July 2007 Archives

"Bowling is over for the summer, and I have that babysitting job," she sighed, pinching the roll of extra, flabby flesh that has begun to accumulate in her middle. "I weigh the same as always, but everything has sagged down to my stomach and hips and I have no time for exercise!"

That's a familiar lament. I've used it. Everyone I talk to who hates the way they look but hasn't yet made any change to their life to fix what they think is wrong usually uses a variation of "I just don't have time for exercise!"

Leave aside for the moment that if you don't get much exercise you need to reduce what you eat. We'll focus only on exercise and activity in this post.

It's as simple as setting priorities in our lives. She bowls. What is she doing with that time slot now that the bowling, er, "season" is over? She replied that she busies herself, so much to do.
She babysits a toddler two days a week. What does she do in that time slot on the other five days a week? Oh, she busies herself. So much to do. She has a dog, a five year old lab with a LOT of energy and she complains about how much attention the dog needs, but she can't take the dog for walks because the dog always pulls so hard on the leash. She's older, and can't take that kind of strain on her arms.

Hmmm.

Has she considered taking training classes with the dog? And then setting aside 45 minutes or an hour a day walking the dog, energetically? Drain the dog, work the dog, get exercise herself, and add the "upper body" strength training that comes with correctly working a dog on a lead?

Oh, so much to do, when would she have time for that?

I don't know, to be honest. I know what my days are like, and how I set my schedule, and because I consider exercise to be important to me -- as important as eating, in fact -- I put exercise into my schedule. I give up things that are a little less important. I watch very little television, for example. I "TiVO" my few programs that I like, then spend maybe an hour or an hour and a half watching some of the shows just before bed time. I probably spend a little less time fussing about the house, scrubbing it. I don't know what all I am skipping or missing, really. Clearly, it is less important to me.

I don't think, I know this is a key to weight management. She hasn't changed weight, but she's lost muscle mass and discovered fat accumulating in the places it likes to accumulate because she's not using her muscles much. She's set her priorities to exclude obvious places to get exercise. Whatever she is doing instead of bowling, or on days when she's not babysitting, it's more important to her than dropping the fat.

Oh, and she eats massive, fat- and calorie-laden meals, too. ;-)

Your House: RAVENCLAW!

Or yet in wise old Ravenclaw, If you've a ready mind, Where those of wit and learning, Will always find their kind.

Ravenclaws are known for their intelligence, ingenuity, and lifelong thirst for knowledge.

Take The Sorting Hat Test

It's light reading, that's for sure. The Harry Potter series, I mean. I don't have to think while reading it. I can just submerge myself, lose myself, and let the words -- some of them quite clever -- and phrases and characters and ideas wash over me without much analysis. I can ponder the fates of the characters without stopping to wonder about the realism of it. I can find sympathy for some, and antipathy for others. I can scoff, wrinkle my nose, giggle, or smile fondly. It takes me away from things in my life that sometimes seem to want to devour me and leave nothing behind. It's Calgon© for the soul.

I am an adult. My kids, however, grew up with the bespectacled young wizard. They spent their coming-of-age years devouring the books -- staying up all night to read the entire thing, cover to cover, standing in lines at midnight to see the movies. They were part and parcel of Potter-mania. And now as young adults, on their own, they've done the same with the seventh and final book in the series. They express deep regret that the series is over, that they swallowed the books so quickly.

Potter did not teach my children to read. Their father and I did that. Potter did not teach them to love books. Potter-mania, the hype and ecstasy of it, did not lure them from their computers and televisions and video games into books. They already had a love for books when Potter came along. My son obsessed over The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and both kids were often seen with their noses in award winning novels that were beyond their presumed reading level. They continue to read to this day.

But there exist among us those who have always scoffed at Potter, or outright declared the books a form of evil. And their antitheses -- those who claimed that these books alone were responsible for luring the young into the world of reading.

Now, ten years after the first Potter book, along comes a sort of Death Eater of editorialists, who brings with him some numbers and facts that suggest that reading in general is on the decline, regardless of age. Potter did not keep youngsters, he says, reading. And Potter or no, people are just plain not going to the libraries. His words suggest that the money spent hyping Potter should've been better spent hyping more diverse works.

