taking stock

This decade and I have never been close (10 years in and I still don't know what to call it) but I'm not going to let that stop me from saying something potentially definitive about it.

I've chosen to concentrate on those features of the '00s (the decade we were all licensed to kill) with which I will no longer put up:

1. Dream Sequences. If the only way you can derive interest from a story line is to abandon it completely in favor of a pointless, plotless, feverish romp with dwarves and dead people and ducks (we're looking at you, Mr. David Chase!) it's probably time for a new story line.

2. User Forums. When I have a problem with my computer hardware or software, what I require is a user-friendly SOLUTION. What I do not require is a page of posts from people who a) have the same problem; b) had the problem but solved it by retying their shoes while facing north; c) had the same problem but solved it by rebuilding their computer from scratch, switching operating systems and re-reading The Art of Computer Programming; d) think my inability to solve my own problem makes me a Nazi.

3. Nasty Reality Show Judges. Enough, already. I don't even watch these shows and I know who Simon Callow is - and I know someone should sit up all night and SLAP him. Do people really get off more on seeing untalented people humiliated than seeing talented people triumph? If they do, then they should be ashamed of themselves, these people.

4. Celebrities. I call for an Age of Obscurity. Let's not talk about anyone who hasn't accomplished something of real worth (as determined by a panel that does not include Simon Callow) for the next 10 years.

5. "Green" Products. You want to save the earth? Stop buying so much shit!

6. Dick Cheney. Traditionally, the only way a former vice president of the US could continue to command media attention was to become president (this explains why George Bush Sr is occasionally in the limelight and could even be said to explain Al Gore's continued prominence - he did, after all, become president; he was just rudely deprived of the opportunity to serve). Why does Dick Cheney continue to appear, Jacob Marley-like, in our lives? I submit that if the media are to continue giving air time and column inches to Cheney, they should devote equal attention to Dan Quayle and Walter Mondale.

I know that for this to be a proper end-of-decade list it should have 10 items, but you know what? Life just isn't that tidy and rather than add four, half-hearted final items to make the quota, I will end here. Abruptly.

(Pictured above right: Walter Mondale. I'm doing my part to redress the imbalance.)

learning english?

I happened to hear Radio Ceska's English lesson this morning and I may never be the same.

I stopped what I was doing to write it down, dictation-style, and I present it here to see if you find it equally disturbing.

It's a conversation between an unidentified man and woman (the point, apparently, is to teach the phrase "to look at"). You hear the sound of babies cooing throughout:

Man: Look at the twins.

Woman: I can’t tell them apart.

M: Which one do you like better?

W: The one on the left.

M: Why do you like her better?

W: She seems more friendly.

M: What makes her seem that way?

W: I’m not sure.

M: Look at her eyes.

W: Oh yes, her pupils are bigger!

M: Now watch as I shine a bright light in her eyes.

W: Her pupils just got smaller!

M: Yes, and she seems less friendly. Next time you meet somebody, look at their eyes and see if the size of their pupils changes.

Is it just me, or does this sound like "Learning English with Dr. Mengele" to you too?

I don't know which is creepier - the fact that the man asks "WHICH ONE DO YOU LIKE BETTER?" or that the woman HAS AN ANSWER.

They finished up by illustrating the difference between "to look" and "to watch." An admirable goal, but why do it this way:

M: Stop talking and look at this photograph.

M: Stop talking and watch the action in this film.

I was half expecting the whole thing to be punctuated by slaps. The funny thing is that I had been considering suggesting these English lessons to an analyst at my place of work, who actually does need to brush up on his understanding of "to look at" (I asked him to "have a look at" a report I'd edited and he responded by email that he would "take a vision on it.") I've reconsidered, however. Lessons like these would have him telling me to "stop talking" and gauging my dislike of him in the size of my pupils. And we CAN'T have that.

who's who: part I

It's been brought to my attention that some of you have a tendency to confuse famous people with other famous people. This is dangerous, particularly if you sign royalty checks for a living, but my real fear is that, if allowed to progress unchecked, this tendency could lead to non-famous people being mistaken for famous people, and that would bring the entire, elaborate, sequin-studded structure that is North American culture crashing down around us.

So I'm here to check it. What follows is hardly an exhaustive list, but covers some of the most common cases of mistaken celebrity identity:

1. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (German philosopher who developed a comprehensive philosophical framework, or "system", to account in an integrated and developmental way for the relation of mind and nature, the subject and object of knowledge, and psychology, the state, history, art, religion, and philosophy) and Katherine Marie Heigl (American actress best known for her role on Grey's Anatomy and her starring role in the movie Knocked Up).

I blame Movie Entertainment for the confusion - they were clearly conflating the two when they described Heigl as "an actress known for her dramatic roles who really wants to do comedy and explore the ontological implications of such Kantian topics as freedom and morality."

2. Kate Bush (English singer, song writer and record producer) and Jeb Bush (former governor of Florida).

Their uncanny resemblance caused the former governor considerable embarrassment on numerous occasions, as his attempts to deliver speeches were interrupted by cries of 'Sing Wuthering Heights!'. On at least one occasion, I'm told, he gave in and sang, acquitting himself quite well.

3. Benjamin Franklin (Founding Father of the United States) and Bonnie Franklin (star of the popular American sitcom One Day at a Time). The confusion here, I believe, stems from the original title for One Day at a Time which was Fish and Visitors Stink in Three Days, the famous Benjamin Franklin quote. (In passing, One Day at a Time was produced by Norman Lear, an American television writer and producer, who should not be confused with King Lear, fictional monarch and central character of a play of the same name by William Shakespeare.)

the perils of a canadian summer

My sister found an article in a Canadian Living magazine (tucked between a pemmican recipe and a feature on resoling skidoo boots) offering health and safety tips for the Canadian summer.

