Another thing that drives me nuts about having to read so much for my job each day is the increasing number of language errors I find. I can understand careless mistakes, but these don't fall into that category. These are made by people paid to write headlines and press releases, which means someone else proofread and edited their work.
This is just one example of the many ridiculous headlines I've seen in the past year:
New Study Reveals Swimming Can Cut Men's Risk of Dying in Half
So, if you are a man and you swim, you increase your chance of not dying by 50%?! And dying is a risk, not a certainty? Amazing! Man has been searching for immortality for centuries but the answer all this time was right there in water? And the immortality is only for men, apparently.
Do people not understand what that sentence means? Every time a new study comes out, there will be at least a couple of headlines like that one. Not "this will reduce your chances of dying young/early" but reduce your chances of dying altogether. Aaaarrrrgggghhh!
In Malaysia, I always understood if someone's English was poor, because that most likely meant English was their second or third language. But in America, where a large number of people speak only English, what is the excuse? Shouldn't everyone be fluent in at least one language and full understand what the words they use convey?
I understand that language is fluid and changes as people add and drop words, but shouldn't it still contain accurate meaning? This isn't language innovation - it's ignorance. For someone who loves language and all the written word can convey as much as I do, this is sad and aggravating, especially when it happens consistently, not occasionally.
There is apparently a small group of people in this country who are going around correcting errors in signs that they come across (see link below for an example). They've even done this to historical signs, because they cannot tolerate the mistakes they keep seeing. This is apparently against the law but I am completely on their side. They are my kind of people!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-typo-guys-0521may21,0,6902266.story
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Rainy Day Thoughts
Sometimes, I don't like my job. Not because of the job itself, but because of the news and press releases I have to scan every day as part of my job. There is so much negativity in comments posted in response to news articles, in press releases by the Republican Party, in the news itself ... it begins to weigh down one's spirit after a while to be exposed to such constant negativity. It's been going on for over two years, ever since Barack Obama announced his candidacy, and now the economic crisis is making things much worse.
I know life is difficult for many people these days, but especially at times like this, I like to concentrate on positive, happy stories. There are some of those, about how people are helping others in need (I'm particularly fond of "random acts of kindness" types of stories, since I'm a sap), but most articles I read (especially in The Wall Street Journal, which I'm beginning to resent having to look at six days a week) are negative or critical of President Obama. I'd expect that from the WSJ, of course, since it's clearly a pro-Republican newspaper (I am constantly surprised when I read an article in it that is positive about the president or the Democratic Party), but the criticisms are everywhere.
I've been thinking a lot about why I'm having such a hard time with the criticisms (I've always tried to stay away from negativity and negative people because the lack of sunshine and positive thoughts begins to sit heavily on me if I'm around it too long, but I don't usually have a problem with well-grounded or intelligent criticism and opposition). It's partly because I'm so sure that if given enough time, Barack Obama can make things better, because of the person I think he is, and it's therefore grating to see people say insulting things about him personally as well as about his handling thus far of the presidency. I think I'm reacting defensively on his behalf (which is ironic because he doesn't seem to let that sort of thing get to him). But I think it's largely because I've been here long enough now to understand the differences between the Republicans and Democrats, and the Republicans are increasingly getting on my nerves.
It's ironic, because they are supposed to represent conservatism and I'm conservative by nature. I believe in spending money wisely but in saving more than spending, so that you always have a safety net. That's conservative, isn't it? I believe that people should learn skills and abilities that will allow them to be financially independent so that they don't depend on government handouts or welfare (when I learnt many years ago that a large number of Australians didn't work because they could depend on welfare, whether they needed it or not, I was horrified). I believe that abortion is wrong (although I do not believe that life begins at conception and I therefore don't see abortion, especially in the early days and weeks, as murder. I may be wrong, but that's my belief and I am entitled to it). However, and this is a big however, I attach many caveats to those beliefs.
