I am back from my trip to Hawaii. It was a trip with many firsts involved. My first time off of continental North America, Pinkie Pie's first time leaving Ontario, my first time doing proper snorkelling in fish filled waters, and even my first experience with jet lag.
It is funny sometimes to talk to people about travel, and have them assume that everyone is familiar with how jet lag feels. Up till now the largest time difference I can recall being involved in a flight of mine is merely 1 hour, not enough to even notice. Hawaii is six hours off though, so it should have had quite the impact. That didn't end up being the case particularly, as I adjusted both ways quite easily. I felt it though, a little at least, and now I know what that experience is like. Before I felt a little out of place responding to some comment about jet lag with "no, in fact I don't know, because I have never experienced it" and having the whole room stare at me like I had grown horns.
There is an assumption about travel that a lot of people make, namely that if you don't travel immense distances you must hate travelling for some reason. I am not the most wanderlust filled person around, that much is clear, but my reasons for not travelling have generally been financial and environmental, not so much a hatred of travelling itself. I struggle with the cost of long trips and the environmental cost of travel really gets to me. I find it hard to square my desire for a low impact life and the almost vulgar cost of flying a quarter of the way around the globe for entertainment.
Those things make for awkward conversations. I find that people love to go on about how wonderful travel is, but they can rarely justify it from an environmental standpoint. Certainly they can justify the monetary cost, and honestly the price often seems absurdly low... it is just my money demon that makes it hard for me and I know that is irrational. But the cost in waste and carbon that comes with long distance travel people just ignore, and I find I have to do the same. When I consider it I find I have to simply ignore it and accept the cognitive dissonance; my other choice is to never travel and I don't like that option either.
However, other people also seem to actually like the travelling part. They talk about liking being on planes. I find the concept quite ridiculous as to me planes are constantly uncomfortable leaving my legs in a perpetual state of pain and strain. I can't rest, I can't sleep, I can't relax. Being tall is generally a good thing, but not on a bloody plane.
Not in economy class, at any rate, and I can't see myself in the rich person seats.
All that aside the trip itself was great. I took a snorkel tour to a partly submerged volcanic caldera, swam around with schools of fish, got to watch a group of three sea turtles eating off of a reef from a distance of just three meters, and spent a ton of time in the sun.
Too much time in the sun really since I got myself a savage sunburn, probably the worst I have ever had. It wasn't as though I ignored the danger, as I applied sunscreen three times and wore a sunshirt for much of the day, but it turns out going from Toronto winter/spring to Hawaii and then spending six hours on a beach was too much for my skin to cope with. Thankfully the pain was not enough to stop me doing all the things, and was merely extremely unpleasant.
I don't know that I will go back to Hawaii. It was a fine place to have gone, and now I know the best way to spend your time on Maui, but I think I lean towards staying closer to home for a variety of reasons. Bloody airplane seats being built for midgets being the big one, for sure.
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
How I met your parents
I have met the parents of someone I am dating four times. One of those was under strange circumstances and wasn't really a 'meet my parents' sort of thing, and another was short circuited because I met the parents long before the dating even began. If memory serves, I met Wendy's parents at her wedding to her ex husband... though I suppose I really wasn't interviewed quite the same way in that circumstance.
The first time I met someone's parents in a more traditional sense we had the issue of religion. They were religious while I am ... not. That sort of thing can be a real strain, especially when you consider the person in the middle who is caught between declaring for either side in that debate. No choice is going to be easy. That said, we pushed through and it was generally fine.
This past weekend was the second 'meet the parents' event (with The Flautist) and religion wasn't an issue this time. However, there is a new issue - polyamory. Specifically, when your daughter says to you "Oh, I am dating a married man now. His wife is totally okay with it, I promise!" there is a certain amount of skepticism that is normal and reasonable.
In my case everyone *is* totally okay with it. It is all open and honest and good.
But even then, if Pinky Pie came home someday with that story I would be suspicious. If it turned out that the relationship did follow that formula I would be perfectly happy with it, but let's face it: There are a lot more married men cheating on their wives than there are poly married men having honest relationships. The numbers do not favour the poly guess, in general.
Most people wouldn't append the story "and I met his wife during my first date with him and we got along great and went to a concert together without him" though, and that certainly adds a lot of credence to the story.
