My "First World Problem"?

So, I know you're really interested in this...  It turns out that my "first world problem" (of the moment, at least) is the phrase "first world problem".

I doubt I could put together a strong argument for why I dislike it, but it just... irks me.

It reminds me of a teacher I had in elementary school who (at least once) chided a student (honestly can't remember if it was me or someone else) for saying s/he was "starving", before lunch.  She thought it was flippant and wrong to use the word "starving" to mean "hungry" when there were people out there really, truly starving.  Now, I understand what she meant-- and I guess her lesson worked on me, at least, because I don't think I ever say that I'm starving... But I don't know... I'm sure that the kid she "corrected" meant no harm, and I have some bad memories of adults coming down a little too hard on sensitive kids for saying/doing something harmless/without understanding that it could be taken the wrong way.  They don't realize how long those things stick with a person and the bad taste it leaves in your mouth, being made to feel guilty for something when you scarcely understand why.  (And yet I'll probably still do the same thing in my own interactions with children; it seems difficult to avoid, when you're trying to teach them how to behave and present themselves in society.  Oh well.)

Hm.  I got off on a tangent, there.  (g)

Back to my annoying elaboration on why I find "first world problems" irritating.

By the logic of "FWP" ("first world problems"), no-one should ever complain about anything, EVER, because, trust us, someone has had it worse.  While I agree that many of us ought to complain less about small problems-- make a joyful noise instead-- it's human nature to complain (for some, a larger part of our natures than for others).  It's one thing to be aware (and thankful) that you were fortunate enough to be born in a wealthy nation, to have had parents who took good care of you, to not have to worry about whether you'll have enough to eat tonight.  It's another to obsess about it to the point that you can't make an everyday comment on something that's frustrating you in your daily life without feeling that you have to put a disclaimer at the end of it.

Some people use FWP as some sort of excuse to make themselves feel better (I guess?) about themselves.  "Yeah, I'm complaining about relatively small problems in my average-to-luxurious life, but I'm gonna put this 'first world problem' tag right here at the beginning or end of my complaint so that you'll know that I know that it's not really a big deal, and I should totally be happy to have this sort of problem... to sort of assuage my guilt about posting about it to begin with... Mmkay?"  

Yes, we know that when the grocery store stops carrying our favorite kind of chicken burritos, it's nowhere near the same level of problem faced by someone with a serious medical problem.  (Hint: That's why we never said it was the same sort of thing.)  But what kind of life is it if you have to feel guilty about commenting on any problem that isn't life-threatening?  Personally, I hate walking on eggshells.  If your problem is so trivial, perhaps you should reconsider writing about it in the first place.  Or go ahead and do write about it, like I am now.  Just don't make me watch you take a self-inflicted FWP guilt-trip in addition to reading your complaints. 

I wonder if people who frequently use the FWP tag are judging others who don't do so.  "That Michael is such a spoiled first-worlder.  Writing a whole blog entry about how hard it was to choose a vacuum cleaner from the eleventy-billion models available on-line!   She doesn't know how lucky she is!"  Would the handy-dandy FWP stamp redeem me, in their eyes?  ;o)  (No.  At this point, I know I am completely, utterly lost, as far as they're concerned.  Well, I would be if they were even reading this, which I trust they are not, since hardly anyone does.)

Most of the time I see people using it in a joking way.  I may even have thought it was funny the first time I saw it, but now?  It's been done to death, so please, find a new meme. 

(Note:  I've almost never seen anyone use FWP against someone else, though apparently some do, or have in the past.  That would be infuriating and well-deserving of a virtual smack-down.  No, it's bad enough when people use it-- somewhat jokingly-- as a commentary on something they themselves have just written.)

...On the other hand, in the grand scheme of things, it's not much to complain about.  Especially not while there are still people out there using the disgusting "FML" tag for every little irritant under the sun.  Out of cereal?  FML!  Broke a nail?  FML!   It's just wrong.

Whew!  ...Ok.  I'm all whined out!

...And yes, I know that being annoyed by irritatingly over-used "catch phrases" is such a First World Problem.

ETA:
I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that I cannot stand the modern, slangy (over)usage of the word "epic" (frequently presented in EPIC all-caps).  It seems like it is finally, mercifully fading in popularity, but for a while there, my eyes were at risk of a serious strain from all the violent rolling.

Found on Twitter

"Urban yodeling". 

Well, that term is new to me. 