While I don't personally believe in abortion, I also don't believe people have the right to force a woman to carry to term a child that she doesn't want. No one should talk her into an abortion, but neither should they stop her from getting one if that is what she still wants after she has had time to really think about it, after knowing that there are alternatives. And that includes ensuring that medical assistance is available, if she cannot afford the necessary healthcare while pregnant and during as well as after delivery. That includes providing financial assistance or housing if that is what she needs, and seeing to it that adoption isn't an unnecessarily complicated process. It includes making sure counselling and support are available if she is a scared teenager who doesn't know how to tell her parents, or who won't be able to count on them if she does tell them. There needs to be a complete support system for people who might otherwise contemplate abortion. And there has to be a much better education policy in place, so that kids understand exactly what pregnancy and parenthood entails. I think there would be far less abortions if girls and women contemplating abortion did not feel alone, helpless, scared or not in control. Why aren't people spending more time and energy on that and less on protesting abortion and measures that make it possible for abortion to be done safely and legally?
But what irks me most about things like abortion is that religion becomes involved in what should be purely a legal process, since that is one of the principles the USA was founded on - courts, rather than churches, of law. People came to America to get away from religious persecution. The country was founded on principles of separation of church and state. So why is it the Republicans and the religious right think it is all right to bring religious views into laws? I can believe something is wrong and explain to anyone who cares to understand my viewpoint, but I'm not going to insist that I am right and they are wrong if they disagree with me. The western world criticizes the Middle East for Islamic laws that they think are abhorrent, yet the same thing goes on in countries like America, where it seems like people are trying to curtail more and more personal freedoms.
Comments Republicans have made about President Obama being a socialist and his handling of the economy also irritate me. While I believe people should be financially independent as far as possible, this is an ideal that will never be a fact. There will always be people who lack the skills or abilities to be independent, and who therefore need help. And from what I've seen of the lives some people were leading in the last few years, lives of extravagance that helped contribute to the housing and economic crash, there is a serious lack of financial education. People apparently felt entitled to the "American Dream" without understanding the basics of finances and economics, without being aware of what they could and couldn't financially afford. There was supposed to be a golden rule here that you could afford a house that cost two-and-a-half times what you make a year. So, if you earn $50,000 annually, your house should not cost more than $125,000. That seems simple enough, but in the last few years, as the housing market when through a ridiculous boom, people were buying property between five and even ten times more than what they earned. That is unbelievable. How do some people not know the golden rule about property ownership? Were they just uneducated? Or was it a feeling of entitlement that drove them? And they certainly should not keep houses they can't afford, but the solution is not to leave them homeless.
Yes, the bankers and mortgage lenders who approved their loans were unscrupulous and greedy, thinking only about the profits they'd be making, but people weren't taking responsibility for their own finances. Yet, if these homeowners are punished for their ignorance and greed, for wanting to keep up with the Joneses, and aren't helped out of the quagmire they now find themselves in, the economy will continue to suffer. I read comment after comment from people who didn't buy more house than they could afford and who continued to pay their bills on time, who now resent having to help those in need. Apparently, Democrats like President Obama who want to try and help as many people as possible are promoting socialism (and they make it sound like communism).
That's one of the major things that bugs me about Republicans. Is there no middle ground? Is everything black and white? Abortion is wrong, end of story. Euthanasia is wrong, end of story. Helping people who can't help themselves is wrong, end of story. Is it wimpy or socialist to be compassionate, to reach out to others without preaching to them? I heard someone from the Republican party say on TV today that it is their job to be the opposition. Does that mean they have to criticize everything the president and Democrats do just for the sake of opposing them? That is an important role most of the time, because everyone needs a good check and balance system, but right now, can't people work together to get the world's economy back on track instead of nitpicking and contributing to the cloud of gloom encasing the planet?
Clearly, things need to change financially, at least. That includes getting rid of what I think is the ridiculous idea of cashing in on your home equity (the amount of money you've paid thus far for the house - if you bought a house for $100,000 and have paid off $20,000, that's the equity you have in the house). What I learnt from Mummy and Papa is that you buy a house and pay off the mortgage. Then, the house is yours. It's that simple. So what went wrong in America? Who on earth came up with the idea of the home equity loan, where, instead of paying off what you owe for a house, you keep borrowing against it and end up paying more for the house than it's worth? That makes absolutely no sense to me, yet it is standard practice here (and I've seen advertisements for it in Malaysian newspapers). How did it come to that and why don't more people see how dumb a notion it is?