The fact that the people I was meeting had totally valid reasons to doubt my morality gave me some doubt. I didn't figure I would have to cope with accusatory stares and veiled accusations, but these are people I don't know. I wasn't at all sure what would happen.
But it was all good. I chatted with both of them for awhile, talking about work, chores, relationships, and the difficulty of getting paid for creative efforts. Then I had a good ole fashioned debate about energy policy, politics, and voting systems. I am sure that everyone would tell me to stay the hell away from politics when meeting the parents, but since when have I ever backed down from that sort of thing? I did carefully check to make sure nobody was getting upset about the debate, but I really think it was an entirely friendly affair. It helped that we have similar political leanings, though of course we disagreed on the details of implementation.
All in all though it went as well as meeting the parents ever can go, I think. I suppose that generally if people decide that they really need to get along despite having some pretty big differences they can make it work, and that certainly has been my experience so far.
The first time I met someone's parents in a more traditional sense we had the issue of religion. They were religious while I am ... not. That sort of thing can be a real strain, especially when you consider the person in the middle who is caught between declaring for either side in that debate. No choice is going to be easy. That said, we pushed through and it was generally fine.
This past weekend was the second 'meet the parents' event (with The Flautist) and religion wasn't an issue this time. However, there is a new issue - polyamory. Specifically, when your daughter says to you "Oh, I am dating a married man now. His wife is totally okay with it, I promise!" there is a certain amount of skepticism that is normal and reasonable.
In my case everyone *is* totally okay with it. It is all open and honest and good.
But even then, if Pinky Pie came home someday with that story I would be suspicious. If it turned out that the relationship did follow that formula I would be perfectly happy with it, but let's face it: There are a lot more married men cheating on their wives than there are poly married men having honest relationships. The numbers do not favour the poly guess, in general.
Most people wouldn't append the story "and I met his wife during my first date with him and we got along great and went to a concert together without him" though, and that certainly adds a lot of credence to the story.
The fact that the people I was meeting had totally valid reasons to doubt my morality gave me some doubt. I didn't figure I would have to cope with accusatory stares and veiled accusations, but these are people I don't know. I wasn't at all sure what would happen.
But it was all good. I chatted with both of them for awhile, talking about work, chores, relationships, and the difficulty of getting paid for creative efforts. Then I had a good ole fashioned debate about energy policy, politics, and voting systems. I am sure that everyone would tell me to stay the hell away from politics when meeting the parents, but since when have I ever backed down from that sort of thing? I did carefully check to make sure nobody was getting upset about the debate, but I really think it was an entirely friendly affair. It helped that we have similar political leanings, though of course we disagreed on the details of implementation.
All in all though it went as well as meeting the parents ever can go, I think. I suppose that generally if people decide that they really need to get along despite having some pretty big differences they can make it work, and that certainly has been my experience so far.
Friday, April 7, 2017
What does google know
Google knows I want to get ripped.
To be frank, Google knows an awful lot of what I want. When I talk to Wendy about the rats involved in her research my internet is full of ads for exterminators. Close one Google, but no cigar. But when Google pitches me ads about getting ripped abs it is on the money. I have been amping up my exercise in general but also particularly adding on stomach exercises.
Wendy told me that getting bulky isn't really a good thing. In fact she thinks my shoulders look worse because I actually have a bit on muscle on top of them now. But a six pack, that is the ticket. So I am doing more tummy exercises in a fruitless attempt to amp my abs.
Here is the thing about Google's abs ads, when targetted at me. They all say "Men over 40 are getting ripped abs doing this one weird thing!"
Sorry Google, I am 38. Hell, you *must* know that. You know everything else!
But then I ask myself: Are the ads showing grey haired men with preposterous abs aimed at men in their 30s too? Is the idea to shame me into buying stuff because men older than me have sculpted bellies? Maybe they aren't aiming the "Men over 40" nonsense at me by accident, but rather deliberately.
I followed the stupid ads today, wading through 45 minutes of crap to finally get to the payoff. What is it, I wondered, that these snake oil fraudsters with their immaculately built bodies are trying to sell me? Pills that do nothing? Steroids that do something, but also many wrong things?
Nope. After 10 minutes of bragging, 10 more minutes of vague generalities, 10 minutes of insulting every 'conventional' diet and exercise regimen, and 10 minutes of complete pseudoscientific nonsense about optimizing your hormone levels via carefully guarded secrets, I finally got to the 5 minutes of real stuff.
