Wesley Crusher

I've recently been reading and enjoying podcasts of Wil Wheaton's Memories of the Future, and I'm particularly enjoying seeing his thoughts on the character of Wesley Crusher.

This also has me thinking about Wesley Crusher from an adult perspective and man, I gotta say: WTF?

Wesley Crusher made sense to me the first time around. I was in my preteens surrounded by adults who were far more idiotic than they should be. If Wesley hadn't existed, my fledgling attempts at fan fiction (although I didn't yet know it was called that) would have had to invent him. (Although I would have invented him as a curly-haired girl.)

But the thing is, Wesley Crusher wasn't invented by an adolescent fanfic author. He was invented by Gene Roddenberry, who was very much a full-fledged adult at the time. (I think he was well into his 60s?)

Looking at it from an adult perspective, I'm really surprised an adult writer would come up with a teenage Mary Sue for use in an adult context. You need to infiltrate Hogwarts? Sure, bring out the 17-year-old transfer student. But you're on a starship? Why not a newly minted ensign, fresh out of the Academy, who quickly rises through the ranks? If you need them to be a wunderkind, they could have also done a PhD in Warp Theory alongside.

I wish we had more information on why exactly Gene Roddenberry's Mary Sue ended up being a teenager.

Remembrance Day blogathon

One thing I've always hated about life is that if you don't go around gloating about what you're doing, people assume you're ignorant.

When I was in Montessori school, I wanted to play with these beads, but the teacher wouldn't let me because she said you had to be able to count to 10 to play with them. I could totally count to 10 - I could count to 100! But back then, at the age of 3 or 4, I didn't realize that she wanted me to show her I could count to 10, and just slunk off sad and confused.

When I was in Grade 2, I got really frustrated with how slowly my classmates read aloud. So rather than wait for them to struggle through a sentence, I'd read ahead and see how the story ended, then go onto the next story in the reader. By the time it was my turn to read, I was three stories ahead and had no idea where we were. So when it came time to put us into reading groups, my teacher put me into the blue group, which was the second-lowest. I was confused and rather humiliated, as I felt like I could read fluently. Eventually my parents intervened and I was bumped up to the green reading group, which was the highest, but not until after they'd all finished learning how to do cat's cradles.

When I was in Grade 7, a girl at my school was diagnosed with cancer, and some of her friends started raising money so she could buy a wig. I gave a significant amount of money to this fund - something like $5 or $10 when my weekly allowance at the time was $2 or $3. Then I came home from school and my father said he was writing his yearly cheque to the United Way, and asked if I'd like to add a donation. I said no thank you. So I got a lecture on why you have to be charitable. I really resented being treated that way just because I preferred to do the right thing quietly and humbly without gloating (I was still Catholic at the time and this was a virtue - c.f. Luke 18: 9-14 the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector) rather than giving money to an organization that seemed to spend an awful lot of money on giving its donors public bragging rights. (Which, incidentally, is the reason why my father has since stopped donating to the United Way.) That grated so much that since then I have only ever made anonymous charitable donations.

I got to thinking of all this because tomorrow is Remembrance Day. Remembrance Day is one of those things where people assume I'm ignorant when I don't go around holding forth at length about what's inside my head. It all started when I was in high school and our school band provided music for our local cenotaph ceremony. For four years (I wasn't in senior band in Grade 9), I saw the whole ceremony firsthand, from live on "stage". And the more I saw of it, the less comfortable it was. It seemed uncomfortably glamourous, with too much emphasis on the fact that the veterans were heroes and not enough on the waste and horror and pointlessness of war. (I've written some about that glamourization here.) I wasn't getting any sense of "Never Again," but I was detecting certain connotations of "and if you join the military, you can be a hero too!" So after high school I quietly stopped wearing a poppy. I knew Remembrance Day was really important to various people for various reasons and didn't want to be an ass about it, but I just didn't feel right playing along myself. I have since done a lot more research, especially about WWI (which was the original reason for Remembrance Day), and the more I learn the better I feel about my choice not to participate. The problem is, the standard assumption when I don't wear a poppy is that I'm completely ignorant of my history. In reality, when I was ignorant I was proudly wearing my poppy over my heart and hoping those old men in the navy jackets (who were OMG HEROES!) would notice that I remembered to say blow not grow.

Then today I saw an article about a revamped citizenship guide that would include "greater emphasis on Canada's military history and on the poppy as a symbol of remembrance and of Canada’s sacrifice in the First World War." That made me go "Huh?" because "sacrifice" implies that it's to achieve some goal, and the more I learn about WWI the less I agree with that assessment. I started reading up on it shortly after I finished university, when I realized that I didn't actually understand why it happened. Yeah, yeah, yeah, assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914. But how does that lead to a war? So I read and read and read, and the more I read the more I came to realize that it was a pissing match. Countries were declaring war on each other because they wanted to go off and have a jolly good adventure or because they didn't want their penises to fall off. It didn't need to be a war, even under standards by which it is sometimes necessary to have wars. And young men, unaware of the hell that awaited them, went off to enlist to have a jolly good adventure with visions of dashing uniforms and shiny buttons dancing in their heads - the very kinds of images the heroic glamourization of our local cenotaph ceremony might give an impressionable young person.

I learned in History class that initially Remembrance Day was created by WWI vets (then Great War vets) with this very sentiment - that war was senseless and wasteful and foolish and Never Again. It wasn't a jolly good adventure, it was hell. So thinking about this, I found myself wondering if it was more important to real-life WWI vets that they be viewed as heroes (even if it meant WWI being seen as worthwhile) or that future generations see just how pointless war is (even if it meant that the vets don't get treated as heroes). Unfortunately, the last WWI vet in my family died when I was like 10 years old, and I wasn't quite at the point where these questions occurred to me yet. (I was still early enough in my education that I was all proud of myself for memorizing 14-18 and 39-45.)

But I did think of a story my grandmother once told me about the first time she voted. When she was young, the voting age was 21 (although apparently soldiers and vets under the age of 21 were also allowed to vote.) So by the time she was allowed to vote, she was already married with one small child and another one on the way. After a long day doing housework and chasing a toddler while heavily pregnant, the last thing she wanted was to squeeze her swollen feet into shoes, corral the toddler into a stroller, and walk all the way to the polling place. But when she told her husband this, he freaked. It was the maddest she'd ever seen him in their two years of marriage. He said this is what he fought for in WWII - this is what his buddies died for - so she was damn well going to go and vote. So she did, and is now very vociferous about making sure her descendants vote.

The goals in the other branch of my family were much more prosaic. They had spent the last several generations getting buffeted back and forth between German occupation and Russian occupation (with some of my ancestors having been, legally and honourably, conscripted on both sides at different points during WWI). All the surviving members of this branch of the family were civilians in occupied Europe during WWII and caught behind the iron curtain in its aftermath. For them, what Canada stands for is food - not having to wait in line for bread, supermarkets fully stocked whenever you want. I can best honour these ancestors by eating well and being strong and healthy, which is neither here nor there. (They'd also like me to be a devout Catholic and sprog lots of adorable babies, but we have to be realistic here.)

