Powerlessness and yelling and rudeness and job security and Toronto politics: messiest braindump ever

Last August, I read this Miss Conduct post about how rudeness comes from a lack of power.

My first thought was "This is HUGE! I must blog about it!" And I've had writer's block ever since. I know what I want to say but I can't make it into a blog post, so I'm just brute force braindumping. Each of these points should be developed into a couple hundred words, but I'll just spew now and maybe clean it up later. There's something in here, and I'm not going to get at it unless I braindump.

1. My first thought was about childhood. When you're a kid - or at least when I was a kid and based on my experience with other kids - you yell more. That's because you're powerless. You're completely at the mercy of the grownups and their rules. I've blogged about this many times before. As I became a proper grownup and especially because I started living alone, I found myself yelling much less. It's not that I became more polite, it's that I became better able to be polite. I had the [insert word that's halfway between "empowerment" and "agency"] to be polite, because I had the option of walking away.

2. This became even more pronounced when I got my first proper grownup Good Job. It was easier to be polite, and it was easier not to yell, because I was suddenly in a position that is, by general social standards, respectable. On one hand the world treated me with more respect, and on the other hand I had the security and the confidence, and, frankly, the trump card of paying my own way. More "power" (insofar as this can be considered power - it's more privilege but emotionally it fits the originally analogy) meant fewer people were aggravating me, fewer stresses were aggravating me, and it was way hella easier to be polite and not yell.

3. My second thought was about working in fast food when I was a teen. The restaurant was located in a poshish suburb, where people had big houses and fancy cars. And they yelled. Looking at it with adult retrospect, I can't see where they were coming from. Why would you yell at a fast food cashier? So you have to wait two minutes for fries, or you have to pull around away from the pay window, or someone accidentally drops your change. Why is that even on your radar? As an adult with a proper grownup job - albeit one that's nowhere near posh enough to buy big houses and cars - I can't even imagine caring. So why didn't money/power/privilege buy them the calm that it bought me?

4. At this point, I realized that I'd drifted away from rudeness vs. power and into yelling and anger vs. privilege and respect. But I know in my gut it's the same thing or closely related. So that's why this blog post got paralyzed way back in August.

5. And then Rob Ford got elected mayor of Toronto.

6. Rob Ford yells. People who are inclined to vote for Rob Ford think he's down-to-earth. In my corner of adulthood, down-to-earth people don't yell - that's what makes them down-to-earth. What are these people's lives like that their definition of down-to-earth includes yelling?

7. Rob Ford's target audience is skewed towards houses and cars, which, in Toronto, are hella expensive. They must, necessarily, have several times more money than I ever will. But they're angry. Why are they angry?

8. The non-selfish aspect of my personal politics is focused on Good Jobs. (The selfish aspect doesn't contradict this, it's just focused on very specific things that affect me personally.) I know, from my personal experience and those of my family and friends and everyone I know who's ever had a Good Job, that a Good Job is transformative. And, in my own experience, it's what makes the angry go away. And this might even be multi-generational. If I have a Good Job, and I'm not angry, then my kid not only has a secure environment to grow up in, but doesn't have to face generalized anger at the dinner table every evening, thus making them feel even more secure and less prone to anger themselves.

9. But the Rob Ford people, the people who are angry, are working against this politically. Why? Do they not know that Good Jobs make the angry go away? Do they already have Good Jobs (since they have all houses and cars and expensive things like that) that didn't make the angry go away? Do they not have Good Jobs but have somehow managed to acquire houses and cars that they now have to pay for and they're scared? But, if so, why are they trying to get rid of what few Good Jobs exist?

10. Then I read an article in the Globe and Mail on stress as a serious social-medical problem, and was struck by this quote:

Combatting these feelings is not easy and begins with resilience. Just knowing you have a Plan B for any problem can often reduce the brain’s physical response to stress.

That's what a Good Job does - resilience. It creates opportunities for a Plan B. If my glasses break, I can drop everything and get them fixed without running out of money or losing my job. If I get cancer, all I have to worry about is nausea and hair loss - I'm not going to lose my home or my job. It's less scary, less stressful, and ultimately means that there's less yelling in your life. And, politically, I want that for everyone. I've had a glimpse of it, and I want to share it. But my city seems to be run by people who are angry and yelly and stressed and scared, and yet want the opposite of this situation that creates resilience. I don't understand it. It doesn't make sense.

11. I realize I have no right, authority, or credibility to go swooping in and saying "You voted wrong! I know better than you!" But what I'm saying here is my truth as I have lived and experienced it, as I have observed in those around me and those I admire from afar. Rudeness and anger and fear and yelling decrease as empowerment and agency and respect and social credibility and resilience increase, and all these things increase with good employment conditions.

12. Growing up, I'd probably yell at someone every other day. Now, I can't even think of the last time I yelled at anyone. I like this, and I want everyone else to have it too. But the people who look to me like they need it the most don't want anyone to have it.

I don't know what to do with this.

Analogy for "Don't let it bother you"

I've repeatedly found myself in situations where someone tells me, in response to whatever is bothering me, "Don't let it bother you." As though I can just not let it bother me. As though I somehow had that ability but it never occurred to me to exercise it.

I've heard this from enough different people - and heard enough people state firsthand that they simply don't let something bother them - that I'm beginning to suspect there are people who have this ability, who can just...not let something bother them. But the fact remains that I don't have this ability, and if you want me to not let something bother me you're going to have to give me a step-by-step procedure. (I've been mentioning the need for a procedure for a couple of years so far, but no one has yet provided me with one.)

Here's an analogy: "Build a bridge!"

Suppose someone told me to build a bridge, by which they mean an actual proper bridge that cars and trucks and people can safely use, and by which they mean I should actually build it myself rather than commissioning or convincing professional bridge-builders to do it.

I know what a bridge is. I know what they look like, I've seen them before, I've even had the odd glimpse of a bridge in the process of being built. I know the benefits of a bridge. I've used them before. I'm well aware that it's far more difficult to cross a river or a ravine without a bridge. I know that if you have an expanse to cross, the presence of a bridge will make it far easier for everyone involved.

But I still have no idea how to go about building a bridge.

If you wanted to resolve this situation and get an actual real bridge built by me personally, there would simply be no point in nagging me to build a bridge, or convincing me of the benefits of a bridge. I already know that. What I'd need is basic, step-by-step instructions on how to build a bridge.

What do you do first? IRL I have no idea, but for the sake of argument let's say you start by putting up pillars. Okay, but how do you put up pillars? Where do you get the pillars from and/or how do you make them? Let's say the first step in putting up pillars is digging a hole to put them in. How big a hole? What do I dig it with? Where do I acquire the digging device and how do I operate it?

You'd have to go through this for every single step of the bridge-building process, or else the bridge isn't going to get built. If you leave me to figure it out myself, it's just going to make a mess and wreck stuff and inconvenience people.

Similarly, if you want me to not let something bother me, you're going to have to tell me how step by step. It's simply not going to work otherwise.

In this blog's ongoing tradition of claiming credit for everything...

Last year, I proposed changing the meaning of the word "circumnavigate".

In today's Star: "On the merits of circumnavigation by motorized scooter, this reporter pegged Saturday’s crowd at roughly 300,000"

How to get Rogers to realize that there's a network problem in your neighbourhood

My internet's been down for nearly three days with some complicated problem that's maybe three levels more complicated than I can understand. (They were pulling wires out of my walls and testing them, then had to get the supers to let them pull wires out of the building's walls, then had to escalate it one level above that.) The techs who helped me were awesome - communicative, respectful of my need to have my internet service work, accepted my troubleshooting and explained what they were doing when it got above the level I can understand, didn't make me uncomfortable even though I had a cumulative total of three strange men who were bigger than me in my apartment - and made the process as painless as possible. They were carrying extra modems with them, and were fully prepared to just replace my modem on the spot if that ended up being a problem! I'm not happy about 3 days without internet, but I'm very satisfied with the service I received.

But here I just want to share one thing the tech told me, because if everyone knows this it will make life easier for all of us: Rogers only knows there's an outage in a given area if a lot of people call them!

If only one or two people call, they have to start by treating it as an individualized problem, which means walking people through troubleshooting over the phone, and if that doesn't work sending techs to individual households to check the modems and the cabling. They can only start treating it as a macro problem if they get a large number of calls all from the same area or if, as in my case, the techs are dispatched to an individual household and spend an hour painstakingly confirming every single thing that could possibly be causing the problem within the household.

So it turns out our natural reaction - "Meh, I don't want to wait on hold for ages! I'm sure they already know about this, I'll just patiently do something else until they fix it." - are counterproductive, and we need to call in when we're experiencing a network problem.

Teach me how to disinfect (or psychologically decontaminate) apples

I'm on the subway juggling my purse, book, and a number of shopping bags, one of which contains a gorgeous batch of farm-fresh Cortland apples (my very favourite!) from the very last farmer's market day of the year.

The train pulls into my stop, I stand up, and somehow a few of the apples spill out of my bag and start rolling around the subway floor.

Three or four extremely friendly, helpful, and well-intentioned people swoop into action, gather up all the dropped apples, and quickly put them back into my bag before the doors close.

