - a patio wine. I don't know what's "Eco" about it though.

I think this is the opposite of schadenfreude

Several things are causing me moderate amounts of angst/drama/stress right now. Cumulatively, this puts me in a cystic acne/greying hair/yelling at inanimate objects when I'm alone/trying not to snap at people/tempted to eat salt, fat and sugar and drink an extra glass of wine sort of mood.

The problem is, the situations that are exposing me to these stressful things are all situations that I am quite fortunate to be in. Many people are not this fortunate, and I'm sure that the people I generally confide in would be thinking "Oh, that I should have such problems!" (although they are certainly decent enough not to say it to my face). They are actual stressors - valid concerns and difficult situations, not "Boo hoo, our million-dollar home is on a golf course!" but I still feel that I shouldn't be worrying. I can hear some indefinite nagger saying "Just do something, deal with the outcome, and stop bitching!" Which, of course, makes me more stressed thinking that I shouldn't be feeling stressed.

Nutrition question

Can a person survive on empty calories alone?

For example, suppose you're stranded somewhere with no food, but an infinite supply of, say, high-calorie cola beverages. This will obviously provide for your hydration needs (it's not as good as water, but it isn't 100% diuretic) and it will provide a lot of calories, but no nutrients. So would you still starve to death, or would you survive? I realize eventually you'd get vitamin deficiencies, but would the end result of living only on cola beverages be closer to living on only one type of food, or living on only water?

Help identify the mystery comic strip character!

In the 75th anniversary Blondie comic strip, who's the blue guy with the yellow nose standing the the left (our left, his right) of Hagar?

He's in the back row of the right-hand group, sort of just over Alexander's shoulder. Look at Blondie, then Alexander, then keep moving your eyes to the right and you see Blue Guy, then Hagar, then Ziggy, etc. Who's the blue guy?

Charming

When people are charming, are they charming intentionally?

I have no idea, because I don't know how to be charming. I don't think I've ever been charming in my life.

But some people can be charming, and sometimes they're only charming some of the time. Is it an intentional decision? "I think I'll be charming now," the same way I might decide "I'm going to act grown up and professional now." Do they have an actual process they follow? "Okay, I'm being charming, so I should shake hands and smile and say such and such." Or is it all intuitive?

Water purification after a flood

How does water purification work? I know there is such thing as water purification tablets. I know there is such thing as portable water purification facilities. But I haven't heard any talk of sending water purification equipment to the areas affected by the hurricane to purify the flood waters for drinking purposes. Is this not possible? What am I missing?

Moral authority

Daou Report has a lot of interesting things to say about US politics and moral authority.

I have something small to add to all this.

The impression I get, as a foreigner watching this from the outside (albeit from ringside seats), is that those in power in the US think they have moral authority because they are Americans. It really seems to me that current US foreign policy is based on the tacit assumption that "Hey, we're the good guys!" It's like they don't feel the need to give any thought to making sure that they maintain moral authority, because, hey, they're the hero of the movie, they're the cowboys in white hats. Of course they're the good guys!

I think they could use a lesson or two on noblesse oblige from Professor Dumbledore.

Other people are poor!

Xoverboard gives words to something I've been trying to articulate for years: some people just don't understand that other people are poor!

This goes beyond just immediate current events into something that's been bugging me my entire life. My father would often go on rants about how a family of four on welfare would get as much money in a month as my mother used in a month for household expenses. I am not in a position to confirm these numbers, and I don't know if the statement is still applicable today, but even if it is true the fact remains that people on welfare don't have assets! My parents have a house with a paid-off mortgage and a paid-off car, a job with pension and benefits, credit cards, a good credit rating, RRSPs, and an unknown (but, judging by empirical evidence, appreciable) amount of investments.

On welfare, you cannot have assets. It's not allowed! You can't have social assistance if you have more than $200 in assets! (And I cannot think of a single place below the tree line where $200 could buy you a month's rent in any sort of accomodation whatsoever).

You simply can't compare $X per month with appreciable assets to $X per month with no assets. There's a huge difference, and this really hit home from me when I realized that I could easily evacuate by hopping on the next plane to anywhere.
When you have assets, you have options. You may live like a monk on a day-to-day basis, but when an emergency occurs, you can throw money at it and make the problem go away. People on welfare can't do that.