Interesting as this all is, I can't spend tomorrow eating and voting, not least of which because there aren't any elections for me to vote in tomorrow. (Things They Should Invent: hold elections on Remembrance Day to honour what our dead soldiers were fighting for?) So I thought some more about this. What were my ancestors actually, in real life, not in political spin, sacrificing for me to have?

I ran through a number of ideas, and then it came to me: freedom of expression. What I'm doing right here and now. I'm sure my ancestors living through and/or fighting against various flavours of fascist oppression in Europe would be quite gratified to know that any thought, idea, or experience I wish to share I can instantly post where the whole world can see it.

So tomorrow, in honour of the sacrifices made on my behalf, is blogathon day. Not about Remembrance Day, about everything and anything. A massive deluge of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Hopefully I'll get to posting everything that's festering in my brain and my drafts folder, but if not there's at least gonna be a whole lot of words. My ancestors who sacrificed on my behalf probably wouldn't be thrilled with everything I have to say, but I'm sure they'd love the fact that I'm able to say it like this.

So that's what I'm doing tomorrow, and after much reflection I feel it is appropriate. However, I really resent the fact that if I don't explain this whole story, people will interpret my well-thought-out tribute as just playing around on the internet, ignorant of the significance of the day. That's almost as irksome as being put in the blue reading group and missing out on learning cat's cradle.

How privilege works?

I was shocked recently when I found out that someone I know who is older than me, more educated than I am, and has successfully raised multiple children to adolescence didn't know how vaccines work. I'm not talking anything complicated, just the basic fact that it introduces a small, controlled amount of the virus in question so your immune system learns to recognize that and knows how to fight it. (I know that it's more complicated than that and they don't always use the actual virus in question, but you see what I'm saying in general terms, as a very rudimentary description of the concept.)

This shocked me because I learned how vaccines work when I was a kid, probably around the age of 4. My mother explained it to me (in a simplified, child-appropriate way like my explanation above) so I would understand why I had to get a needle.

I was so surprised that a proper grownup didn't know this basic fact of life that I got talking with my mother about it.

Mom: "Well, not everyone has as much education..."
Me: "I didn't learn this from education, I learned it from you when I was like 4. Where did you learn it from?"
Mom: **thinks** "I learned it from my father when I was a kid and had to get a needle."
Me: "And where did Grandpa learn it from?"
Mom: **thinks** "He must have learned it in university."

So because my grandfather studied various science in university like 65 years ago, this piece of knowledge has, in our family, gone from being higher scientific education to conventional wisdom passed on from parent to child, like nursery rhymes and bible stories and household hints. It doesn't feel like privilege, it doesn't feel like rarefied scientific knowledge, it doesn't feel like a concept that you have to go to university to learn. It's just something your mommy tells you when you're a kid, like how to braid your hair.

My maternal grandfather has 16 direct descendants - 4 children and 12 grandchildren - and all of us have known how vaccines work since childhood. Any children we might have or might ever be responsible for will also know how vaccines work since childhood. Even if none of us had ever pursued higher education, we'd all still be in possession of this information that originally comes from higher education, whereas our peers who don't have an ancestor who learned about vaccines in university don't have this information before it comes up in school

I also find myself wondering how this relates to Lareau's concept of entitlement. Simply by growing up in a household where my parents could explain the reasons behind necessary medical procedures, I get the idea that I'm allowed to know the reasons behind any medical procedures I might be ordered to undergo. I'd totally ask for an explanation if ever instructed to undergo a medical procedure I don't understand, and I wouldn't even feel like I'm exercising entitlement in doing that. But perhaps if you grew up getting a needle because you have to, because they won't let you go to school if you don't, perhaps limited to the explanation "It's so you don't get the flu," you might be accustomed to undergoing medical procedures you don't fully understand, and it might never even occur to you to ask for an explanation. Then when you have to take your children to the doctor, it's totally "Because I said so" or "Listen to the doctor, he's a doctor."

What happens to unemployed youth when they stop being youth?

These past few months, I've seen a number of articles on youth unemployment, generally referring to people under the age of 24 and often talking about people who have never been employed. Some of these articles have been to the effect that these unemployed youth are hanging around making trouble and generally being up to no good (read in a "Kids Today! Get off my lawn!" tone of voice.)

What I'm wondering: Okay, so there are people under 24 who are unemployed and may never have had a job and perhaps are making trouble and being up to no good instead. So what happens to them when they turn 25 and age out of this youth demographic and into the broader 25-54 demographic? Obviously they don't magically find a job on their 25th birthday. So it seems like we have or are going to have soon a significant group of people in the 25-30 range who have never had a job. What happens there? Do they eventually manage to integrate into the workforce? (If so, how?) Or are we eventually going to have people in the 30-35 age range who have never been employed? Do the commentators who think unemployed people under 24 are making trouble also think that unemployed people 25-30 are making trouble? Unemployed people 30-35? If not, what causes them to stop making trouble?

Things They Should Invent: car seats for dogs

Based on the people I know who have both cars and dogs (a small sample), it seems standard operating procedure is either to put your dog in the car, perhaps tell him to sit, and leave him to his own devices, or to put your dog in the crate and put the crate in the car, perhaps securing it with the seat belt.

They really should invent either a car seat-type device for dogs, or a crate-specific way of securing the crate (similar to how baby seats attach to the car), or something so that Mr. Puppyface doesn't get hurt if there's a car accident.

I'm a bad evil terrible person and this post is in horrible taste

But I keep thinking of this:



"There's people with guns out there, sir."

Post your window-washing advice here

Here is my (outdoor) window-washing technique:

Washing with water and vinegar from a bucket using a sponge, working vertically. Follow each column with a squeegee, follow the squeegee with drying with paper towels.

This has worked better for me than using Windex (and, obviously, better than without a squeegee and without drying).

But it still leaves streaks, which, because I have big windows, sometimes makes it worse than if I hadn't washed my windows at all.

If you can wash windows without leaving streaks, how would you improve on my technique? (Note that I don't have access to a hose or any of the usual outdoor equipment.)

Questions for grownups

1. Are "funny" greeting cards getting less funny? I found they were funnier when I was a teenager. One could argue that my sense of humour has become more sophisticated, but I never found fart jokes and saggy boob jokes funny, not even when I was 9. (This round of birthday card shopping, I saw THREE separate cards with pictures of/references to bras and a caption about "have an uplifting birthday." THREE! Between that and the early xmas decorations and leftover Halloween stuff waiting to jump out and scare me, I am officially no longer accepting any more Scorpios in my life.)

2. Do people place holds at the library way more now than before the advent of the internet? When I was a kid, I'd go to the library, browse the shelves, and check out whatever appealed to me. Now, I have an epic hold list, and whenever I hear of a book that piques my interest I add it. I assume this difference is due to the fact that I can readily place holds on the internet, but there's the possibility that it's just child vs. adult reading habits.

The Amazon.ca / Eddie Izzard mystery

So I pre-ordered Eddie Izzard: Live from Wembley on Amazon.ca. The release date was yesterday. Normally when I preorder something from Amazon I receive it on the release date, or worst case it ships on the release date.

