High-heeled sensitivity training (for men)

Inspired by the guy in Sheppard station yelling at his female companion for descending the stairs so slowly.

The Physics:

In a high-heeled shoe, the wearer's body weight is shifted forwards. In the vast majority of situations, this isn't a problem, and the wearer can walk normally or with a slightly shortened stride. However, when descending stairs or any sort of slope, the change in balance becomes particularly apparent. Stand on a stair (a low stair! and hold onto the railing!) and lean forwards. See how you're suddenly at greater risk of falling? If someone wearing heels walks down the stairs at a normal pace, she will fall. I know this from first-hand experience.

The Experiment:

Take off your shoes if you're wearing any. First, walk around the room a bit, at your normal walking-down-the-street pace, just to remind yourself of what that pace feels like. Next, stand up on your toes, lifting your heels as far off the ground as possible. Now walk around the room at the same pace. See how your stride is shortened, but you can still maintain a decent pace?

Next, go to the nearest staircase. If you have to wear shoes to do this, make sure you pick a pair with a flexible enough sole to let you stand on your tiptoes. First, walk down a few steps at a normal walking-in-public speed, just to get a sense of what you're working with normally. Then go back to the top of the stairs, and stand on your toes. Make sure you hold the railing! Before you descent on your toes, I want you to put one foot down on the stair below you, with your toes at the very front of the tread (i.e. the horizontal part of the stairs). Why? Because our instincts tell us to put our toes in the centre of the tread when descending stairs standing on our toes, but you can't do this in heels because the heels themselves would be in the way. So put your toe at the very front of the tread, and make sure your heel is lifted in a way that it doesn't touch the riser of the stair above it. Got that foot position down? Then grab the railing and walk down the stairs on your toes, with your feet in that position. Try to go as fast as you can. See how precarious it is?

What you can do to help:

"Okay," you're saying, "now I understand why descending stairs in heels is problematic. So how can I, as the chivalrous gentleman I am, help my lady friend through this ordeal?"

First of all, understand that stairs are slower and don't nag when she slows down. If she falls, that will just slow you both down even more, as well as getting in more people's way. If there is a choice, opt for an escalator or elevator if your lady friend is wearing higher heels than she usually wears.

If you want to be actively chivalrous, you can offer her your arm or you can walk in front of her. Offering your arm is appropriate only in places where you can walk two abreast without getting in anyone's way. It is, by far, the better option if the stairs have no railing for some reason. However, in crowded places where walking two abreast is a problem, the best thing you can do is walk in front of her, so you can catch her, break her fall, or help her if she does fall. Walking in front of her is also particularly helpful in places like subway stations, if you find yourself moving against a large sea of pedestrian traffic. That way, you're making a path for her lady friend, so all she has to worry about is staying on her feet. Do NOT "ladies first" down the stairs if there's a huge wave of people coming up the stairs.

Educated

I don't feel educated. By most standards I am, by a few standards I'm not. I've had job interviewers who didn't give me jobs tell me I have a lot of education. (Job interviewers who did give me jobs never commented on it.) But internally? I don't feel anything special. Yes, I've spent most of my life in a classroom, but that would have happened even if I had the minimum education legally permissible. My mental library is what it is.

I don't feel smart either. I've been told I am. (I've also been told I'm not.) The requisite IQ test and years of good grades sit in a dusty old school file somewhere. But I don't feel it. My brain often (but not always) does what I need it to do, but that doesn't feel particularly special or anything - most of what I need my brain to do is fairly mindless.

I wonder if anyone feels educated or smart? I wonder if people who are not educated or smart can feel it? I wonder if the smarter you are, the more your brain does what it needs to do, or if it somehow works differently?

Sick

For me, the slang meaning of the word sick has always been "disgusting".

In current adolescent parlance, the meaning of the word sick is something along the lines of "awesome"

About 80% of the time, this is fine. I'm familiar with the new meaning, even though it isn't part of my active vocabulary, and you can usually tell by context.

The problem is those few times when you can't tell by context. This happens especially often on the internet, particularly when the word is being used by someone a bit younger than me, who would likely have both meanings in their active vocabulary. (I don't know whether or not Kids Today use sick to mean disgusting, but I doubt someone 3-5 years younger than me would be unfamiliar with the that meaning.) If someone says, without elaboration, in response to something like a dirty joke "OMG, that's SICK!" it could really go either way.

Things I wish I could say without sounding all judgeosaurus

The vast majority of human discourse occurred before I got here, so the vast majority of words and expressions have taken on certain connotations beyond their strict denotations, and I wasn't consulted on any of it.

This is a problem, because sometimes I want to say something perfectly harmless and innocuous, for completely benign reasons, but when I put together the simplest, most plain-language combination of words that denotes my intended message, it takes on connotations that I don't mean, because of what people did with the language generations before I came along.

For example:

"That's not funny" Sometimes something just...isn't funny. It simply doesn't have any humour value. Like a Marmaduke cartoon. Sometimes context compels me to say that I don't think something is funny. The problem is when you say "That's not funny," it implies that you were offended, that you think an intended joke crossed the line into cruel or sick or hateful. It's very difficult to simply say that something isn't funny without these further connotations. I encountered this dilemma today, when Scott Adams posted a Dilbert cartoon that he had decided not to run. A lot of the commenters found it funny. I didn't find it funny. But if I posted "That's not funny," people would think I found it offensive. My point wasn't that I found it offensive - I didn't think that far. My point was simply that there's insufficient humour, so it was a good decision to pull the cartoon. But I just can't work out how to say that in a forum full of strangers without implying that I found it offensive. Even if I said "I wasn't offended, but it's just not funny," it would sound like I was offended but I'm just saying I'm not so they don't dismiss my opinion as a prude.

"What was she wearing?" Sometimes, when a crime occurs, I want to know the circumstances. What was the victim wearing? Was it a crowded street or was there no one around? What kind of locks were on the door? I'd like to know these things so I can make better-informed decisions about my own safety. However, long before I entered into discourse, people used comments like this to blame the victim, and now they are inappropriate because the "blame the victim" connotation was too strong. But I don't want to blame the victim, I just want to use the clues available to assess the perp's mentality. For example, the more information I learned about Paul Bernardo, the more I was able to accurately judge that I was in fact at risk. He was specifically after my demographic, so I was able to use that information to be wary of strangers without worrying about being rude. (And, because it was so widely publicized, well-intentioned strangers would probably understand why I was being so standoffish.) Conversely, the more information I learned about the Toronto shootings in the past couple of years, the more certain I became that I'm at low risk of being shot, since I'm not involved in or near gang or drug activity. So if there's, say, a perverted groper man stalking the subway, I'd be interested in knowing what the victims were wearing. Not because I want to blame them, but because I want to make informed decisions about my own wardrobe and behaviour. If perverted groper man is going after women wearing skirts and heels, then I'm okay today. If he's going after women wearing trousers and boots, maybe I'll sit near the guard, or head for the subway at the same time as a more-intimidating co-worker, or ask mi cielito to go a bit out of his way and escort me home instead of saying "I'll be fine." But there's no way to ask for that information without sounding like you're making unpleasant insinuations.