When I was in university, my wallet was stolen just before a long weekend. I had no money, no ID, no TTC tokens, no way to get cash, and nowhere near enough food to get through the weekend. So I called my parents. They used their nice, paid-for car to drive an hour to get me and an hour back. I used their computer (bought with a discount through my father's work) and internet access (a benefit of my father's job) to download the appropriate forms to replace my ID. Then their neighbour, who has known me since I was a baby, was kind enough to sign my forms as a guarantor. My mother then handed me $200, in cash, to tide me over until I got my ID and bank cards replaced.

People on social assistance wouldn't have a car, and poor people with a car would have to think long and hard about whether they can afford the gas for an unexpected two-hour trip. They probably would not have a computer - they'd have to go to a public library or wait until the long weekend was over and stand in line at a government office (both of which are hard when your transit tokens are also gone). Unless they live in a really mixed neighbourhood and socialize with people in other buildings, they aren't going to have neighbours who hold jobs that make them suitable guarantors. And that $200 my mother so kindly gave me, probably without even thinking twice? That is all you're allowed to have in the world if you're on social assistance. If she'd handed me another $20, even if there was nothing in my bank account, I would have been considered too rich for social assistance. Things are different when you have assets.

The other thing that better-off people have is stuff. All my furniture came from my parents' house. They both lived independently before getting married, so they had enough extra furniture to furnish my apartment. Therefore, I didn't have to worry about "Can I afford furniture?" Poor people don't have extra perfectly good furniture sitting around. If they did, they'd sell it. So if their furniture breaks, they have to replace it or do without. If their kid moves out, they have to find their own furniture or do without, thus making it that much harder for their kid to achieve adult independence.

Having a decent-paying job, I buy clothes as particular items strike my fancy. Therefore, I have far more clothes than strictly necessary in my closet - many of which I never wear because they have become slightly worn or unfashionable or I have acquired something else I like better. If I had a financial disaster and could not afford to buy new clothes, I would probably be good for at least a year before I started to have gaps in my wardrobe. I would look less fashionable, less attractive, and more threadbare, but I'd have enough clothes to get me through. If my boots become unwearable and I can't replace them, I can always wear my old boots. They're a bit worn out, but I could make do if necessary. Poor people don't have this option. If they have a disaster that eats up what clothing budget they have, and then their boots become unwearable, they'll just have to do without boots. They can't tap into their savings or withdraw a GIC early or wait until their next payday - they simply have no way to get new boots.

Other people are poor.

It's really quite humbling to think about.

Variations on the theme of looting

Interesting point on language use. I'll have to watch that in media coverage in the future.

I don't think the word "looting" should apply to taking food, water, batteries, and other necessities for oneself and one's dependents (in the functional sense of the word rather than the legal sense). That should be forgiven. Ideally one should anonymously send a bit of cash and an apologetic explanation to the store owner afterwards, but even if one doesn't it's easily forgiveable. This is "finding."

Then we need another level called "taking". This is for things that aren't necessities, but are quite important to help in the crisis. One of those solar/crank-powered radios, deodorant, a toy or book to amuse the kids, even a toy or book to amuse yourself if you're in a position where you have nothing else to do but wait. To do this in a civilized manner, you shouldn't break and enter (enter somewhere that's already broken into and don't do any further property damage) and make sure to leave some money or send some money as soon as possible. And, of course, if any stores are open, you should buy from them in the normal manner.

The word "looting" should only count when taking something for pure profit or to take advantage of the situation. Home electronics, jewelry, designer clothing that is not strictly needed, huge quantities of food or other necessities with the intent to set up a black market, etc. This one should be looked upon shamefully.

It's one thing to steal necessities when all the stores are closed and there's no way to buy them legitimately. It's quite another thing to approach a natural disaster with the attitude "How can I profit from this?"

How to evacuate in style

Hurricane Katrina has me wondering what I'd do if I had to evacuate the city. Neither I nor any of my friends in the city have cars, and I really can't see hitchhiking.

Then I realized I'm going about it all wrong.

Assuming there's a day or two warning, I would pack a suitcase, grab my emergency credit card, and head straight to the domestic terminal of the airport. I would then get on the first available flight to anywhere. Land in some city, check into a decent hotel for a couple of nights, and wait out the storm with movies and room service.

Yes, I know not everyone has the means to do that, but now this is off my "to worry about" list.

Killed and injured or wrongfully detained?

In a Letter to the Editor in the Globe and Mail, one Teck Yap asks: "Would you rather see some people wrongfully detained or many people killed or injured?" [That is the entire text of the letter as it appeared in print.]

