Happy Valentines Day
Happy Valentines Day! Wikipedia has an interesting history of Valentines Day (also called Singles Awareness Day). From Saint Valentines, Cupid and other origins through modern day and other parts of the world.
Happy Valentines day to my dear wife ... the love of my life.
Suspension of Disbelief
Modern television and movie producers often rely on a suspension of disbelief. We accept things on the screen that in real life would seem absurd. We accept it for the sake of the storyline. Is it just me, or have we gotten desensitized to the point they now expect us to accept the overly absurd? And I don't mean in just science fiction or fantasy shows. Many shows on TV or in theaters today can be entertaining to watch just from the snark-fest potential. They are so overly contrived that you can have fun guessing what the next absurd thing to happen will be ... and sometimes you're right (or you come up with something better than they did).
Akin to this is the writers stretching for a reaction. I don't know how many times I've overheard my dear wife watching TV exclaim something like "How can they do this?" to some plot twist or contrived plot device. My answer? "The writers do this so you'll react and say "how can they do this?". Pretty good, aren't they?". Mostly through unexpected twists and heinous acts...
If they did what we expected we wouldn't watch for long. It is amazing what we've come to expect.
Thanks a Lot, Danish Assholes
We are getting a lesson in the downside to freedom of speech. While we accept that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to threaten, advocate harm or cause damage, we also accept that freedom of speech means "you do not have the right to not be offended". Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend, but not harm.
For anyone not familiar with the recent situation, in September a Danish newspaper published caricatures of the prophet Muhammad that Muslims find offensive. Rather tame, as far as caricatures go. Protected by modern notions of freedom of speech and expression. But something the Muslims find unforgivable. These have since been republished in roughly 40 other western countries in publications citing the noble protection of "freedom of speech". These include republication in the United States and United Kingdom.
Only about 2% of Denmark's population is Muslim, so the Dane's are fairly safe and smug in publishing their portrayals of someone else's prophet. Unfortunately there are other countries with much higher percentages of Muslims who are taking it as a religious affront and demonstrating, protesting and committing acts of violence. Since there aren't that many Danish targets out there, the majority of destruction is to American and British property with the usual "Death to America" rhetoric.
So, we have the Danes offending the Muslims, whose religion bans any images of religious prophets (including Jesus) as being sacrilegious. The Muslims protest. Other nations republish the offensive drawings and fuel the dispute. The Muslims take it out on the most convenient targets. Will this escalate to become another "holy" versus "freedom" war? Repressive self-censorship vs insensitive freedom of speech? Let's try to figure our way out of this one...
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Parking Space Dilemma
The observation at hand: regular parking spaces versus compact parking spaces.
"Compact" just seems to mean the parking spaces are smaller. Supposedly to fit more, smaller cars. But there doesn't seem to be any restrictions on usage. I've seen larger vehicles parked in compact spaces with wheels on the lines, sometimes touching both sides. There is nothing to say they can't use the spaces. Usually the regular spaces get filled up (often with smaller cars) and there is nowhere else to park. Sometimes I see cars parked over a line, taking up more than one space. This actually makes sense to me. A compact space really means a larger vehicle won't fit well and so should take up more than one space. After all, who wants a tight squeeze. But this seemingly defeats the purpose of having compact spaces in the first place.
So which is it? Larger vehicles are out of luck if the space says compact? They should squeeze in however they can? Or they should overlap into the neighboring spaces? Either way seems nutty... My observation is that the full size spaces fill up first regardless of vehicle size. Probably because of having more room to get in or out of the car and less chances of paint dings.
We have a compact car and a compact pickup truck. The compact spaces can be a bit of a tight fit for the pickup. Especially tight if one of those large SUVs park in the next space.
Dick Cheney Shoots Man
That was the initial headline I saw for the story of the Vice President's hunting accident at a quail ranch last weekend. Where he accidentally shot another hunter with his shotgun. That headline isn't evident today, but you can find tamer titled, more complete versions like this one at USA Today. The story has lit up the blogsphere with a lot of humorous treatment and I won't attempt to come up with better jokes here. Yep, too easy a target even for me.