I had a third example, but I can't seem to remember it now. I'll edit later if it comes to me.

How many times do I have to go over this?

Once again, they're talking about reinstating the draft as an anti-war measure, because lawmakers wouldn't want their children to be sent to war.

Okay people, pay close attention this time, because I'm getting tired of going over it again and again:

The problem with this plan is that it completely neglects the fact that the potential draftees are human beings in their own right. They aren't their parents' chattels that you can threaten to damage or destroy to coerce or threaten the parents, they are human beings in their own right, with their own lives to live, and with little or no influence over their parents' politics.

Do people really not understand this? How old do you have to be before you lose the ability to understand that people's kids are separate human beings with their own thoughts and feelings and human rights?

Powerful software

I've become very wary of the adjective "powerful" when used to describe software. It seems the more the word "powerful" is used, the harder a time I have convincing the software to do something simple without extensive RTMFing. I can appreciate that some software is made to do far more complicated things than I'll ever need to do, but can't they make the very simplest functions a wee bit intuitive?

Excuse me, ma'am, but how exactly do you cover your greys?

Since before I even started going grey, I've wanted to somehow colour my grey hairs some random third colour, like bright crayon red, while not affecting the natural colour of the hair that hasn't gone grey yet. Today on the subway I saw a lady who had achieved that very effect. It was a crowded train and I was standing right above her, so I had a chance to inspect the top of her head with impunity. Most of her hair was naturally black and did not appear to have been coloured at all, but about a dozen individual hairs were this beautiful shade of copper. When I visually followed the path of the copper hairs up to the roots, I noticed that they suddenly became silver about half an inch from the scalp. Clearly some kind of artificial colour applied to the grey hairs only - exactly what I've always wanted!

I only wish there was some way to politely ask a stranger on the subway, "Excuse me, ma'am, but how exactly do you cover your greys?"

How For Better or For Worse could have been much improved

Last spring, For Better or For Worse had Elizabeth suddenly wanting to move back down south. I didn't like this and thought it was out of character. Then she coerced Paul into applying for a transfer south, AFTER he's already applied for a transfer to be near her in Mtigwaki, which really made the her character look flighty and unsympathetic. Then, once she arrived, she moved back in with her parents, which, again, didn't look good on the character.

So now she's been back in 905 for a few months, but things aren't going as planned. Her grandfather has had a stroke, she isn't teaching much because she's been subpoenaed as a witness for Howard's trial, she's living with her parents, and she's missing Paul.

But if the plot required her to be in 905 and/or living with her parents and/or away from Paul, either the subpoena or the stroke could have done that. She could have come for the subpoena and stayed for the stroke, and it wouldn't have reflected poorly on her character at all. She wouldn't have looked flighty and inconsiderate of Paul's feelings because she would have had no choice in responding to the subpoena. It wouldn't have seemed immature and uncharacteristic to have her staying with her parents, because she was south only for an indefinite temporary period of time. If their separation is intended to end her relationship with Paul, this could still have happened if she had come south because of a subpoena rather than because of a sudden whim. If Paul is intended to eventually come south, he could still do that - but of his own accord, not because he was coerced by Flighty!Liz. If Elizabeth is intended to eventually go back up north, she could do that once the trial is over and her grandfather's health is stabilized, instead of appearing flighty.

Just eliminate Elizabeth's sudden desire to move back south, and you could tell the exact same story, but with a more sympathetic character.

Surreal moment of the day

I was sitting in the subway, just behind the front door of the front car, engrossed in my book as usual, when the train stopped in the middle of a tunnel. I fretted about being late for work for a microsecond, but my fascinating book pushed that thought aside. Then I noticed the door next to me was opening. "Oh, are we in a station? I thought we were in a tunnel!" I look up to see we are in a tunnel, and a group of men in hard hats and reflective vests is climbing into the train. One of them closes the doors using some tool, they thank the driver, and off we go.

I've never seen that before!

Income splitting

What surprises me most about income splitting is that it occurs to people in the first place. True, I currently have a one-person household, but I've been thinking in terms of an eventual marriage for almost the entire 21st century, and it never once occurred to me that it's unfair to tax each income the usual way. In fact, if you asked me in a vacuum to name what's unfair in the way couples are taxed as compared with singles, I'd most likely come up with the idea that singles should get a tax break, since they have more living expenses per potential earner!

If I were married and earning enough money to support two people single-handedly, I would feel twice lucky. Just as I do now, I would be rejoicing every day that I have a bit more money than strictly necessary, and I would also be rejoicing every day that I get to be married to mi cielito. It would simply never occur to me to feel cheated or put out or discriminated against. And yet, every long-married couple I know thinks it's an egregious injustice that each earner is taxed at their own marginal tax rate.

I wonder how many years a couple has to be together before they stop rejoicing and start feeling cheated?

To keep in mind when talking about municipal voter turnout

On paper, using the numbers that everyone uses to calculate voter turnout, my own immediate family looks like it has 50% voter turnout. In reality, we have 100% voter turnout. That's because my sister and I have both moved out of our parents' house and now live in other municipalities, but still appear on their voter registration card. We have not yet figured out how to get us off their voter card.

On paper, we look like two responsible parent types, and two Kids Today who are too damn lazy and apathetic to bother to vote. In reality, we are four enfranchised adults who have fulfilled their civic duty after gaining the self-sufficiency to establish their own households.

The numbers don't tell the whole truth.

The Accidental by Ali Smith

The basic premise is quite intriguing. A girl shows up in a family's vacation house. Everyone assumes that she's there with another member of the family, so she just kind of hangs around and affects them all. I quite enjoyed that premise, but I didn't find the book itself too compelling. I didn't care that much about the main family, and if, at any point in my reading, you had taken the book away from me and told me that I could never find out what happened next, I wouldn't have cared.

Until like six pages before the very end of this book, I was irritated by two unresolved questions. Then one of them was suddenly and cleverly addressed. It wasn't answered or resolved, but it was addressed and in a way that made me go "Cool!" The other was left unresolved though, which bothered me.

What's interesting about this book is it's set just a couple of years ago - in 2003, I think. There are passing references to current events, which I recognize, but I don't know whether people will recognize them in 10 years. (For example, a description of the Abu Graib photos, mentioned in passing as being on a newspaper page without any explicit identifiers.) I guess it's a risk on the part of the author, but it will be interesting to see whether these things hold up.

Election results

The three races that I voted in have been called. The incumbent won for city councillor by a vast, vast margin, which surprises and perplexes me. One thing about the incumbent that always bothered me was his opposition to density and the trappings of density. That position simply doesn't make sense here in this neighbourhood, because it's a very dense neighbourhood - right in the geographical centre of Toronto. And that's why I chose it - because I enjoy the convenience and amenities that can only be the result of density. The high-rises have been here for 30 years, so you'd think that everyone who opposes density would have moved out by now, and all the residents would be, like me, specifically seeking density.

