Book Review - Pirate King by Laurie R. King

I've always kind of liked Sherlock Holmes, though I was never a fan to the point where I devoured all of Arthur Conan Doyle's work.

I do love Laurie R. King's conceit of Holmes being a real figure and living until at least the 1920s, and befriending (and then marrying) a young girl named Mary Russell. Russell soon becomes Holmes' new Watson (though Watson is a character in some of the novels too), recording her adventures with Holmes as they solve mysteries and partake in other adventures.

Sadly, the latest book is not the best example of this. Pirate King is meant to be a farce, a comedy that will change the mood of the series a little bit. The idea is nice, and I usually enjoy comedic episodes of serious television shows.

Sadly, Pirate King is not that funny, and thus becomes extremely tedious.

My review has been posted on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

Mary Russell has gone on a lot of adventures as Sherlock Holmes' wife, but this is something even she has never experienced. Chief Inspector Lestrade asks her to go undercover with a British film company whose eccentric owner wants to do a strange version of the "Pirates of Penzance." It seems that somebody in the film production company is suspected of nefarious deeds on the sets of various movies the company has made. Mary is supposed to figure out who's behind everything from gun-running to drug smuggling, depending on the movie. Even Mary can't predict what will end up happening as the entourage moves from Portugal to Morocco, and she'll have to use all of her wits to keep the company safe.

Unfortunately, the characters don't mesh at all, it's impossible to keep them straight, and the jokes are based on those characters. Thus, hardly any of the jokes work.

It saddens me a bit, because I had high hopes for Pirate King, and I do look forward to King's next Holmes novel.

This one doesn't work at all, though.

Podcast stuff - Episode 19 of Down the Hall (Radio EPLT)

The 19th episode of Down the Hall has now been posted!

This week, we talk both Physical Education and field trips, so two ways that you can get kids out of the classroom and out into the field (hence the title "Out in Left Field"

In it, I recall a field trip to the Chicago Art Museum. I couldn't tell you when it was, or what all happened on that trip. I just remember "no flash photography."

While you're at it, why don't you head on over to Facebook and like us there?

You know you want to. And you know that you're now feeling verrrrrrrry sleepy.

But don't forget to like us before you head to bed.

Is there a doctor in the house? - A PhD journey sparks thought

I want to heartily congratulate Natasha Boskic, a co-worker of mine, for successfully defending her PhD dissertation last night. She did a fabulous job, and I had the honour to be there. Six of us from the office went over to offer our support and be in the audience (it's open to the public, though typically it's just people the person knows). She did a fabulous job, and we're all very proud just to be associated with such success.

(Incidentally, I interviewed Natasha for the last episode of the podcast about her dissertation, which involved ethical and literacy issues in alternate reality gaming. She was a great interview and it was a very interesting topic).

She started out by saying that doing a PhD is a personal journey, and those words stuck with me throughout the rest of her presentation. I don't have a PhD (hell, I don't even have a Master's degree), so I don't have any frame of reference. But I can only imagine what kind of journey that entails. Four years of your life (I don't know what the average is, but I'm sure that's close) dedicated to researching a question, an area that you feel passionate about. I'm sure you discover a lot about yourself in that journey.

It made me stop and think about my life, though. I did apply to the Master's program in History here at UBC back in 2000. I didn't get in, mainly due to grades I think. It turned out to be a good thing, in a way, because I discovered after the fact that our staff tuition waiver doesn't cover graduate school. Yes, if it was something I was passionate about, we would have made it work. But while I wanted to do it, that passion wasn't really there to justify the cost. Who knows? That passion not being there might have made it so I would have been unsuccessful anyway.

We've had four doctorates come out of our office (3 PhDs and a Doctor of Education degree), and as we were walking over to the defense yesterday, we were talking about that. My boss asked me when I was going to get my PhD. I joked that I didn't even have my Master's.

That started the line of thought that continued when Natasha started speaking. I don't have any real desire to go down that academic path. While I do have a passion for learning, the passion for learning in an academic setting isn't really there, even ten years later.

It did, however, make me think about the huge variety of personal journeys that we all take. We all go down separate paths. While our friends and family can love and support us down those paths, they can't really join us on them. Sometimes we are joined by others who are moving the same way along those same paths, and perhaps friendships can form out of those. The journey is ultimately a personal one, though.

None of them are "better" than another. It just depends on what you need at that time. The gaining of knowledge, whether it's research knowledge or just knowledge about yourself, is always a valuable endeavour, whether it's through a formal process like a PhD or just improving yourself in everyday living.

All of this reinforced some things that I've been thinking about for the last couple of weeks, about the need to be more social. In retrospect, a few of my posts during that time period have ultimately stemmed from this, I think. I see a bit of stagnation setting in that I need to do something about.