Then I receive an email from Amazon saying that there's a delay in my order, and the new ETA is Nov. 18 - Nov. 23. I appreciate the notice, but I'm super curious as to what exactly happen. Did they run out? Is there a flaw in the distribution chain? A brief perusal of the fandom doesn't turn up any other instances of this happening. Is it just me?

And to add to the mystery, there are now two Eddie Izzard: Live from Wembley DVDs on Amazon.ca: one released yesterday, which I ordered, and one with a January 2010 release date. I can't find any evidence of this second DVD with the January release date from any other retailer, including US Amazon.

This is all very odd. I've never had anything like this happen with Amazon, or with Eddie's material, or with preordered new releases of any sort.

Things They Should Invent: lemon creme brulee pie

Meringue doesn't taste like it looks like it should taste like.

However, creme brulee tastes like meringue looks like it should taste like.

So why not combine lemon and creme brulee and have something that tastes like what lemon meringue pie should taste like?

Places where I don't think you should shop

This is a continually-updated list of places where I don't think you should shop:

- overstock.com
- Shopper's Drug Mart
- Leon's
- Starbucks
- Carlton Cards
- Indigo
- Kitchen Stuff Plus
- Yonge Eglinton Centre
- Ikea
- Canadian Tire
- Sheppard Centre

Q: Why don't I think you should shop at these places?
A: Because they're doing xmas advertising and/or decorations too early.

Things They Should Invent: vaccine in pill form

Wouldn't it be easier and save a whole lot of time and drama if we could all just administer our own vaccine? Problem: I don't know about you, but I don't know how to administer an injection.

So what they should be working on: vaccine in pill form or some other self-administrable form.

Alternative: come up with a way to teach people self-injection as a matter of course (in school? by family doctors?)

Currently wondering: outside of mass vaccination contexts, if your doctor writes you a prescription for a particular vaccine or some other medication that has to be administered by injection, are you allowed to inject it yourself if you know how (e.g. you're a medical professional yourself or whatever?)

Blast from the past

When I was a kid I thought this was a plausible situation:

I wonder if the Disney princesses are princesses for the same reason children's protagonists have to be underparented

I often see complaints that Disney is setting a bad example for little girls by having all their protagonists be princesses.

I wonder to what extent this is a plot requirement?

In general, protagonists in children's literature/TV/movies are underparented. This is basically a plot requirement. You can't get into many interesting adventures when your lifestyle involves being driven to playdates in a minivan.

I wonder if the Disney princesses also have to be or become princesses for similar reasons?

For example, being a princess enables Pocahontas and Ariel to run/swim around singing and daydreaming, which leads to them having adventures and meeting their men. If Pocahontas was a prole, she'd probably be too busy tanning hides and farming corn, and if Ariel was a prole she'd probably be too busy doing whatever the mermaid equivalent was. The stories are about how they get to have adventures and defy family convention, and they simply wouldn't have room to do that if they weren't princesses, just like how if they wouldn't have room to do that if they weren't under-parented.

Cinderella and Belle had to become princesses to give them a happily ever after within their historical contexts. Cinderella had to escape from her family to have a happily ever after, and the only way to really do that was to marry. An alternative would have been to have her marry some sweet peasant boy and then her life is full of hard work but happy, but to make that look like a happily-ever-after they'd also have to have some rich, hunky, evil prince type who also wants to marry her. And there's also the problem that Cinderella's family of origin is somewhat upper class and could likely block a marriage to a peasant boy, whereas they couldn't possibly block a marriage to a prince.

Belle actually did want to avoid an undesirable marriage to Gaston, but the only options available to her would be for her father to create a successful invention, or for her to marry someone else. And she does this in an unconventional-for-fairytales way by a) seeing Gaston as an undesirable mate despite the fact that he's conventionally attractive, b) falling in love with a man (Beast) who isn't conventionally attractive. (Yes, he tranforms back into a conventionally attractive man at the end, but a) that's the perfect metaphor for how love works, and b) you couldn't expect them to consummate their marriage with him in beast form.) Watching it as a kid, I interpreted it as she had the open-mindedness to go for the non-attractive guy that everyone is shunning rather than the popular and attractive but evil guy, and is thereby rewarded with a happily-ever-after that includes love and security and no longer being dependent on the success of her father's capricious inventions.

(Snow White and Sleeping Beauty are also often included on the list of Disney princesses that are problematic, but I don't remember enough about the Disney versions of this story. I don't think I ever saw the Disney Sleeping Beauty, and all I took away from childhood viewings of Snow White is the dwarves' general silliness. The romantic subplot wasn't of interest.)

I should add that, watching these movies as a kid, I never perceived the protagonists' beauty as an essential part of why they got their happily-ever-after. I perceived it as because they were sweet and kind and charming. So that did make me feel a bit bad because I'm not and never will be that sweet and kind and charming, but I was already getting that guilt from catholicism. And the fact that they were princesses was no more unrealistic than the fact that the protagonists in all my children's and young adult books could run around without parents.

Things They Should Study; how does cultural prioritization of self-sufficiency affect employment rates and the economy as a whole?

Further to my previous thoughts about cultural prioritization of self-sufficiency stemming from Big Sort, I find myself wondering about its economic impact.

For example, my parents think it's decadent to buy lunch at work every day and think people should bring lunch from home. I think it's an annoying waste of time to make lunch at home and much prefer to buy it. If everyone thought like my parents, there'd be far few fast food places, food courts, coffee shops, delis, etc. So those food service jobs wouldn't exist, so there'd be less demand for wholesale food suppliers and bulk purchases of paper napkins, so there'd be less work for commercial delivery drivers, etc. etc. etc. If everyone thought like me, there'd be more of these jobs. I'm not an economic expert, but it seems to me that it might affect the broader economy.

Similar, in my family we do our own taxes or each other's taxes. Taxes are done within the "tribe" (in the sense of tribe that I coined in my Big Sort post). If everyone worked like us, there'd be no call for businesses such as H&R Block. However, because there are people who think it's a valid option to pay someone else to do your taxes, this whole business sector exists.

Given the geographical trends in attitudes towards self-sufficiency, I find myself wondering if they correlate with employment rates. Is there less employment in places that place greater priority on self-sufficiency because people are doing for themselves or keeping it within the tribe?

The trick to studying this would be you'd have to control for the fact that urban areas (which place less priority on self-sufficiency) have more jobs as a matter of course. That's how they got to be urban areas. If you build, say, a steel plant, all the jobs are going to be at the steel plant. The workers probably aren't going to live right next door to the steel plant (they do tend to get a wee bit smelly), but they may well end up sorting themselves into certain other neighbourhoods depending on whether they do or don't prioritize self-sufficiency.

How department stores can get my business

Apparently department stores are trying to make a comeback.

Here's how they can get my business: organize the women's clothing section by clothing type, not by brand.

When I'm shopping for clothes, I'm looking for, say, black pants. I don't care which brand, I don't care which line, I don't care which carefully-selected marketing demographic, I want black pants.

The way department stores are currently arranged, they have a section for every brand. This means I have to wander all over the floor, looking at the pants rack in every single section. This is annoying and time-consuming.

