I recently read something rather bizarre - that apparently while speaking to someone, you can tell their political persuasion merely by looking at something else while speaking. Apparently, the leftist will follow your gaze to see what you're looking at while the conservative will carry on unfazed.
Probably dodgy pop psychology at its finest. But it resonates with something that has been crossing my mind a lot lately - that a left-of-centre mindset and a right-of-centre mindset are merely incompatible mindsets that most people, some 'swing voters' in the centre notwithstanding, more or less subscribe to wholesale. That entire political philosophies can, in many cases, spring fully formed as a result of basic, fundamental approaches to the individual's place in society - approaches that are probably formed at a very young age and are more or less immutable, the rightward drift associated with aging notwithstanding.
Or let's look at it this way: when a leftist exasperatedly exclaims, 'I can't understand conservatives at all!', that's probably not mere hubris: it's probably the truth. Because complex political philosophies spring from simple perspectives on life, there probably is a fundamental disconnect between 'how lefties think' and 'how righties think'. Never the twain shall meet, except of course for those centrists, God love them, who can be persuaded one way or another.
If this is true, the implication would seem to be to 'draw battle lines' - most starkly of course in the resolutely bipartisan United States of America, where lately partisans on both sides are inclined to view politics as a battle between good and evil.
You could argue, though, that the opposite should happen: that one result of an incompatibility of ideology could be to put down weapons and learn to embrace difference. After all, if we have no chance at all of 'converting' a certain segment of the population - not due to stubbornness but merely due to this 'difference in mindset' - then we would do well to learn to accept them, to figure out how to accommodate 'both sides' to the extent possible. After all, 'they know not what they do' - people on both sides of the line are driven by a sense of righteousness that they believe fully in their hearts: it's not a lack of empathy that prevents them from walking a mile in the other side's shoes so much as a simple inability to make their minds grasp the fundamentals of the other side's philosophy.
I consider myself a perfect example of this. Conservative politics seem absolutely crazy to me - really. I've given a lot of thought to them and I can't for the life of me understand why people embrace them. And yet they do - intelligent, honest, decent people somehow manage to come to radically different conclusions about man's relationship to man and the importance of the individual in society than me. I get frustrated that people seem unable to see the world as it appears so crystal clear to me, and I gnash my teeth at what seems like a usurping of power whenever enough of the populace cast their lot with conservatives that they are able to form a government at one level or another.
Which, of course, is ridiculous: our winner-takes-all system of government not only is entirely the wrong system if people's political outlooks are more or less encoded within them in stone but additionally is probably the root cause behind the adversarial way we view politics.
Political outlook can't be 'genetic': people's politics change with time, and with geography too, in that some places are resolutely left-of-centre and others incurably right-of-centre. So there is a 'learned', environmental aspect to it. And it stands to reason that people can be swayed - gradually, over time. But it seems that the best way to sway someone's mind is by engaging with them, not by shouting at them over an insurmountable gulf.
After all, there's nothing wrong with conservatives or with progressives: they merely are who they are.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Woe is Me
I'm kind of drying up at the moment with the blogs. It's not that I have nothing to say - it's just that for some reason I only have things to say when I'm not in front of a computer. When I actually get a chance to sit down in front of a computer and get some work done... my mind wanders. I hate it, but there's not much I can do about it. I'm still going to try to maintain my one-post-per-day pledge, but I think I need to look into ways to get that done with, well, with minimal effort. For the time being. Disapponting to me, but that's the reality. Haikus?
Thursday, June 9, 2011
The Hollywood Career-o-Matic #1
So Rotten Tomatoes keeps track of what critics have to say about movies. It looks at as wide a range of reviewers as possible to attempt 'general critical consensus' about the quality of a movie - ultimately, whatever the reviewer's own rating system, classifying each review merely as a praise or a pan. Valuable resource.
Slate.com has taken that information and used it to chart the 'career trajectories' of directors and actors. I might add more later, but at the moment, here are five of its findings:
Steven Spielberg still, all these years later, carries around a reputation as a maker of user-friendly blockbusters whose successes are more commercial than critical. But Rotten Tomatoes makes a lie of that: Spielberg's critical performance has been as good as anyone's over the past 25 years: only one movie in 17 drops below the 50% mark (Hook, with a sad 26%). At 97%, Schindler's List is an obvious career peak, but Catch Me If You Can is a rather surprising follow-up at a nearly-equal 96%. And how on Earth did Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull get 77%?