So now my bag of the very last of the very best apples of the year contains some apples that have been on the floor of the subway. I don't want to eat the subway floor apples, but I don't even know which ones they are! (And they've probably all touched now!)

How can I disinfect apples that have been on the subway floor so they're safe to eat and not at all psychologically yucky?

My political strategy oracle lives on

I've blogged before about this weird pattern of my blog posts becoming political strategy.

That pattern seems to be continuing.

Yesterday, I told you to tell Rob Ford what we need from our city.

This morning, Rob Ford said:

If people didn’t vote for me, I have to convince them to vote for me next time. If they want to call me and talk to me they’re more than welcome to, and I’ll try to respond to all the calls.

(I'm not sure what's up with the emphasis on calling - surely it's quicker, easier, more effective, and more informative for everyone involved to do this by email - but the gist is the same.)

Now if only I could influence actual policy rather than just strategy...

So what now?

In the wake of last night's election results, here's the plan:

1. Everyone tell Rob Ford what we need from our city. Mr. Ford has a reputation for being very good at constituency work. We are all now his constituency. Let's all email him and tell him in specific terms what we need, whether it's a crosstown LRT or better pest control in TCHC buildings or longer library hours. He has built the indisputably positive part of his reputation on it, so let's make use of that for the greater good of our city.

2. Rely on your councillor. We all have a city councillor, directly elected to represent our ward. Many of them are newly-elected, an number of them have strong mandates. They each have a vote on council equal to Mr. Ford's. Let's make it clear to them what we need, and that we need them to stand up for and defend us.

3. Don't allow others to define the narrative. If politicos and media are telling us something that doesn't reflect our reality, don't blindly accept it or assume they must be right and your situation must be a fluke. Express your truth as unmitigated truth, speak up when someone is lying to you about your truth, and don't let anyone tell you differently.

We are more than these election results (especially as presented in the media) make us out to be - more complex and more nuanced, with a broader and more long-term point of view than they're giving us credit for. All we have to do is be the fuck out if it. Remember the #MyToronto hashtag? We just have to live it every day. #OurToronto

How accurate are voter turnout numbers?

This should be a tweet, but I couldn't get it down to 140. Real blog posts coming later.

My sister and I both received voter registration cards at our parents' address. Neither of us has lived there in years. I've never even been eligible to vote municipally there (i.e. there were no municipal elections between my 18th birthday and the day I moved out).

Therefore, official statistics show voter turnout at my parents' address as 50%. In reality it was 100% - both my parents voted, and my sister and I both voted in our respective cities.

In addition to the voter card I received at my parents' address, I also received one at my own address and used it to vote here in Toronto. Therefore, official statistics show my own personal voter turnout as 50%, whereas in reality it was 100%.

This causes me to question whether low voter turnout numbers are really as low as they seem.

Voted

You know how movies set in New York City are disproportionately set in that tiny window of fall when there's a perfect ratio of colourful leaves on the trees to colourful leaves on the ground, and they can dress the characters in skirts or dresses or scarves or coats or boots or any combination thereof in that flawless balance that works so well fashion-wise but is hardly ever appropriate to the weather in real life? That's what my city looked like as I headed out to work this morning. The fog was lifting, my ipod was playing U2, all the usual characters were out and about, and life was beautiful.

My walk to the voting station this evening took me on a route I haven't taken since I moved, up the street I used to live on and along a street where I haven't had any reason to go in years. My ipod was playing Aerosmith and the golden afternoon sun was just starting to turn into a sunset. Some things had changed in that part of the neighbourhood, but all the changes were for the better. Some buildings were new and some had been renovated. That one Halloween decoration that utterly freaks me out isn't there any more. There were more people, and they were more diverse. It makes me feel good about my city.

My new driver's licence arrived today, just in time for me to use it as ID to vote. A sign? The line was long but moving well, and people were relaxed and groovy. I saw a lot of newbies without existing registration cards. The kid who gave me my ballot was an earnest Justin Suarez doppelgänger, explaining municipal ballots to me as though I've never voted municipally before. I let him. A mildly suspicious-looking man sat right next to me at the voting table rather than choosing a distant, unoccupied table. I pulled the cardboard thing over my ballot and voted away. I saw a few cute doggies that made me squee, but I didn't get a chance to pet any of them. (For those of you just turning in, when I get to pet a doggie on the way to vote, the election always turns out well.) But I feel good about how I voted. Really, disproportionately good.

May the rest of my beautiful city do the same.

Open Letter to Torontonians who are not planning to vote tomorrow

Dear fellow citizens who are planning not to vote:

I assume you're planning not to vote because none of the candidates whom the media has arbitrarily deemed viable strikes you as acceptable.

So here's what I want you to do: vote for someone interesting, regardless of whether you think they have a chance to win.

We are a diverse, complex, nuanced city with dozens and dozens of candidates for the position of mayor alone, and the media has not been reflecting this. That does us all a disservice, and is most likely ultimately the reasons why you aren't hearing of any candidates that sound acceptable.

To combat this, to show the media - and the world - that we're more complex and nuanced and interesting than they're treating us as, everyone needs to pick someone interesting and vote for them. It could be someone with a fantastic platform. It could be someone whose pluck and audacity in running for public office you admire. It could be the candidate who actually answers your questions on Twitter. It could be the candidate whose platform is of most benefit to you personally, without regard for the greater good of the city.

"But they have no chance of winning!" So? It's not like you were going to vote for one of the people who does have a chance of winning. Besides, there's no penalty for voting for someone who doesn't win.

"But there's so many candidates, I don't have time to figure out who's best!" You don't have to figure out who's best, you just have to figure out who's good. You already have a nose for who's bad (or you wouldn't be choosing not to vote), so pick someone who isn't bad, who you think is better than the people whom the media has deemed to have a chance at winning. If you don't vote, the best candidate definitely won't get your vote. If you do vote for someone who you think is good, the best candidate just might end up getting your vote.

"But I don't have a full sense of the issues, I can't make a fully informed choice." Because you're considering not voting, you're obviously savvy enough to determine when a platform is unacceptable. So read the platform of the candidate who interests you and make sure it's acceptable. By voting for someone whose platform you find acceptable, you're making the statement "See, this is the sort of thing I'm looking for."

To get you started, here's a Twitter list of all the non-frontrunner mayoral candidates who are on Twitter. And here's where to find all the candidates for all offices. Pick one who's interesting and has an acceptable platform, and vote for them. Help show the media and the world that there's far more to us than this false binary they've boxed us into.

A bizarre testimonial for Bounty paper towels

It's a rainy Sunday morning. I'm just out of the shower with my hair sopping wet. I sleepwalk into the kitchen to make coffee...only to discover I'm completely out of coffee filters! Frack! Now what? I don't want to go out in the rain, I don't want to blow-dry my hair, I just want a fricking cup of coffee!

So I start googling for makeshift coffee filters, and quickly discover the general consensus is that you can use paper towels. I have paper towels!

So I take two sheets of my Bounty Select-A-Size (equal to one regular paper towel, which is what the internet tells me I should use), put it in the basket, add ground coffee, and press go.

The machine starts brewing. There's a bit more steam than usual and it smells vaguely like paper towels, but it's producing something that looks like coffee.

The brew cycle finishes, and I pour the results into the mug. It looks like coffee, it smells like coffee, and it tastes like...hella weak-ass coffee! My paper towels absorbed enough of the coffee to dilute the entire cup!

Conclusion: Bounty paper towels are absorbent enough to dilute a cup of coffee. Useful for general household cleaning, suboptimal for use as a coffee filter.

I am not happy with media coverage of the Toronto election

I am not at all happy with how the media has been handling this Toronto election.

I think the electioneering started far too early, and I'm not happy with how the media was complicit in this by scheduling televised debates seven fricking months before election day.

I'm not happy with how the media has deemed the candidates of its choosing frontrunners and then practically ignored all other candidates. We have 40 mayoral candidates, and I have only seen 8 of their names in my newspapers, with only 5 of them treated like serious candidates! My ward has 4 city council candidates, and what little media coverage we've gotten has arbitrarily deemed only 2 of them viable.

I am not happy with how the media has allowed the candidates rather than the people to define the issues and narrative. Nearly every day for the better part of this year I've opened the newspaper to find someone trying to win my vote by lying to my face about what I want and need from my city.

I'm not happy at all with how the media has given me absolutely no information whatsoever to help me make an informed vote for my school board trustee. There are no current, past, or future TDSB students in my household. I don't even actually know what the issues are, and the media has done nothing to help me in this area.

What I want from the media is extensive objective information. I want all candidates and their platforms profiled and given equal space, and to be allowed to decide for myself which ones are viable. I want newspapers to track down that one candidate in my ward who doesn't have a website and profile her just like all the other candidates, not completely ignore her. I want an objective overview of the issues, as defined by the people, not the candidates. I want factual information readily available - What does the city's budget currently look like? What are the cost and capacity per kilometre of LRTs vs. subways? - and zero spin. I want objective primers on how to decide how to vote for people who haven't voted in Toronto or in their ward before, or are otherwise unfamiliar with mayoral/councillor/trustee issues. And I don't want any of this to start before Labour Day.