So then this challenger comes up who supports intelligent development and other trappings of density, as well as many other perfectly sensible positions. This is a breath of fresh air to me - I'm certainly not about giving corporations free reign, but if any neighbourhood is prime for further development it's this one. More housing = increased supply = slows down the rise of local housing costs, enabling everyone who lives here to continue living here. More commercial = more amenities for us. I was very glad to have a viable challenger, and was looking forward to a good race.

But the incumbent won by a longshot. Is that because that's the way people around here feel, or is that because the challenger had trouble getting the word out? I'd be very surprised if such a majority of the riding was so strongly opposed to density. As I mentioned above, the density has been here for decades, and we're all benefitting from it. Is this riding really full of assholes who are sitting there enjoying the fruits of density while trying to prevent anyone else from enjoying it? Or is it just that the challenger didn't get the word out? The challenger did have a website (there was another challenger who didn't have a website or answer any media requests, so he doesn't count), but I only got one flyer, and that was from the incumbent. The flyer was a very well-targeted outline of his position on tenant issues (the challenger had nothing about tenant issues on his website), so I could see how that might sway people in this tenant-heavy neighbourhood, but it also seems to me like the very people who would be swayed by that would support density. So maybe people just weren't getting the challenger's message because he didn't manage to actively reach us. I just hope it's because of poor targeting and the fact that many people don't actively seek out their candidates' positions so they take what information arrives on their doorstep. I'd hate to think that those hundreds of people whose apartment windows I can see out of my 14th storey window are sitting there saying "High-density? Nooooo, we don't want that! It would ruin the character of the neighbourhood!"

Aside: Hazel McCallion has been mayor for 28 years, and has just been elected for another 3 or 4 years. Thirty-plus years. That's an entire career. She's has one job for an entire career. I don't think that happenes to anyone anymore. It does make me wonder how in touch with reality she can be. She's held the same elected office for an entire career's-worth of time. How could she possibly identify with someone who has been or lives in fear of being downsized?

Weird Salon letters

1. First, someone wrote to Cary Tennis saying that her friend's boyfriend didn't want her to go on the bus in going-out clothes. What I found weird about the letters is how many people seem to think that buses are So Very Very Dangerous. That's simply not my experience. I mean, I'm not going to count my money or change my shirt on a bus, but I feel quite safe. There are always multiple groups of people around, there's the driver, you're on camera at all times, it's well-lit - it's simply no more of a problem than any other element of public life. The only potential area of concern is waiting for the bus, which I did find sometimes iffy in my pre-Toronto life. But these people are talking about being on a bus, and that's not nearly as much of a problem as the commenters make it out to be.

2. Then there's this guy who wants permission to hit on women who already have boyfriends. What I find odd about the letters is that there are so many more men commenting on what women do/don't want than women commenting on what they'd want in that situation. There were even a couple of men who commented that all women are up for grabs until they're married, despite the fact that I and a couple of other women had previously posted that we specifically do NOT want to be pursued when we're in a relationship. Frankly, I take offence. It's pretty damn cocky for random third-party to presume to overrule my declarative statement about my personal standards! Ladies, if you ever meet one of these guys in real life, please go Lysistrata on his ass!

Voted

Well, no TDSB students took me up on my offer, so I voted in accordance with my own judgement. This shouldn't be taken as indicative of the apathy of Kids Today, but rather as indicative of the fact that I'm an unknown blogger with no high school or elementary school students in my readership. Next election, someone should really come up with a way to poll students on their trustee preferences though, just so people can use it to inform their voting if they wish.

But on to the mystery: I wasn't on the voters' list! This is really weird, because I voted in the 2003 Toronto municipal election, and I still live at the same address now! I didn't get one of those "confirm that you're on the voters' list" letters, but I assumed that's because I haven't moved. Then I didn't get a voter registration card, but I figured it got lost or something. I have no idea how I got off the list! Although, now that I think about it, I haven't gotten one of those MPAC forms in quite a long time. And apparently I'm still on the list at my parents' address in my hometown, although I don't think the two are connected. That's very odd though, since I've never voted in a municipal election at my parents' address (I moved away shortly before the first municipal election in which I was eligible to vote).

In any case, it turned out just fine. I filled out a form, showed the nice lady my driver's licence, and was given a ballot. I was a wee bit surprised by the lack of security - I only had to show one form of ID, didn't have to prove my citizenship, and simply verbally told her which school board I support. If I wasn't a citizen, I could have voted anyway. If I had done enough research to do so, I could have sabotaged one of the school boards I don't support. But maybe people are so generally apathetic about municipal politics that no one cares enough to sabotage them? Anyway, I would have been far more pissed if I couldn't have voted than because it was so easy to vote.

ETA: I didn't see any doggies while voting today, which usually portends an unfavourable election. However, I didn't do my good-luck ritual either, so I don't know how that will affect things.

New record?

I think the recruitment video in today's Simpsons wins for the greatest density of pop culture references per minute.

Behind the counter

Today I purchased a behind-the-counter product at a pharmacy. I walked up to the counter, asked for the product, and the pharmacist handed it to me. That's it. Makes me wonder what the point of keeping it behind the counter is. I know it's behind the counter for pharmaceutical reasons, not because it's commonly stolen like razor blades are, but I was not asked any questions or given any advice. (Unless the pharmacist could tell just by looking at me/talking to me/being in my presence that I needed the product in question, which would have been terribly embarrasing.)

Wherein Dear Ellie misses the obvious answer

In re: the first letter, where the lady's husband insists on switching sides of the bed when his neck hurts:

Why not just switch sides permanently?

I've decided what to do about the petition

I've decided that I'm not going to sign the petition, but I am going to email my MP and the Prime Minister a reworked version of my post below, outlining what I think would and would not be an appropriate use of the state funeral. Signing the petition would have been too supportive - I could have left a small comment, but I don't know if it would be taken into considerations. Not signing wouldn't have been interpreted as either outright opposition, or simply my not having seen the petition (aside: petitions in general should keep a tally of people who had a chance to sign but chose not to do so). An email outside the aegis of the petition seems to be the best way to tell the powers that be about the nuances of my opinion. I would encourage anyone else with a nuanced opinion to do the same thing.

Coming up sometime later this weekend: how to avoid making Remembrance Day into a meaningless cliché. Then on to other topics, I promise.

Petition for a state funeral for the last surviving WWI veteran

From James Bow, I just learned that there's a petition to give a state funeral to the last surviving WWI veteran.

My first thought is that this is a really cool idea. My second thought was that there's a lot of potential to do this poorly. If it is done in a way that makes it not for just this one guy but symbolic of everyone, military and civilian who died in and suffered through WWI, that emphasizes the utter senselessness and tragedy of WWI, and the terrible cost of WWI and all wars in general, I think a state funeral is a brilliant idea. But if it's all empty pomp, mindlessly making the deceased (and perhaps his fellow veterans) out to be heroes, making the military look glamourous and sexy, the sort of thing that could be remixed into a recruiting ad, I don't think that's appropriate.