So why did it take almost 24 hours to get reported? From Political Cortex, a less mainstream site: "So, what we have is an event shrouded in secrecy for almost 24 hours which, when disclosed, was accompanied by a fawning statement by a Bush apparatchik exonerating Cheney from any and all blame and/or liability. Thus, this appears to be yet another example of the Bush administration attempting to manipulate the press and perhaps hide the truth. What really happened on that ranch yesterday? Who the heck knows? What we do know is that, regardless of what actually happened, the administration spin-doctors immediately jumped in and crafted a story that put Cheney in the best possible light. And the 'traditional media' reported that story without any skepticism whatsoever."
Hmmm. A day to sync their stories and they couldn't figure out a way to blame it on terrorist quail?
Valentines Day Approaches
Late last week my eldest daughter took initiative and started making her own Valentines cards to give to her classmates. She cut and folded paper. She drew and colored pictures on them. She hand wrote notes and names. She lined them up, inspected and embellished. Then the cards went with cellophane wrap made to hold a handful of candies. Very industrious and personal. My youngest daughter went with the more traditional method of waiting for the weekend, buying everything and writing the names on. Both girls made nicely decorated Valentines boxes to collect cards in. Good job girls! I expect they will both have wonderful Valentines Days.
The observation at hand: regular parking spaces versus compact parking spaces.
"Compact" just seems to mean the parking spaces are smaller. Supposedly to fit more, smaller cars. But there doesn't seem to be any restrictions on usage. I've seen larger vehicles parked in compact spaces with wheels on the lines, sometimes touching both sides. There is nothing to say they can't use the spaces. Usually the regular spaces get filled up (often with smaller cars) and there is nowhere else to park. Sometimes I see cars parked over a line, taking up more than one space. This actually makes sense to me. A compact space really means a larger vehicle won't fit well and so should take up more than one space. After all, who wants a tight squeeze. But this seemingly defeats the purpose of having compact spaces in the first place.
So which is it? Larger vehicles are out of luck if the space says compact? They should squeeze in however they can? Or they should overlap into the neighboring spaces? Either way seems nutty... My observation is that the full size spaces fill up first regardless of vehicle size. Probably because of having more room to get in or out of the car and less chances of paint dings.
We have a compact car and a compact pickup truck. The compact spaces can be a bit of a tight fit for the pickup. Especially tight if one of those large SUVs park in the next space.
Dick Cheney Shoots Man
That was the initial headline I saw for the story of the Vice President's hunting accident at a quail ranch last weekend. Where he accidentally shot another hunter with his shotgun. That headline isn't evident today, but you can find tamer titled, more complete versions like this one at USA Today. The story has lit up the blogsphere with a lot of humorous treatment and I won't attempt to come up with better jokes here. Yep, too easy a target even for me.
So why did it take almost 24 hours to get reported? From Political Cortex, a less mainstream site: "So, what we have is an event shrouded in secrecy for almost 24 hours which, when disclosed, was accompanied by a fawning statement by a Bush apparatchik exonerating Cheney from any and all blame and/or liability. Thus, this appears to be yet another example of the Bush administration attempting to manipulate the press and perhaps hide the truth. What really happened on that ranch yesterday? Who the heck knows? What we do know is that, regardless of what actually happened, the administration spin-doctors immediately jumped in and crafted a story that put Cheney in the best possible light. And the 'traditional media' reported that story without any skepticism whatsoever."
Hmmm. A day to sync their stories and they couldn't figure out a way to blame it on terrorist quail?
Valentines Day Approaches
Late last week my eldest daughter took initiative and started making her own Valentines cards to give to her classmates. She cut and folded paper. She drew and colored pictures on them. She hand wrote notes and names. She lined them up, inspected and embellished. Then the cards went with cellophane wrap made to hold a handful of candies. Very industrious and personal. My youngest daughter went with the more traditional method of waiting for the weekend, buying everything and writing the names on. Both girls made nicely decorated Valentines boxes to collect cards in. Good job girls! I expect they will both have wonderful Valentines Days.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Valentines Day Grinch
Some of you may notice a recurring lament in my blogs. How the "deeper meaning" of otherwise worthy days has been hijacked by merchandising and how people sell out.
My dear wife seems to think I've given up on Valentines day. She may be right ... I may be joining her in that. Or we just might need a visit from the Valentines Day Grinch.