I'm going to V-Con, a science fiction convention here in Vancouver (if you're going to be there, look me up!). I plan on not being a wallflower at this convention, or at least not as much of one as I was last time I went. Small steps!

I'm also taking a short fiction class next Spring. I don't know if anything will result from that writing-wise, but I'm also taking it for the social aspect, to talk to classmates and all of that. I do hope to get at least one short story out of it too, of course.

Finally, my boss has had individual meetings with everybody in the office, and one of the things we talked about was professional development, as well as personal development that may only be related to work tangentially. After that meeting, some ideas have been sitting in the back of my mind. After seeing Natasha yesterday, and the final result of her personal journey, these thoughts have crystallized a bit more. Maybe a public speaking course of some kind (that's one of the ideas that my wife suggested too, but it went in with all the other ideas, percolating in my mind without actually coalescing into anything immediately).

I don't know exactly what I'll decide to do, other than what's already in motion. Thankfully, the issue with my friend that sparked some of the recent posts (you can probably guess which ones they are) has been resolved. It did initiate a lot of these thoughts and realizations, though. So maybe it's for the best that it happened. It taught me a lot about myself, and the parts of my life that have been missing, even if I hadn't actually noticed that they weren't there.

My personal journey most likely does not fall along the academic path like Natasha's did (though I do hold out that option for the future).

But I think it's time that I finally start it, whichever path it leads down.

Anti-Semitism Controversy at York University - Is there something in the water there?

Anti-Semitism is a serious issue, but it can be hopelessly trivialized when it's charged in absurd situations.

It all started when professor Cameron Johnston, a Jewish man by the way, was beginning his "Self, Culture, and Society" course at York. In it, he explained that:

...the course was going to focus on texts, not opinions, and despite what they may have heard elsewhere, everyone is not entitled to their opinion.

“All Jews should be sterilized” would be an example of an unacceptable and dangerous opinion, Johnston told the students.

Sarah Grunfeld, a 22-year-old student who has evidently been there for four years (but evidently was not busy developing critical thinking skills in that time), stormed out of the class and started complaining to the higher-ups at York about Johnston's anti-Semitic remark.

Yes, you read that correctly. He was saying that the statement "All Jews should be sterilized" would not be an acceptable opinion. Grunfeld evidently wasn't paying attention, only starting to when he uttered the phrase itself, not when introducing the whole reasoning for why he said it.

She storms out, sends a note to a campus Jewish group, Hasbara, which immediately starts spreading the call for Johnston to be fired without actually investigating the claim. (I'm assuming they didn't investigate it, because any investigation would reveal the context of the statement). They release the statement to other Jewish groups as well as the media, which, of course, runs with it.

Calls for his firing grew, and all apparently without actually looking into what actually happened. This could have been nipped in the bud if somebody along the chain of events had actually stopped to think before spreading this.

The flap is easily explained, and you would think that Grunfeld would be properly mollified now that the context of the statement was revealed to her (and maybe she should actually start listening in class).

You would be wrong.

Grunfeld said Tuesday she may have misunderstood the context and intent of Johnston’s remarks, but that fact is insignificant.

“The words, ‘Jews should be sterilized’ still came out of his mouth, so regardless of the context I still think that’s pretty serious.”

Are you kidding me?

Ok, all of you who didn't believe I was a sexist pig last week should at least now be reporting me to the authorities for typing those hated words above. Oh, and don't forget the Toronto Star, whose article I'm quoting in this post, along with all the other media outlets that repeated what he said.

Because just having the words come out of your mouth is enough to brand you an anti-Semite.

Maybe we're safe because we typed them rather than saying them. That's the kind of critical thinking being displayed here, so who knows?

Going to university is supposed to broaden your mind and help you learn how to think critically. To absorb information and learn how to evaluate it for yourself.

I'm beginning to wonder if that's what's truly happening, though.

Note: this story is from Wednesday, September 14. I have found no record of more recent stories, so I don't know if Grunfeld is still sticking by her charge. If not, she hasn't publicly said she's changed her mind. And obviously nothing has happened to Johnston, or that would have made the news too.

Which means sanity has actually prevailed in this case.

Movie Review - Rise of the Planet of the Apes

The original Conqeust of the Planet of the Apes is not my favourite of the original Ape movies, thus making it a prime candidate for a remake, this time being called Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Thankfully, the remake is everything the original wasn't, which includes "good." Yes, there were definitely problems with the movie, but overall, it was a very enjoyable experience.

Unless you're squeamish about animal testing, that is.