I cannot answer that question unless someone can first clearly demonstrate to me that this is an either/or situation - that detaining people without full proof etc. actually does prevent people from being killed an injured. Then it's a question of the details of how many people are detained vs. killed and injured, and the exact conditions of the detentions, deaths and injuries.

However, I can tell you that I, personally, would rather be killed or injured than wrongfully detained.

Why? Well, if I were wrongfully detained it is quite likely that I would be sexually humiliated, maybe even sexually assaulted, and kept in a cell where bugs would crawl all over me, all this for an indefinite period of time. I would come out permanently damaged psychologically, unable to support myself or contribute effectively to society, and would spend the rest of my days looking for an opportunity to commit suicide, if I were not tortured to death during my wrongful detention.

I would find it a much more desireable fate to come to a quick and painless end, or even a bloody and dirty end without ever having to be sexually humiliated, sexually assaulted, or have bugs crawl all over me.

Academic year conspiracy theory

I think universities begin their school year in early September because the campuses are still lush and green and the weather is quite pleasant. One can sunbathe and enjoy the outdoors and sit on patios into the long evenings enjoying one's newfound right to imbibe freely.

Then the air becomes cool and crisp and the leaves turn, invoking cultural nostalgia for archetypal academia - sweaters, coffee, stimulating intellectual discussion. The very act of going to a lecture or writing a paper seems somehow glamorous.

Then, by the time the leaves fall and daylight savings time ends and the cold drives students from the lush, manicured campus grounds into their tiny, bleak res rooms, it is too late to drop the whole thing and get one's money back.

Questions arising from New Orleans

1. Apparently the roads heading out of New Orleans are all gridlocked. Question: How, logistically, does that happen? Everyone is trying to go a very long distance in the same direction at the maximum speed possible. So how does that lead to everyone being stuck?

2. When a city must be fully evacuated, is there some provision for people who don't have cars?

It's not a bridge!

We (or at least the Torontonians among us) have all seen the picture of that section of Finch Ave. that collapsed during that crazy rainstorm a couple weeks back.

I always thought the collapsed section was a bridge.

Turns out it wasn't a bridge! Check out these before, during and after photos! It may have been a culvert, I'm not sure, but from the perspective of someone standing on the street, it looked like perfectly ordinary street that was level with the ground!

I never thought I'd have to worry about apparently solid ground collapsing beneath my feet like a bridge!

How much I hate radio commercials

Despite the huge drop in programming quality resulting from the CBC lockout, I still find it a better radio station to listen to in the morning simply because it doesn't have any commercials! I can't stand radio commercials! I'm not sure whether it is ethical for me to be listening to it during the lockout (I'm a union member myself and I don't want to scab), but I have listened to it a few times, and despite the sheer mediocrity and lack of the usual interesting and informative programming, it is still far better than the aggravation of listening to the commercials on commercial radio.

Parents and respect: a reality check

One of the things I find most unpleasant about parents (and, I would like to emphasize, by "parents" I'm not referring to anyone specifically; I am thinking more of a generalized aggregation of all the parents, real and fictional, with whom I am familiar) is that many of them - or perhaps a very vocal minority - seem to think they deserve an inordinate amount of respect, from their children and from societym just for being their parents.

Of course, everyone deserves a certain amount of respect. We all start at the "basic human respect" level, and then gain or lose points based on our actions. However, some parents don't seem to have an accurate notion of how many respect points they deserve. Therefore, in the shower this morning, I created this handy guide:

Bringing a child into the world: No points by default, although the child has the discretion to grant you as many points as they wish. "But but but..." No. See, the thing is, the child didn't ask to be born. I know that for some people being alive is a great wonderful exciting privilege. If that is the case, I envy you your joyful life. But for others it isn't particularly positive, and may even be negative. A great many people, if asked "How would you feel if you had never been born?" would reply "Well, I really wouldn't care, would I?" So it is possible that you might get points for this, but it is entirely up to your child, so don't depend on it.

Providing a child with the necessities of life: For succeeding in providing the child with all the necessities, you get exactly as many points as you get for providing yourself with all the necessities, because this is simply the most basic of duties, not some great heroic action. However, if you fail to provide the child with all the necessities, you lose more points than you would lose for failing to provide for yourself, because the child has even less control over the situation than you do.

Doing things that are not necessary, but that you think are good for the child: The level of respect you get from society will increase or decrease based on how good society thinks these things are. The level of respect you get from the child will increase or decrease based on how much benefit the child feels they are getting. This means that if the child doesn't like eating a diet completely free of fat or sugar or going on month-long camping trips during mosquito season to build character, you are going to lose respect points from the child, no matter how valuable you believe these actions are.