In addition to advice on coping with bee stings, food poisoning, and poison ivy, the editors included some helpful words on what to do if you CUT YOUR FOOT OFF WITH THE LAWN MOWER (emphasis mine, the editors gave it no more play than the bee stings or the rusty nail punctures).

Curious to know how common summer lawn mower-induced foot loss is, I consulted Stats Canada, and discovered their lighthearted "Summer by the Numbers" section. While they don't keep track of power lawn mower-related injuries, they do track deaths, and in 2004 (the most recent year for which numbers were available) these totaled 1. (Making lawn mowers as big a threat as lightning strikes).

Canada did, however, have 58,945 acres of sod in need of mowing in 2006, so it's not hard to imagine some portion of that acreage littered with severed feet.

I took the precaution of ensuring I never mowed the lawn and, as a result, have returned from vacation with both my feet.

Thank you, Canadian Living!

and we're back!

I waited months for season three of Mad Men - long, lonely months without Don or Peggy or Roger or their early '60s fashions or their rampant smoking and marital infidelity (fortunately, I live in a country where smoking and marital infidelity remain rampant, which eased the separation anxiety).

I've read that the man behind the show, the former Sopranos writer whose actual name I cannot be bothered to google right now - especially for people who clearly have both internet connections and time to burn - is obsessed with getting even the tiniest period details correct (as in, looking up actual train timetables from 1962 and ensuring the fruit in the bowls on the dining room tables is appropriately small and bruised).

I'm not sure that this is why it took them so long to get season three underway, but it seems to me it couldn't have helped. And I was willing to wait. Which got me to thinking...maybe I could claim to have been busy all these months getting the period detail correct.

What period, you ask? Well, I'm not exactly sure. But as I write, I'm wearing a dress I bought 13 years ago for an office Christmas party [See photo above] so maybe it's 1996. (I'm trying to pretend it's some sort of triumph that it still fits, but I think the truth is that it still doesn't fit - just in a different way. I find it hard to put a triumphant spin on that).

But if I were to get the period detail absolutely correct, I would have to find a Portuguese hairdresser. And she would have to squeeze me in on a day when she was also doing an entire Portuguese wedding party. And I would have to have spent all my money on my party dress, leaving me nothing for stockings. And I would have to have arranged to meet my friend Kevin in Toronto's gay village to borrow money for stockings and I would have to go directly from the hairdresser's, giving him the opportunity to boom across a gay coffee shop in his "That boy really should be a radio announcer" voice, "MY GOD! YOU LOOK LIKE AN IMMIGRANT BRIDE!"

(Which, of course, I did, at the time, having been mixed in with the actual immigrant bride and her attendants; and which I would have to do again, were I to get the period detail absolutely correct.)

That seems like an awful lot of effort to go to to avoid admitting something my three readers already know - namely, that I'm lazy.

So how about I just leave it at - "Good to be back"?

great ideas

I've been having so many great ideas lately, I feel it's time to get a few down on paper so that, in about 10 minutes, when someone else has the same idea and actually finds a way to make money from it, I will be able to look smug and say, "I could have done that."

GREAT IDEA NUMBER 1

Make companies and sports teams that use animals as their symbols pay endorsement fees to the World Wildlife Fund. Penguins alone would bring in a fortune, once the Pittsburgh Penguins, Linux, and countless ice- and ice cream- vending companies were forced to pay up. Of course, the animals would have to be provided with adequate financial guidance to ensure they didn't immediately blow their earnings on bling and Cadillacs for their mamas.

GREAT IDEA NUMBER 2

Rather than clubbing baby seals to save fish stocks that are already, to the best of my knowledge, past saving, I propose a brief period each spring during which anyone with the proper license can club factory trawler captains.

GREAT IDEA NUMBER 3

Someone (don't look at me) should design a "smart fridge" that determines when food is past its best-before date and pelts you with it when you open the door saying (in a computerized yet vaguely hip-hop voice that may also have to be invented - let's call this great idea 3a) "Bish, don' tell ME you plan to eat no three-month-old ricotta!"

GREAT IDEA NUMBER 4

Women's magazines featuring stories about "new" products that "really work" should be forced to list (and apologize for) all the products they've endorsed in the past that apparently don't.

how's that again?

A BBC announcer discussing a film just now said it was "what the Americans call a 'tough watch.'"

"Do they?" I found myself thinking. "Do the Americans call dark films 'tough watches?'" I ask because I know a number of Americans (I say this not by way of boast) and I read a considerable amount of American news coverage, and I am not familiar with the phrase.

So I googled it, and got more than I bargained for. While most Americans (judging by the returned results) use "tough watch" to describe wrist-borne timepieces able to withstand the vicissitudes of wind and weather, at least one American - Chris "Mad Dog" Russo, to be exact - used the phrase "tough watch" to describe "an impending game between two inept teams."

Apparently, this remark was an alleged case of nonsentential assertion (as opposed to nonessential assertion, which describes my blog).

Reinaldo Elugardo and Robert Stainton took up the question of Mad Dog's remark in their paper, "Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech" which is, let me be the first to say it, a tough read (and would probably be a tough watch too, if anyone ever took a notion to adapt it for the cinema).

Tough watch is a "post-deletion fragment of what linguists call a 'tough construction,' a canonical example of which would be, 'Chuck is tough to talk to.'"

"Chuck is tough to talk to" is in turn derived from a structure like, "It is tough to talk to Chuck," often called a "tough movement." (I refuse to consider what the Americans I know use the phrase "tough movement" to describe, call me a coward, I don't care.)

The authors then trace a four-step path from "It will be tough to watch that game" to "tough watch."

Which leaves me feeling both more informed and strangely ignorant, a state the Brits call a "soggy crumpet."

Or not.