Meanwhile, when I wander into Reitman's or Smart Set, I can go to the side of the store with the more career-oriented clothes, look at all the pants in that section, and that's that. Even at Winner's (which I also find annoying to shop because the racks aren't easily scanable), I just have to look through the racks labeled "pants".

So if you want me to shop at your store, put all your career wear in one section, and arrange the displays so they're easily scanable. I want to walk up, take a look, and immediately have an idea of the range of black pants available, regardless of brand. Then I'll happily go through the racks for the specific items that pique my interest.

Astronauts and dogs and Twitter

1. Astronaut Leland Melvin appears to have had a formal astronaut portrait taken with his big gorgeous dogs! I'd love to have been behind the scenes in that photo session.

2. Astronauts Scott Kelly and Ron Garan, currently in Moscow, found a stray dog...on a train!

Why I am madly in love with Sheldon from Big Bang Theory

(Gloating: I totally caught the translation error in the subtitles at 2:07 - Poodle just confirmed it for me. This is noteworthy because I don't actually speak Portuguese.)

The other problem with the Omar Khadr situation

Why is Omar Khadr in prison in the first place? Because he allegedly threw a grenade that mortally wounded a US soldier.

I know nothing of the legalities and technicalities of the situation, but the fact that a person can be arrested for allegedly attacking invading/occupying soldiers who are attacking them offends my sense of fair play.

It would be like going into a paintball game with a fully loaded paintball gun and shooting paintballs at people, and then pressing assault charges when they shoot paintballs at you. It would be like starting a game of dodgeball on the playground, and then running tattling to teacher "Waaaah! She threw a ball at me!"

If you're going to send soldiers into other countries and have them go barging into buildings trying to capture people, you have to assume they're going to get shot at or have grenades thrown at them or whatever. If you don't want your soldiers to get shot at, don't go around making war zones.

Do non-socialists see their views as being for the common good?

Terminological note: "non-socialist" is not the word I'm looking for. I'm looking for an opposite of "socialist" that isn't inherently negative (i.e., tempting as it is, "fascist" won't do.) If you can think of le mot juste after reading the post, let me know in the comments.

I once heard someone who wasn't socialist (and may have been opposed to socialism) define socialist as "I want this but I don't want to pay for it." I find that definition imprecise. When I want something and don't want to pay for it, I go to FilesTube or Pirate Bay. When I'm being socialist, I'm saying "Everyone should be able to have this," and most often I'm saying "I have this, I see it is good, I think the world would be a better place if everyone had it." It isn't about me, it's about everyone.

Oddly, this is similar to my attitude towards breaking the rules. Sometimes, when the line at a store is really long, I'm tempted to just shoplift my purchase - not because of the money, but because of the unreasonable wait. Haven't done it yet, but it is tempting sometimes. So I was googling around this idea once, and found people saying that people who shoplift (yes, for the express reason that the line is too long) just think they're specialer than anyone else. This isn't true in my case. I'm tempted to shoplift not because I think I'm special, but because I don't think it's reasonable to have to wait in line to buy your food for longer than it would take to eat said food. If anyone else shoplifts in this situation, I totally see where they're coming from. It's not that I think I should and they shouldn't. Similarly, when I jaywalk, or when I skipped class in high school, it wasn't that I thought I was above the rules, it was that I thought the rules were unfair (to everyone) and no one should have to follow rules that are unfair.

So thinking about this, I find myself wondering if non-socialists feel that their views are somehow for the common good (rather than just "I shouldn't have to spend money on stuff I don't use myself). On one hand, my own viewpoint is less selfish than they think it is, so it would be ungenerous not to consider the possibility that their viewpoint is less selfish than I think it is. On the other hand, the fact that people think I'm thinking of socialism purely in terms of my own benefit - and the fact that people think I break the rules because I think I'm specialer than anyone else - suggests that these same people might view their own politics - and any disregard for the rules that they might have - purely in terms of their own benefit.

Why hasn't the climate map received North American media coverage?

Recently I saw an item on Google News about how some scientists had made an interesting and interactive map of how a 4 degree increase in world temperature will affect different parts of the world. Fascinating!

However, it didn't turn up in any of my usual news sources, which was odd. So today I searched in Google News, and I can't find any evidence that this story has been picked up in North America, not even once.

So what's up with that? Have you seen the climate map mentioned in North American media?

Things They Should Invent: divide tone-deaf into two concepts

In general usage, tone-deaf is taken to mean you can't sing because you miss the notes. However, its literal meaning is that you can't hear the difference between notes. If you google for online tests of tone-deafness, they're really ear training tests - they test whether you can differentiate aurally between different notes.

However, there are people like me who can hear music and differentiate aurally between notes just fine, but can't hit the right pitch when singing. I know I'm not hitting all the notes, I can hear that I'm not hitting all the notes, I just...can't make it happen. Similar to how if I try to sink a three-point shot on the basketball court, I'm probably going to miss. I can see the hoop, I can see that the ball isn't going through the hoop, but I can't necessarily make it go through the hoop.

For lack of better ideas I suggest tone-mute for this concept, but I'm wide open to better ideas.

Blast from the past

This song didn't feel nearly so bubblegum when it first came out.

I want these!

Joan Jett, Debbie Harry and Cyndi Lauper in Barbie form.

Those would have been such an awesome addition to my all-blonde Barbie collection.

Currently wondering about anti-vaccine sentiment

Why do people think their immune system is strong enough to fight off a whole disease, but don't think their immune system is up to properly assimilating a vaccine?

Everyone look at the xkcd website today

Even if you normally read it through a feed reader, make sure to click through to the main page today.

It's beautiful!

Thoughts from Big Sort

A while back, I was chatting with my hairdresser and found out that most of her clients are childfree. I thought on this a while, and it led to my noticing that in a great many areas in life, I choose things that are most suitable for me, and find myself surrounded by people who are like-minded in other ways on top of the factor that led me to that choice.

So I was googling around this idea for a while, and found this book: The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart by Bill Bishop. The book is very US-centric, but parts of it still seem applicable to my reality, and it led to a number of interesting trains of thought, which I'm going to blog about here.

(Note: The book deals with generalized demographic trends, so this post necessarily does to. I started out putting all the necessary mitigative language in everywhere and it quickly became ridiculous, so everything here is to be interpreted as a generalized trend, not an absolute truth, even if it is phrased absolutely.)

How do educated people perceive education?

One of the things touched on in the book is that people who don't have higher education tend to be...suspicious is the best word I can come up with, but that isn't quite precise (I'm foolishly writing this without the book in hand)...of people who do have higher education. They see us as up in some ivory tower completely removed from their reality, with perhaps an undertone of that we think less of them. That's just completely unlike my corner of reality. Round these parts, education is just something you have or have not done depending on your circumstances and inclination. It's morally equivalent to having read a particular book or not. If you've read the book, then you've...read the book. If you haven't read the book, you can always read it later, or watch the movie, or google it, or continue to go about your life without it. No big deal.

But then in some of the recent strikes (TTC, City of Toronto workers), some people were getting really pissed off that these workers were earning a decent living in jobs that didn't require higher education, and even calling for these jobs not to pay a decent living on the tacit basis that they didn't require higher education. That's so totally WTF I can't even begin to speculate.