It refers to the tendency of some singers (such as Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, and far too many people who think they can sing better than they actually can) to draw out (or "oscillate") notes-- excessively, some would say. 

Yes, I remember when I first noticed singers doing that.  I think Whitney Houston was the first I noticed (or rather, a girl in a talent show singing one of Houston's songs)-- and ever since it was popularized (in the 90s?), it's been a menace to my ears. 

Nope, not a big fan of the urban yodeling, I have to admit.  I don't think I can take much rural yodeling, either.  All yodeling seems like one of those things that are more fun to do than to listen to.

Philander / Meander & SNL

Two Random Things!

First Thing:

Since Donald doesn't make as many little mistakes with English as he did when I first met him (and those were more often mispronunciations than anything else-- "necktie" sounded like "necktee", for instance), the occasional little slip-up is all the more treasured. ;o)  This time, it was him using the word "philandering" when what he meant was "meandering".  Hey, that's a pretty impressive vocabulary for a non-native speaker!  But I'll still laugh (lovingly) at you when you refer to someone "philandering" through the woods (or however it was he was using the word). (g)


Second Thing:

Last weekend, we happened to catch a little Saturday Night Live.  Inevitably, the conversation turned to the topic of how unfunny most of it was-- and how they rarely fail to take a mediocre joke/gag (something that might elicit a tepid, murmured "heh" the first time 'round), then repeat it over and over again, beating the proverbial dead horse down to the molecular level... and then hitting it one more time, just to be sure.

Before, we've wondered if this level of "humor" is adopted because it's Saturday night and much of the target audience will have been drinking heavily and won't require anything that's actually, you know, funny to make them giddy or at least content to sit (passed out?) through the entire program...

But I think we've now come up with a better theory:  SNL is basically "Teletubbies" for adults.  Are you one of the lucky few who've never been subjected to "The Teletubbies"?  One of the most annoying things about that old kids' show is that they'll show a video clip (on one of the characters' tummy-TVs, of course)... and once it's finally over, you'll hear a chorus of children's voices-- or is the 'Tubsters themselves?-- demanding "Again! Again!" And here's the worst part:  They show the whole boring video clip again.  (Or something like that.  Forgive me if I've gotten it slightly wrong.  One of my goals in life is to watch as little "Teletubbies" as possible, so I may have missed some of its subtler nuances.)

...Anyway... This SNL thing of taking the same sad little scrap of a joke and playing it over and over and OVER again is pretty much just like that.  It's "Teletubbies" for adults.  Only... is there anyone out there who's honestly shouting, "Again! Again!" at his TV set?  Seriously?  For stuff like this?

Yes, I watch things over again, myself.  I reread favorite books, play the same song two or three times in a row... I like repeating favorite things as much as more than the next person (probably), but that only applies to things I really like and/or have found worth repeating.  Not silly jokes that weren't even funny the first time.

...I'm beginning to think that Saturday Night Live isn't aimed at people like me!  ;o)

Watch Your Mouth!

How did I miss this?

Joy Behar (of The View) thinks "Black Friday" is racist terminology.  (I'm sure she's not the first, but never mind.)

Yes, just like "Black Death" (aka the Plague), "niggardly", etc.  Mustn't forget "black hole", "black sheep", and "devil's food cake"!  Let's just re-write every word or phrase that could possibly be construed as racist, while we're at it.  Why not remove the words "white" and "black" from the language completely?  Henceforth, they shall be known as "Color A" and "Color B".  Oops.  No, that won't work either, because obviously A will be considered better than B, since it comes first in the alphabet and indicates a higher score in our system of grading. . . Oh well.  I give up.  Any suggestions from the rest of you?

When will people learn to consult a dictionary or encyclopedia before performing the Foot-in-Mouth maneuver? In this "always connected" day and age-- with all the information on the Internet only a click away-- it's hardly excusable.

More Tidbits

First, here's a message from your friendly neighborhood White House website:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Well, why are you just sitting there staring? Be a good American! Go tattletale-- err, spy-- um... Ha! There's no nice way to say this. Go inform against your friends, family, and neighbors-- strangers you may overhear on the street-- anyone who dares express an opinion in opposition to the standard White House line. Freedom of speech? Nah, that doesn't apply here. This health care issue is none of our business, really. We should just sit down, shut up, and trust that the glorious government has our best interests at heart and actually knows what it's doing this time.

. . . Yeah, right.

