So, the problem with ordering a milkshake that has hot fudge in it is that inevitably some hot fudge will get stuck in your straw. So then you suck on the straw to try and get the hot fudge out, but once there's room for air to get through, you've still got a bunch of hot fudge stuck to the sides that just won't come out. So now you have a straw full of hot fudge that you can't eat. This is a problem.
So now I'm sitting here sucking on my fudge-straw like it's full of crack or something, and I just know I'm going to end up inhaling a bunch of fudge. I will probably choke and die. Or, failing that, I will end up with hot fudge pneumonia. They will take x-rays and be like, "I'm sorry, ma'am, but your lungs look delicious. It will probably be fatal."
Damn you, Steak 'n' Shake!
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
BIIIIIIIIIIcycle!
Bike season is officially here! I took a nice little pleasure ride before dinner, and then after dinner I rode to Wal-mart to get a new inner tube for my back tire, which has had a slow leak for a while now (and has already been patched once). It was quite pleasant, except for a bit on the way back when I couldn't see!
I'll elaborate - it was already dark out, and the street lights on Seminary are rather far apart. I've got a red blinking light on the back of my bike, but my headlight met an untimely death a couple summers ago, so while traffic could see me from behind, I hit a couple bumps that were rather larger than I was expecting, due to my not being able to see properly. (I know I ought to replace the light, but I ride at night so rarely that I'm a bit hesitant to shell out the dough.) But I was only on Seminary as far as the first cross street, and on the other streets, traffic was much lighter, and I managed to arrive home unscathed.
I always forget, when I've been stuck indoors for too long, that real biking is rather more work than the stationary bikes at the gym - not only are my legs tired, but so are my arms and back! It's a good tired, though. If I'm not too achy in the morning, perhaps I'll bike to work. I want to get back into that habit, since I'm lucky enough to live so close that's a viable option. Yay bikes!
Also, on a related note, naked ladies:
I'll elaborate - it was already dark out, and the street lights on Seminary are rather far apart. I've got a red blinking light on the back of my bike, but my headlight met an untimely death a couple summers ago, so while traffic could see me from behind, I hit a couple bumps that were rather larger than I was expecting, due to my not being able to see properly. (I know I ought to replace the light, but I ride at night so rarely that I'm a bit hesitant to shell out the dough.) But I was only on Seminary as far as the first cross street, and on the other streets, traffic was much lighter, and I managed to arrive home unscathed.
I always forget, when I've been stuck indoors for too long, that real biking is rather more work than the stationary bikes at the gym - not only are my legs tired, but so are my arms and back! It's a good tired, though. If I'm not too achy in the morning, perhaps I'll bike to work. I want to get back into that habit, since I'm lucky enough to live so close that's a viable option. Yay bikes!
Also, on a related note, naked ladies:
Friday, January 7, 2011
H*ck Finn
In case you haven't heard, a "Twain scholar" named Alan Gribben, with the help of a small publishing company called NewSouth, is publishing an edited version of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn which removes all instances of the "n-word," replacing it with the word "slave." Huck is a regular on lists of banned books, generally due to its use of this word, and Gribben says he hopes that its removal will let the book reach a wider audience by removing the offensive content. A laudable intention, I'll grant, but bowdlerizing Twain is not the way to accomplish it.
Gribben says the inspiration for the project came from comments he heard from teachers: "After a number of talks, I was sought out by local teachers, and to a person they said we would love to teach [Tom Sawyer], and Huckleberry Finn, but we feel we can't do it anymore. In the new classroom, it's really not acceptable." I would argue that the fault here lies not with Twain's language, but rather with the teachers. I read Huck Finn in high school, and it was not a big deal. The teacher did not make a speech of any sort before we read the book, and offered no disclaimers or apologies for its content; instead, we had spirited class discussion about the book, including the language used, its meaning, Twain's intentions as a satirist, and the implications of various aspects of the text, both in the 19th century and today. If students cannot understand the concept of context, then it is the teacher's job to explain it to them. If the teacher is uncomfortable talking about difficult subjects with their students to the point where they simply refuse to do it, then that person is not qualified be a teacher. Rather than "less offensive" books, we need teachers who are willing and able to properly teach their students, which for English teachers includes helping them examine satire, providing proper context for literature, and not shying away from problematic parts of books.