I've read some Republican comments saying the housing problem started with the Clinton administration. If that's true, the Republicans had eight years to fix the problems. Why didn't they? The first thing I would have done was get rid of home equity loans - they are nothing more than a money-making scheme for banks and mortgage lenders. If people need loans, their homes should not be used as collateral - that is what has led to the housing crisis here. That's why people owe more than their houses are worth - because banks kept increasing their loans and pushing up the value of the house to ridiculous levels.
Why aren't more Republicans preaching conservative values about finances to their constituents? How can I be more financially and socially conservative than Republicans and still feel more affinity for Democrats and their ideals? It's because I'm somewhat conservative about my own beliefs but don't believe in forcing them on others. I think it's that simple. I started off with very conservative, narrow views when I was a teenager but read a lot, learned a lot from friends and acquaintances and evolved. I changed my opinions on some things because as I got older, I realized that very little in life is black and white. Most things are in shades of gray. You can have firm beliefs about some things, you can have a moral code that guides you through life and makes you the best person you can be, and you can hopefully influence others by the example you show, but you don't have the right to force others to adhere to your beliefs (unless those are laws that they have agreed to follow by living in that country). I thought that was why the war of independence was fought in the first place - to create a better country and way of life, with more freedom. But now, things seem to be moving backwards.
Then again, everything seems to be cyclical. So I guess people moves from liberalism to moderate beliefs to conservatism and then the cycle begins again.
And now, it's Sunday night and a new, busy work week begins - back to reading more bad news and negativity. Sigh ...
I know life is difficult for many people these days, but especially at times like this, I like to concentrate on positive, happy stories. There are some of those, about how people are helping others in need (I'm particularly fond of "random acts of kindness" types of stories, since I'm a sap), but most articles I read (especially in The Wall Street Journal, which I'm beginning to resent having to look at six days a week) are negative or critical of President Obama. I'd expect that from the WSJ, of course, since it's clearly a pro-Republican newspaper (I am constantly surprised when I read an article in it that is positive about the president or the Democratic Party), but the criticisms are everywhere.
I've been thinking a lot about why I'm having such a hard time with the criticisms (I've always tried to stay away from negativity and negative people because the lack of sunshine and positive thoughts begins to sit heavily on me if I'm around it too long, but I don't usually have a problem with well-grounded or intelligent criticism and opposition). It's partly because I'm so sure that if given enough time, Barack Obama can make things better, because of the person I think he is, and it's therefore grating to see people say insulting things about him personally as well as about his handling thus far of the presidency. I think I'm reacting defensively on his behalf (which is ironic because he doesn't seem to let that sort of thing get to him). But I think it's largely because I've been here long enough now to understand the differences between the Republicans and Democrats, and the Republicans are increasingly getting on my nerves.
It's ironic, because they are supposed to represent conservatism and I'm conservative by nature. I believe in spending money wisely but in saving more than spending, so that you always have a safety net. That's conservative, isn't it? I believe that people should learn skills and abilities that will allow them to be financially independent so that they don't depend on government handouts or welfare (when I learnt many years ago that a large number of Australians didn't work because they could depend on welfare, whether they needed it or not, I was horrified). I believe that abortion is wrong (although I do not believe that life begins at conception and I therefore don't see abortion, especially in the early days and weeks, as murder. I may be wrong, but that's my belief and I am entitled to it). However, and this is a big however, I attach many caveats to those beliefs.
While I don't personally believe in abortion, I also don't believe people have the right to force a woman to carry to term a child that she doesn't want. No one should talk her into an abortion, but neither should they stop her from getting one if that is what she still wants after she has had time to really think about it, after knowing that there are alternatives. And that includes ensuring that medical assistance is available, if she cannot afford the necessary healthcare while pregnant and during as well as after delivery. That includes providing financial assistance or housing if that is what she needs, and seeing to it that adoption isn't an unnecessarily complicated process. It includes making sure counselling and support are available if she is a scared teenager who doesn't know how to tell her parents, or who won't be able to count on them if she does tell them. There needs to be a complete support system for people who might otherwise contemplate abortion. And there has to be a much better education policy in place, so that kids understand exactly what pregnancy and parenthood entails. I think there would be far less abortions if girls and women contemplating abortion did not feel alone, helpless, scared or not in control. Why aren't people spending more time and energy on that and less on protesting abortion and measures that make it possible for abortion to be done safely and legally?