Actions or parenting policies that lose the child respect from their peers: Society will judge this on a cost-benefit basis, but the child will judge it solely based on what they have to put up with in the playground. I will explain this with an analogy. Several times I have heard people (both parents talking about their children and non-parents talking about their future children) say something along the lines of, "In principle, don't mind the idea of them indulging moderately in various minor controlled substances, but there is the tricky matter of my being held legally accountable for whatever goes on in my own home." Similarly, whatever parenting policies you implement, your child is going to have to pay for on the playground. For example, you might think it's good and frugal to buy clothes only at the discount store, and, after all, your kids should be taught not to set great store by appearances anyway, but the fact remains that if your child's classmates have decided that wearing discount store clothes is a spit-worthy offence, your child is going to be spat on. Their respect for you will decrease accordingly, because they see you as the one who put them into this situation. Society will be a little more lenient, however, and will likely forgive you if you could not reasonably have known.

Teaching your child stuff: This depends on what you are teaching your child. If you are teaching them skills, or stuff that is generally considered by society as a whole to be "good", you gain points - both from child and from society. If you teach them stuff that is generally considered by society to be bad, you lose points for brainwashing your child - and you lose extra points from your child for making them into a social misfit against their will. If you teach your child a skill that they would have been taught anyway, you only get points for the extra period of time that they know this stuff. For example, if you teach your child to read at age 3, but in normal school they would have been taught to read at age 5 anyway, you only get two years' worth of points, rather than a lifetime's worth. But if you teach them a skill they would never have learned otherwise, you gain a lifetime's worth of points. This category also includes situations where you arrange to have your child taught by a trained professional.

Paying for your child's post-secondary education: This really depends on the situation. Any points gained are automatically lost if you use the fact that you are paying for their education to attempt to control the minutiae of your adult child's everyday life. Points are gained if you paid for it unconditionally. However, you gain fewer points - and it moves closer to "providing for the necessities of life" - if you have in any way, intentionally or unintentionally, hindered your kid's ability to pay for it themselves. It then becomes less a source of extra respect and more basic human decency. For example, if you insisted upon taking long family vacations every year and would not allow your kids to stay home over the summer to work, you are then obligated to make up for the difference and chip in yourself. If you make so much money that your child cannot get student loans, you'll have to either co-sign on a private loan or help them out yourself. Intentionally hindering your child's education loses more points than contributing to your child's education gains.

There were more things I wanted to put, but I forgot.

Brilliant Ideas that will Never Work: rapprocher toutes les langues du monde

In order to make it easier for future generations to learn foreign languages, whenever a new object or concept is invented, it should be given the same name in every language. Overcoming the millions of sociopolitical barriers to this policy is left as an exercise for the reader.

The problem with updating live

Click on the image above to see a screenshot of the CP24 website as it appeared on August 23, 2005, at 12:28 p.m. EDT.

I have not altered the picture at all - any forensic graphics geeks out there can confirm that. I think blogger converted it a .jpg, but I uploaded it as a bitmap.

This shows the problem of updating your website live instead of updating the whole thing then uploading all at once.

(For those who don't follow Toronto current events: the blonde woman is convicted - and recently released - rapist and serial killer Karla Homolka. The caption does not refer to her - it linked to a story about a completely unrelated sexual assault case.)

"I wish I hadn't given it up"

I've heard tell of grownups who took music lessons when they were a kid, then gave it up, and then as grownups were all regretful that they'd given it up. When I was young, I was not allowed to stop taking piano lessons because an aunt or some other random relative regretted having given it up as a kid.

So why don't these grownups just take up music again and stop complaining? It's not that hard - your starter keyboard or guitar can be had for a few hundred dollars, and sheet music is readily available commercially, on the internet, and in public libraries.

Philosophizing

Something I was pondering today. While I've tried to phrase it so that it's more universally applicable, I'm afraid my roots are still showing:

Self-control and "good"ness are often associated with each other, the conventional wisdom being that human beings are not naturally "good" and we need to apply self-control in order to be "good". (For the purpose of this example "good" means precisely whatever the reader thinks it does.)

Suppose for a moment there is a person who requires no self-control whatsoever to be "good". They simply wander through life, doing whatever it occurs to them to do at any given time, and the results are entirely, without exception, "good". There's no self-control, no self-discipline, no self-denial, no effort. Everything they do is "good" because it simply does not occur to them to do anything that's considered less than perfectly "good".