Maybe the trend is there; I haven't done my own number crunching.

I do know that in my youth, I was an aberration and even in my adulthood, what set me and my few friends apart was that we were lured toward books and reading, while so many around us had other pursuits. I could be found consuming almost anything readable. My peers were mostly out playing games, or watching TV. Adult peers who asked me what I enjoyed looked at me pityingly when I said I loved to read; they preferred skiing or camping or shopping. When I asked what they read, they pointed to a magazine or maybe a best-seller that they'd picked up to read on the airplane.

A small number of us, though, exchanged loved books and met new authors, and had -- and continue to have -- up to date library cards.

I remain unconvinced that Potter lured kids to become readers, but I also remain unconvinced that there is a death knell to be sounded for reading at all.

There's some flap about the use of the term "gay" as in "that's so gay" or "They made me wear gay sweaters."

Before I commented on the kerfuffle, though, I wanted to find somewhat on the history of the word. Wikipedia has this to say:

The word originally meant "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" and was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature. [...] The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations".

See, now, I never knew that "gay" had sexual connotations prior to being used by homosexuals to describe themselves. I grew up watching "The Flintstones." Color me innocent.

There's loads more at Wikipedia about the overall sexual connotations, but I want to pursue the movement of the word to mean "homosexual":

The use of gay to mean homosexual was in origin merely an extension of the word's sexualised connotation of "carefree and uninhibited", which implied a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores. Such usage is documented as early as the 1920s. [...] By the mid-20th century "gay" was well-established as an antonym for "straight" (which had connotations of respectability), and to refer to the lifestyles of unmarried and or unattached people. Other connotations of frivolousness and showiness in dress ("gay attire") led to association with camp and effeminacy. [...] Using it to describe an object, such as an item of clothing, suggests that it is particularly flamboyant, often on the verge of being gaudy and garish.

If Senator McCain, who is taken to task for his comment on gay sweaters had been speaking during the 1960s or 70s, then we could reasonably assume he was using the term as a reference to gaudiness. Of course, the black sweater he's pictured in on the referenced site is hardly gaudy.

More likely, McCain was doing what Dawn and a bazillion other people, including my son I'm sad to say, do. Wiki has commentary regarding that as well:

Using the term gay as an adjective where the meaning is akin to "related to gay people, culture, or homosexuality in general" is a widely accepted use of the word. By contrast, using gay in the pejorative sense, to describe something solely as negative, can cause offence. [...] When used with a derisive attitude (e.g. "that was so gay"), the word gay is pejorative. While retaining its other meanings, it has also acquired "a widespread current usage" amongst young people, as a general term of disparagement. This pejorative usage has its origins in the late 1970s, when homosexuality was more widely seen as negative by a majority of people.

I believe this. Saying "gay also means lame" ignores the fact that the "lame" connotation came out of disparagement of homosexuality. That is its direct descent. A person may now attempt to divorce the two, but people who are sensitive to it, people who genuinely dislike homosexuality, and gay people will likely always remember that it is derived from a disparagement of gays and the gay lifestyle.

The use is changing, as words do. At the end, Wiki cites a ruling by the British Board of Governors regarding a BBC broadcast where a radio DJ used the term:

" The word 'gay' ... need not be offensive... or homophobic... The governors said, however, that Moyles was simply keeping up with developments in English usage. [...] The committee... was "familiar with hearing this word in this context." The governors believed that in describing a ring tone as 'gay', the DJ was conveying that he thought it was 'rubbish', rather than 'homosexual'. [...] The panel acknowledged however that this use... in a derogatory sense... could cause offence in some listeners, and counselled caution on its use. "

It's slowly turning into a term that means "rubbish" or "lame", just as it gradually became a word with sexual connotations, then a word co-opted by homosexuals for a non-clinical self-descriptor. Yet, it still causes offense and should be used with caution.

This isn't really about the absolute definition a word must retain. It's about feelings. If you care about how someone feels, then it pays to listen to them. When someone says "that offends me, I would think it beneath you" they are crying out to you, emotionally. You hurt them in some way -- could be small, could be large. If they matter to you, then you might modify the way you use a term. If they don't matter to you, then you might throw it back in their faces and tell them to grow the fuck up.