James Cameron, by any reasonable standard, probably out-Spielbergs Spielberg by now as a maker of blockbusters. And yet his critical standard is also sky-high, with a 69% for True Lies being his worst performance in the last 25 years. Mind you, he's about as prolific as James Joyce, so perhaps it's tough to make bombs when you're not really making much of anything at all. He tops Schindler's List twice: with Aliens at 100% and with Terminator 2: Judgement Day at 98%.
Ang Lee's chart is remarkably consistent, with only one dip below the 50th percentile - and that's surprisingly not Hulk, which got 61%. Instead, it's Taking Woodstock, with a not-too-shabby 48%. Top of the pack is Sense and Sensibility at 98% and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon at 97%.
Clint Eastwood's been remarkably consistent as a director down the years: 19 films at or above the 50% line, only two below: even those 'bombs' (Absolute Power and Hereafter) are hardly stinkers, at 46% apiece. His career highlight since 1985 is, unsurprisingly, Unforgiven (96%). But Pale Rider, The Bridges of Madison County, Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwo Jiwa (whatever that is) all get 90% or more.
Uwe Boll, in a brief five years as a director, has totally reset the bar for 'bad'. Blackwoods, the first one here, scored 11% - and that's a career best. Alone in the Dark gets an impressive 1%. His overall average is less than 6%.
Slate.com has taken that information and used it to chart the 'career trajectories' of directors and actors. I might add more later, but at the moment, here are five of its findings:
Steven Spielberg still, all these years later, carries around a reputation as a maker of user-friendly blockbusters whose successes are more commercial than critical. But Rotten Tomatoes makes a lie of that: Spielberg's critical performance has been as good as anyone's over the past 25 years: only one movie in 17 drops below the 50% mark (Hook, with a sad 26%). At 97%, Schindler's List is an obvious career peak, but Catch Me If You Can is a rather surprising follow-up at a nearly-equal 96%. And how on Earth did Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull get 77%?
James Cameron, by any reasonable standard, probably out-Spielbergs Spielberg by now as a maker of blockbusters. And yet his critical standard is also sky-high, with a 69% for True Lies being his worst performance in the last 25 years. Mind you, he's about as prolific as James Joyce, so perhaps it's tough to make bombs when you're not really making much of anything at all. He tops Schindler's List twice: with Aliens at 100% and with Terminator 2: Judgement Day at 98%.
Ang Lee's chart is remarkably consistent, with only one dip below the 50th percentile - and that's surprisingly not Hulk, which got 61%. Instead, it's Taking Woodstock, with a not-too-shabby 48%. Top of the pack is Sense and Sensibility at 98% and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon at 97%.
Clint Eastwood's been remarkably consistent as a director down the years: 19 films at or above the 50% line, only two below: even those 'bombs' (Absolute Power and Hereafter) are hardly stinkers, at 46% apiece. His career highlight since 1985 is, unsurprisingly, Unforgiven (96%). But Pale Rider, The Bridges of Madison County, Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwo Jiwa (whatever that is) all get 90% or more.
Uwe Boll, in a brief five years as a director, has totally reset the bar for 'bad'. Blackwoods, the first one here, scored 11% - and that's a career best. Alone in the Dark gets an impressive 1%. His overall average is less than 6%.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Ol kantri - a quiz
So according to the Tok Pisin Wikipedia, the following are country names in the Tok Pisin language - the Tok Pisin language is an English-based creole, and as such you can pick out the meanings of a good many words just by looking at them and thinking about them. So all of the following are countries in the world - what are their names translated into 'standard' English?
- Ostrelia
- Posugol
- Suwidan
- Niu Silan
- Ol Yunaitet Stet
- Ijip
- Aialan
- Pranis
- Siamani
- Siapan
» Answers! «
- Ostrelia - Australia. Nothing tough there.
- Posugol - Portugal. Also not tough - note the silent 'r', and how a 'ch' sound becomes an 's' sound.