But what irks me most about things like abortion is that religion becomes involved in what should be purely a legal process, since that is one of the principles the USA was founded on - courts, rather than churches, of law. People came to America to get away from religious persecution. The country was founded on principles of separation of church and state. So why is it the Republicans and the religious right think it is all right to bring religious views into laws? I can believe something is wrong and explain to anyone who cares to understand my viewpoint, but I'm not going to insist that I am right and they are wrong if they disagree with me. The western world criticizes the Middle East for Islamic laws that they think are abhorrent, yet the same thing goes on in countries like America, where it seems like people are trying to curtail more and more personal freedoms.
Comments Republicans have made about President Obama being a socialist and his handling of the economy also irritate me. While I believe people should be financially independent as far as possible, this is an ideal that will never be a fact. There will always be people who lack the skills or abilities to be independent, and who therefore need help. And from what I've seen of the lives some people were leading in the last few years, lives of extravagance that helped contribute to the housing and economic crash, there is a serious lack of financial education. People apparently felt entitled to the "American Dream" without understanding the basics of finances and economics, without being aware of what they could and couldn't financially afford. There was supposed to be a golden rule here that you could afford a house that cost two-and-a-half times what you make a year. So, if you earn $50,000 annually, your house should not cost more than $125,000. That seems simple enough, but in the last few years, as the housing market when through a ridiculous boom, people were buying property between five and even ten times more than what they earned. That is unbelievable. How do some people not know the golden rule about property ownership? Were they just uneducated? Or was it a feeling of entitlement that drove them? And they certainly should not keep houses they can't afford, but the solution is not to leave them homeless.
Yes, the bankers and mortgage lenders who approved their loans were unscrupulous and greedy, thinking only about the profits they'd be making, but people weren't taking responsibility for their own finances. Yet, if these homeowners are punished for their ignorance and greed, for wanting to keep up with the Joneses, and aren't helped out of the quagmire they now find themselves in, the economy will continue to suffer. I read comment after comment from people who didn't buy more house than they could afford and who continued to pay their bills on time, who now resent having to help those in need. Apparently, Democrats like President Obama who want to try and help as many people as possible are promoting socialism (and they make it sound like communism).
That's one of the major things that bugs me about Republicans. Is there no middle ground? Is everything black and white? Abortion is wrong, end of story. Euthanasia is wrong, end of story. Helping people who can't help themselves is wrong, end of story. Is it wimpy or socialist to be compassionate, to reach out to others without preaching to them? I heard someone from the Republican party say on TV today that it is their job to be the opposition. Does that mean they have to criticize everything the president and Democrats do just for the sake of opposing them? That is an important role most of the time, because everyone needs a good check and balance system, but right now, can't people work together to get the world's economy back on track instead of nitpicking and contributing to the cloud of gloom encasing the planet?
Clearly, things need to change financially, at least. That includes getting rid of what I think is the ridiculous idea of cashing in on your home equity (the amount of money you've paid thus far for the house - if you bought a house for $100,000 and have paid off $20,000, that's the equity you have in the house). What I learnt from Mummy and Papa is that you buy a house and pay off the mortgage. Then, the house is yours. It's that simple. So what went wrong in America? Who on earth came up with the idea of the home equity loan, where, instead of paying off what you owe for a house, you keep borrowing against it and end up paying more for the house than it's worth? That makes absolutely no sense to me, yet it is standard practice here (and I've seen advertisements for it in Malaysian newspapers). How did it come to that and why don't more people see how dumb a notion it is?
I've read some Republican comments saying the housing problem started with the Clinton administration. If that's true, the Republicans had eight years to fix the problems. Why didn't they? The first thing I would have done was get rid of home equity loans - they are nothing more than a money-making scheme for banks and mortgage lenders. If people need loans, their homes should not be used as collateral - that is what has led to the housing crisis here. That's why people owe more than their houses are worth - because banks kept increasing their loans and pushing up the value of the house to ridiculous levels.