(As far as number of people reading the book, it is also worth pointing out that there is a not-insignificant number of people, including teenagers, who set out to read books precisely because they have been banned, as promoted by the ALA's Banned Books Week, among others.)
Gribben also added a personal anecdote about his daughter's experience with the book: "My daughter went to a magnet school and one of her best friends was an African-American girl. She loathed the book, could barely read it." I don't doubt it. But that is the very point: satire makes people uncomfortable. It points out societal problems, in the hope that ridicule will make people think about what is going on and hopefully eradicate the problem. It's the same thing Jonathan Swift was doing when he advocated eating babies, and it's the same thing Jon Stewart did a couple weeks ago when he pointed out the hypocrisy of the Republicans who were blocking the 9/11 responders health care bill in Congress. The fact that the n-word still makes people uncomfortable only shows that racism still exists today, and far from being censored or banned, books like Huck Finn neet to be read as they are so that people continue to think about these issues that make them uncomfortable, and what they can do to stop them.
Another thing to take into account is Twain himself. He was on the record numerous times during his life as being absolutely opposed to people changing his work. Furthermore, at the beginning of Huck Finn, he puts the following note:
Removing the "n-word" from Huck Finn is tantamount to whitewashing. Sure, the racism is still there, but it's not nearly as viscerally affecting to hear someone called a "slave" as it is to hear them called a "n----r." The satire is rendered toothless when the ugliness it's pointing at has been removed. Sure, people who wouldn't have read the book before might be a bit more likely to read it, but what's the point if it's not the same book?
Gribben says the inspiration for the project came from comments he heard from teachers: "After a number of talks, I was sought out by local teachers, and to a person they said we would love to teach [Tom Sawyer], and Huckleberry Finn, but we feel we can't do it anymore. In the new classroom, it's really not acceptable." I would argue that the fault here lies not with Twain's language, but rather with the teachers. I read Huck Finn in high school, and it was not a big deal. The teacher did not make a speech of any sort before we read the book, and offered no disclaimers or apologies for its content; instead, we had spirited class discussion about the book, including the language used, its meaning, Twain's intentions as a satirist, and the implications of various aspects of the text, both in the 19th century and today. If students cannot understand the concept of context, then it is the teacher's job to explain it to them. If the teacher is uncomfortable talking about difficult subjects with their students to the point where they simply refuse to do it, then that person is not qualified be a teacher. Rather than "less offensive" books, we need teachers who are willing and able to properly teach their students, which for English teachers includes helping them examine satire, providing proper context for literature, and not shying away from problematic parts of books.
(As far as number of people reading the book, it is also worth pointing out that there is a not-insignificant number of people, including teenagers, who set out to read books precisely because they have been banned, as promoted by the ALA's Banned Books Week, among others.)
Gribben also added a personal anecdote about his daughter's experience with the book: "My daughter went to a magnet school and one of her best friends was an African-American girl. She loathed the book, could barely read it." I don't doubt it. But that is the very point: satire makes people uncomfortable. It points out societal problems, in the hope that ridicule will make people think about what is going on and hopefully eradicate the problem. It's the same thing Jonathan Swift was doing when he advocated eating babies, and it's the same thing Jon Stewart did a couple weeks ago when he pointed out the hypocrisy of the Republicans who were blocking the 9/11 responders health care bill in Congress. The fact that the n-word still makes people uncomfortable only shows that racism still exists today, and far from being censored or banned, books like Huck Finn neet to be read as they are so that people continue to think about these issues that make them uncomfortable, and what they can do to stop them.