Will Rodman (Jamie Franco) has created a new drug that could cure Alzheimer's Disease, and of course it has to be tested on animals before it can proceed to human trials. In the chimps, it seems to have heightened the intelligence in at least one case, along with fighting the disease. The chimp, affectionately called Bright Eyes, goes berserk just as Rodman is presenting his findings to the board for more funding for human trials. Bright Eyes' son is found in her cage, and Rodman smuggles him out to take care of him, naming him Caesar. Caesar (played wonderfully by that motion capture genius, Andy Serkis) has even more intelligence than Bright Eyes did, and lives a happy life with Rodman until things go horribly wrong. Caesar will end up leading his fellow apes to safety, perhaps a precursor of an Ape society that will rise in the future?

(Thanks to Shopping Blog)

The humans in Rise of the Planet of the Apes are nothing to write home about. Other than Rodman, none of them are given any depth at all, playing more caricatures than anything else. Rodman's new girlfriend, Caroline (Freida Pinto), is totally wasted, doing nothing in the movie other than identifying a few primate traits so the audience would understand them later in the movie, as well as providing one scene of being Rodman's conscience. The head of the drug company where Rodman works, Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo) is your stereotypical company head honcho who wants money more than anything else.

As an aside, do we really need to see yet another greedy drug company businessman in films? Talk about your stereotypes! At least Rise limits it to one man, rather than making the entire company that way, but it's still annoying.

Rodman is the only human character given any depth, and even he's semi-cliched. He's desperate to create the Alzheimer's cure because his father is suffering from it. Thus, the shortcuts that he takes are done for personal reasons, not those of greed. You can also tell that he cares about Caesar. Yet even Rodman only manages to barely reach a third dimension.

I have to especially call out the head of the Primate refuge and his son (Bryan Cox and Tom Felton), who are so stereotypically cruel and provocative that it was almost over the top. Felton's performance is the same, though Cox tones it down. However, the characters themselves are hopeless.

(Thanks to InEntertainment)

The good thing is that the apes save the day, which I guess might be the point. Serkis is simply amazing as Caesar, assuming that even the expressions on Caesar's face were taken from Serkis. You can almost tell what he is thinking at times. The other apes are also very well done. The CGI when they move doesn't quite cross into "Uncanny Valley" territory, but it is exceptional. The one major confrontation in the movie, on the Golden Gate Bridge (shown in all the trailers), is beautifully shot.

(Thanks to Twitch)

The story was interesting and definitely keeps your attention. The movie packs a lot into less than two hours, though that could be because the ending is so obviously a set-up for a sequel that it doesn't even really exist. The movie just ends. There isn't a cliffhanger or anything, but there also isn't really a resolution.

There are a few plot holes, though. Caroline dates Rodman for years, moving in with him at the very least (apparently), yet five or so years later, she still is shocked at Caesar's origin? You weren't curious for all those years? And if you did ask and he blatantly lied to you about it, that's a pretty big lie to forgive without saying much. This is a testament to how unimportant the human characters are in this movie.

Overall, I did greatly enjoy Rise of the Planet of the Apes. If your heart goes out to animals so much that you can't see any mistreatment of them whatsoever, then this movie is not for you. They have to set up why Caesar is outraged to begin with, so there are some bad scenes. Keep in mind, though, that I don't believe any real apes were used in the movie. If there were, certainly not in any of the violent scenes.

Grab your popcorn and get ready. This is a very good movie, and know that you'll be getting more of it in the next few years as well.

It's a win-win!

A Companionable Silence

We've all heard of the concept of "companionable silence," when two people are sitting together, not talking, just enjoying the atmosphere around them. It's a concept that I'm not comfortable with, however. I don't know why that is. I've rarely been able to just sit there and feel that companionship with a person without the sounds of our voices.

(Thanks to Travel Adventure)

Some people love silence. They love just sitting with somebody and enjoying the act of being with them. No words are needed. It's not that they *won't* talk; it's just that there's no requirement for it. They are perfectly comfortable with the other person, no matter what is said or not said.

I wish I could be that way.

I understand the concept intellectually, of course. It's not like somebody's saying something in a foreign language if they mention it to me. I get it.

I just don't feel it.

It's a bit different with the wife, of course. We spend a lot of time together, and of course it's not filled with constant talking, though I do sometimes feel there is more than may be necessary on my part. We do enjoy our quiet time, though I usually have some noise going on, whether it's the TV or my games or whatever. I've never been a big fan of silence even when I'm by myself.

I'm more talking about time with friends, when you're having lunch or going for a walk or whatever. Something of limited duration, when you will be going back to work or to your own lives in a relatively short period of time. In those times, I find prolonged silence intensely uncomfortable. It almost feels oppressive sometimes.

Again, I KNOW that none of this is true. But it just feels like if there's silence, that's because there's nothing left to say. That the other person doesn't want to talk to you for whatever reason. Never mind the fact that, if they didn't want to be with you, they wouldn't have agreed in the first place to lunch or a walk or whatever.