Why aren't more Republicans preaching conservative values about finances to their constituents? How can I be more financially and socially conservative than Republicans and still feel more affinity for Democrats and their ideals? It's because I'm somewhat conservative about my own beliefs but don't believe in forcing them on others. I think it's that simple. I started off with very conservative, narrow views when I was a teenager but read a lot, learned a lot from friends and acquaintances and evolved. I changed my opinions on some things because as I got older, I realized that very little in life is black and white. Most things are in shades of gray. You can have firm beliefs about some things, you can have a moral code that guides you through life and makes you the best person you can be, and you can hopefully influence others by the example you show, but you don't have the right to force others to adhere to your beliefs (unless those are laws that they have agreed to follow by living in that country). I thought that was why the war of independence was fought in the first place - to create a better country and way of life, with more freedom. But now, things seem to be moving backwards.
Then again, everything seems to be cyclical. So I guess people moves from liberalism to moderate beliefs to conservatism and then the cycle begins again.
And now, it's Sunday night and a new, busy work week begins - back to reading more bad news and negativity. Sigh ...
Wit, Laughter, Music
This was supposed to be two separate posts - Wit, Laughter from last weekend and Music from last night. The week proved to be too busy, however, so here I am, once again playing catch-up. (Plus, it's been raining all weekend, which calls for contemplation and written thoughts, unlike sunny days, when it's far more fun to be outside with the mutts.)
Last Sunday afternoon and evening, Bruce and I spent several hours with our friends, the Jacksons. Sarah, their older daughter (they have two), was in a play in Atlanta and we went to watch the matinee performance with Amy, John and Nikki (their younger dauthger). The play was called Wit (by Margaret Edson - I found out after the fact that it won the Pulitzer prize in 1999.) It was a little intense but extremely well-written and wonderfully performed (except for the ending, where a doctor's reaction to a DNR order seemed a little over-the-top). The lead actress was so good!
The play was about a literature professor diagnosed with cancer, ruminating about her condition and John Donne's poetry (which she taught). If you're interested, you can read more about it here: http://faculty.smu.edu/tmayo/donne_essay.htm
http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/wit-margaret-edson
http://www.onstageatlanta.com/b_currentproduction.htm
It has been too long since I've seen a play on stage and this made me realize how much I've missed it. So Bruce is probably going to have to put up with attending more plays in the future.
The laughter part of the evening came at dinner. Dawn, another friend of the Jacksons, and her children were with us at the play and we all went out to dinner. There was a lot of fun conversation and laughter, especially when John (whose birthday was on March 7th, so this was a belated celebration) started singing a really funny version of the "Old MacDonald had a farm" song (Old MacDonald's Dysfunctional Farm), including parts about a dyslexic cow (that went oom/ohm instead of moo) and a sheep with narcolepsy that started snoring instead of baa-ing. I wish I could remember more, because it was hilarious (partly because of John's presentation). I tried looking for the lyrics but they aren't online, so I'll have to get them from John some time in the future.
There were lots of other funny conversations and exchanges - I started laughing so much my stomach hurt! Sarah's laughter is very contagious. So that was a lovely, memorable day. We always have a good time with the Jacksons, and I'm glad they are our friends.
Yesterday, we went to watch one of my favourite musicians/songwriters in concert. Billy Joel was in Atlanta again, so of course I had to be there. This time, he was performing with Elton John. It was a superb concert! I'm not so familiar with Elton John's earlier albums, but he was still fun to watch. Billy Joel was the highlight of the evening for me, though, and the two of them playing together on their pianos was the icing on the cake. (They played about ten songs together but each also peformed separately for about an hour, so it was actually three concerts in one.) That was such a fun night!
Last Sunday afternoon and evening, Bruce and I spent several hours with our friends, the Jacksons. Sarah, their older daughter (they have two), was in a play in Atlanta and we went to watch the matinee performance with Amy, John and Nikki (their younger dauthger). The play was called Wit (by Margaret Edson - I found out after the fact that it won the Pulitzer prize in 1999.) It was a little intense but extremely well-written and wonderfully performed (except for the ending, where a doctor's reaction to a DNR order seemed a little over-the-top). The lead actress was so good!
