Here are my belated answers to the last few weeks' That's Awfully Personal questions:
Genies
Q: A
genie appears before you and says: "I am merely an apprentice genie, so
I can't grant three wishes, but I have the power to change the
personality of humankind. If you want me to do so, you must complete
each of the following two statements with a one-word adjective that
describes a human quality or character trait. The word you choose for
the second question can't be the opposite of the word you chose for the
first. Are you ready? (1) I wish every human on Earth was __________. (2) I wish no human on Earth was __________."
The genie then waves her hand and makes it so. The question is: What
are the two adjectives you would choose? How much would you, yourself,
be transformed by the genie's changes? Describe a situation when you
exhibited the trait you chose to abolish in statement (2), or wish you
had exhibited the trait you chose to give everyone in statement (1).
A:
(1) conciliatory and (2) greedy. I believe we're all born fair and
generous, but for most of us something happens to our egos and psyches
as we grow. We get damaged, wounded, and we end up, as a defensive
mechanism, unreasonable, selfish and acquisitive. If the genie could
set us all right again, I think we would immediately see the answers to
Earth's, and our own, problems, and be able and willing to work with
others to solve them. How much would I be changed? Probably more than
I'd like to admit. I try to be fair and generous, but I have far more
than my fair share, I give up far too little of my time to help others,
and I am very intolerant of meanness, conservatism, untruthful and
unfair behaviour, to the point I can't stand to be near such people,
let alone try to work with them. I regret every ungenerous act (and failure to act) and every
unreasonable act of my life, of which there have been many (though
fewer as I get older), and regret most of all the many times I have
lost my temper, since it has accomplished nothing.
Declaring War
Q: You've heard about the war on crime, terrorism, drugs,
high prices etc. Steve Raker thinks that this is inevitably going to
lead to war on: clogged drains, rude behaviour, undercooked fish, tall
vehicles in front of you, inadequate kitchen counter space, uneven tire
wear, dust, computer batteries that run low too fast, and, my
favourite, "War on Waiting for Someone to Get Off the Phone When All
You Need is Like Two Seconds of Their Time and if They Would Just Look
Your Way You Could Probably Even Do it With Hand Signals".
What pet peeves do you think we should 'declare war' on? Extra points if you can provide a picture of one of them.
A:
War on telemarketers who start their call with "Hello, Mr/Ms (mispronounce your name), how are you this evening?"
War on people who drive exactly the speed limit in the left lane.
War on people who never have anything positive to say
about anything, and anyone who has ever said "That's a dumb idea" or
"We tried that and it didn't work".
War on grudges: "If X is coming to your party I'm not coming because in 1997 his dog barked at my dog and he didn't apologize."
War on fashion slavery,
especially pants that are too loose, tops that are too tight, brand
names on sweatshop clothes and interminably boring colours for menswear.
War on ridiculously overpriced incredibly bland Italian food served in tiny portions on gigantic plates.
War on inflexible design: Houses and offices and cars
should be built so you can move, add or remove walls and doors and
windows, Lego-style, when your needs or family size or workteam size
changes and you need less, more, or differently-configured space.
War on anyone who has ever been mean or cruel to an animal or a child.
War on people who cancel at the last minute.
War on fences, entrance gates, and "no trespassing" signs.
War on Orwellian language: Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind Act etc.
War on chainsaws before noon on weekends.
War on stuff that breaks before it's worn out.
War on conformity.
Celebrating Bad Taste
Q: One
of the phenomena of the 1970s was the Kitsch Party. Participants were
required to wear an item or ensemble that exhibited incredibly bad
taste, and to bring a household or artistic item of similarly
abominable taste. You were not allowed to
purchase or make tasteless items just for the occasion -- they had to
be in your house, or borrowed. Everyone voted on the most tasteless
items. At one such party, the 'winning' outfit consisted of a lime
green and olive spandex miniskirt with ruffles, topped with a bizarre
orange designer-made crop-top with a single shoulder strap. The winning
household/art object was a ceramic ashtray featuring a 6" tall Jesus on
the cross.
If you were invited, along with a significant other, to such a Kitsch
Party, what borrowed or closeted outfit would you wear, and what would
you get your significant other to wear? What owned or borrowed work of
art or decor would you bring? And what's the most tasteless item of
clothing or art you have ever seen anywhere?