From the guys' perspective it is quite clear Valentines day is a commercial set-up. Valentines card - check, the $50+ bouquet already starting to wilt - check, fancy chocolates - check, diamond heart jewelry - well, you really want to show your love, don't you? But then you know that it's the woman at the office who gets the most extravagant bouquet delivered to her that is the most loved, right? These are contests the jewelers and florists love! After all, what guy wants to be guilted for skimping on those obvious shows..? Gift cards, spa and salon gifts, silver, gold, crystal tokens ... the checkli$t for ways guys can "show" that a woman is "worth it" is long.
Why do some women live for those "desperate housewife" moments? "Oh looky what I got from my guy ... let's see yours ... is that it ... oh dear ...". Should the spirit of Valentines Day be measured by showiness and indulgences?
Then there is the Valentines evening out. Or in. A romantic evening. Dancing, drinking, dining, whatever you both enjoy. With your sweetheart. With an emphasis on romance. Or at least that's the idea.
In reality the set-up for Valentines Day is more than just commercial. There are a lot of social "measuring up" expectations set around Valentines Day. All it takes is one "aw-shit" to wipe out days of prep and romantic endeavor. Just one "sorry miss, but we're out of that dish" and tailspin. No pressure, eh guys?
On the gals side, things work a bit different. Instead of the pressure to spend on things for their guy, they spend on things for themselves - for their guy. Lingerie, clothing and embellishments to look and feel romantic - for their guy. No pressure, eh gals? Just look at all those Valentines specials! After all, what guy doesn't want to be seen with his sexy sweetheart. Well, me ... apparently.
So maybe I do need to become the Valentines Grinch and swoop down to remove all those traipsings and glittery showpieces that are used to represent Valentines Day. So that, like the Whos in Whoville, Valentines Day can be turned over to those who know and remember that hugs, giggles, snuggles and the romantic spirit of Valentines Day are much more precious. Back to the innocent times when "be my valentine" was more than candy decoration. Reminding the world that having affection for someone really isn't measured by number of flowers, jewelry, public displays or the loudness of the cash register ka-ching.
Some of you may notice a recurring lament in my blogs. How the "deeper meaning" of otherwise worthy days has been hijacked by merchandising and how people sell out.
My dear wife seems to think I've given up on Valentines day. She may be right ... I may be joining her in that. Or we just might need a visit from the Valentines Day Grinch.
From the guys' perspective it is quite clear Valentines day is a commercial set-up. Valentines card - check, the $50+ bouquet already starting to wilt - check, fancy chocolates - check, diamond heart jewelry - well, you really want to show your love, don't you? But then you know that it's the woman at the office who gets the most extravagant bouquet delivered to her that is the most loved, right? These are contests the jewelers and florists love! After all, what guy wants to be guilted for skimping on those obvious shows..? Gift cards, spa and salon gifts, silver, gold, crystal tokens ... the checkli$t for ways guys can "show" that a woman is "worth it" is long.
Why do some women live for those "desperate housewife" moments? "Oh looky what I got from my guy ... let's see yours ... is that it ... oh dear ...". Should the spirit of Valentines Day be measured by showiness and indulgences?
Then there is the Valentines evening out. Or in. A romantic evening. Dancing, drinking, dining, whatever you both enjoy. With your sweetheart. With an emphasis on romance. Or at least that's the idea.
In reality the set-up for Valentines Day is more than just commercial. There are a lot of social "measuring up" expectations set around Valentines Day. All it takes is one "aw-shit" to wipe out days of prep and romantic endeavor. Just one "sorry miss, but we're out of that dish" and tailspin. No pressure, eh guys?
On the gals side, things work a bit different. Instead of the pressure to spend on things for their guy, they spend on things for themselves - for their guy. Lingerie, clothing and embellishments to look and feel romantic - for their guy. No pressure, eh gals? Just look at all those Valentines specials! After all, what guy doesn't want to be seen with his sexy sweetheart. Well, me ... apparently.
So maybe I do need to become the Valentines Grinch and swoop down to remove all those traipsings and glittery showpieces that are used to represent Valentines Day. So that, like the Whos in Whoville, Valentines Day can be turned over to those who know and remember that hugs, giggles, snuggles and the romantic spirit of Valentines Day are much more precious. Back to the innocent times when "be my valentine" was more than candy decoration. Reminding the world that having affection for someone really isn't measured by number of flowers, jewelry, public displays or the loudness of the cash register ka-ching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)