The play was about a literature professor diagnosed with cancer, ruminating about her condition and John Donne's poetry (which she taught). If you're interested, you can read more about it here: http://faculty.smu.edu/tmayo/donne_essay.htm
http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/wit-margaret-edson
http://www.onstageatlanta.com/b_currentproduction.htm
It has been too long since I've seen a play on stage and this made me realize how much I've missed it. So Bruce is probably going to have to put up with attending more plays in the future.
The laughter part of the evening came at dinner. Dawn, another friend of the Jacksons, and her children were with us at the play and we all went out to dinner. There was a lot of fun conversation and laughter, especially when John (whose birthday was on March 7th, so this was a belated celebration) started singing a really funny version of the "Old MacDonald had a farm" song (Old MacDonald's Dysfunctional Farm), including parts about a dyslexic cow (that went oom/ohm instead of moo) and a sheep with narcolepsy that started snoring instead of baa-ing. I wish I could remember more, because it was hilarious (partly because of John's presentation). I tried looking for the lyrics but they aren't online, so I'll have to get them from John some time in the future.
There were lots of other funny conversations and exchanges - I started laughing so much my stomach hurt! Sarah's laughter is very contagious. So that was a lovely, memorable day. We always have a good time with the Jacksons, and I'm glad they are our friends.
Yesterday, we went to watch one of my favourite musicians/songwriters in concert. Billy Joel was in Atlanta again, so of course I had to be there. This time, he was performing with Elton John. It was a superb concert! I'm not so familiar with Elton John's earlier albums, but he was still fun to watch. Billy Joel was the highlight of the evening for me, though, and the two of them playing together on their pianos was the icing on the cake. (They played about ten songs together but each also peformed separately for about an hour, so it was actually three concerts in one.) That was such a fun night!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Frozen water!
It's been snowing for almost six hours - our big snowfall of the year! It rained most of yesterday and this morning, so the bulk of the snow melted as soon as it touched the ground when it first arrived, but there has been so much falling that some of it is actually settling and accumulating.
It never fails to amaze me how fluffy and dry snow looks from a distance. Then you get outdoors and remember that it's actually clumps and shavings of ice, not cotton wool. It's still fun to be in, though. Bruce and I went for a walk around the block with the dogs just now, because the snow was falling thick and fast. Belle did not look very pleased at first and hung back - I'm sure she thought we were insane! But then she seemed to decide that it was actually nice to be outdoors with the funny white stuff and perked up. We had planned to turn back when we reached the end of the street we were on, but Belle stopped and kept looking up at the next street, apparently feeling we hadn't enjoyed nature long enough. So on we went - except that this time, the snow was flying directly into our faces like kamikaze pilots in miniature ice planes. We were bombarded for a few minutes until we turned onto our street, then the snow was behind us once more and all was well with the world.
Right now, the streets are slushy but drivable. Tonight, however, temperatures are expected to drop below freezing, down to 27 Fahrenheit early tomorrow morning. That could mean ice on the roads, which in turn will mean a bunch of nervous motorists inching along and still managing to get into accidents.
But for now, the world is pretty and dreamlike.
Now I'm in the mood for ice kacang!
It never fails to amaze me how fluffy and dry snow looks from a distance. Then you get outdoors and remember that it's actually clumps and shavings of ice, not cotton wool. It's still fun to be in, though. Bruce and I went for a walk around the block with the dogs just now, because the snow was falling thick and fast. Belle did not look very pleased at first and hung back - I'm sure she thought we were insane! But then she seemed to decide that it was actually nice to be outdoors with the funny white stuff and perked up. We had planned to turn back when we reached the end of the street we were on, but Belle stopped and kept looking up at the next street, apparently feeling we hadn't enjoyed nature long enough. So on we went - except that this time, the snow was flying directly into our faces like kamikaze pilots in miniature ice planes. We were bombarded for a few minutes until we turned onto our street, then the snow was behind us once more and all was well with the world.
Right now, the streets are slushy but drivable. Tonight, however, temperatures are expected to drop below freezing, down to 27 Fahrenheit early tomorrow morning. That could mean ice on the roads, which in turn will mean a bunch of nervous motorists inching along and still managing to get into accidents.
But for now, the world is pretty and dreamlike.
Now I'm in the mood for ice kacang!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)