When I'm sitting with somebody at lunch, and there's a silent lull, part of me (that insecure, neurotic part, I guess) is just waiting for them to say "well, I have to get back to work" or whatever, as a cover for them just wanting to get out of there. Like, "if you're not going to talk, then I've got better things to do with my time than sit here."

The thing is, I probably would enjoy just having their company. Ok, 30 whole minutes without a word spoken would be bad, but you get the idea. But often I just enjoy being with them, and I do like the feeling of companionship.

It's just that niggling fear underneath it all that they don't feel the same way that bothers me. Even though they've never given me any reason to think they feel differently.

I think there's an underlying reason for all of this, a comfortableness with the self that just isn't always there. We've all heard the phrase "comfortable in your own skin." I think that's a big part of it.

So if you consider me a friend and have noticed this, or we're online friends and we ever meet for the first time, I hope this explains a few things. I do try to make sure that what I say is at least interesting or relevant or something like that. I try not to be totally stupid about it. ("gee, it's really raining hard out there!") If you do notice it and it gets irritating, I'd prefer being told about it rather than you internally saying "this is the last time I'll meet up with him!"

Silence can be a good thing, especially when the alternative is inane chatter created just to fill that void of emptiness.

I just wish I could enjoy it like others seem to.

Boneless Update

It's been two months since we brought our new cat home, and she's settling in quite nicely. She's filling out very well too, considering her experiences before we adopted her.

She's eating well, she's giving us just as much love and affection as we're giving her, and I think she's getting used to us. She's still a bit jumpy when a sudden sound outside happens, but she's even calming down as far as that's concerned.

Anyway, I thought I'd give you a brief post with a couple of pictures taken a few days ago. Show you how much she's grown in just this little while.

I caught her napping at the top of her cat post. (click both images to see them larger)

And after that, she decided to pose for me.

Enjoy!

The Eternal E-Book Debate - a New Sign of the Electronic Coming

Do you remember the Billy? That really basic, kind of ugly bookcase from Ikea that is the mainstay in small apartments everywhere?

The Swedish giant has now contributed to the ongoing debate between e-books and "real" books, by announcing that the Billy is being reformed.

Via TechCrunch (h/t: The awesome Rob Long on Ricochet):

If you needed any more proof that the age of dead-tree books is over take a look at these alarming style changes at Ikea: the furniture manufacturer’s iconic BILLY bookcase – the bookcase that everyone put together when they got their first apartment and, inevitably, pounded the nails wrong into – is becoming deeper and more of a curio cabinet. Why? Because Ikea is noticing that customers no longer buy them for books.

Just what the world needs: more room for more dust collectors! Sure, books collect dust too, but at they least they have something interesting inside.

The thread on Ricochet that I link to above has a great debate in the comments section (you can read the comments, but can't comment yourself unless you join) about this debate, too.

Honestly, I'm sympathetic to both sides of the debate, and I've never really been able to decide exactly where I fall on the spectrum.

I understand the space limitations of having shelves and shelves of books. In fact, we have that problem right now, and it was even worse before. If you're travelling, it's nice to have a large number of books at your disposal without having to worry about packing them.

I also see the other side. I love the feel of a book in my hands, of turning the pages and seeing the print on the page. I love looking over at the bookshelves and seeing all of the works that we have there.

A number of commenters mention how perishable e-books can be, especially if there is no standardization of format. You don't have to have a compatible reader (other than actually being literate) in order to read either a paperback, hardcover, or coffee table book. Fifty years from now, will you still have all those Kindle books? Will the new readers be able to read them or convert them? We have relics from 2000 years ago, papyrus scrolls and other books from even Roman times. In 1000 years, will archaeologists be able to discover what we were reading?

It's all a tough question.

I admit that I can't give up "dead tree" books right now. I review books for Curled Up With a Good Book, so I get hard copies of books all the time. Plus, I want to support our local SF bookstore, White Dwarf, so I buy paperbacks from them. It's mostly Star Trek books, whose digital distribution can be spotty at times (or at least so I've heard), but I also buy some other paperbacks as well.

Thus, I'm stuck in the dead tree world even though I do also enjoy reading books on my Kindle. I alternate between them sometimes, depending on what's on my to-read list. I don't think I'll ever go fully one way or the other, unless I stop doing reviews.

Ultimately, our choice may be made for us. The Economist says:

In the first five months of this year sales of consumer e-books in America overtook those from adult hardback books. Just a year earlier hardbacks had been worth more than three times as much as e-books, according to the Association of American Publishers. Amazon now sells more copies of e-books than paper books. The drift to digits will speed up as bookshops close. Borders, once a retail behemoth, is liquidating all of its American stores.