I can make snap judgements based on the loudest elements of candidates' reputations myself. I can ignore candidates I've never heard of myself. I can sit passively by as the candidates define the issues and take their every statement at face value myself. If I wanted to do this, I wouldn't need the media. I'm going to the media because I want more than I can do myself. And it's time for them to step up and deliver.

The Globe and Mail frightens me

The City of Toronto tells its residents each winter to “be nice, clear your ice,” yet it has 6,300 addresses on file of people who cannot. Instead, municipal workers are sent to chop it up and remove it for them. Why must the infirm and aged rely on a city to remove snow and ice from their sidewalks? Where are their neighbours?

When I read this in a Globe and Mail editorial, I had a strong emotional reaction that I can best characterize as part fear, part helplessness, part "NO FAIR!" I've had it kicking around in my head for two weeks, and I'm finally able to articulate why I feel this way.

The Globe & Mail editorial is assuming its readers are the people who are capable of helping. In fact, they're looking at it solely from the perspective of the people who are capable of helping, with no identification or empathy whatsoever for the people who are in need of help.

I identify with the people who are in need of help. While I am capable of shovelling a sidewalk specifically, in life in general I'll never be wholly self-sufficient. There will always be areas of life that I won't be able to handle by myself. And it terrifies me that they'd want to take away a measure that guarantees assistance in areas we can't handle ourselves and instead put us at the mercy of those who happen to be near us.

Currently the situation is as follows:

Government: "You must obey this law!
You: "I'm physically incapable of obeying that law."
Government: "Well, we aren't unreasonable. Give us your name and address, and we'll send someone over to take care of it for you."

The Globe and Mail wants to change this situation to the following:

Government: "You must obey this law!"
You: "I'm physically incapable of obeying that law."
Government: "Well, your neighbours should be good citizens and take care of it for you. But if they don't, you will be punished for disobeying the law."

Isn't that terrifying? Can't they see why that's terrifying?

On top of that, and apart from the fact that putting you at the mercy of your neighbours introduces the possibility of extortion and exploitation, building a relationship where you can ask your neighbours for help requires a certain amount of social skill/credibility on the part of the people in need of help. Do they not realize how much privilege that takes?

I can usually convince people to help me when I need help. But I'm a harmless-looking white girl. I speak clear and articulate English and am able to communicate both my need for help and culturally-appropriate apologies for the imposition. I have a beautiful smile, have bathed within the past 24 hours, and own a suitable variety of clothing that falls within the range of general social norms. I have the financial stability to pay all my bills on time. When I have a panic attack, it's because of something that's visible and tangible that is culturally marked as scary and/or yucky. I live in a context where I lose no face if I say "I'm not strong enough to lift that." And I also live in a context where the people I already trust can often help me with the stuff I need help with. This is all privilege, and none of it is entirely of my own making, some of it being completely outside my control.

People would be less likely to help me if I was a shady-looking old man, or if I were snaggle-toothed and smelly. People would be less likely to help me if my request for help was crude and unclear and didn't contain acknowledgment and mitigation of the imposition. My supers and other people I do business with would be less inclined to help me with stuff that's not strictly within their mandate if I didn't have an impeccable record of paying what I owe on time. I'd get far less understanding if my panic attacks were caused by something only I can see. It wouldn't work nearly as well if it were a humiliation for me to admit I don't have the physical strength required for the task, or if I had to go to strangers or randoms or people I don't trust for help with things that are better handled by people I trust. There are lots of people who are in these situations, often for reasons that are not within their control.

It terrifies me that the Globe and Mail doesn't see this. It terrifies me that the fricking newspaper of record would presume to tell us as Canadians that we should change things in a way that puts those in need at the mercy of people who happen to be in the general vicinity. And it terrifies me that it doesn't even seem to cross their minds that their readership might contain people in need, instead marginalizing this ever-growing segment of the population with a few ill-chosen words, and then printing then on the front page above the fold.

A translation

For money, I translate other languages into English. For fun, I translate English into English. Today, I would like to translate the following passage:

South Korea is promising a cheaper and more beautiful G20 after watching the uproar over Toronto’s imposing grey security fence and a final summits tab that ballooned past $1-billion.

[...]

As for the security costs, there will be no high-end hotel snacks or luxury linens for South Korean police officers. That’s a key reason why South Korea says its budget will be “far below” what Toronto spent on back-to-back G7 and G20 summits earlier this year.

[...]

South Korea will avoid these costs entirely. The police in Seoul will come from the ranks of the country’s compulsory two-year military or police service.

“They are paid very little,” explains Chan-Ho Ha, South Korea’s ambassador to Canada, who watched the debate over the Toronto summit closely. “We don’t have such luxury. I mean, putting them in hotel rooms. In Toronto, the police were in hotels, but [the South Korean police] just have their own tent or mobile barracks. So we can save a lot of money.”

Translation: "Don't worry, our workers are essentially enslaved to the state and aren't granted the usual and customary comforts and conveniences of civilization, so we can gratuitously oppress the population at a far lower cost."

Non-extraordinariness

From Miss Conduct's National Coming Out Day post:

It is the person who is making the extraordinary claim who needs to produce extraordinary evidence. I’m not going to pretend that the claim of gay equality is the extraordinary one anymore. Those who deny it are the ones who are making the extraordinary claims, not me. They are the ones who have to explain themselves.

When I read this, I realized this is something people tend to do, socially. We tend to pretend something that does not apply to the majority, or does not apply to the dominant demographic, or does not apply to the loudest people in the room, is somehow extraordinary, and therefore needs to be explained or defended or justified.

And that's simply not true. Even if something does not apply to the majority - even if something is outright uncommon - that doesn't make it extraordinary, it doesn't make it something that needs to be explained or defended or justified. I don't know how we fell into the habit of presumably coddling/mollifying the majority/the dominant demographic/the loudest people in the room by doing this, but it's really unnecessary and debases us all.

Analogy: I have green eyes. The majority of people do not have green eyes. But that doesn't make my eye colour extraordinary. It's a perfectly ordinary eye colour. If I were going to get my makeup done professionally, I wouldn't have to call ahead and warn them that I have green eyes and ask if they can accommodate that, and I wouldn't have to settle with a makeup job more appropriate to someone with blue eyes. Green eyes are unusual - according to the first page of google results, they occur in only 2% of the world's population - and I may well end up being the only green-eyed person the makeup artist sees that day, but it's well within the range of Things That Might Happen. It's by no means extraordinary, and it would debase us all if we were to start pretending it is.

This is actually something my instincts have been leading me to for quite a while. I blogged before about my tendency not to mark the feminine. What I was really saying was that being female is not extraordinary, and by not marking it I am choosing not to pretend that it is.

I once blogged about this quote from Tabatha Southey:

"Saying, "I'm a feminist," is almost like saying, "I have no problem with Pakistanis" - we're all just going to assume that one, okay? Unless you say otherwise."

What I really meant when I blogged about it was that being feminist or not having a problem with Pakitanis (or being Pakistani) is not extraordinary, and it does us no service to pretend that it is.

I've blogged several times about my own use of upspeak - how it has a purpose, how I'm not going to not use it and how my choice to use my own natural dialect is in fact a sign of security. What I'm really saying is that talking like (and being) a woman under 40 is not extraordinary, and it does us no service to pretend that it is so extraordinary we need to suppress and/or apologize for our demographic markers.

The Globe and Mail recently had an extended feature that they framed as a "discussion" about immigration, and I found it irritating for reasons I couldn't articulate at the time. Turns out the reason I found it irritating is because they were framing immigration as something extraordinary that needs to be explained and defended and justified.

Belonging to a religion or no religion is not extraordinary. Having a child or wanting a child or being childfree is not extraordinary. Having dietary restrictions is not extraordinary. Wearing what you choose to is not extraordinary. Having a same-sex spouse or an opposite-sex spouse or no spouse or a partner whom you deliberately do not call a spouse or any variation on "it's complicated" is not extraordinary. Being young or old or anywhere in between is not extraordinary. Having been born somewhere else or choosing to move somewhere else or staying in the same place all your life are not extraordinary.

None of these things are any more extraordinary than my green eyes (and, indeed, most of them are, statistically, less extraordinary than my green eyes). They do not need to be explained, defended, or justified. We simply need to be aware of and prepared for the fact that they're part of the reality we inhabit, just like how makeup artists have eyeshadow colours suitable for green eyes in their palette.

It gets better for everyone

I've been looking at Dan Savage's It Gets Better Project, and it occurs to me that it's more broadly applicable. I must emphasize that this in no way intended to minimize or trivialize the unique hell that queer kids in closed-minded places go through, just to build on and expand the message. If you're a kid or teen being tormented for something other than being queer - because your peers don't like your clothes or your hobbies or your tastes or your looks, or for some other unnamed breach of some unspoken rule - it gets better too!

In the real world, if someone thinks you have a big nose, they assume you already know and get on with their life.

In the real world, if someone doesn't like your clothes, they don't give it any further thought because they have bigger concerns.

In the real world, if someone doesn't want to be your friend, they're cordial when you're both in the same place at the same time and just don't make any overtures towards spending more time together.

In the real world, if someone sees you walking around without any friends with you, they assume you're a competent person going about your own life and your friends are also competent people going about their own lives.

In the real world, if someone doesn't like your hobbies or interests or taste in music, they leave you to it and go about their own lives.