When the term genuinely comes to mean a generic "lame" more than it means "I am putting down a class of people", maybe it will be time to gently take those who still find offense in it to task. For now, it is still solidly understood to disparage homosexuals. It retains more than a vestige of intolerance.

PJ, who no longer blogs, posted this on Usenet and I'm using excerpts from it to introduce my topic:

I just learned about a Web site called "Don't Date Him Girl" that women can join and post warnings to other women about men they perceive to be slime. They post names, pictures, email addresses, cities/states, and lengthy descriptions of why these men should be avoided [...] What's really dangerous about this is that the women remain completely anonymous, but they can (and do) provide a ton of information about the men.

From the DDHG website:

Don't Date Him Girl, until you've checked him out first! DDHG is a social networking site where women from around the world can share their dating experiences with each other. Share your story of inspiration, hope and determination with other women around the world. Learn about how you can date safer and smarter, build your self-esteem, find true love and empower yourself to become the powerful woman you really are!

The perception is that women are vulnerable and men are scoundrels. Everyone knows that, right?

The truth of life is that humans are vulnerable and humans are scoundrels, each in their own ways and turns. Men typically take the upper hand in things and women are usually taught to be victims, but both find ways to hurt one another. Men cheat. Women cheat. Men abuse. Women abuse. Relationships suck when they don't work well. People don't talk to one another, and when the relationship goes sour, each is likely to want to lash out at the other, find a way to hurt the other. This sort of site promotes the one-sided view of female victimhood and is, therefore, less helpful than it could be.

Said Peej:

So basically, these guys are guilty because the women SAY they're guilty. Period. Where's the justice in that? Isn't this an open and shut case of libel? Sometimes I hate the Internet.

I was curious about it. I don't intend to use it, but I did register to become a member (user name "lizarddreams") just to see what's permitted, what's not. Their terms of service spell out how they protect themselves from lawsuits. They log the member's IP address and let the member know they're tracking it.

Knowing what I do about websites like this, they quickly roll over for court orders -- as they should. If a man finds his name and particulars up there, and the information is damaging enough, he can get the site to pull it and he can pursue the poster via the court system.

The site also provides a "He said/She said" forum where the man can rebut the woman's statements and offer information about her, then lets people vote on believability. Guys can register, too, and offer comments, posts about the men they know who may have hurt people.

I looked at a few more of the posts warning about these slime-dog evil-doing men. The posts are gossipy and filled with conjecture. One says "rumour has it that this guy has slept with 40 girls and he's not even 20 yet!" Another talks about a man who has children by different mothers, leverages the children to get the women to continue sleeping with him, etc. It pleads with readers who know him to comment to confirm (or, presumably, refute) that he's a bucket o sputem. <-- my term.

I tend to agree with PJ's sentiment: this is a kangaroo court of a website. They do offer all kinds of advice and support forums for women who have been hurt, and recommend books and such. It might be a useful resource in that community fashion, but the notion of ratting out guys who're dirtier than dirt without requiring the poster to offer proof of his slimedness is, well ... nasty.

If you don't smoke, or if you police your butts, then move on.

If you do smoke, and you're one of those cretins who thinks "oh, it's just one eensy little bit of cotton and paper, who's gonna care?" then read on.

If you're someone who smokes and then carelessly tosses your saliva-coated filthy butt wherever you happen to be, and you happen to be on or near my property at the time and I happen to see you doing this disgusting activity, I will find out where you live.

When I do find out where you live, I will collect my dogs' excrement (plural on the "dog") and dump it all over your yard.

I promise you this.

But, of course, I support your "right" to smoke, etc. Have a lovely day!

I saw the fifth Harry Potter movie, "The Order of the Phoenix."

* * *  S P O I L E R    W A R N I N G  !  * * *

Eh.

In general, I've been less than impressed with the movie versions of the books. I think that the way they cut them to pack the humongous books into the beensy little movie length left out some pretty keen stuff and the acting is a bit wooden in places.