But this raises a lot of questions. How many people with higher education think it's no big deal like I do, and how many think it's like some sacred golden key like the strike haters do? Do people with less education perceive people with more education as Other because of the strike hater types, (or vice versa, although I couldn't imagine how that would work), or did the two evolve separately? Could we create a better-functioning society by getting more people to think of it as no big deal? Would affordable tuition do this?

Why do people who value self-sufficiency need small-talk from strangers?

One of the points made in the book was that people who live in more rural areas tend to value self-sufficiency and independence. This surprised me, because one thing I have noticed in real life is that people in more rural areas are tend to want to small-talk with strangers, and find it off-putting that city people tend to not initiate conversation unless there's a specific reason to. My reasoning behind not talking to people unless I have a specific reason to is out of respect. I assume they're perfectly competent people with their own lives and their own concerns, and there's no reason why they would be interested in me. And yet, the population that disagrees with this approach correlates with a population that values self-sufficiency. So what's the story?

Are people who value self-sufficiency more actually more broadly competent?

As I mentioned above, people who live in rural areas and are more conservative tend to value self-sufficiency, seeing it as practically a moral imperative. This reflects something that has long been baffling me. If I mention that I can't do something or can't do it well enough to bother, certain people I know try to convince me I can - like they try really hard, far beyond social ego stroking, and seem really invested in the idea that I really can do whatever if I just try. After reading the book, I realized the people who do this are among the most conservative people I know. So they view self-sufficiency as more of a moral imperative - if you're self-sufficient, you're a good person; if you're not self-sufficient, you're being a lazy-ass and therefore a bad person. These people generally see me as a good person, so their initial gut reaction is that because I'm a good person, of course I can do whatever it is!

But, of course, the way real life works is that different people are good at or not good at different things to different degrees. So people who value self-sufficiency are going to do things themselves whether they're good at it or not, and are more likely to interpret the results of their efforts as adequate even if they are sub-optimal because they view it as a moral imperative. Meanwhile, people who have no particular problem with the idea of not being self-sufficient are more likely to look at sub-optimal results as "Meh, I'm not very good at this" and hire someone to do it next time.

It would be really interesting to study people who do and don't value self-sufficiency as a moral imperative and see how good they are objectively at various things. The trick is you'd have to control the results for the amount of practice the people have. For example, my parents think it's excessively decadent to hire someone to paint, so they paint themselves, and they've probably painted a whole house a total of four times in their lives. Meanwhile, I'm not very good at painting neatly and the smell of paint nauseates me, so I've painted maybe a quarter of a wall in my life and very much hope never to paint anything ever again. (I would unhesitatingly choose to live with peeling paint if I couldn't afford painters rather than attempt to do it myself.) So if you wanted to study who is objectively better at painting, you'd have to control for the fact that my parents have painted so much more than I have. Maybe they could study what people consider an acceptable result for their effort or something like that

What if we're working with two different definitions of self-sufficient?

One of the major examples the book gives of these attitudes towards self-sufficiency is that the self-sufficiency as moral imperative people view public transit as a waste of taxpayers' money and everyone should just STFU and drive themselves. (No mention either way of how they feel about toll roads - I haven't seen many toll roads in exurban areas.) This made my brain explode a little, because my initial, visceral attitude towards public transit is that it provides self-sufficiency. You can just go anywhere, no need to be dependent on a car or on other people to drive you, life is easy.

This all reminded me of a conversation I once had with my father back when I was a in my early teens. They were thinking about extending a bus route into our neighbourhood, and my father thought it was a waste of money because everyone in our transitless neighbourhood had a car - that's why they chose to live in the transitless neighbourhood. I was all "Um, no, I don't have a car. Kids who are old enough to go places themselves but not old enough to drive don't have cars. Seniors living with their adult children can't necessarily drive." I could think of dozens of individuals in the neighbourhood who would be well-served by a bus route. But my father was like "You don't need a bus, your mother and I drive you places. Kids are driven places by their parents. Mrs. Old Lady down the street is driven places by her adult children." A very disheartening thing when you're at the point where you're starting to want to do things independently of your parents, like all the protagonists in your favourite young adult novels.

But in that conversation, my father and I personify the two different views of self-sufficiency that I think are on the two sides of the Big Sort. I see self-sufficiency as an individual's independence from other individuals. I don't want to be dependent on my parents to drive me around. I see my grandparents also being dependent on my parents to drive them around, and I don't want to live like that either. However, people like my father see self-sufficiency as what I will for lack of a better word call their "tribe" (family, household, relatives, neighbours) being independent from outsiders. I think they feel that they take care of their tribe, and they don't want anyone else meddling with it. And I think they also feel that they're already doing the right thing and taking care of their tribe, so they shouldn't have to take care of someone else's tribe too. So at the crux of the divide is whether you think the tribe should be independent of the government, or whether you think the government should enable people to be independent of their tribe.

How you feel about this isn't necessarily reflective of the quality of your tribe. For example, I once saw someone propose that to save money, hospitals shouldn't give their patients meals, on the logic that hospitals are in the business of medicine, not catering. Patients' families should bring them food instead. Now, if I were in the hospital, my family would totally bring me food. We don't always like each other, we don't agree on most aspects of politics, but I have no doubt they would bring me any and all food I wanted for the duration of my hospital stay. However, I can totally imagine dozens of situations in which this model of the patients' families bringing food would be unsuitable, so, despite the fact that my tribe would totally feed me, I remain vehemently opposed to the idea of leaving people dependent on their tribe for food.

I think a problem with the tribe-centric view is that it doesn't always allow for the possibility that individuals do need to operate independently of the tribe. For example, I have seen several cases where right-wing fathers (I've only ever seen it with right-wing fathers, although I'm not discounting the possibility that other people do it too) have opposed some political measure because they think it would make it harder for them to provide for their children. However, they either didn't notice or didn't care that said political measure would make it easier for their children (who were either already or almost launched) to provide for themselves.

It would be interesting to study this self-sufficiency/tribe-centricity thing to see if the attitudes correlate with a person's position in their tribe. For example, cities are full of people who have left their tribe of origin upon reaching adulthood, which means that their only role without the tribe has been one of dependence. This would lead one to conclude that the people who value the individual's independence from the tribe are those who would be dependent upon the tribe, and the people who value the tribe's independence from outsiders are those with provider roles within the tribe. However, there are still people who stay in the more rural/conservative areas by choice despite their dependence on the tribe, even though they could live as independent individuals with the greater amenities available in urban areas. So there must be some other factors going on there, but I can't see them at the moment.

So how do we unsort ourselves?

As the book points out, people don't choose where to live because of the presence of like-minded individuals. We choose where to live because it suits our various needs. It's a reasonable commute to work. The quality of the housing is as close to ideal as we can manage. The distance from or proximity to various things is as close to optimal as we can realistically manage. Similarly, I chose my hairdresser because she specializes in long hair, not because she and her clientele are childfree. I chose my job because the work is a good match with my strengths, not because I'd be working with people with a similar family immigration history.

So how can we unsort ourselves? I don't know about you, but I'm not about to move to a less suitable neighbourhood, job, or hairdresser, especially not in service of spending more time with people whose political opinions I consider somewhere between sub-optimal and repugnant.