In the real world, there's an online community (and, in any good-sized city, a real-life community) that's into whatever you're into. And they don't expect you to be into all the same things as they are either. Your gaming group isn't going to care if you like a different kind of music than they do. Your band isn't going to care if you don't play ultimate frisbee.

In the real world, if for whatever reason you find yourself in a situation you don't like or that makes you uncomfortable or where people are being idiots, you can walk away. You aren't trapped in school until the bell or stuck in the schoolbus until your stop. Your siblings and parents aren't trying to barge into your room all the time. You can come and go as your please. You have a car and/or a subway station around the corner and/or a cell phone and cab fare in your pocket, and you can always leave and go home and lock the door, or leave and go somewhere else that's more fun. In the real world, you can come and go as you please.

In the real world, you can look like you look, wear what you like, love whomever you love, do what you enjoy, and come and go as you please. People who like it will join in, and people who don't like it will simply disregard you.

Things I Don't Understand: city councillor candidates endorsing strategic voting for the position of mayor

The more I think about it, the more I think there's no point in strategic voting for the position of mayor of Toronto. The mayor only gets one vote on council, equal to the votes of every one of the 44 councillors. There are no political parties at the municipal level, unlike the federal and provincial levels where the party with the most seats wins. Locally, if the mayor wants to ban subways, he'll vote against subways and every reasonable councillor will vote for subways, whereas federally and provincially if they want to ban subways, they can whip the vote and make every member of the ruling party vote against subways. It seems to me the worst the mayor can do is embarrass us as a figurehead, which barely even enters into it. (If you were a tourist, or a band trying to decide where to take your tour, or a business looking to open a new branch office, would you be thinking about the pleasantness of the local mayor?) The more I think about it, the more my opinion moves in this direction.

However, there have been some city councillor candidates (primarily incumbents) who have endorsed strategic voting for mayor. Why are they doing this? Are they saying their votes are powerless? What do they know that I don't?

And why are they running for city councillor if they feel their votes are so useless?

Maybe I should be tracking these candidates down and asking them...

Analogy for the dropped G20 charges

Some people have said the fact that the G20 charges were dropped means that everything's fine, the system is working like it's supposed to. But the problem is that the people in question were still arrested, detained, and subject to bail conditions (some of which could seriously inconvenience a person or hinder their ability to live life normally) for four months.

Here's an analogy to explain why that's a problem:

Suppose you are abducted. You're blindfolded, tied up, taken somewhere far, far away, and locked in a basement. After a few days you manage to escape, but you find that you're in another part of the world where you don't speak the language. You can't even read enough of their alphabet to tell where in the world you are. You have no money, no resources, no language in common with the people around you, and look (and probably smell) scruffy and questionable after several days locked in a basement. You have to survive and evade your captors and make your way home, all without money or the ability to communicate or the general social credibility that comes from being clean and neatly dressed. So on top of the fact that you need to convince someone to give you money or let you use their phone or pick you up while hitchhiking with the hindrances of looking scruffy and not being able to communicate, you also have to worry about what's going on at home. You haven't been at work for a while. Do you still have a job? Rent was due the other day. Have you been evicted? Did someone pick up the baby at daycare? Is someone feeding your cat?

It takes weeks and weeks and weeks, but you finally get home. And you want justice for all that you've suffered! Now imagine if someone says, in response to your cry for justice, "What? You're home now, everything's fine."

Entitlement update

I can't quite seem to muster up a proper blog entry today, so I thought I'd update you on how my Entitlement is going. (If you're just tuning in, here's what I mean by Entitlement with a capital E in the context of this blog, and here's why it's so important.)

The most interesting thing is the extent to which being aware of Entitlement - what it is, why it's important, how it helps, being able to recognize it in others - makes it easier to do. I'd say in this case knowing is about 80% of the battle. My Entitlement behaviour increased sharply the moment I realized this was a thing I needed to start doing. It's quite surprising. Usually changing my own behaviour is an epic struggle against my very nature, and changing my own thought patterns is completely outside my control. But with Entitlement, just reading an explanation with examples that I was able to independently relate to real-life examples of behaviours and characteristics I admire in others was enough to make me...just start doing it, to a certain extent. I think I owe Malcolm Gladwell huge.

As an added bonus, the concept of Entitlement came into my life around the same time as I started facing some increased responsibilities at work. So I'm in a situation where I have to act with Entitlement, because otherwise stuff isn't going to get done. This has made me less deferential and more casual in my dealings with external people, which, oddly, gets better results.

One weird thing is whenever I try to explain the concept of Entitlement to someone verbally, they always confuse it with the generic - and this despite the fact that I always start my explanation with "not entitlement in the normal general sense of the word, but it's rather this very specific concept meaning..." I did manage to explain to my boss what I was doing by describing it as an attempt to be more pro-active because I'm naturally disinclined to be pro-active, and that was effective and has helped smooth out any rough edges resulting from the fact that I'm doing what should be basic social skills on an experimental basis. I think that's how I'm going to explain it to other people in the future if it becomes necessary.

I also just realized something awesome. In my awful making-an-ass-of-myself-in-front-of-Eddie moment (for which I'm still kicking myself), I was looking him in the eye and talking to him!! Yes, I was talking stupidly, doing far worse than someone my age should be able to do, reflecting poorly on our whole group and perhaps our whole city, but eye contact and reasonably articulate speech! I was literally incapable of that 18 months ago. I could not have maintained (and perhaps not even made) eye contact, and I would have been showing anxiety rather than fangirl giddiness. But now, not only have I done eye contact and talking, but I'm 100% certain I could do it again and better (even if not yet objectively well) in the future, even though I'm now carrying this having-made-an-ass-of-myself baggage. And it wouldn't be a massive effort. There would be nerves, of course, but the eye contact and talking would just be part of the natural way things turn out. Take THAT, middle-school bullies!

Of course, it's not going perfectly. I still fail to show Entitlement an average of twice a day - it's still extremely easy to just not do it in areas of life that are invisible to others. (If I don't email that client about that one thing, people at work will notice. If I don't make an appointment for a beauty treatment, it's inconsequential.) I'm still getting stupidly nervous about stupid things at stupid times. I'm still not 100% sure of the doctor situation. (I could handle it if I had some genuine illness, but I'm not there yet for something as elective and emotionally loaded as sterilization.) But, so far, my baseline for Entitlement behaviour seems to have very easily risen significantly higher. We'll see what happens next.

Wherein Eddie Izzard explains you what I've learned from him

The most important of the many many things I've learned from Eddie Izzard is how to be brave and confident by admitting your shortcomings upfront. This is something I've just absorbed from watching him, and I haven't been able to articulate to others precisely how or why it works, or why exactly watching Eddie leads me to learn this lesson.

Fortunately, Eddie can articulate it himself:

Journalism wanted

This article intrigues me, because it might possibly explain some cognitive dissonance I've been experiencing.

When the NDP won government in Ontario exactly 20 years ago, it constituted the greatest advance for social democracy in North American history.

It’s true that British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba had all elected NDP governments and that progressives had won small victories in various parts of the United States. But none of them (I hope this doesn’t hurt their feelings) mattered in the same way Ontario then did. It was the economic heartland of Canada, the home of much of Canada's industry and finance. What happened in Ontario impacted all Canadians. Now it was under the control of Bob Rae and the New Democrats.

Reflecting this reality, within months Mr. Rae's government faced an unrelenting, brutal four-year onslaught that was unprecedented in Canadian history.

The attacks came from all sides. It is no exaggeration to say hysterical fear-mongering and sabotage was the order of the day. Launched within the very first year of the new government, the attackers included every manner of business big and small, both Canadian and American-owned, almost all private media, the police (especially in Toronto), landlords and lobbying/government relations firms. Their goal was clear, and they had the money and power to achieve it.

They were determined to undermine the government every step of the way, to frustrate the implementation of its plans and to assure its ultimate defeat. In all three goals they were successful. The considerable achievements of the government – often forgotten or dismissed –were wrought in the face of a deep recession and ferocious obstruction.

Bob Rae became Premier of Ontario when I was 9 years old (1990) and completely politically unaware. He was in power until I was 14 (1995), at which point I had some degree of political awareness. (My 14-year-old self could have convinced someone who believed their own political awareness was above average that she had as much political awareness as the average citizen.) I read newspapers, although I couldn't always completely follow all the complex political stories. I heard opinions from the adults around me. I didn't routinely seek out multiple mainstream and alternative media opinions on issues, but I think this was typical of the time before the internet.

The major barrier to my being able to assess Rae's performance is that he was the first Premier of Ontario I remember so I had no basis for comparison, but I clearly remember (or, at least, am as certain as I can possibly be that I clearly remember) general public sentiment at the time, and general public sentiment is that it was a Really Bad Government. Every political action that I heard of the Rae government taking at the time was met with "This is a terrible idea because of X, Y, and Z."

However, when I go back and read over the Rae government's policies presented as history, they don't seem anywhere near as bad as the public sentiment I remember at the time made them out to be. This has been flummoxing me for quite a while and I've been thinking hard about it. Is there some aspect that's missing from the historical accounts I've read (which, as far as I can tell, are neutral and factual)? Were the adults around me and the headline/lede/general gist of the newspaper articles misinformed or misinforming me?