I remember just a few years ago, people were talking about the e-book phenomenon as a "fad", stating how minuscule e-book sales were versus print sales.

Now this.

Is going down this road inevitable? Will "real" books be treated as a rare gift in just a few years, like Spock's gift to Kirk in Star Trek II of the book Great Expectations? Somebody searching out a hardbound copy of something because it's a collectible.

I hope not.

I hope that each type of reader gets to have their choice for years to come.

Because right now, I don't want to make that decision.

I want the best of both worlds. And to not have that decision made for me.

Of course, if it happens, we'll adapt. We always do.

Even as we miss the old days.

The post in which I admit that I am a sexist pig

at least according to the Society for the Psychology of Women.

Read on and you'll discover just how much of a monster I really am.

The wife and I were catching up on some recorded Red Eye shows on Fox News the other night, so excuse me if you've all talked this issue to death. It came out back in June.

One of the stories that came up was an article on a "benevolent sexism" study done by the Society. The aim is to show just how prominent benevolent sexism actually is in our society today.

Just what is this horrifying trend?

It consists of such horrible things as helping a woman carry heavy groceries. Or complimenting them on doing something that's traditionally a "woman's chore." Or, heaven forbid, actually holding the door open for a woman.

The horrors!

(Thanks to DailyBooth)

You know that such a thing is real, because it has its own Wikipedia page. According to the page, benevolent sexism "is defined as subjectively positive attitudes of protection, idealization, and affection towards women in traditional roles..."

With this kind of stuff out there, is there any wonder that members of each gender are confused about what is and isn't proper? Should we just wrap ourselves in bubble cocoons so that we never actually offend anybody?

(Thanks to And Now I'm a Grownup)

Whatever happened to just basic politeness and manners?

I have a news flash for you all.

Men and women are different! Yes, they are. They're different physically (thank God), and they're different mentally and emotionally too.

Why can't we celebrate those differences? Just because we do doesn't mean that we're looking down on anybody. I can consider a woman my equal and still want to help them if they're having a problem with something. If it happens to be something that falls into "traditional gender roles," who cares? If a woman's having problems with heavy groceries, I will try to help her. Does that make me a pig? Hell, I'd help a man if he was having trouble with heavy groceries. It's just the way I am.

I always hold the door open for a woman (and often for a man, too, if he's right behind me, because I don't want to let it slam in his face). Is that because I think she can't open a door? No! It's because it's the polite thing to do. I don't have a negative, "protective" opinion of the woman I'm holding a door for. I just do it. I'm not piggish enough to force myself in front of her if she happens to get to the door first, of course. But if I'm there at the same time or in front, I'll hold it for her.

I guess that makes me a sexist jerk.

Evidently, this term has been around for a while, but it came up again when the Society's study was released in June.

The researchers created a list of such damaging acts as: helping a woman to choose the right computer, calling a group of both men and women "guys" and offering to do the driving on a long distance journey.

Even men who think they are expressing affection might be guilty - the scientists said calling a woman a "chick", showering her with unwanted affection or saying that you cannot live without her could also be sexist.

Ok, I'll give you a woman being called "chick," but I wouldn't count that as "benevolent sexism" anyway. I'd just call that basic rudeness, unless the person in question also calls guys "dudes" or something. Then they're just inherently lame and can be safely ignored.

As for "showering her with unwanted affection or saying that you cannot live without her," that's just creepy, not sexist. If she's a friend, you gauge what level of affection she's comfortable with and give her that (and I guess, if you're comfortable enough, this applies to those of the same gender too). If you go over the line, again you're just rude and a bad friend. Not sexist.

In the society we live in today, I think we could stand to have *more* affection between people, not less. I know I'm a touchy-feely person. Though again, I gauge that based on how much a particular friend is comfortable with.

And who doesn't like to be told they look nice? I know I could stand to hear it more often (though maybe I would if I would stop wearing jeans and t-shirts). Is telling a woman she looks particularly nice (not trying to imply that on other days she doesn't, but that she looks extra nice today) a bad thing? If so, then I guess I showed I'm a sexist asshole just last week! I think she should have slapped me and put me in my place. (Might have made it difficult to do the podcast, though)

How dare I?????

I'll bet you didn't know that I was such a horrible person, did you?

You women don't get off the hook either. If you accept any of this behaviour without complaining, then you're part of the problem.

"Women endorse sexist beliefs, at least in part, because they do not attend to subtle, aggregate forms of sexism in their personal lives."

Look, I'm not denying that these attitudes exist. I'm sure there are guys out there who *do* look down on women, think that they can't do anything, and thus must be taken care of. And they probably do many of these same things, because they *do* think a woman's incapable.

But just because you do them doesn't mean you have that attitude.

It's no wonder men have a complex when trying to figure out how to behave.