It seems like every week there's a new "I can't believe this is happening in America" moment.

(I'm very curious about what they plan to do about the "fishy" e-mails and such that may be reported to them. Use the information to calculate future talking points, of course, but will they also-- for instance-- be compiling lists of naughty non-"team player"-type persons? This feels awfully "fishy" to me.)

- - - - - - -

Earlier this week, while looking over Hobby Lobby's sales page, I noticed that they had devoted a large portion of the page to "Christmas Trim-A-Tree". I know stores keep pushing Christmas-related sales back a little earlier every year, but the first week of August? This is getting ridiculous. (Maybe Hobby Lobby has an all-year Christmas section. I haven't noticed. Even so, keeping holiday merchandise in stock is one thing; putting it prominently on sale is another.)

It makes sense to have a sale on Christmas craft supplies early in the year, because you need time to work on them, if you want them ready for display by December. However, everything mentioned in the ad-- ornaments, tinsel, garland, decorative treetops, and mini trees-- is already finished and ready to go. No crafting necessary. I can't imagine many people are in the mood to shop for Christmas decorations when it's still this hot and incredibly humid outdoors, but maybe it's therapeutic for them to pretend that it's almost winter...

- - - - - - -

The beadboard wainscoting in the breakfast room is all up. (Well, except for a small patch on the other side of the kitchen door, next to the refrigerator.) Yesterday, Donald started the caulking, and I guess that now it's time to paint. The wainscoting came primed, but it still needs a coat or two of white-- and while we're at it, we'll also freshen up some of the existing trim. (Otherwise, it wouldn't match. You don't often think about it, but one paint marked "white" is usually not the same color as another paint marked "white".)

Eventually, we'll have to make a final decision on the new color for the kitchen/breakfast room. Not that it has to be painted. The yellow is still perfectly livable, but paint is pretty cheap-- especially when you do the painting yourself-- and it's fun to get a fresh look every now and then.

We had narrowed our color choices down to two or three paint chips, with "Spa" being the favorite:

I still like that color, but we're not sure it's quite enough color. (Donald especially feels this way, and I have to agree that it is very faint. Actually, though, I think it looks darker in the sample above-- on this monitor, at least-- than it does on the paint chip taped to the wall...) So we pulled out the other paint chips for a second look, and now we're back to narrowing things down again.

There are so many appealing colors that it's almost impossible to choose just one!
Here's a sampling of the colors we're now considering:

As you can see, we've focused on a specific type of color-- a pale muted blue with a tendency toward aqua. You might describe it as a partially desaturated robin's-egg-esque blue. I think we'd be happy with any of these colors, but you can't help but feel that there's one magic tint hidden among them-- and that's the one you should go with. Now to figure out just which one it is...

Obsessive? No, not at all! This is merely what comes of having such a high color IQ! ;o)

- - - - - - -

To close, I leave you with this photo of "2 Iron On American Stickers" (made in China):

The British might be surprised to find that the Union Jack is "American"...

"I hope to hear from you shorty."

The sticklers among us may take comfort from a recent Canadian study that reveals that correct spelling does still count for something in the world.

Though I try to avoid particularly egregious spelling and grammatical mistakes in my own writing, I find myself less troubled than some seem to be by errors in the world around me. Now, don't get me wrong. I may notice them-- even mock them-- occasionally publicly chastise and reduce the offender to tears (ok, not really that last bit)-- but I don't get a nervous tick when I encounter a sign employing quotation marks to indicate emphasis ("Thank" You for Not Feeding the Animals... We "Appreciate" Our Customers...). (I'm more likely to laugh and wish I had the camera with me.)

However, I think most of us can agree that when you're typing up your resumé, you can afford the extra time and trouble of making sure you get things right. Well, rest assured that (in Canada, at least) we're not alone. The world as a whole may sometimes seem to be losing footing on the slippery slope down to you-know-where, but thank goodness we still have some standards!

Here's the story (from Reuters):

"A survey of 100 Canadian executives showed that more than a fifth of executives said a single typo on a resume or cover letter could cost a potential employee a job, while 28% said two mistakes would kill their chances.

"But 19% of the executives said they would still consider an applicant with four or more typos on their resume.

"Common mistakes include: ‘Dear Sir or Madman’, ‘I’m attacking my resume for you to review’, ‘Following is a grief overview of my skills’ and ‘Have a keen eye for derail.’"