If what this article is true, that explains everything. It would also be hella terrifying. So I would very much like to know either way if the article is true.

The problem is that the author has a perceived conflict of interest, in that he has been an organizer and candidate for the NDP. I know nothing about the author as an individual and have no specific reasons to doubt his credibility, but his CV suggests partisanship.

I'd very much like to see this article painstakingly fact-checked by someone who is by all standards politically neutral, to the extent that everything is true is footnoted with names and dates. I'm in no way blaming the author for not footnoting - I totally understand it's well beyond the scope and word count of a Globe and Mail article - but we the people need to know with certainty what the truth is.

If this article is true, it sounds like people - some of whom are very loud, some of whom are very influential - are going to denounce it, and basis for that denunciation is going to be that the author is thought of as partisan. And, interestingly, if the article is false, it will produce exactly the same reaction from exactly the same quarters. We need irreproachable, independent verification.

Une nouvelle révolution tranquille?

The following is from La langue et le nombril, Chantal Bouchard's fascinating sociolinguistic history of Quebec. The typos, which are undoubtedly legion, are my own:

Septembre 1959. Le premier ministre du Québec, Maurice Duplessis, meurt brutalement des suites d'un attaque ardiaque au cours d'un voyage à Sherfferville. Dans une allocation retransmise à la radio à l'occasion de sa nomination, son successeur, Paul Sauvé, ouvre son discours par le mot: "Désormais..."

Le nouveau premier ministre n'était d'évidence pas le seul à avoir ressenti les dernières années du règne de Maurice Duplessis comme un frein, un blocage qui retardaient l'évolution d'une société en pleine ébullition. La génération montante de jeunes gens plus instruits acceptait de plus en plus difficilement le caractère ultra-conservateur du gouvernment du Québec qui, par ses alliances avec le clergé, d'un part, et la grande industrie anglo-canadienne de l'autre, tentait de perpétuer une structure sociale devenue inadéquate et où les jeunes gens ne trouvaient pas leur place.

Rather reminds me of certain aspects of today's political environment.

Il en allait de même dans le monde ouvrier qui, cherchant à s'organiser, se heurtait à un pouvoir politique répressif. C'est ainsi qu'à l'occasion des grandes grèves de cette époque, de jeunes intellectuels et des ouvriers s'allièrent contre un ordre public devenu intolérable.

Wouldn't that be fun?

Song of the day

Choosing female titles in English

Lately I've had a number of different people have a number of different kinds of confusion over which female title to choose when writing in English, so I thought I'd put together a bit of a primer.

Please note that, in all cases, no matter what other factors are in play, the stated preference of the individual being referred to takes precedence over any and all other considerations.

Ms. is the English generic, and as a general rule you should only use Mrs. or Miss if you know the person being referred to prefers that form of address.

However, people who are, for whatever reason, naturally disinclined to use Ms. usually aren't comfortable with that guideline. I've found some people's visceral response to my instruction to use Ms. is "Yeah, but..." So here are some more ways of thinking about it to determine if that "Yeah, but..." is founded.

Do you want to use Mrs.? Is the subject married? If so, is the surname with which you want to use Mrs. her husband's surname? If the answer to either of these questions is no, you must not use Mrs. Technically, Mrs. means "wife of" and is used with the subject's husband's name. It is technically incorrect to use it with a surname other than the subject's husband's, so you may not refer to anyone as Mrs. Maidenname. Divorced women may correctly choose to use Mrs. with their ex-husband's surname, but there's too much potential for offence in calling someone who isn't married "Mrs." unless you know her preferences. Women who have a wife rather than a husband may also correctly choose use Mrs. with their wife's surname, but, again, there's too much potential for offence in introducing such patriarchal connotations unless you know her preferences.

Note that Ms. does not imply unmarriedness. It does not presume to comment on marital status.

Do you want to use Miss? Traditionally, Miss means unmarried, but it also has negative connotations for many people. It can be insulting to young women who want to be seen as mature and grown-up, and it can be insulting to older women who don't want to be thought of as spinsters. The most effective way to explain the precise flavour of the negative connotations is to think of Miss as an accusation of virginity. (Yes, this example is in poor taste, but it's by far the most effective way to explain the negative connotations to someone who doesn't grok them.) When you find yourself reaching for Miss, ask yourself: do you think the subject would want people to think that she's a virgin (regardless of whether she actually is)? If you were in her position, would you want people to think of you as a virgin? If the answer is no, you must not use Miss. So if the subject is 12 years old, Miss is probably okay. If she's 30 years old, it would probably be a diss. If she's 18 years old, it would be rather condescending.

Note that Ms. does not imply non-virginity. It does not presume to comment on personal history.

If you're going to get it wrong, Ms. is the best way to get it wrong. Calling a woman Ms. when she prefers something else is like calling a man Mr. when he prefers something else. If it's a mistake, it's a perfectly understandable mistake. For example, suppose you meet a man you know nothing about except that his name is John Smith. So you address him as "Mr. Smith." No problems there. But it turns out Mr. Smith is actually in the military, and is properly addressed as Col. Smith. That's fine, and you'll use it in the future. But you had no way of knowing that going in, so your use of Mr. was perfectly understandable. However, suppose when you meet Col. Smith he's wearing his uniform so you can see he's in the military. But you don't know your rank insignia very well, so you end up calling him Sgt. Smith. That would be a huge diss! Or suppose you remember that he doesn't go by Mr. but don't remember what it is he does, so you take a guess and call him Dr. Smith. That would just be weird! Unless you're absolutely certain of what his actual title is, Mr. is the best way to get it wrong. Similarly, Ms. is the best way to get it wrong.

Pour les francophones: Oui, le titre féminin utilisé par défaut en français est Madame. Mais Madame, dans le sens du titre défaut, ne se traduit pas par Mrs.! Mrs. est manifestement incorrect si la personne en question n'est pas mariée ou n'utilise pas le nom de famille de son mari. Le titre défaut féminin en anglais doit être Ms.

When translating from French to English: Always always always translate Madame/Mme. as Ms., unless you specifically know the subject prefers something else.

Things They Should Study: do countries' political positions correlate with the strength of their economies?

Quick, name a European country that's having economic problems. Just keep the name of that country in mind when you click the link further down in this post.

A while back, I was pondering the fact that when we hear about European economic problems, we never hear about Scandinavian countries. We keep seeing articles about how this economic crisis shows that the European socialist model is unsustainable, but Scandinavia, which is generally considered the epitome of European socialism, is never mentioned.

Now think of the countries that are mentioned in conjunction with the economic crisis, like the country that you thought of at the beginning of this post.

Now click here to see where European governments fall on the political compass.

At first glance there seems to be a correlation, doesn't there?

I don't have the economic or political knowledge to conduct a proper analysis and determine definitively if there is in fact a correlation. But it would be really interesting if someone who does have the knowledge could do this.

Things They Should Invent Words For

We need a word for when a government policy doesn't work quite as well as it's intended to, so then, instead of calling for it to be improved, people call for another policy that does the exact opposite.

For example, suppose the government has a "Free widgets for all!" policy that receives wide popular support. But it doesn't work as well as planned. There are delays in distributing the widgets, some people don't get the widgets that are due to them, some of the widgets go missing, etc. So then, next election cycle, people suddenly start calling for widgets to be banned.

That doesn't make sense, does it? Widgets are still good and important insofar as they were ever good and important. The people who didn't get widgets still need widgets. The people who did get widgets still use their widgets. Banning widgets will in no way solve the problems caused by inadequate widget distribution.

And yet, all too often, politics plays out this way. We need a name for this phenomenon.

How does ignorance affect your voting habits?

Yesterday I was playing with a British website from their last election called Vote For Policies. It shows you different parties' platforms on different issues without telling you which platform belongs to which party. You pick your favourite platform for each issue, and then at the end it tells you which parties you've picked. Brilliant idea! I want someone to make something like that for Canada (and ideally for the upcoming Toronto election!)

But what was most interesting about this for me is the effect of my own ignorance on the platforms I chose. I don't know a whole lot about UK politics. The site provided six different platforms, but I could only name four UK political parties going in. I'm certainly not familiar enough with the parties to recognize from their language which platform belongs to whom. (I could sometimes recognize from language choices whether a particular statement was left-wing or right-wing, and I could see some patterns as I went through the quiz, so after I while I could say "This statement I'm reading now was made by the same party that I chose for the last issue", but I couldn't determine that a particular statement originated from the Labour party or whatever.) I'm also rather ignorant of the specific details of political issues in the UK. I couldn't even tell what apparent problem some platform items were meant to address, like at all.

But, at the same time, I'm not 100% ignorant. The UK political system is analogous to ours. (The parties even have the decency to use the same colours!) I can read words and understand things, and many issues are generally universal - money is finite, the economy's a shambles, people need health care, people need jobs, Kids Today are a disgrace. I'm sure I could convince a British person that I'm about as informed as the average citizen if I really had to. (This wouldn't be true, but I could convince someone, especially if they themselves believe that they're more informed than the average citizen.)

So here's where it gets interesting. My results were absolutely linear: the more ignorant I was about an issue, the more right-wing a platform I chose; the more informed I was about an issue, the more left-wing a platform I chose. Absolutely linear, no exceptions, no outliers. It's not the parties I picked that's so interesting, it's how my ignorance affected my choices! This is very informative and incredibly helpful to be aware of.