Now suppose there's another person who is also "good" for their entire life, every word and every deed. However, this person has to make a continuous, concerted, deliberate, conscious effort to be "good". If they did whatever it occurred to them to do - like the first person does - everything they did would be completely "bad". However, they want, for whatever reason, to be "good", so they exercise self-control, self-discipline, self-denial at every turn, and as a result their actions all end up being "good".

So which of these two people is ultimately more "good"?

Youthful hijinks

In cases where respectable, well-established older/middle-aged people committed minor crimes or misdemeanours (in the general sense of the word) in their youth, these incidents are often casually written off as "youthful hijinks". This is not always unjustified, as I'm sure everyone would agree that decades of positive contributions more than make up for, say, an isolated pre-teen shoplifting incident.

However, there are some problems with this attitude.

The first problem is that the fact that a misspent youth is so easily, so casually written off, that it completely devalues a person's youth itself. So people whose youth was productive and respectable get no credit for it! I'm not saying that we should all live or die by our high school years, but it's got to be frustrating to see, say, your adolescent tormentor get treated as just as much of a good person as you are, despite the fact that they made everyone's life a living hell for 10 years while you put up with that living hell to be a model student and citizen.

The second problem is that writing off the behaviour of youth of the past also writes off the value of youth of the present. The tacit assumption of the "youthful hijinks" excuse is "they didn't know what they were doing because they were young." This then leads to the assumption that young people in general don't know what they are doing, thus immediately devaluing the actions and thoughts and ideas and goals of young people. If someone's youthful criminal record can be dismissed with a wave of the hand as inconsequential because they didn't know what they were doing, then a young person's desire to start a business or get married or pursue an unorthodox career path can be dismissed just as readily, as a young person who doesn't know what they're doing. Just a phase.

The result of these two problems is that it disenfranchises the youth of today. They see that by the time everyone is 35 nothing they did will "count" any more, and they see that anything they do now will be written off as "they don't know what they're doing". So why make the effort? People with a very active desire to be a good person and a good citizen will still make the effort - although they might not get the credit for it that they should - but people who favour the path of least resistance certainly have no motivation to better themselves.

"It's just a phase!"

Parents say this all the time about children, and the implication is that the things that are important to the child shouldn't be taken seriously because the child might outgrow them. Sometimes the implication is even that it's wrong for the child to be interested in something because they won't necessarily be interested in it forever.

That's utterly ridiculous. Just because a person won't be AS enthusiastically interested in something for their entire life doesn't mean that it's of no value right now!

Think of the music you listened to in high school. Think how important it was to you then, how much it contributed to your life, how much value it had. Is that same music still as important to you right now? Maybe, maybe not. But if it isn't, that doesn't negate the fact that it was important back in high school. Just because your musical needs were different then doesn't negate the fact that certain music filled those needs.

Grownups go through phases too. My father goes through phases about what beverage he drinks with his meals. For a while he drank milk, then orange juice, then tomato juice, then water...I don't know what he's drinking now because I no longer live with him, but in general he drinks one thing exclusively for a while, then changes. I'm sure that if he asked for a glass of water no one would say "Pshhh! That's just a phase!" in a tone that implies that he really shouldn't be asking for a glass of water because when he's older he's going to want something else to drink with his meal. Even if he never feels like a glass of water again in his life, that does not negate the fact that he would like one right now.

Cool thing about Sims 2

In Sims 2, if a child gets taken away from a family by a social worker, then another family asks to adopt a child, they'll get the kid that was taken away from the first family!

Because I like this quiz

You are Samwise Gamgee

A brave and loyal associate full of optimism, you remain true to your friends and their efforts, to whatever end.

But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer.

Samwise is a character in the Middle-Earth universe. You can read more about him at TheOneRing.net.

Ethical dilemmas

1. Living alone and eating out for five meals a week, I cannot eat a head of lettuce before it goes bad. Is it more ethical to buy salad in a bag, thus increasing my ecological footprint and creating demand for imported and packaged produce, or to buy lettuce in heads and end up throwing away food on a regular basis?

2. In the summer, I close my curtains so that the sunlight doesn't warm my apartment. However, sometimes I need light to see what I'm doing. Is it better to open my curtains, thus causing my apartment to heat up and creating more work for the air conditioner, or to turn on a light, thus using electricity by having a light on in the middle of the day?