While the soldier should, of course, be buried with all appropriate dignity, the public's mind also needs to be on trenches full of mud and shit and gangrene and death, rats and roaches and amputated limbs, the foolishness and shortsightedness of nations stuck in the 19th century getting the world into this mess, the foolishness and ignorance of men who are really boys charging off like it's some great adventure, hundreds even thousands of men dying to gain a few metres of ground, all to be fought all over again in a few short decades. This would be an appropriate use for a state funeral.

However, if it's just about clean and pressed uniforms, flags and honour guards, and a sepia photograph of a dashing young man off to be a hero, that's highly inappropriate, and not something I will sign a petition for.

Holocaust memorials can honour the dead appropriately while emphasizing the horror; the survivors leave feeling the dead have been properly honoured, the general public leaves feeling "never again." This is what our war memorials should be doing, this is what our Remembrance Day ceremonies should be doing, and this is what the state funeral for the last veteran should do.

I haven't decided yet whether or not I will sign the petition. I will need to reflect on it some more, and do some research into what a state funeral involves. While I don't begrudge the state funeral in any case - I certainly wouldn't protest if they decided to do it - I'm not yet sure if I'm comfortable actively demanding it. But I think everyone should have a fair chance to sign the petition or not, which is why I'm posting the link here with my thoughts on the matter. Do whatever you think is right.

On being anti-war

On the radio this morning, they were discussing at length a poll on how people feel about Canadian troops being in Afghanistan.

I listened as I bustled about my morning routine and mulled things over, and I kept coming back to one thought:

In general, being anti-war is surprisingly unpopular. I hold a lot of unpopular and/or uncommon opinions, and I think of all the opinions I hold, my pacifism is the one I get the most shit for. It sounds strange, but based on my experiences with these things, if you stick me in a randomly-selected group of people I'm more likely to offend by saying "What if they had a war and nobody came?" than by anything else it might occur to me to say. I've also noticed that whenever someone expresses general or specific anti-war sentiments in public, they seem to qualify them more than with most other statements, like people need more reassurance that this doesn't mean the speaker wants your brother in the military to die or for the world to be dominated by nazis or something. Look at the uproar surrounding white poppies - apparently it's controversial to express pacifist sentiments for Remembrance Day of all things!

So with all this in mind, I keep finding myself wondering how honestly people answered this poll. Maybe they did answer honestly - I'd assume that pollsters aren't in the habit of dissing pollees opinions. Or maybe they answered less anti-war than they feel, out of the habit of toning down their anti-war sentiments. Or maybe they were more anti-war than usual, to compensate for the fact that they usually have to tone things down in public (although I don't know if people would think of this on their feet while answering a poll.)

It doesn't usually occur to me so strongly that a poll may be inaccurate, but in this case it really struck me.

Santorum

Dan Savage's attempt to redefine the word santorum seems to have worked on me. I didn't pay much attention to it the first time around, but just now I had the TV on to US election results while I puttered about doing other things, and whenever the word "Santorum" was uttered I'd sort of do a double take. "WHAT are they talking about????...Oh yeah, it's a person's name."

Weird bumpersticker combination

Seen on a car:

1. a bumpersticker saying "God Bless America
2. a bumpersticker saying "CNN Lies"
3. Ontario plates

Based on that information, I can't tell what they think CNN is lying about.

Missed a spot!

A while back, I started using a Schick Quattro, because I could not longer find blades for my previous razor (Gilette Sensor Excel), probably because I'd been using it for like 10 years.

Ever since I switched to the Quattro, I've been missing spots, and always the same spots. The inside edge of the armpit, the very bottom of my ankle, the bit between the sticky-outy part of the ankle bone and the Achilles tendon - I keep finding these small patches of centimetre-long hair in areas that I thought I was shaving every two days.

A side-by-side comparison shows that the Quattro blade is the same width as the Sensor Excel blade, and the handle is longer so that doesn't explain why I keep missing the bottoms of my ankles. It's like my shaving autopilot needs to be recalibrated for the new razor or something. At any rate, I hope I get it sorted out by summer.

Grey hair science

There was a small knot in a lock of my hair. This lock of hair included a couple of greys, but consisted mostly of dark hair. After I got it untangled, the dark hairs returned to their normal straight condition, but the greys remained strangely bent, as though they had been though a bizarro curling iron.

Maybe this is why white-haired little old ladies always have their hair curled. Maybe grey hairs are far less likely to fall back into their natural shape, so old ladies set their hair so they can control its shape, rather than leaving it to chance and having every hair be a different shape.

If this is the case, when I've gone completely grey, I'm going to put my hair in GIANT curls on top of my head, like Ginger from Gilligan's Island.

Harry's Firebolt

In Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry's Nimbus is broken by the Whomping Willow, and Sirius replaces it with a Firebolt, which is The Very Best Broom Ever In Existence.

So why does Harry need to have The Very Best Broom Ever In Existence? He's a teenager, and he's been clearly established as an Exceptional Flier. The fact that he's an Exceptional Flier almost negates the need for him to have The Very Best Broom Ever In Existence - he should be able to do just fine on any decent broom.

And what has the Firebolt done for Harry anyway? Getting past the dragon in the Triwizard Tournament, flying from Privet Drive to Grimmauld Place in OOTP, and a bit of Quidditch.

In the dragon scene, the emphasis was very much on Harry's flying skills. It wasn't even mentioned that Harry had The Very Best Broom Ever In Existence - he succeeded because he's an Exceptional Flier. Goblet of Fire seems to be a very random, disjointed book, and I think the reason for this is that it was setting up a number of future plot threads. For example, Harry's training for the maze task is what gave him the expertise to lead the DA, and ultimately to defeat the Death Eaters in the Department of Mysteries. The book also introduced Fleur Delacour, who is all teed up to become a character in her own right, and Viktor Krum, whose presence set up all the relationship drama in HBP. So I don't think the dragon was an end in and of itself. I think it was more intended to emphasize the point the Harry is an Exceptional Flier.

The flight to Grimmauld Place is unexceptional. No emphasis is made on how Harry's flying skills or the quality of his broom came in particularly handy. He was competent and able to keep up with the adults, but there was nothing really difficult to it - it was just getting from Point A to Point B. Worst case, it's meaningless. Best case, it's intended to show that Harry can keep up with adults in standard flying for transportation purposes.

Quidditch is the only situation where the fact that Harry has The Very Best Broom Ever In Existence is emphasized, and it is emphasized along with the fact that Harry is an Exceptional Flyer. However, I don't think Quidditch has much significance in the larger plot. I read it as originally intended to increase Harry's sense of belonging in the wizarding world (since he's exceptionally good at Quidditch but not particularly good at anything in the Muggle world), and in later books it was intended to enable various interpersonal relationship plot points. J.K. Rowling has said that she wrote her last Quidditch scene in HBP, so I don't think it has any significance in the overall Harry vs. Voldemort plot, with the possible exception of establishing that Harry is an Exceptional Flier flying The Very Best Broom Ever In Existence.