If you're about as ignorant as me of UK politics, I highly recommend taking the quiz yourself and seeing if any patterns emerge. I find it extremely valuable to know how my own ignorance affects my choices. Maybe you will too.

Salesmanship

A number of times, I've had sales people be very uncomfortably pushy about trying to sell me warranties or protection plans, so I developed a strategy. I tell them that my parents always told me never to pay more than 10% of the purchase price for the protection plan, so if the item fails I'll make my parents replace it for me. None of that is actually true, but it has always worked. I mean, you can't exactly argue with it, can you?

Today the sales guy bested me. When I pulled out the 10% number, he immediately and without missing a beat reduced the price of the warranty down to 10%. So I bought it. I mean, I couldn't exactly argue with him, could I?

Well done to you, sir!

The secret to unhappiness

The secret to unhappiness is wanting other people to feel specific things in specific situations.

This idea originated from this Miss Conduct column. The letter-writer wants her friend to eat and enjoy her food. She wants a specific action and a specific response to that action. Then she's having all kinds of angst because Friend isn't eating her food, or because Friend is eating and enjoying other food. If LW would content herself with everyone enjoying themselves at the get-together, she'd be happy. But because she wants Friend to do something very specific and feel something very specific in response to it, she's unhappy.

Then I saw this Anthony Wolf column. He wants kids to be interested and engaged in non-electronic experiences. The fact that the kid is interested and engaged in a youtube video doesn't make him happy. If the kid were to go mountain-biking and not be interested or engaged, that wouldn't make him happy.

I think people who find themselves wanting others to feel specific things under specific circumstances need to take a step back and ask themselves: do you want the other person to do that particular thing, or do you want them to feel that particular feeling? If you want them to do the thing, give them the opportunity to do the thing and accept that they will experience it in their own way. If you want them to feel the feeling, look for things that will actually make them feel the feeling, not things you think should make them feel the feeling. Otherwise, you'll never be happy.

Things They Should Invent: sanitary recycle/reuse of partially-used toiletries

The clutter in my apartment includes half-full bottles of drugstore shampoo from before I went no cone, and sticks of deodorant that I've used only a few times before discovering that they don't work well with my fussy body chemistry.

In the aftermath of the Wellesley fire, the list of needed items included shampoo and deodorant.

Obviously, it would be a grave insult to give the Wellesley fire evacuees my half-empty, partially-used toiletries. That would be arrogant and demeaning and condescending and undignifying.

But the question remains: what can I do with them? I'm never going to use them myself because they make things worse, so basically they'll eventually end up in the garbage at some point. But, at the same time, there are plenty of people - some of whom might even be reading this - who could (objectively speaking and if you eliminated the "Eww, gross, used toiletries!" factor) make perfectly good use of half a bottle of herbal essences or a twice-used stick of deo. They only make things worse for me because of things that are particular to my body chemistry; they'd work perfectly well for plenty of other people.

So what they need to invent is a way to collect partially-used toiletries, sanitize them beyond reproach, and redistribute them (possibly repackaging them too) to people in need. It will unclutter our bathroom cupboards, help people in need, and help save the environment. Win-win-win!

Things They Should Study: what percentage of medical appointments are due to red tape?

Most of the medical appointments I've had in my adult life have been to renew my birth control prescription. Red tape requires that I see a doctor to keep taking the same medication I've always been taking.

My employer requires a doctor's note if you want to get your workstation ergonomized. My insurance requires a note from your primary care physician before it will cover the services of certain specialists.

After getting strep throat every year for most of my life, I can recognize it. However, I still have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for antibiotics.

Gardasil required four doctor's appointments: one to get the prescription, and three to have the doctor administer it.

Apart from a minimal amount of psychiatry, all the medical attention I've received in my adult life has been because of red tape. I didn't actually want or need to go to a doctor, I already knew what I needed, the doctor was just the gatekeeper.

In light of the idea that was recently floating around in Quebec to have patients pay a user fee every time they go to a doctor, I wonder what percentage of all medical appointments are like this? It really is not fair at all to make rules that the doctor has to be the gatekeeper even when you know what you need, and then charge people for going to the doctor.

Things They Should Invent: technology to mitigate cognitive decline

The following is a scene from Strangers In Death by J.D. Robb. Relevant to understanding this scene but not relevant to the blog post as a whole: the book is set in the year 2060, Mr. Anders is lying dead in his bed, and Eve is the detective investigating his murder. We join the scene already in progress.

Behind her, over a gas fireplace where flames simmered gold and red, the view screen popped on.

"Good morning, Mr. Anders!"

Narrow-eyed, Eve turned to stare at the screen. The computerized female voice struck her as annoyingly perky, and the sunrise colors bleeding onto the screen wouldn’t have been her choice of wake-up call.

"It’s now seven-fifteen on Tuesday, March eighteenth, twenty-sixty. You have a ten o’clock tee time at the club, with Edmond Luce."

As the computer chirpily reminded Anders what he’d ordered for breakfast, Eve thought: "No egg-white omelette for you this morning, Tom."

Across the room in an ornate sitting area, a miniAutoChef with bright brass fittings beeped twice.

"Your coffee’s ready! Enjoy your day!"

“Not so much,” Eve murmured.

The screen flipped to the morning’s headline news, anchored by a woman only slightly less perky than the computer. Eve tuned her out.

So, if Mr. Anders weren't dead, the computer would wake him up, tell him when and where he is and why it's waking him up, and provide him with breakfast. That would be so helpful to elders in the early stages of cognitive decline!

We already have some of that. I wake up to light, radio, and coffee. We have electronic calendars that will give us pop-up alerts a set time before an appointment. It just needs better coordination. When you enter an appointment into your schedule, that should alert your wakeup system that you need to be awoken, say, 2 hours before the appointment. If you're prescribed a new medication, not only does the pharmacist put it in your pill sorter thing, but you get an alert when it's time to take it (and additional alerts to get you to eat or not eat or whatever the medication requires). People who might not be remembering to eat proper could have a standing order from Grocery Gateway of ready-to-eat/microwavable foods that meet their tastes and nutritional needs. People who are inclined to wander could have the GPS on their phone lead them back to where they need to be.

The biggest concern about the aging population is the cost of caring for elders. One of the biggest reasons for putting elders in expensive, residential care is cognitive decline. If you ask any elder, they'll tell you that they want to stay in their own home as long as possible. This technology is within reach. Someone needs to make it happen.

A mission for Toronto language professional, language geeks, and second generation Canadians

One of the many things needed at the Wellesley community centre is interpreters. According to someone who was there on the ground, languages include Arabic, Punjabi, Urdu, Turkish, and Farsi.

I don't know in any official capacity and wasn't there on the ground (and if I'm misconstruing the situation, please do correct me in comments), but based on what I've heard of this situation I don't think an interpreter-quality skill set is necessary. An amateur translator, a second-generation Canadian who can talk to Gramma in the old country's language, or someone with the equivalent of two years' classroom instruction should be able to be of some help.

If this is in your skill set, please do consider popping in to see if you can be of any use. If this is in the skill set of someone you know, please pass on the tinformation.

My brilliant new filing system

For years, I've been trying to maintain a filing system where bills and receipts and important documents are sorted into different folders depending on their purpose. It's never worked, because I've always been like "OMG, it's too much work to find the right folder!" (#FirstWorldProblems) and just stuck the document in the front of the drawer to deal with later.

So here's my new system: one folder for each year. Every time I get a new piece of paper I need to keep, I put it in the front of the folder. That's all. So everything's in one folder, but it's basically in chronological order and shouldn't be too difficult to find if I ever need to find it (which I never actually have).

I currently have 7 years of stuff filed, so at the end of the year I just have to grab the oldest folder and shred everything in it, rather than going through every folder or letting stuff I don't need to keep languish and take up space.

I wish I'd thought of this earlier! I really need to learn to embrace my weaknesses more often.

Journalism wanted: contextualize the G20 expenses

Recently in the news: many many dollars were spent at the G20 for many random things.

All the news reports I've seen simply mention large numbers of dollars and the things they were spent on. But what does it actually mean?

For example, they say that $300,000 was spent on sunscreen and insect repellent. Notwithstanding my firm and abiding belief that any undertaking requiring insect repellent should be relocated to somewhere that doesn't require insect repellent, how reasonable an amount is that? How many people was it intended to equip? How much sunscreen and insect repellent did they allocate per person? Is that a reasonable amount to allocate per person? Is that a reasonable amount to spend for that quantity of sunscreen and insect repellent? How much would it go for retail? How much would it go for wholesale/bulk? What SPF did they get? How much DEET did they get?

That would be informative. The dollar amounts without context are practically useless. If I wanted to clutch my pearls because an amount greater than my own net worth was spent on supplies and logistics for a large-scale international event, I'd read the Toronto Sun. Do better, legitimate media!