3. Sometimes I can't finish a library book by the due date, and the overdue fine amounts are painless to me. Does the fact that I am giving money to the library - a very worthy cause! - compensate sufficiently for the inconvenience I am causing to my fellow citizens by keeping books too long? Is there a threshold number of days/amount of money at which this changes?

4. I have distributed computing software on my computer that is working to cure cancer. Does this justify the increased environmental footprint of leaving the computer on when I'm not using it? Is there a threshold in the balance between electricity demand and computing power where this changes?

5. I've injured my foot slightly. It's basically the minimum injury that would cause me to take care of it and attend to it - any less injury and I would be blithely ignoring it. However, the injury hasn't done much damage to my pace - I'm still passing the majority of the able-bodied people I'm sharing the sidewalk with. The only visible manifestations of my injury are a slight limp and the fact that I'm wearing runners instead of heels. However, I do need to take care of my foot so it doesn't get worse. Does this make me more entitled to a seat on the subway than the average able-bodied person?

Zonin Terre Palladiane Soave

This is the first Soave I've ever tried. I read that the word Soave means "smooth" in Italian. The wine is mostly smooth, but it has a bit of a taste at the end that I can only describe as "nutty" - nutty in the way Swiss Cheese is nutty, not nutty like actual nuts. It's pretty decent, but I didn't find it really superlative.

Sleep poll

This is a poll. Please respond in the comments. Anonymous comments are welcome in polls.

Apparently, it takes the average person seven minutes to fall asleep. I find this difficult to believe.

How long does it take you to fall asleep?

It takes me like 2 hours.

Things They Should Invent: Partial Marriage Contracts

The institution of marriage has a lot of different aspects. There's the romantic aspect. There's the forever aspect. There's the fact that spouses are automatically each other's next of kin. There's the fact that they are to be treated as a unit, legally and socially. There's the fact that they live together. There's the fact that they often have children together.

However, sometimes a person might be in a relationship that has some of these aspects, but not all. This kind of relationship, even though they are likely the most important relationship in the person's life, has no legal or social status. You might want to share a home or raise a child with someone, but not want a romantic relationship with them. You might want to be legally considered a household unit, but not want the obligation of "forever." You might fully intend to love someone forever, forsaking all others, but the two of you just cannot manage to live together.

So what we need is legally binding contracts that involve only some of the aspects of marriage. For example:

The common-law contract: I use the word common-law because this most resembles the concept currently described as common-law marriage. However, the problem with common-law marriage is that a cohabiting couple are automatically considered common-law after a certain period of time. So if you've been together romantically for 10 years but only moved in together last week, you don't get any of the benefits of common-law marriage. Conversely, if you've been living together for a year (I think it's 1 year - if not, insert the appropriate period of time) then you are automatically considered common-law married, whether you like it or not. The alternative I propose is that two people living together sign a contract that makes them "partners". They are then considered a family-style household, rather than roommates, with all the related legal benefits. Perhaps there could be a temporary version and a permanent version, with the permanent version requiring a "divorce" and splitting of assets if the relationship comes to an end. The common-law contract would not have the implication of a romantic relationship, although the couple is certainly free to have a romantic relationship if they choose. They would be considered equal to a married couple under etiquette, so they'd be invited to weddings etc. together. A couple doesn't have to live together for a certain period of time - they can sign the common-law contract on the very day they move in together, if they so choose.

The next-of-kin contract: This is a public declaration of a certain person as your next of kin. I am aware of the existence of living wills, but if no one can find your living will (or you're unconscious and can't tell them where it is) then your next living relative will be considered your next of kin, even if you want it to be your best friend or your roommate or your longtime lover. With this contract, your next of kin will be as much a matter of public as your spouse.

The non-cohabiting marriage contract: I know a number of couples who love each other forever, but simply are not compatible to live together. The stress of living together would ruin their relationship, so they live apart. By all rights they should get to enjoy the benefits of marriage, but their marriage would be considered null and void in our society, which makes living apart for a prolonged period of time grounds for divorce. Under this contract, a couple would get all the benefits of marriage, with the implications of romance and forever, but they would be permitted to maintain separate households. Under etiquette and "morality" they are considered a married couple, so they are invited to social events together, and it is just as acceptable for them to share a bed as it is for a cohabiting married couple.