Another thing to take into account is Twain himself. He was on the record numerous times during his life as being absolutely opposed to people changing his work. Furthermore, at the beginning of Huck Finn, he puts the following note:
IN this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike County" dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.It says right there that the language used in the book's dialogue was done "painstakingly" — Twain knew what he was doing and he did it on purpose. And this isn't a matter of something being lost due to language change, either; he meant exactly what it sounds like to us today. Some words were considered perfectly acceptable in the past, and no longer are; for example, in the past, black people could be described as "colored" in polite conversation, but today that would be a faux-pas, at best. The "n-word" is not one of those words. It has never been anything but an insult, an offensive term for people thought to be inferior. The difference is that modern society has, for the most part, accepted that people are not superior or inferior because of race, and so it is no longer considered acceptable to use that word.
I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.
Removing the "n-word" from Huck Finn is tantamount to whitewashing. Sure, the racism is still there, but it's not nearly as viscerally affecting to hear someone called a "slave" as it is to hear them called a "n----r." The satire is rendered toothless when the ugliness it's pointing at has been removed. Sure, people who wouldn't have read the book before might be a bit more likely to read it, but what's the point if it's not the same book?
Saturday, December 11, 2010
plastic bags
So, if you've ever been grocery shopping with me, you've probably heard me gripe about inefficient baggers. It's a pet peeve of mine. You know what I'm talking about — the checkout person who uses a separate bag for every. single. item. you've got, or who double bags your milk, even though it's already got a handle on it and really doesn't need a bag to begin with. I like to consider myself at least interested in the welfare of the environment, and while I know plastic bags aren't the worst sin in the world, I like using as few of them as possible. Plus, I hate having them lying around my house. Lately, I've finally started remembering to take my reusable cloth shopping bags with me, and I love them dearly. I've got a large one, a medium-sized one, and two small ones, and those four bags are big enough for just about any shopping trip.
Anyway. I just got back from Wal-Mart, where I did my weekly grocery shopping. Since I'm only shopping for myself this week (the boyfriend is home with his parents for break), I just took the one large one, figuring it would be plenty big.
I ended up buying a little more than I expected, because the frozen dinners I take to work for lunch were on sale, but I still didn't think it would be too much for my bag. Apparently the checkout girl did not agree, because she put some things in my bag, and then proceeded to use three more of the plastic bags (into one of which she put only a small bag of chopped walnuts).
When I got to the front door, I stopped and stacked the frozen dinners more neatly in the reusable bag, and lo and behold, there was suddenly plenty of room for everything I'd bought, minus the 1/2 gallon of milk, which I had planned to carry anyway. Then I walked over and dropped the three extra bags in the bag recycling bins.
I feel like this is becoming more and more common. Granted, I don't have any evidence to back this up, but just in my own experience, I don't remember my mother coming home with zillions of plastic bags every time we went to the grocery. In fact, we usually asked for paper bags.* Of course, most stores don't even have those anymore. But anyway, assuming the overuse of plastic bags is indeed becoming more common, I think these recycling bins are the problem.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's great that we can recycle these bags instead of just throwing them away (since most curbside services won't accept them), but the problem is that a lot of people don't. They forget to take them back to the store, or they just don't bother. But the people working in the stores think that it doesn't matter how many of them they use, because they can be recycled.
The three R's are "reduce, reuse, & recycle," in that order. The very first step should be to reduce the amount of materials we use in the first place. If there's less of the stuff lying around taking up space, then there's less to worry about recycling, or being leftover and going to a landfill. Next is "reuse," which a lot of people do with plastic bags, at least to some extent — you can use them to line small wastebaskets, and you can carry stuff around in them. But ultimately, they are flimsy and cheap, and you can only use them for so many things before they get holes in them or get really gross and you can't use them anymore. "Recycle" is the final step, the last resort: if you can't use it for anything else, recycle it and turn it into something new (in the case of most plastic bags, that will be composite lumber). Recycling is definitely an important step, but people must make the effort to do it, and it must be complementary to the other steps; it cannot replace them wholesale.