Things They Should Invent: "Are you knowledgeable enough to vote?" quiz

I'm really struggling with the fact that I have to vote for a school board trustee. I've looked at all my candidates' websites and have some vague thoughts on the matter, but I don't know enough about the issues affecting TDSB and its students. I'm a generally politically aware person, I've been to school myself, and I've read all the candidates' websites. Is that enough? I have no idea. I've never even set foot inside a TDSB school except when I go into one to vote. There could be vast amounts of stuff I'm missing. I think it's inethical for me to vote if I'm doing it in ignorance, and I think it's inethical for me not to vote if I can do it informedly. And I have no way of knowing whether or not I can do it informedly.

I want someone to make an internet quiz that will tell me (and other people) whether I'm knowledgeable enough to vote. Then I could use that information to either choose not to vote, or educate myself some more. Maybe there could be like a total of 100 questions but the quiz randomly selects 10 each time you take it, so you can study up and take the quiz again, but you have to learn more than just the answer to 10 simple questions.

The real test for the reliability of fire sprinklers

I blogged before that my concern about having fire sprinklers in my home would be what happens if they malfunction.

Whenever I express this concern, all I get is people telling me "But they don't malfunction," and often trying to convince me of their benefit by saying you get a discount on your insurance premiums if you have sprinklers.

So here's the real test: would those insurance companies who are so proudly offering a discount for sprinklers be willing to cover any damage that comes from malfunctioning sprinklers, without any increase in premium?

What could an adult possibly get out of deliberately upsetting a child?

When I was a kid, various adults (especially from my father's branch of the family) would tease me or pretend to do stuff that would make life unpleasant for me ("accidentally" throw out a valued toy, drive away without me, etc.) or otherwise be rather mean to me. My mother would try to comfort me with the in-retrospect bizarre statement "Don't worry, he's just trying to upset you."

But why was he trying to upset me? Why would an adult deliberately try to upset a child? What would they get out of it? Why is it worth doing?

As a kid, I chalked it up to "grownups are weird". But I'm the same age now as my father was when I was born, and I can't fathom, even for the weirdest and most unpleasant of my peers, what reward or enjoyment or amusement they might get out of upsetting a kid that would make it worth the effort.

Half-formed idea: algorithmic approach to TTC expansion

This post arises from a combination of ideas.

1. A number of very loud political candidates want to wreck Transit City because they want subways. They seem to think LRTs now preclude subways later.

2. There is a sysadmin approach whereby hardware upgrades are algorithmic. They make a rule (presumably based on some calculations or intelligence or standard procedure) that if the system reaches X% capacity Y% of the time, they upgrade capacity.

3. It is possible to do vast 20-year economic projections of population growth, service use, and revenue generation, and to project how all of these will be affected by certain factors. They can then use these things to work out random crazy things like "If mortgage rates jump sharply today, how will that affect passenger loads at Pearson a year from now? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years?"

So we combine all three of these things, and we get an algorithmic approach to TTC expansion. They determine that if a bus hits a certain capacity, it gets upgraded into an LRT, and if an LRT hits a certain capacity, it gets upgraded into a subway.

We know that better transit service will eventually lead to intensification, which will lead to a broader tax base and more transit users. This is the sort of thing economic forecasting can quantify, which can be used to cost out the upgrades, determine which will be most profitable most quickly, and ultimately work out an algorithm for prioritizing them.

So they get a bunch of smart people to figure all this out in specific terms and make a massive plan specifying conditions under which transit lines are upgraded and a method for determining which lines will be upgraded first. They make a plan to grow using internally generated revenue, and another plan for outside funding from other levels of government, so transit improvement isn't paralyzed by withdrawl of outside funding. Maybe internal funding is used to target the areas most in need, and external funding is used to target areas with most revenue-generation potential, so it can be presented more as an investment on funding applications. The plan could of course be tweakable as new factors come into play, but in general it should come down to "Once a route reaches X capacity, it gets upgraded."

Then this approach, and the algorithms and economic forecasting used to work it out, are all made publicly available, so people can see what exactly is driving specific expansion decisions, and can see that, yes, they will get a subway eventually. Hopefully this will protect our transit system from politicos who want to dismantle existing plans and remake it in their own image every election cycle (or at least make their plans look foolish) and encourage more long-term thinking.

Now, it's quite possible that the TTC already does this. I'd be very surprised if they didn't already have an economic forecast. If so, they should publicize this information - post it on their website and make people aware of its existence, to give more credibility to their plans and make "NO! Kill it and build a subway to my house!" politically unviable.

Shyness as selfish: a more useful approach

A while back, I heard the idea that shyness is selfish, and I blogged about why this selfishness (insofar as it is selfish) seems perfectly reasonable to shy people.

However, explaining the concept as "shyness is selfish" is unhelpful, because what it's really saying is "Stop being shy!" And you can't just stop being shy. You need specific strategies, accrued experience, a safe environment, and cumulative empirical evidence of the net results produced by non-shy behaviour. It isn't a matter of convincing people why to do it, it's a matter of explaining in specific terms how.

Today it occurred to me that the real point is that non-shy behaviour is helpful and useful. I learned this by watching my Gen Y colleagues, who are so much more confident and Entitled than I am. This is useful to me. I don't have to think of everything myself or start all the conversations or figure out what the other person needs. If your goal is to get people to unshy, it would be far more effective to show them why and how unshying is helpful to others rather than just making them feel guilty for being "selfish" on top of feeling shy.

I've heard this presented in loose terms by people saying you should "contribute", but that implies that what you say has to be big and important enough to be considered a "contribution", which adds even more pressure. And there's also conventional wisdom like "Ask questions!" and "Approach another person who's shy!" But that doesn't work so well, because if you're shy the last thing you want is some stranger wandering up and interrogating you.

It's more useful to express precisely what unshy actions a shy person can take and why exactly they're helpful to others, and even more useful to witness this in action. It takes self-awareness and bravery and a supportive environment, but it's far more useful than just telling the shy person they're being selfish.

What is the meaningfulness of the gap between mean and median household income?

Torontoist's ward profiles include both mean ("average") and median household income for each ward. In some wards the mean and median are very close, and in others there's a huge gap. This is intriguing, but I can't figure out why it's happening or what it means. (I do know the difference between a mean and a median, but I can't wrap my brain around the significance of these gaps) Help me out here:

1. What is the meaningfulness of a large gap between median and mean as opposed to a small gap?
2. Large gaps tend to occur in wards with higher income. Why is this? Is it meaningful? Is it possible for it to occur in wards with lower income, and, if so, under what circumstances?
3. Why does mean tend to be higher? Is it always higher? Is it mathematically possible for it to be lower, and, if so, under what circumstances?

Question for grownups

Is "balancing a chequebook" an actual task? I always thought it was just an expression for making sure you don't run out of money, but this old For Better Or For Worse strip makes it sound like it's an actual thing you have to do. (Also, why is Elly saying "check" instead of "cheque"?)

What does it mean? Is it something I should know how to do or is it now obsolete? I'm not unfamiliar with using cheques (some of my bills still had to be paid by cheque for various reasons when I was first starting out, my old landlord had me pay rent by cheque), but it never...occurred to me, I suppose, to do any actual task that could be described as balancing one's chequebook.

Things They Should Invent: teach the words for advanced emotions as vocabulary words in elementary school

When I was in maybe Grade 6, in a class they called "Guidance" (which was basically an ineffective attempt to help us through the torments of adolescence) they taught us to use "I feel..." statements. "When you [X], I feel [Y], because [Z]". Of course, the problem was that if we'd ever actually used those statements, our peers would have laughed at us for using a formula we'd been taught in Guidance. But beyond that, the problem was that in situations where I wanted to scream and throw things and hit people, I didn't know the words for the emotions I was feeling. I wasn't feeling "happy" or "sad" or "angry", I was feeling "belittled" or "hypocritical" or "futile" or "objectified" or "helpless" or "condescended to" or "dehumanized".

The solution: introduce these words for more complex emotions in elementary school. They could be spelling words, they could be words that occur in books read in class, they could be vocabulary words. Then when people grow into adolescence and have more complex emotions, they'll be able to articulate what they're feeling when necessary.

Will young speech markers one day become elderly speech markers?

Even though I'm nearly 30, the features that mark my speech as young and female aren't going away. I still use upspeak. I still "like" quotatively and as a discourse marker. I still use "awesome" for things like youtube videos. I still use "dis" in casual conversation - I'd never use it in a translation, but I'd use it when explaining verbally why a word choice in a translation is unsuitable. "It makes it sound like he's dissing him." This isn't going to change. This is my dialect. And I've noticed that it's here to stay in many, if not all, of my peers.

These speech markers were used by teenagers who were cooler than me when I was a child, and my peers and I absorbed them by emulating the cool big kids. That means the early adopters are now at least in their late 30s-early 40s. It's possible there are even older early adopters who grew up in places that are on the cutting edge of linguistic trends.

Their dialect likely hasn't changed and isn't going to change. They still talk the same as they ever did. So in another decade or so, a quorum of working-age adults are going to upspeak.

I don't know if younger generations also upspeak etc. It might be too soon to tell. If they do, it's going to read as unmarked a generation from now. If they don't, in 30 years or so it will read as old lady talk. And in the interim, it will just read as people of a certain age trying to be friendly and perky, like how currently certain women of a certain age seem to deliberately modulate their speaking voice to make it more...melodious, I suppose...when they're trying to be friendly.