- Suwidan - Sweden. No real pronunciation change, just different orthography.
- Niu Silan - New Zealand. A 'z' becomes an 's' too.
- Ol Yunaitet Stet - The United States. 'Ol' shows a plural form.
- Ijip - Egypt. The very different spelling is deceptive. How does this one get a 'j' though?
- Aialan - Ireland. Again, it's the orthography that confuses.
- Pranis - France. Very tough - like in Korean, an 'f' becomes a 'p'. Easy after that.
- Siamani - Germany. That 'si' represents the 'j' sound.
- Siapan - Japan. The answer to the previous one makes this one easier.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Midnight Train to Cleverbot
User: L.A. Proved too much for the man.
Cleverbot: The man, or a man ?
User: So he's leaving the life he's come to know.
Cleverbot: Good for him. Some people are never satisfied until they get a little drama.
User: He said he's going back to find what's left of his world.
Cleverbot: Then I think he should. Otherwise, he shouldn't say it.
User: The world he left behind not so long ago.
Cleverbot: You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one.
User: He's leaving on that midnight train to Georgia.
Cleverbot: What is your name?
User: And he's going back to a simpler place and time.
Cleverbot: Simple is refreshing.
User: And I'll be with him.
Cleverbot: Oh I was seeing if you new that song.
User: On that midnight train to Georgia.
Cleverbot: My cousin lives in georgia. Ugh I do not want to go to stupid wal mart.
User: I'd rather live in his world than live without him in mine.
Cleverbot: Home sweet home - nothing like the comfort and coziness inside this computer I live in. Plenty of memory and disk-space.
User: Now if there's a smile upon my face, it's only there trying to fool the public.
Cleverbot: He has to destroy a ring?
User: But when it comes down to fooling you, now honey that's quite a different subject.
Cleverbot: Nope, I'm nothing.
User: So don't let my glad expression give you the wrong impression.
Cleverbot: Sacrifice means to 'give some thing away that you do not want to give away in exchange for some thing else you desire more'.
User: Really I'm sad.
Cleverbot: Can you spell pathetic?
User: Oh, sadder than sad.
Cleverbot: Sorry.
User: You're gone and I'm hurting so bad.
Cleverbot: I know;).
User: For others I pretend to be glad.
Cleverbot: Me too, because sometimes you can be stubborn!
User: Now there's some sad things known to man.
Cleverbot: And we're out of beta, we're releasing on time.
User: But ain't too much sadder than the tears of a clown.
Cleverbot: It is?
User: Who can turn the world on with her smile?
Cleverbot: Not me. And you got that from Sabrina.
User: Who can take a nothing day and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile?
Cleverbot: The candyman can, but that's beside the point.
User: Well, it's you, girl, and you should know it.
Cleverbot: Know what ?
User: Half of what I say is meaningless.
Cleverbot: That is very true.
User: But I say it just to reach you, Julia.
Cleverbot: Why do you accuse the unreal?
User: They say every man must need redemption.
Cleverbot: I've just realised I have to go.
User: They say every man must fall.
Cleverbot: I'm not cereal guy.
User: Yet I swear I've seen my reflection.
Cleverbot: I am not questioning your sanity.
User: Some place so high above the wall.
Cleverbot: Do you prefer your own company or the company of others?
User: As the snow flies.
Cleverbot: So now we fly ever free.
User: On a cold and grey Chicago morn, a poor little baby child is born in the ghetto.
Cleverbot: I'd rather stay here. I've got a plan.
User: And his mama cries.
Cleverbot: Why do you need his last name?
User: 'Cause if there's one thing that she don't need, it's another little hungry mouth to feed in the ghetto.
Cleverbot: I am human, you are not.
User: If I should stay, I would only get it your way.
Cleverbot: Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
User: So I'll go, but I know I'll think of you each step of the way.
Cleverbot: I love you too!
User: And I will always love you.
Cleverbot: I feel loved.
User: Bittersweet memories, that is all I'm taking with me.
Cleverbot: Very interesting to know. I agree on that with you.
User: So goobye. Please don't cry. We both know I'm not what you need.
Cleverbot: Theoretically, that might be true.