Or should we?

One thing that has really baffled me about Toronto municipal politics is people who live in Toronto proper, but don't want the trappings of urban life. They don't want bus service on their street or a subway stop in their neighbourhood or mixed-use zoning. They want to be able to park three cars on their property. I honestly do not understand at all why they choose to live in Canada's most urban municipality when they don't want urban life, and when the lifestyle they do want is readily available (at a significantly lower cost) just over in 905. As I've blogged about before, I chose my neighbourhood of highrises specifically for its urban nature, and it's very frustrating when people who live in houses outside our highrise neighbourhood try to stop the building of new highrises. So maybe we'd all be happier if we sorted ourselves fully.

But it doesn't seem right to position ourselves so we're completely disregarding a whole chunk of society just because they prefer a different lifestyle.

What would happen if all stimulus money was spent directly on creating government jobs?

In real life, there's obviously be too much political/ideological backlash, but let's just play with this idea.

The different levels of government cooperate to create a whole bunch of jobs in the positions where they're most likely to have use for them for long term, and they hire as many unemployed people as funding will bear to fill these jobs. If they can't find candidates with suitable qualifications, they either train them or give them full ride scholarships to go back to school, with a guaranteed job at the end. The jobs are all full-time Good Jobs, not contract hell, with decent salary, benefits, pensions, unionized if that's the standard, etc. The arrangement is that they will do their very very best to keep all these people employed for their entire careers; if their current position becomes redundant, they'll find them another suitable position, and train them if necessary.

So how would this affect the economy? Primarily, the consumer confidence of the people who get these new jobs would skyrocket. They would buy a house if they're into it and can find a suitable one at a price that's commensurate with their salary. They would buy a car if they need one. They wouldn't put off going to the dentist since they now have coverage. They wouldn't scrimp on groceries or haircuts or internet service or any number of everyday expenditures. So this would in turn help the housing market and the car market, as well as businesses like optometrists and hairdressers and coffee shops. If you've got enough confident consumers patronizing these businesses, the business owners and employees will themselves become confident consumers.

The big questions which I don't know how to calculate: 1. How many jobs would be created? 2. How many confident consumers are needed to restore the economy?

Thanks in advance

From the second letter in this Miss Manners column (bolding mine):

You could assist an entire profession if you would advise undergraduates on how to compose e-mail messages to their professors.

Like my colleagues, I've received peremptory messages from undergraduates, even entering freshmen, the tone of which might have been used by an aristocrat to a particularly lax and unpleasant waiter. After the remonstrances, there's often a transparent attempt at manipulation, as in "Have a great weekend!" or "Thanks in advance for your understanding."

The thing is, I was specifically taught to use those so-called "transparent attempts at manipulation" in the various business and professional writing courses I took in university. I've been using them for years, both in my own correspondence and in translations of other people's correspondence, under the supervision of instructors and professors and trainers and managers and senior colleagues of every generation, and no one has every suggested that these formulas are ever inappropriate. I've even had people compliment me on managing to work these kinds of phrases in.

It might be the influence of French on my profession. It is perfectly normal and unremarkable in French to close with something like Avec mes remerciements anticipés, je vous prie d'agréer, Madame, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs. I yoinked that sentence right out of my advanced French writing textbook (i.e. advanced French writing for non-native speakers). When I first encountered that in French, I thought "Ooh, isn't that a good idea!" and started thinking how to incorporate it into English. It's quite possible that everyone who has trained or taught me went through the same process.

So what do you think? Are "Thanks in advance" and similarly manipulative structures inappropriate? (Or inappropriate when writing to superiors etc.?)

I've posted so many analogies in my blog that it has become an analogy

There are some people who have the attitude "I can do X, so anyone should be able to do X." This often comes with connotations that the people who can do X are just being lazy, and if they'd be diligent they'd be able to do X just fine.

So here's my analogy:

I average two blog posts a day. (Yes, I've been lazy lately, but two a day is the mathematical average.) Approximately 50% of my posts (based on a random sampling of several archive pages) contain original creative or critical thinking (as opposed to being links, quizzes, youtubes, diary entries, liveblogging, or emotional angst). I've been keeping up this pace for years.

So before you go assuming that because you can do something anyone can, I'll ask you this:

Where's your blog?

Now I know that there are several people reading this who can blog at a steady rate. But I think we've all seen enough dead blogs to get the point.

"The older you get, the smarter your parents get": two possible perspectives

I've been very frustrated with my elders lately, because they aren't being smarter than me in the ways I need them to be. I'm not talking professional knowledge or knowledge specific to certain hobbies and interests, I'm talking life knowledge and skills that you absorb or figure out just by living life. How to remove a stain. How to invest your money. How to answer the "Tell me about a time when you had a conflict in your workplace" job interview question when you haven't actually had a conflict in your workplace. I keep finding my elders know no more than I do in these areas, and sometimes are two steps behind me. It's very frustrating, and also utterly baffling. I came into the world in 1980 knowing literally nothing. Since then, I've had to learn how to walk and talk and eat and read and socialize and balance my bank account. And during this time, I also developed a certain amount of expertise in stain removal and investing and job interviewing. But my elders, who had already figured out how to do all the walking/talking/bank account stuff long before 1980 and have been removing stains/investing/job interviewing since well before 1980, don't seem to know anything more than I do.

So my first theory is that they have some huge amount of extra knowledge in areas that I can't even see, can't even begin to imagine. So I was wishing that there was some way to tell how much of a person's knowledge you aren't seeing. In the Sims, if a person has five personality traits but you only know three of them, you can see that there are two other traits you don't know. I was thinking it would be so helpful if we could see something similar for people we're talking to in real life. I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but when I talk to someone I tend to get the impression that what I'm getting from them is representative of the whole person. It would be far easier to respect an elder who tells me "wash your clothes inside out" as though that were panacea, as though I haven't already been doing that for a decade, if I knew that I was only seeing 10% of what they have to offer, rather than thinking they had lived for decades and decades and the best they have to offer is that I should wash my clothes inside out.

In a fit of frustration, I tweeted that I've learned more from my elders about what not to do than about what to do. But that ultimately led to my second theory: our elders don't actually have decades of experience on us, because in living alongside them and observing them we're constantly absorbing the lessons they've learned from their decades of experience. I'm not even talking about stuff our elders try to deliberately teach us, I'm talking about lessons that they learn when we're kids - we learn right along with them.

For example, both of my grandmothers are still living in their own homes, but they need their kids to drive them places and help with stuff around the house. I look at that and think that's not what I want my golden years to be like (especially since I won't have kids), so I've already altered my life accordingly by choosing to live in a highrise in a high-density, walkable neighbourhood. My parents were constantly painting and fixing up their house, and I hated it. The smell, the mess, the instability...so because of that, I'm never going to buy a fixer-upper or go charging starry-eyed into a DIY redecorating project only to end up weeping on the floor of a half-ruined room. My parents also took us on a lot of trips, and I hated it. Close quarters, carsickness, lack of control over food and accommodations, and I simply don't get any pleasure out of sightseeing or being on a beach or whatever. So because of this, I'm never going to waste thousands of dollars and a year's worth of vacation time and ruin a relationship on some idealized "OMG, travelling = sexy!"

