I got gas . . .

Recently, I’ve seen not a few people, mostly from the States, voicing displeasure over current gas prices.[1] I’ve heard of prices for ‘regular’ grade nearing the $4/gallon mark in Atlanta (my home town), and just under $3.50/gallon in Cincinnati (a former place of residence). I think the lowest price I’ve heard thus far is $3.29/gallon. Sure, these are drastic prices to pay, and they certainly give cause for lament. But to borrow (loosely) from one of my favourite writers: ‘if anyone has reason to lament, I have more.’

At present, our average fuel costs (in Cheltenham [England], where we live) are £1.31 . . . per litre. This means, with 4.54609188 litres in a gallon,[2] we pay £5.95/gallon. On the current exchange rate (i.e. today, about 5 minutes ago), this means we’re paying $9.59(ish) for a gallon of gas.[3] So, the next time you get gas (at c. $3.50/gallon), just be thankful you don’t have to endure the pain I feel when I get gas.

_________________________________
[1] For the Brits: read ‘gas’ as ‘petrol’.
[2] The figure for an ‘imperial gallon’.
[3] Sure, we live on an island but technically so do people in the Americas; but more than that: we’re closer to the primary source, so shipping cost should be (in theory) less.

olympic logo and eisegesis

Read this first. I’m not really sure what bothers me more about this story: the firm belief that the 2012 Olympic logo spells out ‘Zion’, or the passionate resolution to act in an unnecessary way because of that firm belief. The second would be perfectly understandable if (and only if) the first were true.

However, I’m just not seeing the word, ‘Zion’ in the logo–at least not on a normal/natural reading. The only way I can see it (and even this is iffy) is by reading it top-to-bottom, left-to-right with a rotation of the head 90 degrees for the last ‘letter’. (Raise your hand if you read like that on a regular basis). This way of reading only proves one thing: I have to force myself and change what is seen in order to see what I think I see in the first place.

If this is the sort of logic used by those threatening to boycott the Olympics, then I would hope to see similar complaints from the people of Isso, Italy and Ossi, Sardinia; personnel from the Open Source Information System (OSIS), the Sense of Smell Institute (SOSI), Izzo Golf, Zizo Systems International, and from Ozzi’s Steakburgers–just to name a few. Why these people? Because if you toy around with the ‘letters’ of the Olympic logo, these are the groups referred to by the toying.

More to the point, I seriously have my doubts that the organisers of the Olympics–much less those in charge of creating logos–purposely sought out the best way to sneak in the word, ‘Zion’ just to anger a particular group of people. It is more likely (and more reasonable) that the organisers and designers were simply being creative with the elements on hand–especially the numbers 2, 0, 1 and 2. As I suggested before, the only way that ‘Zion’ can be seen in the 2012 Olympic logo is if one wants to see it and is willing to distort what is seen in order to see it.

there’s 4.5 minutes I won’t get back

While raising a couple of interesting points, this rant about being entitled to use phones at dinner is ultimately a sad commentary.

repeating the old is not creating something new

I have no idea why I’m even bothering posting this, other than the fact that this sort of thing bothers me.  Per my usual practice, after lunch I checked through my various e-mails and had a quick glance through the news.  I did my absolute best to resist clicking on one particular link simply because I knew what it would be and I knew how it would affect me.  However, I failed at doing my absolute best and I was proven right on both counts.  Here’s the link.

Here’s my problem.  Not only are some of the styles shown utterly atrocious–in both style and price–but collectively they are truly nothing new.  The article touts these style as ‘the latest’ and newest ‘trends’, ways for ‘updating’ one’s waredrobe; none of which is really true.  What’s shown is nothing more than a throwback to an era that most people (in the right minds) would love to forget–in terms of the fashion.  There is a reason why the styles that plagued the late-70s, all of the 80s and the early part of the 90s all disappeared without much of a fuss.  It’s because they were crap, and in some cases humilitating (retrospectively speaking). 