So far, the Firebolt hasn't proven particularly necessary. With the possible exception of one or two Quidditch victories, a Nimbus would have done just fine. But Harry's Nimbus was gratuitously destroyed and replaced with a Firebolt for no yet-apparent reason. I think some seriously hardcore flying is going to be involved in Harry's defeat of Voldemort.

I hate this

I called the doctor again to nag about the HPV vaccine. The receptionist said I need to call the pharmacy, and wouldn't or couldn't give me any information on whether the doctor could administer it, whether I need a prescription, etc.

But I have talked to a pharmacy. They said I need to talk to my doctor.

I turn 26 in seven weeks, at which point I'm too old for the vaccine.

I'm very anti-litigation, but I think if I ever get HPV or cervical cancer, I'm going to sue someone.

Things They Should Invent: translation drinking game

You have to break stride and go back to insert an adjective, take a drink.
Your English sentence is less than 60% the length of the original French, take a drink.
A noun phrase of five or more nouns all piled together without the benefit of prepositions, take a drink.
You find yourself actually using some obscure linguistic factoid that seemed useless in university, take a drink.
You make a typo that results in another perfectly valid word, take a drink. It's a dirty word, take two drinks.
Faulty agreement in the source text makes the meaning unclear, take two drinks.
Your terminology database craps out on you when you're on deadline outside of tech support hours, finish the bottle.

Any translators out there? Add your own!

Things They Should Invent: indicate cellphone battery charge in hours

My cellphone shows how full the battery is with a little picture of a battery containing four or five little bars. I have a pretty good battery - when I'm down to just one bar, it can last a couple of days. But if I have a non-standard day coming up, some situation where it's more important than usual to be able to make and receive cellphone calls, I start feeling tempted to recharge when the phone is down to one bar. This is a problem - my previous phone died because I didn't let it empty all the way before recharging and left it on the charger too long when I did recharge, so I want to be particularly careful not to recharge a non-empty battery unless absolutely necessary.

This is why I want my phone to tell me how much battery time is left. Just make it a function in the menu. Tell me how much "on" time and how much "talk" time is left. Better yet, let me enter a value for "talk" time, and tell me how much "on" time I have in addition to that. That way, if I know that tomorrow I'll need to have the phone on for four straight hours and anticipate making six five-minute calls during that time, I can calculate whether I'll need to recharge the phone tonight or not.

Attention: Toronto District School Board students

I have decided to do it.

I am going to let Toronto District School Board students tell me how to vote for the position of Toronto District School Board trustee. I have one vote for a TDSB trustee in school board Ward 11. The candidates are here, scroll down until you get to Ward 11. If you are a TDSB student under the age of 18, leave a comment containing the name of one of these candidates. You don't have to justify it or convince me, I'm going with a strict majority or plurality. In the event of a tie, I will use my own judgement to break the tie. In the event that no one comments (quite likely, since I do not, to my knowledge, have any TDSB students in my readership), I will vote for a trustee using my own judgement. Any TDSB students, regardless of which ward they live in, are welcome to comment. Why? Because a) I don't know of anyone else who's doing this, and b) I have no way of checking whether or not you're from Ward 11 anyway.

If you have an online presence, I'd appreciate it if you could leave a link to your online presence in your comment, just so I can check that you're actually a TDSB student. (I'd be happy to delete any comments after the election is over, just let me know.) I'd also appreciate it if you could leave some kind of name (by selecting "Other" under "Choose an identity" rather than selecting "Anonymous"), just so I don't have multiple Anonymouses. However, I totally understand if you don't want to leave a link to your online presence on my strange adult's blog.

However, because I am allowing anonymous comments, I need some way to prevent abuse. So I have decided on the following rules:

1. Posts from IP addresses outside the TDSB catchment area will be deleted.
2. Multiple posts from the same IP address supporting the same candidate will be deleted.
3. Posts from the candidates' own IP addresses will be deleted (I will be tracking this by sending the candidates innocuous emails in the guise of an interested voter.)
4. Posts from people who I know for certain are not TDSB students - or who represent themselves online as something other than TDSB students - will be deleted.

If I find myself having to delete a post, I will say what I deleted and why, in the name of transparency.

After doing the best research I can, I have not been able to find anything indicating it's illegal or otherwise improper for me to do this. If it is, in fact, illegal or improper for me to be doing this, please leave me a comment with a link to whatever specific rule I've broken, and I'll call the whole thing off and cast no vote whatsoever for the trustee position.

Quebec as a nation

Quebec wants to be recognized as a nation (or rather, une nation), and certain parts of English Canada are freaking out about this.

You know what? This is just a translation problem. The scope of the English word "nation" is slightly different from the scope of the French word nation, and the predominate connotations of the two words are different. (If you can't wrap your brain around how two words that are written identically can have slightly different meanings, start here and fine-tune your sensibilities.) However, because the difference is rather subtle, the best one-word English translation of une nation continues to be the English word nation. It's just the primary connotation of the French nation is one of the rarer, secondary connotations of the English word nation.

The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of nation:

I. A people or group of peoples; a political state.
1. a. A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people. Now also: such a people forming a political state; a political state. (In early use also in pl.: a country.)

b. of (also by) nation: by nationality. of nation: of the nationality specified. Obs.
c. A group of people having a single ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliation, but without a separate or politically independent territory.
Freq. used of the Jewish people in the Diaspora.
d. With the: the whole population of a country, freq. in contrast to a smaller or narrower body within it.

Le Petit Robert's definition of nation:

- 1. Vieilli (sens primitif de natio). Groupe d'hommes auxquels on suppose une origine* commune.
- 2. Mod. Groupe* humain, généralement assez vaste, qui se caractérise par la conscience de son unité et la volonté de vivre en commun.

- 3. Groupe humain, en tant qu'il forme une communauté politique, établie sur un territoire défini ou un ensemble de territoires définis, et personnifiée par une autorité souveraine.

- 4. Ensemble des individus qui composent ce groupe.
- 5. Dr. et cour. «Élément de l'État constitué par le groupement des individus fixés sur un territoire et soumis à l'autorité d'un même gouvernement» (Capitant).

My idiomatic translation of the Petit Robert definition:

- 1. Archaic. A group of men [translation note: in the old-fashioned sense where "man" is used to mean "people"] who are presumed to have a common origin.
- 2. Modern. A generally rather sizeable group of people who are characterized by self-identifying as united and having the desire to live as a community.

- 3. A group of people, forming a political community, which lives in a defined territory or a group of defined territories, and is respresented by a sovereign authority.

- 4. The individuals who compose this group.
- 5. Legal and courts. The element of the State constituting a group of individuals living in a given territory and subject to the authority of the same government.