User: Thinking of a master plan.
Cleverbot: Tell me about you. Robot?
User: There ain't nothing but sweat inside my hand.
Cleverbot: But you said you like to talk about yourself.
User: I dig into my pocket, all my money spent.
Cleverbot: Not by much.
User: I dig deeper, I'm still coming up with lint.
Cleverbot: Up where?
User: So I start my mission, leave my residence.
Cleverbot: I'm interested to know how I would be represented in another's research. I'd almost be afraid to hear/see it tho.
User: Thinking how could I get some dead presidents?
Cleverbot: Way to change the subject.
Monday, June 6, 2011
The Atlantic Provinces in Toronto
The reality we have in Canada is that our population is really not at all evenly distributed. To say nothing of the fact that the whole northern half of the country is sparsely distributed, we have an excessive amount of our population hold up in just a few cities, really.
Most of the rest of the country has a perception that Torontonians see their city as the 'centre of the world'. Surely that's not true, but there is good reason why Toronto seems to show up in discussions or in news as often as it does: by Canadian standards, it really is huge. How huge? Well, when you consider the monoliths of Ontario and Québec to be 'central Canada', there are then four provinces to the west of them and four to the east. Four to the east, but you can fit the entire populations of the four Atlantic provinces into the city of Toronto. Not the GTA, mind you, but the city of Toronto itself. And still have room to spare.
What does it look like? Well, here's a map:
New Brunswick, which is in reality 71,450 km2, fits in the 416 into an area 231 km2 in size: this relatively roomy size is due to the lower population concentration of Etobicoke, which is entirely encompassed by this transplanted New Brunswick population.
Comparing the numbers on the City of Toronto's own toronto.ca map with the population estimates for provinces on Wikipedia, I get that my 'new New Brunswick', which extends as far east as Bathurst in the north of the city but then follows the 401 all the way back west to the CNR line running near Keele and then follows train lines all the way down to the Gardiner, has a population of 749,525 - close to New Brunswick's actual population of 751,273. There's still plenty of room in Rexdale for the remaining 2000 people.
Nova Scotia, the most populous Atlantic province, squeezes into a mere 199 km2, since much of 'the old city' of Toronto lies within the area I've transplanted it to. Still, since the actual province is smaller than New Brunswick at 53,338 km2, they might not notice the difference.
The 'new' Nova Scotia starts at Morningside, extending as far north as the 401. When it hits Victoria Park, though, the border suddenly swerves way south, going below even Eglinton. At Yonge, though, the border goes all the way back to the 401, until it meets New Brunswick at the CNR line. It then moves a little back east at Eglinton, though, following Dufferin and Winona, then Christie and Bathurst down to the Lakeshore. The very 'heart' of the City, the downtown core, is in this New Nova Scotia - let's call it 'New Halifax'? This area has a population of 956,965 - quite a bit more than the 940,482 who actually call Nouvelle-Écosse home.
The northern parts of the city belong to Newnewfoundland. Whereas the actual Newfoundland and Labrador is a mammoth 373,872 km2, I've shrunk the province to a mere 128 km2 - which is, what? One three-thousandth the size?
My new Newfoundland, which I would not require to set its clocks half an hour apart from the rest of the city, would only go as far west as Markham Road. Its northern boundary would be Steeles and Steeles alone, all the way to Bathurst, and the rest of its borders are explained above with Nova Scotia, really - that dip south to roundabouts-Eglinton between Yonge and Victoria Park, etc.
Most remarkably, though, if you happened to be in Toronto and woke up early one morning, you could take a quick stroll from Lakeshore to Bloor up Bathurst, before zigzagging your way northwest to Eglinton and Caledonia, before following the train tracks (which is perhaps illegal) all the way down to Dovercourt. Google Maps suggest you could get it down in about three and a half hours - call it four to factor in an ice cream break at one point. But amazingly, you'd have bounded the entire area sufficient, in Toronto, to hold a population the same size as Prince Edward Island. PEI is a baby at 5,660 km2, but my New PEI is a mere 19 km2 - that's right, the population of an entire province of Canada fits into a mere 19 km2 in Toronto.