The only thing ‘new’ about these trends is that they cost more, and in most cases they cost more just so that people can look cheap.  However, just because something costs more doesn’t mean it’s worth more or worthy of purchase.  (And let’s not forget that, in some cases [style wise],  just because it costs more it does make the person look less cheap).  Things where large sums of cash should be spent are things that are unique, classy and/or desireable for reasons other than mere aesthetics.  None of these trends are these things, primarily because they do nothing more than focus on visual appeal (which is rather demeaning) and wind up homogenising everyone (which is rather derespectful). 

Okay; I’m done.  Back to my paper.

one of the (many) things that bug me

More and more, people say certain things that have a completely different meaning than what they honestly believe they mean.  Or, to put it differently: people will use particular words or phrases in ways that make absolutely no sense, all the while believing such words or phrases are entirely appropriate and even necessary for what is said.  Or worse, they believe such words or phrases are accurate reflections of what is truly the case.

For example, I cannot tell you how many times I hear people using the word, ‘actually’* and their use of that term makes zero sense in relation to what they are saying.  In fact, more times than not, how they use the term winds up creating (interesting, and sometimes even humourous) confusion.  Walking back from the bank just this morning, I overheard some eleventeen-year-old girl announce to her similar-looking-in-terms-of-clothing-and-hairdo-eleventeen-year-old friend, ‘I actually went over to his house . .  .’  Well, genius, how else are you going to go over to his house?  Metaphorically?  Allegorically?  Figuratively?  Metaphysically?  What? 

Here’s another example, and this is one that prompted this posting.  After returning from my lunch, I checked out YahooNews just to see what’s up in the world and came across this story.  Here’s my rant.  The article clearly states that the idiot boy in question escaped death just barely and walked away untouched; yet, the title of the article says, ‘Boy’s Near-Miss Playing Chicken With Train.’  I’m sorry, but a ‘near-miss’ means contact; a ‘near-miss’ would mean that the idiot kid would be a grease spot on the tracks; it doesn’t mean he walks away untouched!  (1, 2, 3, 4, . . . okay, I’m better now).   

It is because of stories like these, and uses of language such as those, that I have to console myself with this kind of advice.  Okay, back to work.

________________________________
* I have the same beef with how people (mis)use, ‘literally’.  Go here for a great take on this.

grrrrrr

For the first time in a long time, I will keep my commentary on a particular news story rather brief.  Reason being: the more I think about this story the more it bugs me. 

Here’s my rant and then I need to get back to work: giving generously to others for the purpose of gaining something personally in return is not generous giving; it’s called self-serving at minimum, not disintrested somewhere in the middle and deceitful at maximum.  In effect, that sort of (as they call it: ‘self-interested’) giving demeans the very nature of generosity.  The result of their definition of generosity and the reasons for its practice is that genuine acts of generosity will then be (by default) considered suspect.

Shame on both of you (but for different reasons)

The shame falls first on the antagonist in this story, which bothered me to the depths of my very being:  a 7-year-old boy, adopted from Russia by a 27-year-old girl* from Tennessee, has his life completely altered for the worse after he thought it was forever changed for the better.  After six months, the boy (Artem) is duped by his adoptive ‘parent’ (Torry-Ann) into thinking he was going on an exciting trip to Moscow, but instead was returned to the orphanage.  The gist of Torry-Ann’s explanation: ‘I don’t want the child; the orphanage misled me about his behavioural problems’, which really translates into: ‘this child is an inconvenience for me and I would like to return him’–much like an unwanted pair of shoes.

Two things: 1) the orphanage misled Torry-Ann about Artem’s behavioural problems no more than she misled them about her parenting skills (of which she apparently has none); and 2) if you’re not willing to embrace a child for everything that child is–in spite of any problems that child might have–and if you are not willing to love and care for that child, no matter the difficulty, the hardships and the cost; then I would seriously begin to wonder if you know what it means to be a parent.  I’m not a parent, but I do hope to be (sometime soon), yet I understand what it means to be unconditionally loved by a parent and to be fully accepted in spite of flaws.  Children are human beings and they deserve to be loved by those to whom they belong, no matter what.  Children are not accessories, commodities, or even trophies possessed by those who think it’s a cool idea to have one or because it’s fashionable.  The moment they are seen as such, they are easily discarded when the convenience or novelty wears off.