The co-parenting contract: Suppose you want to have a child, but you do not have an appropriate romantic partner with whom to have a child. But suppose you know someone who would be the perfect co-parent, they just aren't appropriate to be a romantic partner. They might be an incompatible sexual orientation, or they might be a blood relative, or they just might be someone with whom you are not romantically compatible. Under this contract, two people can legally be considered primary custodial parents of a child without the other implications of marriage. They may live together or apart (although logistically they would probably have to live at least close to each other), and they can share the other legal benefits of marriage. They can be considered a couple socially, or they might prefer not to - it's up to them. I am aware of adoption, but this system is specifically designed to normalize the concept of two roommates parenting a child together.

Things I don't understand

One thing I really don't understand is people with absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for complaining/bad moods.

This seems to be primarily an internet phenomenon. Someone in a blog or an online community or a character in work of fiction being discussed complains about something or is having a hard time or is anything other than bright and cheerful and amusing, even for a moment, and someone is jumping down their throat telling them to stop moaning and complaining and be fun and amusing again. (Which I, personally, find more annoying than the original complaining - and I haven't even had this happen yet when I was the one complaining!)

I find myself wondering what it's like to be in that kind of brain, because I really cannot wrap my mind around being so pissed off that someone is in a bad mood that you feel the need to reprimand them. I have had situations where I found someone's bad mood tiring, but my instinct is to help them if I can, and then back off until I and they get into a place where their mood does not exhaust me. I cannot fathom a grown adult having so little patience and/or empathy and/or tact that they feel the need to scold people who are in a bad mood or having a difficult time for not being completely cheerful.

Focusing on one's career

I don't like it when people say that I'm "focusing on [my] career." I find that phrase is kicked around a lot to mean "not married/not breeding", but the thing is, I'm NOT focusing on my career. Yes, I have a job. I go to work and I earn money to support myself, because I am not independently wealthy. But "focusing on one's career" sounds cold, calculating, driven, Slytherin, as though I'm trying to manoeuvre my way to the top or into some desirable position, which I'm not.

I'm focusing on mi cielito and my friends and loved ones and on becoming a well-read, well-rounded individual. I am not yet married because of my youth, combined with various circumstances beyond my control, and I am not breeding because I don't want to. My career has nothing to do with it. It's just a job where I exchange my expertise for financial security, is all.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer

I am in love with the protagonist of this book. He is my soulmate. Unfortunately, he's only nine years old. And fictional.

He's an eccentric, eclectic little boy, possibly with Asperger Syndrome. His father died in the World Trade Centre, and he's on a mission to find the lock that belongs to a key left behind by his father. But this summary hardly does justice to the story. It's beautiful and tragic and bittersweet and better than the sum total of thoughts I'll ever have in my life. And the author's only three years older than me. (Insert brief OMG I'll never amount to anything angst here).

This book is on par with Life of Pi or The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. Read it now!

The weather, the weather, let's blog about the weather

Today was awesome!

The storm was so bad around 3-4 that we had literally zero visiblity out the windows of the office! Thunder was rumbling constantly! Unfortunately my cube doesn't have a window, so I didn't get the full visual effect.

I had the good sense to take the bus home from the subway, so I only had to walk one very short (urban residential) block, but I got - literally! - soaked to the skin! I was wearing long pants and a 3/4-sleeve blouse and carrying an umbrella, but I got so wet that when I got home I had to change all my clothes - even my underthings! I was wearing shoes with about a 2-inch platform, but the rivers of water flowing along the roads were well up to my ankle. There was even water bubbling up out of manholes!

My balcony is a swimming pool despite the fact that its walls are solid concrete and it's completely overhung by the balcony above, my purse is soaked through despite the fact that it's scotchguarded leather, and i had to towel off my calves and feet because they were so wet, despite the fact that i was wearing long pants.

Now THIS is weather!

Technical difficulties

When I try to access www.theweathernetwork.com and www.sitemeter.com, I get an HTTP 400 Bad Request error. I have disconnected and reconnected my DSL, and it persists. I'm using Sympatico.

I don't expect any good to come of this post - it's just Google fodder.

My brain hurts

There are fish in Lake Ontario.

There are fish in Lake Erie.

Lake Ontario is connected to Lake Erie by Niagara Falls.

So how did the fish get up and/or down the falls?????

Gaza

Thank you to all the Gaza protestors for proving my long-argued point that just because a leader encourages or implements a particular policy doesn't mean the people are going to go along with it.

Things that occurred to me today while I was trying to work

1. From a purely logical perspective, sneezing should have just as much comic value as farting.

2. If there is a god, it should, being omnipotent, be able to communicate to every single human being what it wants us to do or believe in such a way that every single human being will understand and obey. However, the human race is not unanimous on what our gods want us to do or believe. This leaves us with four options: a) there is no god, b) there is a god and it doesn't care what we do or believe, c) there is a god and it doesn't want the same thing of every individual, so each of us is already doing what this god wants us to do or believe, or d) there are many gods, all with differing expectations, and we each fall under the jurisdiction of different ones.