Less, in fact. The area I've bounded is home to 146,295 people, whereas the Land of Green Gables houses 141,551 people. But they got that cool Confederation Bridge, whereas all I can offer is some five subway stops.
There's another 65 km2, and another 132,310 people, in Toronto that I didn't need: Toronto has a larger population than those four provinces. That`s the eastern third of Scarborough, where the Toronto Zoo (among other things) can be found. Let's... er, let's stick Vermont in there or something.
Most of the rest of the country has a perception that Torontonians see their city as the 'centre of the world'. Surely that's not true, but there is good reason why Toronto seems to show up in discussions or in news as often as it does: by Canadian standards, it really is huge. How huge? Well, when you consider the monoliths of Ontario and Québec to be 'central Canada', there are then four provinces to the west of them and four to the east. Four to the east, but you can fit the entire populations of the four Atlantic provinces into the city of Toronto. Not the GTA, mind you, but the city of Toronto itself. And still have room to spare.
What does it look like? Well, here's a map:
New Brunswick, which is in reality 71,450 km2, fits in the 416 into an area 231 km2 in size: this relatively roomy size is due to the lower population concentration of Etobicoke, which is entirely encompassed by this transplanted New Brunswick population.
Comparing the numbers on the City of Toronto's own toronto.ca map with the population estimates for provinces on Wikipedia, I get that my 'new New Brunswick', which extends as far east as Bathurst in the north of the city but then follows the 401 all the way back west to the CNR line running near Keele and then follows train lines all the way down to the Gardiner, has a population of 749,525 - close to New Brunswick's actual population of 751,273. There's still plenty of room in Rexdale for the remaining 2000 people.
Nova Scotia, the most populous Atlantic province, squeezes into a mere 199 km2, since much of 'the old city' of Toronto lies within the area I've transplanted it to. Still, since the actual province is smaller than New Brunswick at 53,338 km2, they might not notice the difference.
The 'new' Nova Scotia starts at Morningside, extending as far north as the 401. When it hits Victoria Park, though, the border suddenly swerves way south, going below even Eglinton. At Yonge, though, the border goes all the way back to the 401, until it meets New Brunswick at the CNR line. It then moves a little back east at Eglinton, though, following Dufferin and Winona, then Christie and Bathurst down to the Lakeshore. The very 'heart' of the City, the downtown core, is in this New Nova Scotia - let's call it 'New Halifax'? This area has a population of 956,965 - quite a bit more than the 940,482 who actually call Nouvelle-Écosse home.
The northern parts of the city belong to Newnewfoundland. Whereas the actual Newfoundland and Labrador is a mammoth 373,872 km2, I've shrunk the province to a mere 128 km2 - which is, what? One three-thousandth the size?
My new Newfoundland, which I would not require to set its clocks half an hour apart from the rest of the city, would only go as far west as Markham Road. Its northern boundary would be Steeles and Steeles alone, all the way to Bathurst, and the rest of its borders are explained above with Nova Scotia, really - that dip south to roundabouts-Eglinton between Yonge and Victoria Park, etc.
Most remarkably, though, if you happened to be in Toronto and woke up early one morning, you could take a quick stroll from Lakeshore to Bloor up Bathurst, before zigzagging your way northwest to Eglinton and Caledonia, before following the train tracks (which is perhaps illegal) all the way down to Dovercourt. Google Maps suggest you could get it down in about three and a half hours - call it four to factor in an ice cream break at one point. But amazingly, you'd have bounded the entire area sufficient, in Toronto, to hold a population the same size as Prince Edward Island. PEI is a baby at 5,660 km2, but my New PEI is a mere 19 km2 - that's right, the population of an entire province of Canada fits into a mere 19 km2 in Toronto.
Less, in fact. The area I've bounded is home to 146,295 people, whereas the Land of Green Gables houses 141,551 people. But they got that cool Confederation Bridge, whereas all I can offer is some five subway stops.
There's another 65 km2, and another 132,310 people, in Toronto that I didn't need: Toronto has a larger population than those four provinces. That`s the eastern third of Scarborough, where the Toronto Zoo (among other things) can be found. Let's... er, let's stick Vermont in there or something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