Extra points if you provide pictures, and double points if you're
wearing the items in question.
A:
My neighbours have never forgotten when I used to walk Chelsea, and
often stop off and visit, wearing a pair of badly faded, very short,
incredibly comfortable salmon-colour running shorts. "Don't you have
any shorts of your own, that you have to wear your kids' castoffs?" I
was told on more than one occasion. Clearly people do not think these
are attractive on a 50-year-old man with pale, out of shape legs. So if
I could find them, I would wear those wonderful shorts, along with a
cutoff white frayed muscle shirt that has splotches of beige paint all
over it. I wouldn't presume to suggest to my wife what she should wear
to a Kitsch party. And although my wife thinks it's funny, my
household/art item of choice for a Kitsch party would be one of those
old "accordion" prints that look different when you look at them from
opposite sides. Hers is illustrated above from both sides.
If you're interested in playing That's
Awfully Personal each week, the questions, and a complete
explanation, can be found here.
To no one's surprise, Canadians elected a minority
government yesterday. The only surprise was Ontario, which delivered 75
of its 106 seats to the Liberals, defying both the pundits and the
polls, and giving Prime Minister Paul Martin 25 more seats than
expected in that province, all at the expense of the Conservatives.
That gave his party a surprising 42 seat plurality over the
Conservatives, who had been expected to eke out a small
plurality. Latest totals are as follows:
2000
Seats
2000
Pop.Vote %
2004
Seats
2004
Pop.Vote %
Liberal
172
41%
135
37%
Conservative
78
37%
99
29%
New
Democratic Party
13
9%
19
15%
Bloc
Québecois
38
11%
54
13%
Green
Party
0
2%
0
4%
Independent
0
0%
1
0%
What is clear from these numbers is that the electorate has taken a
sharp and welcome turn
to the left in this election. The rightist Conservatives lost
nearly a quarter of their support, and only gained seats because they
combined into a single party to exploit Canada's antiquated
first-past-the-post voting system. The three progressive parties, the
NDP, Bloc and Greens saw their share of the vote rise by 50%. Canadians
clearly said once again that Bush-style right-wing governments are not
for us. I'm very proud of my fellow Canadians today.
I'm delighted to report that the Green Party got more than double the
2% of the vote nationally they needed to get the new government
campaign funding of $1.75 per vote per year until the next election,
and also behaved so credibly the Canadian media conglomerate won't dare exclude them again from the
national leaders' debate next time.
There are at least a dozen seats that were won by fewer than 200 votes,
so until the recounts are over, we won't know whether the NDP will hold the
balance of power (i.e. since 155 seats is a majority, the Liberals
currently need only include the NDP and the Independent in their governing coalition, since
together they have, at last count, 155 seats. This would mark the third
Liberal-NDP coalition in Canadian history, and these have been Canada's
most responsible and progressive governments. But if the recounts eliminate this margin, then we're
in for stalemate and probably another election soon. NDP leader Jack
Layton has insisted on an immediate binding national referendum on
Proportional Representation as a condition for supporting the Liberals,
so we could well see seat totals that are far more representative of
popular vote in the next election -- possibly including at least a
dozen (4% of 308 seats) Green Party MPs!
What was most remarkable about this election, and hardly talked about
at all by the major media, was the stark
urban/rural split in the vote. Canada's Big 3 urban areas
(Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) went solidly Liberal, the NDP won
almost all their seats in other cities, and rural areas went
overwhelmingly Conservative. While the regional split I have remarked
on before (Liberals in Ontario, Conservatives in the West, Bloc in
Québec) was certainly evident again, the urban/rural split
transcended this regionalism and applied from sea to sea. The 2004
election map won't look much different from the 2000 map above, except
that Reform Conservative blue is now Conservative blue, there will be a
bit more Conservative blue in Ontario and Bloc blue in Québec,
and a bit more Liberal red in the Atlantic provinces.
It's interesting to note that a month ago, before the voters got angry
and threatened to deal Martin a worse blow. the polls
predicted 143 Liberals, 85 Conservatives, 60 Bloc and 20 NDP seats,
very close to the final outcome.
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