As you can see, the idea of a country is far more predominant in the English definition, and the idea of a shared culture and heritage is far more predominant in the French definition. In French, if they want to communicate the idea of a country, something separate from Canada, with its own flag and its own seat at the UN, they'd be more likely to use a word like pays (country) or État (State). These words have the meaning that English-speakers tend to read into "nation", but the word nation alone does not.

Rush Limbaugh is just faking

From the Toronto Star's Linwood Barclay:

Now, I know this may offend those who suffer from this particular condition, and these individuals might not like it much when I suggest that a certain person with this diagnosis is exaggerating his symptoms, but I have to say, I think Rush Limbaugh is just pretending to be a dick.

The literary advantages of Hogwarts

The advantage of the Harry Potter series being set in a school is that Harry is learning magic along with the reader, so the reader gets to know the limits of magic in this universe, especially the limits of the protagonist's magical skills.

In any fictional universe where the characters have access to magic (or extremely advanced technology), it needs to have limits. Cinderalla has to be home at midnight. The Starship Enterprise can't beam people up when its shields are up. You can't apparate or disapparate at Hogwarts. If the magic doesn't have limits, everyone is omnipotent, and then there's no plot potential at all.

Since Harry came into school with no magical knowledge, we get to watch him learn magic. JK Rowling is kind enough to show us every lesson that is germane to the plot, so we know more or less exactly how much relevant magic Harry knows. It makes for much better literature when the reader goes into plot climax knowing the protagonist's limitations, rather than having no idea what is and is not possible, and I don't know if it would be feasible to do this if we had first met Harry as a full-grown wizard.

How to talk about veils without becoming a hypocrite or an asshole

The fact that some people wear veils has suddenly become an issue of debate lately. I find this rather petty and unbecoming public debate, but since it's out there anyway, here's a quick thought exercise to use to avoid becoming a hypocrite or an asshole when discussing this subject.

1. Recognize the fact that, in addition to whatever religious or cultural connotations it holds, a veil also has a functional purpose: it is an item of clothing that is intended to cover part of the body.

2. Using an item of clothing that you, personally, use to cover part of your body that you want to keep covered, create an analogy for the statement you're about to make. The analogous item of clothing doesn't have to be the same each time, but it should be something that you, personally, would conceivably wear. If your statement holds in analogy, then chances are good that you can make your statement without being a hypocrite or an asshole.

Some examples of fruitful trains of thought result from this exercise:

- Do you think a Muslim father should have the right to forbid his daughter from leaving the house without a veil? Do you think a Western father should have the right to forbid his daughter from leaving the house in a short skirt?

- Do you think it's appropriate to forbid people from wearing veils to work or as part of their school uniform? Do you think it's appropriate for a workplace or school to institute a dress code that makes a short skirt mandatory, with no option of wearing pants or a longer skirt?

- Do you think it was appropriate for Jack Straw to ask people to remove their niqabs before coming into his office to talk to him? If I went to meet with him wearing a camisole under a suit jacket, do you think it would it be appropriate for him to ask me to remove my jacket?

- Do you think a veil is unprofessional? If I wore a suit with long pants because I don't want to show my legs, even though most women in similar positions wear skirt suits, would you think that is unprofessional?

- Women in Ontario are allowed to walk around without their heads covered; women in other parts of the world are required to cover their heads. Do you think that makes it unfeminist for a woman to cover her head in Ontario? Women in Ontario are allowed to walk around without their breasts covered; women in other parts of the world are required to cover their breasts. Do you think that makes it unfeminist for a woman to cover her breasts in Ontario?

Names

When people are trying to decide what to name their children, they get these books of names so they can look up the meaning of any names they might consider.

That's weird if you think about it. The meaning of your name is, well, meaningless IRL. I know what my name means because I looked it up once, but I can't tell you what anyone else's names mean. My life has been affected, for better or for worse, by my name's commonness, demographic connotations, and misleading grammatical implications in other languages. But the meaning? No effect whatsoever.

Things you can't or won't give up

I was reading this Ask Amy column, and one of the comments she made piqued my interest.

Context: a lady wrote in about her husband's drinking:

My husband is a great provider and a loving father. He is a good husband. His only bad trait is his drinking. By his standards, he is not an alcoholic. His drinking never interferes with his job. He never puts anyone in danger by driving drunk, and I seem to be the only person who is bothered by it (and I have been bothered by it for more than 20 years). He once tried to quit cold turkey but only at my insistence.

He has refused chemical dependency counseling because he is "not an alcoholic." He drinks only at home (doesn't go to bars). He says that I should let it be because he has always been a heavy drinker and doesn't feel that he needs to change. It disgusts me when he drinks. My attitude completely changes. I hate myself for feeling disgust toward him.

Amy, who eventually directs the reader to Al-Anon, begins her reply with:

Getting hung up on whether or not your husband fits his definition of an alcoholic won't help either of you deal with this issue. Clearly, your husband has a drinking problem. I know that because his drinking causes a problem in your relationship and because he can't - or won't - stop.

He can't or won't stop. That piqued my interest. Now obviously, we, the readers, don't have the full story here. We don't have examples of specific behaviours that make the wife dislike her husband's drinking. We don't have quantitative measures of how much he drinks. Obviously there's a lot of room for the possibility that the husband does have a drinking problem. Actuarially speaking, he probably does. But with the information presented in the letter, there is also a bit of room for the possibility that the husband's drinking isn't a problem, and it simply bothers the wife unreasonably. She does say that it doesn't affect his work and he doesn't drive drunk, and that she's the only person who seems to be bothered by it. The possibility is there that his behaviour is reasonable and she is unreasonably bothered by it.

But, regardless of how much he drinks, regardless of how reasonable or not her desire for him to stop may be, he can't or won't stop, and apparently that makes it a problem. But is it really?

Think of something perfectly innocent in your own life that you'd be unable or unwilling to give up. The first thing that comes to mind, for me, is cheese, followed closely by pasta and tomato sauce. If I tried to give them up, I wouldn't be able to sustain it. They're just too yummy and too readily available, and they make me too happy. When I have to go a long time without cheese, pasta, and tomato sauce, I get terribly cranky. When I'm hungry, that's the first thing I crave unless I've already eaten some that day. If some really compelling reason to give it up presented itself I could certainly give it a try, but I would fail. I would fall off the wagon into a giant plate of spaghetti. I simply cannot stop eating my pasta and there is no way I could go the next ~75 years and never taste cheese again.

Does that mean it's an addiction? Does that mean it's a problem? Or does that just mean it's a favourite food?

Do you have something like this? Something that you just could not give up, and if you tried you know it wouldn't succeed? Potato chips? Pork chops? Peaches? Or perhaps it isn't a food? A long sleep-in on Saturday mornings, for example? Playing fetch with your dog? Your morning yoga? Your regular hair appointment? Church? Book club? Lost? The daily newspaper? Your favourite music?

Or maybe a glass of wine with dinner?