(Hm... Well, we still have some standards, except for about 19% of the Canadian executives among us.)

Anyway, now to the real issue-- "Dear Sir or Madman"!!

...I might be tempted to hire that person as a writer just for the chance to do the proofreading!

"There's nothin' but videos here anymore!"

Yeah, sorry about that. One of these days, I'll probably write something more than video intros and outraged political snippets. Most likely. ;o)

In the meantime. . . Did you notice that I made some more videos? (g) Thumbnails for the three more recent are over there on the right-hand side of the screen (under "Most Recent Videos @ Vimeo").

I finally managed to render a second video of storm damage (from that particularly vicious storm we had in late March), and there are now three videos of Trixie playing with soap bubbles. Oh, and there's also one (still in queue, waiting to be "converted") where I strung together little bits we videoed* the last time we were in Fairhope (April 15th). So, that should keep you busy for a few minutes. ;o)

*"Videoed" looks distinctly wrong. What's a better alternative, though? "Video'd"? No... "Videoed" it is, then. Though, looking at the definition of "video", it seems that-- technically-- it might be the wrong verb to use, anyway. I guess I could write that I'm "recording" something. That's fine, but after a while, you begin to wish you had another word to spice things up a little. "Filming" would work, too, except that I'm not using film. It's digital. "I created a digital record of the moving image of Trixie popping bubbles." . . .Sometimes it's best to leave well enough alone and just write "videoed".

Keeping in practice. . .

Time to write another post, if only to keep in the habit.

- - - - -

Until this week, we had been having exceptionally mild weather with brief cold snaps, this season, but the local TV meteorologists are telling us that that's over (for a while, at least). It's certainly chilly, now. In fact, later on I need to go bundle up the few remaining bits of exposed pipe outside. I'm going to wait until I take the dogs in for a while, though. I hope that if Trixie doesn't see me messing with the various spigots around the yard, she'll be slower to notice and mess with them. A vain hope, perhaps, seeing as she's already developed a fascination with at least one of them.

- - - - -

Yesterday evening, I watched the 1998 film adaptation of Tess of the d'Urbervilles (the version with Justine Waddell as "Tess".) Having read the book before, I should've known better. The "dairy" segment of the film was beautiful (such lighting!), but the general trend of the story was much as I had remembered-- only worse. (I had forgotten precisely how it ended, so the last fifteen or twenty minutes were all but new to me.) Well, if nothing else, Thomas Hardy's depressing tales make me realize what a bed of roses my own life has been. . .

- - - - -

Today I cleaned out the "deep freezer" (aka "chest freezer"). It's not exactly an exhilarating job, what with fingers cold from removing ice and the race against potentially defrosting food, but it needed doing. Now I have a mental inventory of exactly what's in there, and I can definitively state that we needn't buy chicken for at least a month-- possibly two. Nor are we lacking for bread. I'm sure you will rest easier tonight, knowing that. ;o)

- - - - -

This strange story has been big in the local news for the past few days. It appears that an Indiana man (whose life was evidently falling apart) made a fake distress call from his small plane, parachuted to safety, and deliberately left his plane flying on autopilot, to fall wherever it may. It ended up in a residential area of Milton, FL-- but fortunately it didn't crash into a home. If it turns out that this guy did do this intentionally, he deserves to go straight to jail, and he ought to be on his knees thanking God that he didn't kill anyone with his abandoned toy.

- - - - -

Looking through the local story linked above, I can't help but wonder why so many journalists (of all people) don't know the basic rules of punctuation-- like, you know, where commas do and do not belong in a sentence.

If you're a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick-maker, I don't really expect you to know (or particularly care) about the language, beyond the bare minimum you need to get by in life. Ok, I'm going to go all school-teachery on you and point out that maybe you ought to care a little, if only because sooner or later you'll have to write something, and your (in)ability to do so with clarity affects how people perceive you. But even if a butcher writes "Spare Rib's - Buy 1 Get One Have Off", at least it doesn't affect his ability to cut, package, and sell meat (though he may lose some business if people don't understand his signage). In other words, it's not specifically part of his job description, so we tend to overlook his goofs. A journalist, on the other hand, really ought to make a point of learning how the language works. (Why, for instance, does that article start with "but"? It feels like we were late getting to the website, and we missed the first part of the story!)

Anyway. . . I guess I should be used to it by now, but come on! Please, folks, at least cut back on the randomly placed commas. You're embarrassing me! People are going to think we're all uneducated hicks, down here, and it's simply not true.