But in Book 5, the coolest scene of all was one they chose not to reproduce in the film. They were all hot on the inky coal-dust-esque apparations of the Death Eaters and the silvery blinding white smokey apparations of the members of the order, and they cast Umbrage and Luna perfectly, but ... they missed out on animating the big statues at the Ministry. They could've done a Transformer coup, man!

Another irritation: had the movie peeps and the book peeps been really clever, they'd've released the movie on 7/5/07 and the seventh book on 7/7/07.

Morons.

I've said it. This article, quoted below, has said it. Walkies are good for you.

These days, it's easy for people to get confused about exercise -- how many minutes a day should they spend working out, for how long and at what exertion level. Conflicting facts and opinions abound, but one Mayo Clinic physician says the bottom line is this: walking is good, whether the outcome measurement is blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, joint problems or mental health.

"Getting out there and taking a walk is what it's all about," says James Levine, M.D., Ph.D., and a Mayo Clinic expert on obesity. "You don't have to join a gym, you don't have to check your pulse. You just have to switch off the TV, get off the sofa and go for a walk."

Caveat: Walkies are not good for you if you're a bit scatter-brained and end up getting hit by a car. Also, probably not a good idea to walk far in the blinding heat and sun in a desert summer.

Try a treadmill, instead.

'k?

I ran out of anti-perspirant.

NO! Wait! Come back! There's more, and while I may be stinky, it ain't pit odor I'm talkin' about here ...

My "odorless" anti-perspirant, the kind that is not stunk up with some hideous chemical the makers claim smell like "spring rain" or "baby butt" or "ice hot spice" or whatever is what I ran out of. I did, however, have plenty of a smelly variety. This one was a freebie sample and presumably smells like "Botanical Silk."

I don't know about you, but I've never actually seen a "botanical silk", let alone sniffed one. Seeing the name, I imagined some scent akin to cloth and dead leaves, but apparently the makers thought that an overpowering mishmash of the sorts of floral arrangements found in funeral homes comprised "Botanical Silk" scents.

That, of course, clashes heartily with the fruity scent the makers of my skin moisturizer thought was a neat-o stink to put into their product.

As well as the Junior Chemistry Set Disaster scent of the hair spray I use.

I don't mind, really. It keeps people away from my office, so I do get to accomplish some work without too many live interruptions. It also kills mosquitoes, several species of vermin, and keeps rabid crocodiles at bay.

Meanwhile, Mark sent me a news clip where they demonstrate that your toilet has fewer bacteria than your cell phone does. After viewing the video, I rushed to swab my phone down with rubbing alcohol.

Sad to say, I accidentally dropped my phone in the toilet ...

... oh well. At least it's cleaner than it was!

Two things, in rapid succession, irritated me this morning, and they both had to do with a simple design decision that could have made the difference between delighting a customer, and causing, well, irritation.

Dear Thermal Coffee Cup Designers. If you're too fucking cheap, or "cutting costs", or whatever, to use a tenth-of-a-cent blob of sealant on your trendy little coffee cups, making them "non-dishwasher-safe", then for fuck's sake make the interior large enough for an adult human hand to be able to get in there and scrape off the old coffee residue!

Sincerely yours, disgruntled coffee drinker

and

Dear Dishwasher Designers. If you're going to go to the trouble to put a "cleaning cycle completed" indicator on your high end dishwashers, then, hello. Make it fucking visible, not some pin-sized dot. Further, if I open the door to remove a fork, then close the door again, turning off the indicator makes it about as useful as using a spaghetti strainer for a birth control device, you know what I'm saying?

love and kisses, curmudgeonly home owner

Yes, anything this hyped, this complex, this big-huge-gigantic-super-duper is going to have <air quotes>issues</air quotes>.

So it failed to actually do phone calls during The Today Show. 's'okay. It still looks sharp, and does lotsa cool stuff.

So you paid beau coup bucks for a paper weight, at least until AT&T gets caught up with the (could've anticipated this) huge backlog of activations on their (should've beefed these up, hello) servers. At least it's a pretty paper weight!

The thing is, while everyone's drooling over, screaming about, and laughing at the Apple iPhone, no one, but no one is paying attention to what really matters:

Transformers is out!

'course, even that will pale when Harry Potter 7 finally makes it to the book stores!