Note 1: I normally don't post twice in a day, but after the heaviness of this morning's post, I wanted to post something fairly light-hearted this evening.

Note 2: I can already predict one of the comments that I'm going to see on this post in the next couple of days. Don't disappoint me, mysterious person I'm not going to name!

9/11 - Ten Years Later

Today is the 10th anniversary of one of the most horrific attacks on America in the country's history. It's this generation's "Pearl Harbor" moment not because it instigated a war (they were at war with us long before 9/11; we just never acted like it) but because it will forever be known as a day where people are asked "where were you when the planes hit the towers?"

I posted my remembrances on Epinions on the 1st anniversary of the attacks, and re-posted them here in 2009, so I won't go over that territory again. The feelings in that post were almost raw, even a year removed. I still have vivid memories of that day: the sorrow of everybody in the office, the hugs that I received, the kindness of my Director's friend who kind of knew me (but not *that* well) rushing in to hug me when it became obvious I was about to lose it.

Those are the good memories we have of the attacks: the bringing together of a country in mourning, and even a world (with some notable exceptions, of course). The unity of purpose that came about, even if it was just for a little while before it all fell apart again.

The aftershocks from that day are still being felt all over the world, but it sometimes seems that people are in denial about what really happened. I'm not speaking of the whole Truther movement, though. I'm talking about those who would like to tuck it away as a national tragedy, a day to remember, but not for the right reasons. They still show images of the buildings, of course.

(Click all photos to enlarge)

But they don't show the human cost, pictures that actually pound home that people died in this attack.

It's like there is this collective denial because they don't like where thinking about it leads.

Before I go on, I have to say that I've been avoiding all of the remembrance shows on television this last week, because I think they're almost laying it on too thick sometimes, getting more and more maudlin all the time. Thus, it is possible that they are showing some of these pictures in them. If so, it's taken them 10 years, so my point still stands, and I would guess that after the 10th anniversary is over, they'll go back in the vault.

One thing that should always be remembered about this day, however, is the courage of so many people involved. The heroic passengers of Flight 93 who prevented an even worse result at the cost of their own lives. Nobody knows where that flight was headed if the passengers hadn't taken it back. The White House? The Capitol?

Also, there are personal heroic stories, of civilians who put their own lives on the line to help others even as they were trying to get away from the carnage.

And, of course, we must acknowledge the heroics of the first responders, those fire fighters, police officers, and other official personnel, who were running toward the Twin Towers even as others were running away. Many would say they were just doing their jobs.

(Many thanks to the New York Injured Workers Alliance)

Many of them died that day, part of the almost 3000 people who lost their lives. It's their heroism that should also be marked on this day. It's almost offensive that they aren't being included in the 10th anniversary commemorations.

That 9/11 attacks brought home to a nation, and to the world, that we've been at war for a long time, even if we haven't acknowledged it. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya, the attack on the USS Cole. Osama Bin Laden himself declared war on the US in 1996.

Yet nobody seemed to notice. It took the destruction of two skyscrapers in New York to bring that fact home to many Americans. And too many of them seem to have gone back to sleep.

While one should not paint too broad of a brush, tarring innocent people with suspicion and prejudice, one should also not deny the ideology behind the attacks. Too many people seem to gravitate to one extreme or the other. "All Moslems are terrorists" is a shameful viewpoint, but so is "No Moslems are terrorists." While I don't think anybody has said the latter, the determination to bend over backwards to avoid calling something terrorism (like the Fort Hood shooting by Major Nidal Hassan in 2009) is getting perilously close to that mindset.

There should be no rush to judgement when an attack happens. But there should also not be an avoidance of the evidence just to avoid hurting sensitive feelings.

The attacks of 9/11 opened many eyes to what's been going on.

Unfortunately, too many eyes have closed back up.

(Thanks to Technorati)

Never forget.

Podcast stuff - Episode 18 of Down the Hall (Radio EPLT)

Do you like to work with your hands? Tinker in the shed or do home repairs? Fewer and fewer people are doing that, and children aren't learning these skills any more. Vocational education isn't as prominent either.

In this week's episode of Down the Hall, Jenny and I discuss this pressing issue, and offer some ideas that both parents and teachers can do to nip this in the bud.

Also, we have an interview with Natasha Boskic, who works in our office, about her PHD dissertation, the study of Alternative Reality Games and education.

Check out the episode and let us know what you think!

And don't forget that you can also "like" us on Facebook. We'd really love it if you did.

In fact, you should head over there and like us even before listening to the episode! Then, of course, you should go back and actually listen to it.

You know you want to.

Reading Minds

It would be so cool to be able to read minds, wouldn't it? You would always know what someone was thinking, no matter what they're actually saying. When somebody's giving you the bum's rush, you would know that they really don't just have to wash their hair that night. They really don't want to go out with you. (Too old of a cliche?)