The shame falls second on the writer of the story, who strangely remains unnamed.  Here’s why I say ‘shame on the writer’:

The regional court had sanctioned his adoption in autumn 2009, a year after he was separated from his birth mother. Coincidentally, the story of his abandonment came on a day American-Russian relations were strengthened in Prague. US President Barack Obama and Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev put their signatures on a historic nuclear arms reduction treaty.

The second and third sentences are completely unnecessary for the the larger story.  Not only that, but the second is a terrible segue for the third.  That’s just poor journalism.

_____________________________
* Yes, I use ‘girl’ on purpose because she is obviously not mature enough (or responsible enough) to be considered a woman.

Revolutionary size

I’m pretty much a dork when it comes to fonts.  I always search for new and interesting (not to mention, free) fonts to load onto my computer, because you just never know when you’re going to need them.*  I also find myself trying to figure out fonts when I see them, either in real life situations (billboards, shoppe names, etc) or on the screen (credits on TV shows, movies, etc).  Yeah, it’s sad.

This morning, I came across this article about how people can save money on printer ink just by changing the kind of font they use.  In many ways, the article was quite interesting and helpful; and yes, when the article rattled off a list of certain fonts to use, I knew exactly what they looked like.  Again, sad.  But I was struck by one comment near the end of the article:

But while using less ink at home can help you buy roughly one fewer printer cartridge each year, it’s not necessarily better for the environment. That’s because some fonts that use less ink, including Century Gothic, are also wider. A document that’s one page in Arial could extend to a second page if printed in Century Gothic. Blohowiak said her research suggests that ink comprises the main cost of a printout, but the environmental costs of paper are probably higher.”Maybe the individual characters use less ink, but if you’re using more paper, that’s not so green, is it?” said Allan Haley, director of “words and letters” at Monotype Imaging Inc. in Woburn, Mass., which developed Century Gothic.

I half expected that an article about saving money would turn into a discussion about being more ‘green’ (which seems like a contradictory pun to me–is that possible?).  What struck me about this ‘changing fonts to be more green, yet it doesn’t seem to be so green’ dilemma was that the obvious solution was completely overlooked.  Before dealing with the obvious, let’s use the variables of Blohowiak and  Haley’s argument to see just how big the difference would be:

• US Letter paper (i.e. 8.5 x 11), 1 inch margins all around, 652 words, Arial, 12-point: one page exactly. 
• Same initial variables but with Century Gothic, 12-point: one page, and 1.5″ of another. 

Seems like Blohowiak and Haley might be onto something.  But wait a minute; here’s a thought: why not simply change the size of the font in the second instance?  (*gasp!!*)  What a revolution this would be!  Here’s what happened when I applied such a groundbreaking theory: 

• US Letter paper (i.e. 8.5 x 11), 1 inch margins all around, 652 words, Century Gothic, 11-point: one page, and I have space for one more line of text–that’s at least 15 more words, and it’s still readable because the change was not that drastic. 

There you go, Blohowiak and Haley; problem solved, greenness maintained.  Now, where’s my medal for alleviating this environmental crisis?

___________________________________
* For the work I do, that’s hardly ever.

Umm, well, okay

My wife stumbled across something today that we both found disturbingly humorous.  On the website for a local pharmacy, which I will leave unnamed to protect the guilty, there is a category known as ‘Embarrassing’ (see below).  Naturally, the examples included in the category would be rather embarrassing in normal conversations.  But what really stuck us about this page was the very term used.  It was funny at first, but then it just became troublesome.  While political correctness tries not to step on the sensitivities of people and make them feel awkward, calling rather personal problems ’embarrassing’ seems to be an insensitive choice of term and one that would only fuel the awkwardness.

Give me a break. . .

Seriously: is this really what we are praising kids for doing these days?  What’s more disturbing is that it’s classified as a sport!  This is just sad.