3. Parents complain about their kids "talking back". Sometimes they even punish them for it. Isn't that the stupidest thing ever to define as a misbehaviour? "OMG! My kid didn't just quietly accept what I said without questioning it and is instead apply critical thinking skills and/or asking follow-up questions! OMG! My kid didn't psychically pick up that this is the point at which I arbitrarily wanted them to shut up!"

4. In ecology, the word "hazing" is used to mean frightening wildlife for their own protection - for example, scaring waterfowl away from areas where there is an oil spill. I was translating a text on this topic, and was having trouble looking up the names of various devices used for hazing. Most of the names were pretty self-explanatory, so I was checking the most obvious translations by typing them into Google. I ended up getting a surprising number of those word list pages that are intended to redirect searchers towards porn. I wonder why? I had no idea that the word "hazing" could be a porn keyword. Dare I search Urbandictionary to find out what it means in this context?

People-watching

Seen at the bank: a lady standing at the ATM with her feet in ballet fifth position.

Seen at the supermarket: a little old man, physically frail and perhaps mentally frail, holding a single can of frozen Old South orange juice from concentrate like it was the single most important, most wonderful, thing in the world.

Seen in the square: a guy on rollerblades with a remote-control car. He'd send the car off somewhere, then skate after it.

Seen in the mall: a man holding an incredibly tiny baby. It looked like it had once been a preemie and hadn't quite grown into its age.

Seen walking down the street: a little old lady with one of those little old lady buggies, with a little fluffy white dog sitting in the buggy.

Why I choose to boycott Karla

It's not that I don't think people should be allowed to see this movie, it's that I think it's completely distasteful for anyone, anyone at all, from a director to a cinema operator, to be making money off of this story.

I want to make it perfectly clear, this is personal.

If you had one car drive from Lesley Mahaffey's house to Kristen French's house and another car drive from Kristen French's house to Leslie Mahaffey's house, they would meet up not too far from where I grew up.

I bear a strong resemblance to Kristen French. When I got my grade 8 grad photos back, the first thing that struck me was how much they look like Kristen French's grade 8 grad photos. She looks more like me than my own sister does.

I, and all my classmates, spent those years living in fear. We had no way of knowing that we wouldn't be next. We were trained to walk far enough away from the road so that people in passing cars couldn't reach out and grab us.

I decided that I would rather die than be raped. I role-played in my head, lay awake at night thinking of escape strategies, self-defence strategies, how I would trick or taunt or manipulate the rapist into pulling the trigger before he got to undoing his pants. I was 11 years old at the time.

I know that the only reason it wasn't me was because I was lucky. Just a stroke of dumb luck, that's all. The fact that they never chose to cruise my neighbourhood at a time when I was out and about.

I wouldn't want people making money off of the story of my torture, and I know that it's only because of dumb luck that I wasn't the one tortured. Therefore, I will not be seeing this movie, I will not be seeing any movie that plays in a cinema that is also showing this movie, and I full expect that all right-thinking people who lived in the area at this time to do the same.

Perhaps some random person in California doesn't understand what it was like to be there, but I sincerely hope that in 416 and 905 there's a huge revenue hole, perhaps large numbers of cinemas opting out because their audiences aren't interested.

Rational or no, those of us of a certain age and geographical origin feel like nothing more than serendipitous survivors. We don't want it banned because we deem it offensive, we want every individual to choose not to see it and every cinema to choose not to show it, out of respect for the victims, who could just as easily have been us.

I wouldn't want random people making money off of the story of my torture; Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffey, Tammy Homolka and Jane Doe all deserve the same.

A challenge

Open your mouth wide, and then breathe through your nose - and ONLY your nose.

Maybe it's just me, but I find this really hard! My brain is saying "WTF? Why should I have to breathe through those tiny little nostrils when there's this great big mouth that's open anyway?"

Simbolism

I've noticed that when my Sims are "friends", they do this big complicated jive-style secret handshake to greet each other. But once their friendship escalates to "best friends", they just greet each other with a calm, subdued acknowledgement.

I think this reflects reality. When you're just new friends with someone, you want them to like you, so you try to show them how cool you are. But once you're true friends, you can just be every aspect of yourself, skinny legs and all.