But I think part of the problem is that our elders think that we're in the same place they were when they were our age. I'm pretty sure at least one of my grandmothers thinks I don't realize that, in being childfree, I won't have any kids to take care of me when I'm old. I'm pretty sure she and her husband bought their house when they were in their 20s without giving any thought to what life will be like at 80 so she assumes I'm doing the same, whereas in real life I learned about the long-term unsuitability of car-dependent housing at the same time that she did.

Analogy: Our elders are like pure mathematical theorists coming up with new proofs and equations. We're the math students decades later casually using those proofs and equations in our applied math textbooks. I certainly could never come up with a way to calculate or prove derivatives, and I promptly forgot the long-form equation as soon as we started learning the product rule and the quotient rule. But I can still use derivatives in physics for velocity and acceleration, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of my physics work is being discounted because the senior academics think my theories on velocity and acceleration are worthless because when they were my age they didn't have a way to calculate derivatives.

Mashup bunny: Shut Up And Drive My Car

vs.



You'd need to tweak the tempos a bit, but that's doable for people who know how to do that sort of thing.

More later

I have multiple posts festering in my brain and in my drafts folder, but I'm too cranky today. I spent the whole day feeling disproportionately pissed off at non-immediate assholes and my make-up feels heavy.

So here's a kitten who thinks her food is yummy:

When, why, and how did classroom learning start being unsuitable for boys?

I've heard it mentioned as a given quite a few times in quite a number of places (examples off the top of my head: this and this) that boys are ill-served by the traditional classroom model of school. Apparently they find it way harder than girls to sit down, sit still, listen, pay attention, read, write, buckle down and do their work, etc.

But there's a great big neon blinking question mark here that I haven't seen addressed or even mentioned anywhere: the traditional classroom model, complete with sitting, listening, paying attention, and diligently doing work, dates back to when school was for boys only. Off the top of my head and limiting myself only to Anglo-Saxon culture (because that's the only one I have pertinent information from off the top of my head), I know that the traditional classroom model was around in the UK in the middle ages, because the Catholic church used it (at Oxford and elsewhere) to train boys up to be priests.

So when did this model, which was originally conceived for a male-only context, become unsuitable for boys? Why and how did this happen? If someone could figure this out, maybe we could address it or undo it.

Open Letter to panhandlers

Dear Toronto panhandlers:

A number of your have recently been approaching me as though you're about to ask for directions, only to ask me for money. You're going to have to stop doing this, because it's going to ruin our city.

I totally get that innovation is required in tough economic times, but you're going to have to find something else. If you keep approaching people like you're asking for directions, we're going get desensitized and start ignoring genuine direction-askers on the assumption that they're just panhandling. (I, personally, have gotten about twice as many panhandlers as genuine direction-askers in the past month.)

We don't want to be the kind of city where people don't stop to give visitors directions, but we do have a limited tolerance both for being asked for money and for being tricked. Please, for the good of the city, leave the asking-for-directions body language and related conceits to people who are genuinely asking for directions.

Severance pay poll

From this article:

A study by Barry Fisher, a prominent employment law mediator, found that courts have awarded an average of 2.6 months' notice per year of service to employees who have been with a company for just two years. This means that on average, an employee with two years' service receives over five months of notice on termination.

Then later:

A written contract could limit the entitlement for a two-year employee to as little as two weeks, for example.

(Bolding mine.)

This is completely inconsistent with my corner of reality. I would feel very fortunate indeed to get over two weeks, and five months (for any tenure of employment) is unheard of. I have seen a number of collective agreements for different professions and different employers, and they tend to hover around one week per year of employment.

So my question for anyone reading this: are these number for severance pay (five months being typical, two weeks being characterized as "as little as") typical/normal in your corner of reality?

Anonymous comments are welcome, you don't have to identify yourself or your profession, but please indicate if you are outside of Canada. (You don't even have to say where, just that you're outside of Canada.)

Public Health message we need: stay home sick even if your illness isn't H1N1

Some members of the general public seem to be getting the idea that the public health message that you should stay home sick because of H1N1/swine flu means you should stay home if and only if you have H1N1.

I'm not a health professional or anything, but shouldn't people be staying home sick no matter what they have? If you're sick, your resistance is down so your body won't be as able to fight off any flu that might come its way. If you go to work with a common cold and spread your cold around the office, you'll have a whole office full of people who are less able to fight off any flu that might come their way. But if you stay home for a day and sleep your cold off, you aren't just avoiding weakening other people's immune systems, you're making your own immune system strong again.

If this line of thinking is valid, I think the public health people need to emphasize that you should stay home sick even if you don't have swine flu!

Debt ratios

Thomas Walkom on Canada's deficit.

I'm not quite knowledgeable enough to comment on this or any other theory of paying off national debt. (I do have opinions, but they're generally based solely on my experience managing my personal finances.) However I think it's interesting to compare these debt ratios to what they would be if they were an individual's personal debt. Again, I don't know enough about managing a nation's finances to know if this is a valid comparison, but it's interesting so I'm blogging it.

This year's federal deficit is expected to represent just 3.7 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product

So let's assume you're an individual who earns $50,000. (Q: Why $50,000? A: It makes the math easy and is close to Canada's household average.) So suppose in a given year (after several years in the black) and in response to a legitimate and temporary problem, you spend more than you earn to the tune or 3.7% of your salary. 3.7% of $50,000 is $1,850. (Aside: the great advantage of blogging over translating is I don't have to circumlocute starting a sentence with a numeral.) So one year you spend $1,850 more than you earn. Not a huge problem. You do need to pay it off, you probably want it in a credit instrument with a better interest rate than a credit card, but you'll be fine. If you have a Good Job, you'll make it up in raises in the next year or two.

Nor is Canada's total national debt (the sum of past government deficits) dangerously out of whack. At just under 30 per cent[...]

So you make $50,000, and your debt is 30% of that. 30% of $50,000 is $15,000. Again, not a huge deal. You do need to pay it off, you do need a payment plan, but basically all you have to do is stick with your payment plan. If it's good debt, it's barely even a problem - if it's your mortgage, you're golden! If I had a mortgage that was only $15,000, I'd be dancing!

I don't know if there are different issues when we're talking about national debt, but it's an interesting way to put impossibly large numbers in perspective.

Wanted: cap-sleeved or short-sleeved v-neck fitted t-shirts

I'm looking for cap-sleeved or short-sleeved fitted v-neck t-shirts. Solid colours (black, red, etc.), longish in keeping with current fashion, not loose and flowy, for the specific purpose of being worn under sweaters like how you'd normally wear a cami.

(Q: Why not just wear a cami? A: They don't cover my armpits and I don't much want to have to hardcore wash knit sweaters after every wear.)

Anyone know offhand of anywhere that currently has something like this in store? (Not places that "should" have them, not "Oh, you can get that anywhere", somewhere where you've seen them with your own eyes so I don't have to run around and shop.)