Which was just a diet and exercise program. Apparently the most ripped 24 year old on Youtube and his personal doctor have an amazing, groundbreaking program that will activate my hormones, blast away my belly fat, and make me into a monstrous beast of a man.
They seem to be leaning on new, shocking techniques like "Eat a lot of meat for protein and vegetables, and don't eat sugary crap" and "Exercise hard using multiple muscle groups".
All of which will activate my leptin and testosterone hormones and give me a stomach that will cause random scantily clad women to fawn over me.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind that whole fawning thing, at least for a bit. However, I was honestly expecting a lot more from all that build up. If you want to convince me that your program is all that, you really ought to come up with something a lot more interesting. If all I get is generic pablum of exercise advice I really don't need to pay you for it. Their advice doesn't even look bad, it is just backed up with endless prattle that is a pack of lies surrounded by half truths.
But damn, there are SO MANY ads for this garbage. They must be getting a lot of people to buy into it. That part makes me really sad, because I was willing to watch 45 minutes of trash on the side of my screen while working on something else because I was curious about what the final pitch was. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who believe this nonsense and end up handing over their money.
Just one more moment that makes me weep for humanity.
To be frank, Google knows an awful lot of what I want. When I talk to Wendy about the rats involved in her research my internet is full of ads for exterminators. Close one Google, but no cigar. But when Google pitches me ads about getting ripped abs it is on the money. I have been amping up my exercise in general but also particularly adding on stomach exercises.
Wendy told me that getting bulky isn't really a good thing. In fact she thinks my shoulders look worse because I actually have a bit on muscle on top of them now. But a six pack, that is the ticket. So I am doing more tummy exercises in a fruitless attempt to amp my abs.
Here is the thing about Google's abs ads, when targetted at me. They all say "Men over 40 are getting ripped abs doing this one weird thing!"
Sorry Google, I am 38. Hell, you *must* know that. You know everything else!
But then I ask myself: Are the ads showing grey haired men with preposterous abs aimed at men in their 30s too? Is the idea to shame me into buying stuff because men older than me have sculpted bellies? Maybe they aren't aiming the "Men over 40" nonsense at me by accident, but rather deliberately.
I followed the stupid ads today, wading through 45 minutes of crap to finally get to the payoff. What is it, I wondered, that these snake oil fraudsters with their immaculately built bodies are trying to sell me? Pills that do nothing? Steroids that do something, but also many wrong things?
Nope. After 10 minutes of bragging, 10 more minutes of vague generalities, 10 minutes of insulting every 'conventional' diet and exercise regimen, and 10 minutes of complete pseudoscientific nonsense about optimizing your hormone levels via carefully guarded secrets, I finally got to the 5 minutes of real stuff.
Which was just a diet and exercise program. Apparently the most ripped 24 year old on Youtube and his personal doctor have an amazing, groundbreaking program that will activate my hormones, blast away my belly fat, and make me into a monstrous beast of a man.
They seem to be leaning on new, shocking techniques like "Eat a lot of meat for protein and vegetables, and don't eat sugary crap" and "Exercise hard using multiple muscle groups".
All of which will activate my leptin and testosterone hormones and give me a stomach that will cause random scantily clad women to fawn over me.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind that whole fawning thing, at least for a bit. However, I was honestly expecting a lot more from all that build up. If you want to convince me that your program is all that, you really ought to come up with something a lot more interesting. If all I get is generic pablum of exercise advice I really don't need to pay you for it. Their advice doesn't even look bad, it is just backed up with endless prattle that is a pack of lies surrounded by half truths.
But damn, there are SO MANY ads for this garbage. They must be getting a lot of people to buy into it. That part makes me really sad, because I was willing to watch 45 minutes of trash on the side of my screen while working on something else because I was curious about what the final pitch was. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who believe this nonsense and end up handing over their money.
Just one more moment that makes me weep for humanity.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Horsin' around
I started watching the Netflix cartoon Bojack Horseman. I can't say why I jumped on the bandwagon exactly, but once I got on I really didn't want to get off again.
Bojack Horseman is the sort of show I have trouble pinning down. Is it a ridiculous, idiotic comedy that relies on sex jokes and absurdity to get a couple of giggles, or is it an insightful critique of modern society? I can't tell!