Ok, maybe it wouldn't be so cool, because sometimes we can't handle the unvarnished truth of what people are really thinking. It's a sort of societal conceit sometimes that we hide our true feelings about something, for good or for bad. Maybe you really don't want to do something, but you love somebody enough that you'll do it with them anyway. Maybe you hate football but the person you're with really wants you to go with them to the upcoming Seahawks game? (Yes, they are masochists). If it's important to them, you'll go and hide the fact that you really didn't want to.

This does have a downside, though. Some of us try to read minds anyway, and it causes nothing but trouble. A person does something or says something, and you wonder "what do they mean by that?" Is it just an offhand comment that has nothing to do with you? Or have they made a slight change in the routine of how they deal with you, which could have nothing to do with you but with them instead?

This is one of my major problems.

Sometimes something changes and you don't know exactly why. Or maybe it's just your perception of the relationship has changed, but it really hasn't, at least as far as the other person is concerned. Maybe they're going through something right now that has made them change, and part of that change is how they interact with you. It's nothing to do with you; it's just that their life has changed somehow and it affects all of their interactions with people.

But that becomes a problem when you're somebody who reads too much into things rather than just realizing that the most logical answer to an issue is probably the right answer. The most logical answer is "hey, something's going on in their life and that changes their general attitude. It's got nothing to do with me."

But instead, we try to read the situation, and the worry becomes "they're not interacting with me the same way they used to. Was it something I did or said?"

Down that path, a form of paranoia can follow you. Little actions that are different start blowing up into bigger things in your mind.


Jim Never Has a Second Cup of Coffee at Home

That's from the movie Airplane, a hilarious line that illustrates what we do sometimes. While the line in the movie is about a wife wondering about her husband, I'm more speaking about friends in this post.

I think part of this stems from a reluctance to actually find out what's going on. Instead, we stew about it, imagine things, the imagination gets worse, and you start feeling angry or hurt or betrayed, or whatever.

The trick is, instead of stewing about things, to just ask what's going on. It can be hard to do. That paranoid part of us that is imagining all of these bad things holds us back, worrying that it's actually right and it is us. And hearing that truth told directly to your face would be very difficult.

So we avoid that possibility and stew instead.

Of course, when we finally muster up the courage to ask what's been going on, if anything has changed between the two of you, inevitably the answer is "no, why would you think that?" and it turns out the logical explanation that you had considered at first before going down the paranoid path is actually the correct one. It's nothing you've done. They still feel the same way about you. They're just going through a tough time or whatever.

And all that time you've spent feeling bad and worrying has been wasted. A simple "hey, what's going on?" would have solved a lot of problems.

(Thanks to KidsModern)

I learned that this week (yes, this post stems from the same place my Sympathy post did last week). And I feel better now that I have confronted the issue.

Each time it happens, we tell ourselves "I'm not going to do that again." Yet we still do. It's a hard habit to break. Even with the resolution to the situation, I still have the occasional nagging feeling of doubt. I'm trying hard to not let them bother me. So far I'm succeeding.

It's a vicious cycle that we have to break out of. Otherwise, taken to the extreme, it could lead to a pretty miserable life.

Should Ugly People Get Legal Protection?

A better question would be: who would actually sign up for this?

"Yeah, I'm ugly. I want help."

It sounds insane, but this is an actual proposal in the New York Times by Daniel S. Hamermesh (h/t: Hot Air).

Ok, statistics show that, in our increasingly shallow and looks-oriented society, "beautiful" people seem to have more success, though that can certainly be overcome by other things. I've done posts about them before.

Does this boil down to something that should be quantified for legal issues, though?

My mind is completely blown.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

The effects are not small: one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000.

Hidden in there is the first problem with any kind of proposal like this: "assessed by randomly chosen observers."

In other words, if you're going to start making this a legal issue, who's going to judge?

Evidently, Hamermesh doesn't think it would be that hard:

The mechanics of legislating this kind of protection are not as difficult as you might think. You might argue that people can’t be classified by their looks — that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That aphorism is correct in one sense: if asked who is the most beautiful person in a group of beautiful people, you and I might well have different answers. But when it comes to differentiating classes of attractiveness, we all view beauty similarly: someone whom you consider good-looking will be viewed similarly by most others; someone you consider ugly will be viewed as ugly by most others. In one study, more than half of a group of people were assessed identically by each of two observers using a five-point scale; and very few assessments differed by more than one point.

"More than half." "Very few." In a country of over 300 million people, do you want that kind of error to creep into the legal system? Even if you agreed that it would be that easy to begin with?