Analogy

There's a school of thought that if you're renting, you're completely throwing your money away. I don't feel that way. I think I'm getting my apartment in exchange for my rent. Yes, I have to keep paying for it, but I also have to keep paying for food and utilities and toilet paper. But some people from this school of thought have told me that it's a waste to rent since I do want to own a condo someday, and I should buy something - anything - so my money is going into building my own capital. I prefer to live in the most optimal conditions possible even if I have to rent for longer before I can afford to buy, but people from this school of thought think I should buy something - anything, anywhere - and I can always move or upgrade later when I can afford it.

Here's an analogy for that line of thinking:

"You're wasting money taking those birth control pills! After all, you do want to have children someday. So you don't have enough money or a big enough home or a partner who's interested in parenting any children you might pop out? No biggie, you can always get those later."

Currently wondering

This idea came to me in the context of Walmart, but I'd imagine it could also apply to other big businesses.

Some people boycott Walmart. I wonder if it would be more damaging if, instead of boycotting, they instead shopped at Walmart but only bought loss leaders, in as copious quantities as they could tolerate and get away with. Never buy anything the company would make a profit on, just things they'd lose money on.

I can think of about half a dozen arguments each for and against this approach.

For Python fans

Live Monty Python Q&A at 9:00 pm! Click here!

Dog etiquette question

If a dog clearly consents to me petting him - like it was totally Mr. Puppyface's idea in the first place - should I still be asking his human's permission?

Open Letter to Toronto media

Dear Toronto and Toronto-based media:

I'm sure we can all agree that the Toronto Sun is very good at sensationalism. No one does it better. And everyone knows this - people who want sensationalism go straight to the Sun.

So why don't we leave all the sensationalism to the Sun and their affiliates, and the rest of you can focus on sensible, intelligent, nuanced reporting and commentary? Everyone will be happy that way.

Things They Should Invent: journalistic ethics addressing people who only skim the headlines

Several times recently I have seen situations where people who are normally quite sensible have just skimmed an article or caught a glance of a headline without absorbing the whole thing, and then have taken away only the sensationalism of the headline or someone's spin on the issue, without a sense of the situation as a whole. I know, it happens to everyone sometimes, it's happened to me.

But the reason I'm concerned is because I can think of more than one case where a normally-sensible person caught only a glimpse of the issue filtered through a generous helping of spin, and as a result took or recommended political action that is detrimental to me personally. They're hurting me, and the situation they think they're addressing by doing so isn't even true. It's like if your dentist drilled a perfectly healthy tooth because he misread the x-ray.

I can't blame people for not reading every article in depth - I certainly don't read everything - but it's extra frustrating because when it's an issue that affects me I do read every article in depth and seek out alternate interpretations and primary sources, but the people who were less diligent still have the power to hurt me. (The obvious suggestion at this point is to educate people, but I don't know going in who, if anyone, is going to end up hurting me through ignorance.)

I wish journalistic ethics required constructing articles and television features so that you only get facts if you just glance at it, and you have to focus and pay more in-depth attention to get spin and opinions.

Haute couture

The stuff you see on the runway in fashion shows looks completely irrelevant to me. It's way out there, it's intended as an artistic vision but isn't intended for people to actually wear in real life (or at least not in my little corner of real life).

I was recently looking at some old Life magazines on Google Books, and they showed pictures of runway fashion shows from the 50s. The clothes there didn't look irrelevant. They looked like perfectly cromulent 50s fashion. I wasn't around in the 50s, of course, but extrapolating from tv/movies/pictures, they looked like stuff people would actually wear in real life. They were "outfits", not "get-ups".

I wonder if people in the 50s would agree with that assessment? Did those outfits actually look like outfits to them, or did they, for reasons I can't imagine, look like crazy runway fashion get-ups to the typical 50s viewer?

And if they did look like real clothes for real life, when did runway fashion stop applying to real life?

Flu "season"

"Flu season" is October to April, inclusive.

That's seven months! How can that call that a season? That's...the majority of our lives!

How ignorance/closed-mindedness works

I've blogged this story before: When I was in about to start Grade 9, my then-best friend called me up and said "We have a problem. The Grade 9 gym teacher is a lesbian!" That's basically how my homophobia worked at the time. I hadn't ever heard homosexuality described or spoken of as anything other than a problem or a shame, and it didn't occur to me to question that. Because everyone was talking about it like it's something bad, I unthinkingly assumed it must be bad.

I think that's how a significant quantity of ignorance and closed-mindedness works. You only ever hear of things spoken of a certain way, and perhaps it doesn't occur to you to question the underlying assumption.

The solution, which I don't know how to execute, is to encourage people to question the underlying assumptions. This is tricky, because you don't want to come on too strong and put them on the defensive. For example, you might have noticed an ongoing theme in my blog that bugs are yucky and puppies are cute. My personal neuroses aside, this is an automatic reaction that a lot of people have. When I write blog posts with the underlying assumption that bugs are yucky or that puppies are cute, the vast majority of people accept those givens. If someone wanted to convince people that bugs are cute and puppies are yucky, they couldn't just outright say it because people's automatic reaction would be "WTF?? You're insane! Get this looney away from us! Save the puppies! Kill the bugs!" It's such a shocking attack on what we dearly hold to be most basic truths that our reaction would be violent and visceral. To make it work, the pro-bug anti-puppy lobby would have to sort of plant the seed of a suggestion and let it grow until people feel that they have come to realize independently that bugs are cute and puppies are yucky.

So, when faced with ignorance and closed-mindedness, we have to somehow figure out how to plant the same seed of questioning heretofore-unquestioned assumptions. I don't know how to do that.

(But don't go around breeding bugs and exterminating puppies please, okay?)

Things They Should Invent: construction materials that make bugs infertile

I'd love to make all the bugs in the world die, but that would probably throw off the ecosystem a bit, so I'll settle for just not having them come into my home.

I've previously come up with the idea of making everything (walls, floors, ceilings, doors, windows) poisonous to bugs, but the problem is then they'd also probably be poisonous to humans and puppies.

So here's the next best thing: add something to all construction materials that makes bugs infertile on contact. They don't die, but they can't reproduce. So eventually darwinism kicks in and all the bugs that would dare enter human space have died out?

Q: But wouldn't it make humans infertile? A: I can't say for certain, but I think bugs reproduce vastly differently than we do, so it's quite conceivable that there's something out there that would make bugs infertile without affecting human fertility.

People should listen to me

Me in June:

[Why do we need] a private-sector consultant from Alberta in the first place? We're a rather populous province with a good number of post-secondary institutions - why isn't the necessary expertise available in Ontario? Why doesn't the Ontario public service have the expertise to implement government policies? Does this happen often? Should we perhaps be working on developing the expertise in-province?

Ontario Auditor General Jim McCarter just a few days ago:

While external consulting expertise is clearly required on a project of this size and complexity, we found in some cases a near-total reliance on consultants, especially at the ministry. We noted instances where consultants were influential in hiring other consultants, sometimes from their own firms and sometimes at rates much higher than we considered appropriate; and some remained on extended contracts for years at a time.

From an operational perspective, relying too heavily on consultants can be costly. Consultants are generally a lot more expensive than employees, and when they finish a project, they leave, often taking with them the expertise needed to maintain and operate the system they helped develop.