Ideally, I think every store should just be like Aldi's — make you pay (a little bit, but something) for every bag you get. It's not enough to be cost prohibitive if you need a bag, but it's enough to make you think, "Oh, hey, I don't need a separate bag for every single item I've got."
Also, they should implement Aldi's cart system — it's just a quarter, but somehow you never ever see carts sitting around in their parking lots. But that's a rant for another day.
*Paper bags have their own environmental problems, of course, but I like them better because they are bigger, sturdier, and eligible for curbside recycling. Also, if all else fails, at least they are biodegradable.
Anyway. I just got back from Wal-Mart, where I did my weekly grocery shopping. Since I'm only shopping for myself this week (the boyfriend is home with his parents for break), I just took the one large one, figuring it would be plenty big.
I ended up buying a little more than I expected, because the frozen dinners I take to work for lunch were on sale, but I still didn't think it would be too much for my bag. Apparently the checkout girl did not agree, because she put some things in my bag, and then proceeded to use three more of the plastic bags (into one of which she put only a small bag of chopped walnuts).
When I got to the front door, I stopped and stacked the frozen dinners more neatly in the reusable bag, and lo and behold, there was suddenly plenty of room for everything I'd bought, minus the 1/2 gallon of milk, which I had planned to carry anyway. Then I walked over and dropped the three extra bags in the bag recycling bins.
I feel like this is becoming more and more common. Granted, I don't have any evidence to back this up, but just in my own experience, I don't remember my mother coming home with zillions of plastic bags every time we went to the grocery. In fact, we usually asked for paper bags.* Of course, most stores don't even have those anymore. But anyway, assuming the overuse of plastic bags is indeed becoming more common, I think these recycling bins are the problem.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's great that we can recycle these bags instead of just throwing them away (since most curbside services won't accept them), but the problem is that a lot of people don't. They forget to take them back to the store, or they just don't bother. But the people working in the stores think that it doesn't matter how many of them they use, because they can be recycled.
The three R's are "reduce, reuse, & recycle," in that order. The very first step should be to reduce the amount of materials we use in the first place. If there's less of the stuff lying around taking up space, then there's less to worry about recycling, or being leftover and going to a landfill. Next is "reuse," which a lot of people do with plastic bags, at least to some extent — you can use them to line small wastebaskets, and you can carry stuff around in them. But ultimately, they are flimsy and cheap, and you can only use them for so many things before they get holes in them or get really gross and you can't use them anymore. "Recycle" is the final step, the last resort: if you can't use it for anything else, recycle it and turn it into something new (in the case of most plastic bags, that will be composite lumber). Recycling is definitely an important step, but people must make the effort to do it, and it must be complementary to the other steps; it cannot replace them wholesale.
Ideally, I think every store should just be like Aldi's — make you pay (a little bit, but something) for every bag you get. It's not enough to be cost prohibitive if you need a bag, but it's enough to make you think, "Oh, hey, I don't need a separate bag for every single item I've got."
Also, they should implement Aldi's cart system — it's just a quarter, but somehow you never ever see carts sitting around in their parking lots. But that's a rant for another day.
*Paper bags have their own environmental problems, of course, but I like them better because they are bigger, sturdier, and eligible for curbside recycling. Also, if all else fails, at least they are biodegradable.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Put some clothes on!
So, I was clearing out the inbox for my "junk" email account, and I came across a message from Knox urging people to submit their favorite memories of the college's outgoing president, who is retiring at the end of the academic year. Here is a screenshot of the message.
Pretty standard, no? I just have one question: is that a woman in a bra behind Roger in the library? 
I mean, maybe it's some sort of sports top or something. Maybe. But still. That's the library!
Pretty standard, no? I just have one question: is that a woman in a bra behind Roger in the library? 
I mean, maybe it's some sort of sports top or something. Maybe. But still. That's the library!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Financial Times is stupid
So, if a nonsubscriber (like myself) goes to the Financial Times' website and tries to click through to an article, it takes you to the page for the article, but the page remains blank and a box pops up instead saying, "FT.com articles are only available to registered users and subscribers. Register FREE now for increased access" and then there's a link that says "Register Here." If you click to close the box, it just takes you back to the front page.