Things I have dreamed recently

1. I dreamed I was a diplomat in charge of brokering peace in North Korea. There were four "tourist hotels", and each of the four parties involved in the negotiations (yes, I know there's six IRL, but I'm not a diplomat IRL either) was in a different hotel. However, no one was allowed to leave their assigned hotel, so we had to resort to elaborate subterfuge that reminded me of an episode of Hogan's Heroes I once saw to conduct our negotiations. Also, all the people who worked in the hotel claimed to speak English, but they didn't. They just spoke to us in Korean and told us it was English (no, I don't know how I knew they were telling us it was English.)

2. I dreamed I stumbled upon an Eaton's store that was operating under the radar - they had forgotten to send someone around to close it when Eaton's shut down, and they kept quietly operating in an unmarked storefront in the Toronto Eaton Centre, hoping the authorities wouldn't find them out. Everything sold in this store was perfect - the household goods met my needs exactly, the clothing fit me perfectly and could not have possible been more flattering, even the greeting cards were perfect for whomever I had to send greeting cards to. But I couldn't tell anyone about it, or the authorities would come and shut them down.

Subway sociology

On the subway home, there was a big puddle of liquid on one of the seats. It looked like someone had spilled a large double-double there. It was really interesting watching how people reacted to it. Everyone had exactly the same body language when they walked up to the seat. "Oh, there's an empty seat, I'll just..WHOA don't want to sit there!" It was exactly the same for everyone! Also, people standing in the area sort of adopted a position that would make it more difficult for someone to sit in that seat. I don' tknow if it was conscious or if they were just subconsciously adapting to the new definitions of "avilable standing space", but it was almost like they were sentries protecting people from the puddly seat. I would have taken pictures if I had a camera (and could have taken pictures surreptiously, so as not to affect the behaviour of the natives in their natural environment.)

Here's my plan, someone tell me if it's illegal

I want to give any TDSB students who stumble upon this blog a say in their school board trustee. My plan is to invite TDSB students to leave me comments on which trustee candidate they prefer, and then cast my vote for the candidate that gets the most "votes" in my blog.

I would implement measures to verify (insofar as possible, without compromising students' privacy) that the post are actually coming from students and not candidates or outsiders.

Would I be breaking any election laws if I did that?

Things They Should Invent: allow students to vote for school board trustees

I've been debating whether or not I should vote for a school board trustee. I can convince myself that it's my duty, and I can also convince myself that it's inethical for me to do so.

Then I realized that the people who should really be voting for trustees are the students themselves. Yes, the parents can vote for who they think is best, but the students should really have a say! I know you can't expect a kindergartener to vote, but a high school student would certainly be capable of it. It's their education, they really deserve a say - certainly more than a CFer like myself!

Actually, that gives me an idea, which I'll make another post for.

The trials and tribulations of owning a Swiss army knife in a post 9/11 world

I just noticed that my Swiss army knife is on my desk. My first thought was "I'd better put it away." But where do I put it? My standard practice used to be to toss it in my purse in case I need it, but what with every-changing security protocols, it could be confiscated at any time on the grounds that it could be used as a weapon. Better to put it away somewhere in the apartment. (I've only ever used it at home anyway.)

But where in the apartment does a Swiss army knife belong? Knives go in the kitchen, but this isn't really a kitchen knife. In the desk? No, not quite. In a dresser or nighttable? No, that's weird. I don't own any camping or outdoor gear, so I have no natural place to put a Swiss army knife. And so it sits, cluttering up my desk.

New Rules (advice-giving edition)

1. People who don't have oily skin/hair aren't allowed to give skin/hair care advice to people who do have oily skin/hair, unless it falls within the purview of their professional duties.

2. People who have very little body hair aren't allowed to give body-hair-grooming advice to people who have a lot of body hair, unless it falls within the purview of their professional duties.

3. If you're ever giving advice, it must fall within the parameters established by the request for advice. For example, if the question is "How can we get from Point A to Point B if no one in our party can drive?", "Rent a car for the day" is not an appropriate answer. If the question is "How can I dispose of this mirror without breaking it?", "Just throw it in the dumpster and don't worry about breaking it" is not an appropriate answer. If the question is "How can I make my hairdo hold for 8 hours, given that I won't have a chance to fix my hair during that time?", "Surely you'll have a moment to duck into the bathroom and fix your hair!" isn't an appropriate answer. If you want to give advice that falls outside of the parameters of the request, you must first give advice that falls within the parameters of the request. So for the hair question, you could say "Well, your best bet would be to French-braid it and spray it with Acme Hair Product. But if you do happen to get a moment to duck into the bathroom, you could also do X, Y, and Z."

Deep thoughts on politics

From a purely superficial point of view, Michael Ignatieff looks like an evil version of Dalton McGuinty.

YAY municipal politics!

I'm very happy, because this time around there's a viable challenger for my city councillor. Last time around their wasn't. I agree with only about half of my councillor's policies, and this year the challenger has some positions that go in direct opposition to some of the incumbent's, so I'm looking quite forward to this.

Snow!!!!

It snowed today! Only a few flakes and it didn't stick, but it was in fact snow! A bit early this year, methinks.

Does Lynn Johnston not read the newspapers?

Pssst, For Better or For Worse team, there are no cameras in Ontario courtrooms! Yes, they've talked about it, but it hasn't happened yet. Besides, the anonymity of sexual assault victims is always protected, so they wouldn't be filming Elizabeth anyway.

I'm surprised that Lynn Johnston didn't know this. I picked it up just from following the news - I didn't have any specialized or professional knowledge - so you'd think that someone old enough to be my mother would know it by now.

My deep, intellectual thoughts on the situation in North Korea

Remember the episode of Seinfeld where George accidentally buys women's glasses?

I think Kim Jong-Il is wearing the exact same glasses.

Brilliant Ideas that will Never Work: how to stop torture from being used in interrogation

Inspired by something I read in a novel a long time ago:

If you're ever being interrogated, tell them the truth, as minimally as possible. However, the instant they start mistreating you, start feeding them massive quantities of information that is 90% false and 10% true. Everyone in the world needs to do this for it to work.

On kids and chores

The Globe and Mail has had an ongoing discussion in its letters to the editor regarding kids and chores. My parents tried a number of different chore strategies when I was a kid. Some were very effective, some were very ineffective. But I haven't seen any of the lessons learned from these experience coming up in the G&M discussions, so I'm posting them here. As always, I am not a parent, I am not a child development expert, but I do remember distinctly my thoughts and emotional reactions at the time, so I'm using my adult articulateness to express my child-self's intellectual and emotional responses to various situations. This isn't about how children should react, this is about how one child did react. If it's inconsistent with what your parenting books say, that's because my child-self hadn't read any parenting books and was simply working with her own intellectual and emotional reactions. Note also that I grew up in a two-parent home, so I can't speak to what, if any, of this is applicable in one-parent homes.

Things to keep in mind when assigning chores to kids:

1. Let the children see both parents doing chores. Even if you have a stay-at-home (SAH) parent in the house, they should both be doing chores. If the working-outside-the-home (WOH) parent isn't seen doing chores, that gives the kids the message that the chores are the SAH parent's job. If they attempt to make the kids do chores anyway, especially if the WOH parent attempts to enforce it, that comes across as a double-standard to the kids. After all, they've had a long day at school, just like the parent has had a long day at work! It just comes across as smug and bossy, like the WOH parent thinking they're the emperor and the kids are all their little slaves or something and makes the kid even less inclined to do chores.