Hamermesh goes on to say that it shouldn't be very hard to classify the top 1-2% of ugly people, with little more difficulty than to figure out who should qualify for disability by obesity.

As for the statement I opened this post with? Hamermesh doesn't see much trouble with this. He thinks that the possibility of obtaining $230,000 more over your lifetime (which really isn't *that* much when you think about it) will convince the truly ugly to admit that they are truly ugly.

Oh, well. I know I'm convinced.

Where do I sign up?

He seems to have an answer for everything. Evidently, some local jurisdictions actually have this law in place, where you can't discriminate against somebody in a job due to appearance. He doesn't go into detail, but I hope that's limited to physical appearance. Do you really want to be forced to hire somebody who comes in to the interview in faded blue jeans with holes in them, a t-shirt, and unwashed hair?

But even if it is limited to physical appearance, how do you prove that? In a court of law, I mean? Yeah, in these hard economic times, let's tie up more money in the legal system instead of actually creating jobs and all that.

One thing Hamermesh doesn't address, however. What if it's an ugly African-American woman who gets turned down for the job? Which way should she go in the legal system?

I guess if they hired a good-looking African-American, she can sue under the "Ugly Act." If they hired an ugly white person, she can sue under the racial discrimination act.

But what if they hire a good-looking white person? If it was a good-looking white guy, she can sue under gender discrimination. But what if it's a good-looking white woman? How would she decide which one to use?

It's a puzzler.

I'm being absurd, of course. But I think that illustrates the absurdity of this suggestion. And if society is moving toward this, as Hamermesh seems to think, then I'm not sure it's worth saving anymore.

(Google appears to be having comment issues right now. If you can't leave a comment, you can either email it to me or feel free to leave it wherever else you found this post to begin with, Facebook, NetworkedBlogs, or whatever).

The Limits of Sympathy

We all know people who are going through tough times, whether it's the painful decision to get out of a bad marriage, or a death in the family, or what have you. We all eventually have a good friend who is going through such a situation. A friend that we want to reach out to, a friend that we want to listen to and give a hug to if necessary.

The trick is not to be overbearing and smothering, to not care *too* much. Or at least not to force that caring on the person who's going through the bad situation in the first place. They've got enough trouble without having someone keep poking into things when they don't necessarily want you to.

That's something I've had to learn over the years, and something I still have to deal with when I get into that situation. My tendency is to care too much, and to want to do everything in my power to help the person involved. I have to pull myself back sometimes and figure out just what level is appropriate for them. I want to do more, but sometimes that person isn't ready for it, or doesn't want that much attention.

The default, of course, is to always be available to listen if they want to talk. My door is always open; I'm always willing to lend an ear. I know the person is probably not looking for advice on what to do (though they could be), but they just need a friendly ear to let things out to. Sometimes just talking about the situation, or the person who has died if it involves that, is all the person needs.

I've always been told I'm a good listener. Not so much an advice-giver, which is why it's a good thing that people don't generally come to me for that. But I make a great sounding board. It's one of my specialties.

And sometimes that's all that's needed.

But yet you always want to do more. Maybe be a shoulder to cry on when things get too bad.

That's not always what's needed, though. Some people don't like to cry when anybody else is around. I know I have trouble with that.

Or maybe you're not quite at that level of friendship, as we all have groups of friends that are different. Perhaps it's a work friend, somebody who you can talk to if you need to, but you don't see them outside of work. You don't call them up at night and let everything out.

Or, in this day and age, maybe they are friends on the Net. Even in that category, we have different groups. Some people we interact with a lot on a web site or a blog or whatever, but they're not people that we would reveal our deepest, darkest secrets to.

On the other hand, there are those who find good friends on the Net, so good that they are just a phone call or chat away from being able to talk about anything and everything. They're almost friend-soulmates (as opposed to romantic soulmates), even if you've never met. They just seem to "get" you, and you are the same with them.

What it all boils down to is realizing just what expressions of sympathy are appropriate for any given situation and level of friendship, and to hopefully not overstep those bounds. And also to realize what you're capable of giving. I can't empathize with many of these situations. I've never gone through a painful divorce. It's been many years since I've lost somebody who was close.

But I can definitely sympathize.

It's tough when you see somebody going through a painful experience. You want to give them all the love and support you can. But you also don't want to push them away by giving more than they want. A hug they're not comfortable with. Or trying to force them to talk to you when they're not ready.

It's that fine line that we often have trouble with.

A fine line that I sometimes struggle not to cross.

I like to think I've pulled away from that line without crossing it. And I guess that, if I ever do, the (figurative) smack in the face will tell me that I did.

In the meantime, all I can do is let them come to me when they are ready, for whatever they want me to give. Or whatever they need me to give.

And just be happy to do that.

Which I certainly am. Though it is tough sometimes.