BUT, if you search with Google and it returns an article from FT, you can just click straight through and read the article, no problem. Do a site-specific search and it's even the exact same results you get from the search on their own website, except you can actually read the articles.
Also, if you try to copy and paste so much as one sentence from one of their articles (say, to pull out a quote and comment on it in a blog post), when you try to paste it, you get the following:
Seriously, FT, a big part of blogging is pulling quotes from news stories to comment on them. The message doesn't happen when I try to copy-paste a single character, or even a couple of words, so clearly you have the ability to specify how much is too much to copy and paste; a single sentence does not an article make, but it does make a nice teaser quote to get an interested party to come read the actual article. And if you're that worried about people copying your articles wholesale, don't allow them to do it at all. You clearly already know how to mess with the copy-paste function, so you can't be entirely computer-illiterate. The way it works now, it only ticks off people who are legitimately trying to discuss your article, and does nothing to actually prevent people from stealing it.
The way it stands, you've managed to tick off legit reader/commenters like myself, while at the same time doing nothing to stop actual thieves. And now, instead of a blog post discussing your article, I have written a blog post about how stupid your website is. Well done.
BUT, if you search with Google and it returns an article from FT, you can just click straight through and read the article, no problem. Do a site-specific search and it's even the exact same results you get from the search on their own website, except you can actually read the articles.
Also, if you try to copy and paste so much as one sentence from one of their articles (say, to pull out a quote and comment on it in a blog post), when you try to paste it, you get the following:
Please use the link to reference this article. Do not copy & paste articles which is a breach of FT.com's Ts&Cs (www.ft.com/servicestools/help/terms) and is copyright infringement. Send a link for free or email ftsales.support@ft.com to purchase rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5bb39488-ea99-11df-b28d-00144feab49a.html#ixzz15VXwqCMBTake note: the final sentence there is the one I was trying, for the purpose of this exercise, to copy-paste. So not only can anyone easily circumnavigate their subscriber wall, but they piss and moan about not copy-pasting their articles, while still allowing you to do it. There is nothing stopping me from deleting that little please-use-the-link paragraph.
The development of a monetary system to succeed “Bretton Woods II”, launched in 1971, will take time.
Seriously, FT, a big part of blogging is pulling quotes from news stories to comment on them. The message doesn't happen when I try to copy-paste a single character, or even a couple of words, so clearly you have the ability to specify how much is too much to copy and paste; a single sentence does not an article make, but it does make a nice teaser quote to get an interested party to come read the actual article. And if you're that worried about people copying your articles wholesale, don't allow them to do it at all. You clearly already know how to mess with the copy-paste function, so you can't be entirely computer-illiterate. The way it works now, it only ticks off people who are legitimately trying to discuss your article, and does nothing to actually prevent people from stealing it.
The way it stands, you've managed to tick off legit reader/commenters like myself, while at the same time doing nothing to stop actual thieves. And now, instead of a blog post discussing your article, I have written a blog post about how stupid your website is. Well done.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
How Baloo Ruined Veteran's Day
So, I've seen a couple people quoting John 15:13 in their Facebook statuses for Veteran's Day. It's a fitting quote: "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."
But all I can think of, every time I see it, is that scene from Disney's Jungle Book. You know what I'm talking about, don't lie.
And then he jumps up and is all okay and everybody's happy and they sing. No solemnity whatsoever. Dammit, Baloo, you're ruining Veteran's Day for me!
Although, I don't really like being solemn anyway, so I guess I don't really mind all that much.
But all I can think of, every time I see it, is that scene from Disney's Jungle Book. You know what I'm talking about, don't lie.
And then he jumps up and is all okay and everybody's happy and they sing. No solemnity whatsoever. Dammit, Baloo, you're ruining Veteran's Day for me!
Although, I don't really like being solemn anyway, so I guess I don't really mind all that much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