***

When writing a sentence that ended up not needing to be in this post, I started talking about how we wouldn't use upspeak et al when arguing a case in court, because it's non-authoritative.

But this made me realize that I use it in contexts where I'm speaking non-authoritatively to specifically designate that I'm being non-authoritative. When I have to be authoritative, I speak authoritatively. When talking to my peers or doing business or just having everyday social interactions, I'm not speaking authoritatively so I use my non-authoritative natural dialect. I sometimes even exaggerate my speech markers in situations where I'm emphasizing my lack of authoritativeness for social lubrication

So this makes me think that we used it with greater frequency as teens because we didn't really have any reason to be speaking authoritatively. Our parents might have wrung their hands because they couldn't picture a person arguing a case in court while talking like that. But would parents actually want their teenagers talking to them with the authority of a lawyer in court? If I'd done that, I would have been told either to stop talking back (which is bizarre, because as I've been working on Entitlement I've come to realize that I suffered far more for not "talking back", because my grownups actually did tacitly expect me to even though they told me not to), or I would have been told "don't be smart!" (Unless, of course, I was being told to "smarten up".) For a teen to speak authoritatively is perceived as disrespectful by their elders and stuck-up by their peers. Is it any wonder that we don't do so in situations where we don't have authority?

Things They Should Invent: self-obsoleting road tolls

There has been talk of introducing road tolls to reduce congestion and help pay for infrastructure, and of course car people are vehemently opposed.

I previously came up with the idea of congestion-based tolls - the more cars on the road, the higher the toll. Let's build on that and charge tolls only when there are so many cars that traffic isn't flowing smoothly. If traffic on a particular road is flowing smoothly, everything's fine, we don't need tolls. If traffic is congested and yet people are still trying to drive on the road, we start charging them tolls. (There would be signage before you enter the road).

If you're a Metropass subscriber, you get a special transponder that allows you to drive on the toll roads for free. (Alternate marketing idea to attract the motorist demographic: It's an All-Access Pass that, in addition to giving you unlimited travel on the toll roads, gives you unlimited travel on the TTC.) This is good because your money is going to the TTC (which ultimately gets cars off roads).

There would also be incentives for carpooling. If you have two transponders in your car, you get 50% off tolls. If you have three or more, you get to ride for free. Since each transponder must be issued to a registered and insured vehicle (but doesn't have to be physically attached to the vehicle, so you can take it with you while carpooling), this will make sure that carpooling incentives to go actual carpoolers, not people just driving their kids around.

So ultimately, if enough people take the TTC or carpool or take alternate routes, road tolls will never be collected. But if people continue to insist on engaging in congestion-producing behaviour, road tolls will be collected. But the tolls will be used to improve infrastructure so as to reduce congestion in the long run, so ultimately they will go extinct either way.

There is such thing as an accident

The Toronto Star's Public Editor discusses whether it's appropriate to use the word "accident" to refer to a car crash, on the basis that there's always a reason or cause for a car crash. In this article, Sgt. Tim Burrows of the Toronto Police says:

“drive distracted, impaired, fatigued, aggressive, unaware or unskilled and you will cause injuries and/or death.”

I don't think "unskilled" belongs on this list. While it is true that being unskilled increases your risk of an accident, being unskilled is not negligent. It is not deliberate. It is not a moral failing, it is not a sin, and it can coexist with absolutely perfect diligence. Being unskilled - and driving while unskilled - is necessary and unavoidable; all skilled drivers were once unskilled drivers.

Suppose I called up Sgt. Burrows and said "I'm an unskilled driver. What can I do to remedy that?" He would probably tell me to find a reputable driving school. Then suppose I find my reputable driving school and ask them what I can do to become a skilled driver. I am absolutely certain that, on top of giving me a training plan, they would tell me "Practise, practise, practise." So to become a skilled driver, I would have to drive while unskilled, extensively. I would have to drive through my entire unskilled phase, and my unskilled phase wouldn't go away unless I drove through it. Yes, instruction is available, but you really do have to practise to make it work.

As an example, let's look at the problem of black ice. I have never knowingly experienced black ice as either a driver or a passenger, and I have never knowingly seen black ice. (It's possible that I met it as a child before I ever had to think about how to drive on it, but I have no memory of any sight or experience called "black ice.") As it happens, I do have some driver education and I do know the theory of what to do on black ice, but, having never knowingly encountered it, I remain unskilled.

So suppose I get behind the wheel of a car and encounter some black ice. Would I recognize it? Maybe, maybe not. Would I react correctly and in time? Maybe, maybe not. I have no way of knowing. Perhaps I'll release the gas pedal, tap the brakes, steer in the direction I want to go (not falling into the trap of thinking about what "steer into the skid" actually means), and bring my car to a safe stop. Or perhaps I won't realize what's happening until it's too late, crash into something, and then go "Oh, so THAT'S what black ice is!"

If I do crash the very first time I ever encounter black ice, that would be entirely due to being unskilled, and entirely an accident. It wouldn't be on purpose. It wouldn't be due to negligence. And, in my specific case, it wouldn't be preventable. Maybe it's just one of those cases where you can't do something right until you try it a few times. The first time I don't recognize what's happening until it's too late. The second time I realize what's happening, but maybe you have to turn the wheel and do the brakes with more or less intensity than I'd anticipated. The third time maybe I get it right. Not much we can do to expedite that learning curve. Yes, it's certainly suboptimal and a risk to the other drivers on the road for me to be out there without having ever been on black ice, but there's no other way to become skilled at it.

One thing I think I've noticed is that driving is one of the few areas where being unskilled is seen as some kind of moral failing, rather than a benign need to practise more or work harder. It's possible I'm biased towards noticing this pattern because driving is one of the things I'm worst at (another thing I'm bad at - and where lack of skill is also seen as something of a red flag - is people skills). In most other areas of life, I find if I'm not good at something, general societal attitude is a chipper "Don't worry, work hard and practise and you'll be fine!" When I was a kid being pressured into being an engineer, I was told not to worry about the fact that I'm not good at making or designing actual physical things that exist in reality - school would get me there! There are even certain circles where being good at stuff is considered "elite" and therefore suspect. But in driving, it's the opposite. We've all heard people shout "Learn to drive!" at other cars. The Globe & Mail recently had a column where an adult learning to drive for the first time wrote about her experiences, and there were people in the comments telling her to get off the road because she doesn't know how to drive.

In most areas of life, I feel it's morally imperative for me to be instantly competent, but the rest of the world disagrees. Early on in my current job, I did a bit of a messy job on a difficult text and apologized to my reviser. He replied "You've been here two weeks! We don't expect you to be good yet!" But driving is one of the few areas of life where it would take a long time for me to become competent, and the rest of the world sees that as a moral failing.

First days of school

First day of kindergarten. I'm scared and nervous. I don't know objectively what my parents did or did not do, but I felt like no one had every told me this was coming. So I want to bring Smurfy, my very favourite toy Smurf and best friend in the world, with me. My mother tells me "If you bring Smurfy, everyone will know you have a Smurf." I think this is a good thing. After all, he's a good Smurf and I'm proud of him!

First day of middle school. I have to take the bus. Some of the older boys at the bus stop are really big and scary and testosterony (although I don't yet know that word). The kids from the other elementary school are somehow more worldly (although I don't yet know that word) and bring into our grade a whole new set of unspoken rules. I manage to break most of them the first day, before I was even aware that they were there.

First day of high school. I'm wearing blue because a magazine quiz told me that's what colour I am, not yet having any idea how to select flattering clothes. I'm wearing make-up! Concealer under my eyes, a bit of powder because it seemed like the thing to do, mascara on my lashes, white eyeshadow under my brows, and lipstick. It was actually more attractive than it sounds. I'm back to walking to school and feel very independent doing so, but I have to walk alone because none of my friends are along my route. A couple of bigger, older boys are walking in front of me but more slowly than I am, and I agonize over whether I should pass them on the sidewalk. It seems vaguely uppity (although I don't yet know that word) to pass people who are supposed to be bigger and stronger and more athletic than me, and I'm worried I'll get bullied for it. I get to the school and there's no one around that I know. My supposed best friend isn't there because the first day of school fell on Rosh Hashanah that year. Little do I know that she's decided she doesn't want to be my friend any more. She, and the rest of the circle, are going to abandon me, and the girls who are her new friends (I don't even know how she made new friends with that group so quickly) are going to be mean to me. I will spend the next 2.5 years literally friendless.

First day of university at my alma mater. I'm in 2nd year when I move into student housing the first time, and am mistaken for a frosh and told to go to a frosh orientation event. I realize early on that it's for frosh and sneak out under the guise of going to the bathroom, thinking that they're somehow enforcing attendance. There's pizza in the caf and it looks and smells so very tempting, but if I go there and buy it they'll see me. So, thinking that somehow they even care, I sneak out the other way and go back to my room, where my very first meal living on my own is a cup of instant noodles eaten in my bedroom.

Today. I woke up in the same apartment I've lived in for 3 years, put on a flattering outfit I've worn to work dozens of times before, and went to the same job I've had for 7 years. There I saw the same people and did the same work as the day before and the week before and the year before. The rules and expectations are the same, and if for some reason they aren't I can ask outright what they are. Life stays the same. No major changes. Pas de rentrée.

I love adulthood!