The show stars a horse. Who is a man. I mean, he has the body of a middle aged human male, with a horse's head. The rest of the world is populated by a mixture of relatively normal humans and humans with animal heads. That would be pretty weird just on its own, but the animals do impossible yet thematically appropriate things. The ones with bird heads can flap their arms and fly around... but they are flapping entirely normal human arms.
Also three main characters are Bojack Horseman, a horse/man, Princess Carolyn (not actually a princess), a cat/woman, and Mr. Peanut Butter (not actually composed of peanut butter), a dog/man. Did somebody get a four year old to name these characters? Are their names supposed to be clever and ironic somehow?
I have a lot of respect for writing that makes me stare at the screen while stroking my beard and wondering if the writers are incredibly clever or incredibly dumb.
The thing is, the characters oscillate rapidly between preposterous comedy and interesting interaction that showcases real dilemmas and challenging situations. Bojack sets up a giant autoerotic asphyxiation structure in his bedroom just to try to figure out if his girlfriend will tell him not to use it, because this will reveal if she loves him or not. On the other hand once that comedy gold is mined thoroughly they actually have a real conversation that is kind of touching and it feels like how real people might deal with complicated conflict.
There is an episode largely about the ethical conflicts of eating meat, and it makes interesting points by having chicken/people farming other chicken/people to supply chicken as a food to other humans and human hybrids. Of course it includes a car driving through a barn as part of a caper to rescue the food chickens from the chicken farmers (who are themselves chickens) so you can't take it too seriously.
But maybe the hijinks involved are just there so the writers can send a message about how humans wall off some creatures as being worth saving while others are okay to torture and consume, and make those divisions based on random and indefensible criteria. If you add comedy, you don't sound quite so preachy, see?
I just don't know. Is it mindless crap, just filling my days, or is it brilliant satire? I don't know.
I do know that it makes me laugh out loud on a regular basis and I care about the characters even though they are silly and surreal. Maybe that is all I need to know to decide that I should watch the next episode, so the writers have succeeded in that, at least.
Bojack Horseman is the sort of show I have trouble pinning down. Is it a ridiculous, idiotic comedy that relies on sex jokes and absurdity to get a couple of giggles, or is it an insightful critique of modern society? I can't tell!
The show stars a horse. Who is a man. I mean, he has the body of a middle aged human male, with a horse's head. The rest of the world is populated by a mixture of relatively normal humans and humans with animal heads. That would be pretty weird just on its own, but the animals do impossible yet thematically appropriate things. The ones with bird heads can flap their arms and fly around... but they are flapping entirely normal human arms.
Also three main characters are Bojack Horseman, a horse/man, Princess Carolyn (not actually a princess), a cat/woman, and Mr. Peanut Butter (not actually composed of peanut butter), a dog/man. Did somebody get a four year old to name these characters? Are their names supposed to be clever and ironic somehow?
I have a lot of respect for writing that makes me stare at the screen while stroking my beard and wondering if the writers are incredibly clever or incredibly dumb.
The thing is, the characters oscillate rapidly between preposterous comedy and interesting interaction that showcases real dilemmas and challenging situations. Bojack sets up a giant autoerotic asphyxiation structure in his bedroom just to try to figure out if his girlfriend will tell him not to use it, because this will reveal if she loves him or not. On the other hand once that comedy gold is mined thoroughly they actually have a real conversation that is kind of touching and it feels like how real people might deal with complicated conflict.
There is an episode largely about the ethical conflicts of eating meat, and it makes interesting points by having chicken/people farming other chicken/people to supply chicken as a food to other humans and human hybrids. Of course it includes a car driving through a barn as part of a caper to rescue the food chickens from the chicken farmers (who are themselves chickens) so you can't take it too seriously.
But maybe the hijinks involved are just there so the writers can send a message about how humans wall off some creatures as being worth saving while others are okay to torture and consume, and make those divisions based on random and indefensible criteria. If you add comedy, you don't sound quite so preachy, see?
I just don't know. Is it mindless crap, just filling my days, or is it brilliant satire? I don't know.
I do know that it makes me laugh out loud on a regular basis and I care about the characters even though they are silly and surreal. Maybe that is all I need to know to decide that I should watch the next episode, so the writers have succeeded in that, at least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)