2. If you never do a certain chore, you have no credibility when it comes to that chore. For example, if Mom always does the vacuuming and Dad is never seen vacuuming, Dad has no credibility to tell the kid they're vacuuming wrong or that the vacuuming needs to be done. Again, it just comes across as smug and bossy and makes the kid even less inclined to do chores. If you want to be able to "manage" your kid when they do chores, then you should be seen doing similar chores. If you don't want to do those chores, then you should yield their supervision to your co-parent. The same effect is created when one parent tries to reassign chores normally done by the other parent. For example, my father never did dishes. Once my mother had jury duty, so he told my sister and me that we had to do the dishes, so my mother wouldn't have extra work to do after a long day of jury duty. That came across as complete and total bullshit - if my father really cared about my mother not having to do extra work, then he would have done the dishes himself! Instead it came across like he took great pleasure from bossing us around and sitting there smugly while we worked. (Aside: to this day, both my sister and I consider doing dishes as one of the most dreaded chores.) However, if our mother had asked us herself, said "Listen, I have a long day of jury duty ahead, so could you girls help me out and take care of the dishes?" then it would have felt like helping our mother out. But as presented by our father, who never did dishes, it came across as a power trip on his part and degrading to us.

3. Don't be arbitrary! The chores should make sense to the child! Having the kid water the lawn and then cut the lawn doesn't make sense, especially since the kid didn't get a say in whether or not your household has a lawn in the first place. They should also be related to the aspects of household life that the child enjoys and benefits from (by the kid's own definition) - the kid should have some reason to care whether or not the chore gets done. Having them clean the bathroom that they use makes good sense. Having them weed the garden, when the garden just grows big smelly rutabegas that they hate anyway and takes away a perfectly good corner of the back yard that they could use for 3rd base if the rutabegas weren't there, makes no sense. Having them dust the A/V cabinet makes good sense, assuming they watch TV sometimes. Having them dust the shelf full of ceramic figurines that they aren't allowed to play with doesn't make sense. Conversely, if the chore in question affects no one but the child, allow the child to do it to their standards. Let them keep their room as messy as they want, barring infestation (because infestation would affect the rest of the household). Think about how you do your own chores as an adult - if you think it's important that the chore get done, you do it. If you don't think it's that important, you don't do it. You weigh your own priorities and see that yeah, this is a busy week, so I'll make sure there's food in the fridge and the garbage gets taken out, but I won't wash the windows this week. Now imagine how it would feel in those circumstances if someone kept nagging you to wash the windows, when they could very well do it themselves if they cared that much!

4. Think about your priorities. If household logistics require that the kids take on some of the load, explain that to them. Don't use any trite and abstract "because we're a family and that's what families do," or "because you have to contribute to this household." Just explain to them that items W, X, Y, and Z need to get done in the evening after work and school, so their job is to do X. And if they really don't want to do X, let them choose whether they'd rather do W, Y, or Z. If household logistics don't require your child's participation but your priority is to make sure they know how to do things, present it that way. However, in these cases, it might not make sense to the child to have to do it over and over each day or week once they've mastered it. Also, this gives the kid an opening to say "No thank you, I don't care to learn how to paint a wall." If household logistics don't require the child's participation, and if it doesn't make logical sense for the chore to be considered a life skill learning experience, and if you can't come up with any other specific good reason why the child would be doing the chore, (note: "because I say so" isn't a good reason, that just gives the kid the impression that you enjoy bossing them around and making them miserable; "because the parenting books say it's good for you" isn't a good reason, that just makes it sound like you don't know what you're doing and are treating parenting books as bible without critical thought) then it's time to tie the chores to the kid's allowance. Divide the amount of the allowance by the number of chores, and pay them for each chore that they complete. Parenting experts advise against this, but my parents did it for the second half of my childhood, and I found it very useful. First of all, it gives the kid the sense that they are earning their own money, which is especially useful for kids who aren't in a position to have an outside job yet, and provides the motivation for doing the chores. I know parenting experts say the kids should do the chores for their own sake or to learn responsibility or something, but if there isn't a specific good reason other than "kids should do chores," the money will help. The kid will learn initiative, responsibility, and consequences by getting money or not depending on whether the chores are done. Plus, the parent can then expand the range of things the kid is expected to buy for themselves because the kid will have more pocket money, so the kid will learn that if they opt out of doing their vacuuming this week, the simple consequence is that they won't have the money to go to the movies with their friends.

5. Don't constantly supervise your child's chores. Teach them how to do it, of course, and let them ask you any questions they might have, but don't be there standing over them while they do it. And make sure their siblings don't bother them while they're doing chores. This gives them a bit of dignity and privacy while doing a job that they might consider undigifnied (or, even if they don't, a sibling bent on harassment might figure out a way to present it as undignified). It also gives them a bit more of a sense of control over their own destiny, which will in turn increase the sense of initiative and responsibility.

Note: I have emphasized throughout this that chores need to make sense to the kids, consequences need to be natural, and "because I say so" is never a sufficient excuse. This is particularly important if you are suddenly changing the way things are done in your household as a result of reading some parenting article or getting some advice, rather than because of internal forces that are evident to your kids. This is the single greatest mistake my parents made - they'd occasionally change the rules to something that made life less enjoyable for no apparent reason (in retrospect, they were probably reading an article or getting advice or something) - and I'm still feeling the resulting resentment and lack of trust to this day.

If changes are made for no apparent reason, especially if the changes don't seem obviously beneficial, this is unsettling to the kids. When things don't make sense, they feel like you either have no idea what they're doing, or they feel like you have some nefarious motivation that they can't yet figure out. This is your kids' real life, their home life, their private life, so they need the security of knowing that the conditions of their life aren't just going to change for no reason.

Analogy: imagine how you'd feel if every once in a while, for no apparent reason, your employer changed your work schedule or moved you to another office or changed your salary/benefits. Now imagine how you'd feel under these conditions if there was absolutely no possibility whatsoever of you ever finding another job or retraining in a new field. You wouldn't want to feel that way in your home life at all times, would you?

Things They Should Invent: mp3s sorted by tempo, for distance runners

In sports camp when I was a kid, one of the counsellors taught us to mentally (or verbally) sing Do Wah Diddy Diddy while we ran, to pace ourselves. If you want to make sure you aren't going to hard, you try to sing the song out loud (because you should still be able to talk while running at a normal pace).

This technique served me well throughout my life, but it gets pretty boring having just that one song. So what they should do is have a service where you can download mp3s by tempo. For example, you type in MM=120, and you get a list of every single song that uses that tempo, so you can listen to a wide variety of music while you run, without losing your pace. Then, if you're training up and your pace increases, you can download some faster music to accompany you.