- - - - -

Well, that should be enough to keep the old digits from forgetting where all the letters are on the keyboard. ;o)

Gender Guesser

Note: This looks familiar, so I've probably seen it before. Whether I've gotten around to writing about it is another matter. It's unlikely to interest anyone but me, so don't hesitate to skip it. :o)

I happened upon a "Gender Guesser", recently. No, it's not based on appearance. (If it were, I'd be mightily offended. Read on to see why. (g)) I won't try to explain how it works (because I don't really know), but basically you plug a chunk of writing into this program, and it tries to guess whether the author is/was male or female. There's one "score" for formal writing and another for informal writing. It's an interesting concept, so of course I had to give it a try. (And then another. And another.)

First, I tried my last entry (barring the part where I briefly quoted someone else). Results for informal: weak female. (No, that doesn't mean that I lack strength or moral integrity. ;o) It indicates that, according to the program, my writing style registered as female, but not emphatically so.) The "score" was 1009 female vs. 828 male, to be precise.

(It strikes me as odd that the "formal" score for that same text scored as weak male, meaning if I'd written it for something other than a casual blog-- as an essay, for example-- they'd guess it was written by a male. I wonder why would that be. . .)

Next, I went one entry further back, to the story about the trials and tribulations of life with Trixie. Results for informal: 607 f to 1186 m, male. Formal: 744 f to 717 m, weak female.

I skipped a couple of entries, then, because they were under the recommended 300-word minimum. So next up was a bulleted list. Very informal. Informal score: 336 f vs. 644 m, male. (The formal score was weak male.)

(By now, I was obsessed, so I kept going, even though the notes on the Gender Guesser page indicate that numerous texts written by the same person are likely to yield similar results. (g))

Entry about Gustav, Trixie and car tags:
Informal: 1120 f vs 1573 m, weak male
Formal: 941 f vs 846 m, weak female

"Disconnected Thoughts" entry:
Informal: 855 f vs 1271 m, weak male
Formal: 693 f vs 653 m, weak female

"Pupdate" entry:
Informal: 589 f vs. 588 m, weak female
Formal: 777 f vs. 416 m, female

"Random / what else is new" entry:
Informal: 3078 f vs 3606 m, weak male
Formal: 1947 f vs. 2230 m, weak male

So. . . Most of my "informal" results are male (albeit a weak male ;o)), while the "formal" results tend more toward weak female. Either my "informal" writing style should be classified as "formal" or I have a somewhat masculine style of writing.

Then there's the whole European English vs. American English element: "In general, if the difference between male and female weight values is not significant (a "weak" score), then the author could be European." Of course, obviously I'm not European, so. . . (shrug)

There's also this: "Professional female writers (and experienced hobbyists) frequently use male writing styles." I'm by no means a professional writer, but maybe I qualify as an experienced hobbyist.

Anyway, however unreliable it may be, the program served as a nice little amusement. :o)

Booking Through Thursday: Vocabulary

This week's Booking Through Thursday relates to vocabulary:

I’ve always wondered what other people do when they come across a word/phrase that they’ve never heard before. I mean, do they jot it down on paper so they can look it up later, or do they stop reading to look it up on the dictionary/google it or do they just continue reading and forget about the word?

When I was younger and more enthusiastic about scholarly pursuits, I was more likely than I am now to immediately stop and look it up.

(Back then, that meant going to the dictionary or the family encyclopedia rather than "googling" it. It's not that I'm "old"-- I'm not even thirty, yet-- but rather it's an indication of how drastically our world has changed in the last twenty years. Several years ago, some of the eighth graders I was working with had no idea how to use an encyclopedia! A few seemed confused by even the simple process of alphabetization. Of course, how much of that was due to a change in technology rather than individual ignorance is up for debate. . .)

These days, whether or not I stop to look up something (or on a very rare occasion, write it down and look it up later) depends on a variety of factors, including the following:

• Whether or not I can get the gist of the meaning from context clues. If I'm completely stumped, I'm less likely to ignore it and continue reading.
  
• How "into" the story I am. The more engaging the story, the less willing I am to pause.
  
• How often the word or phrase occurs. If it keeps cropping up, I'm more likely to stop and research it. (Of course, I'm also less likely to want to continue reading the book at all, if the author repeatedly uses the same exact word or phrase. That's one of my pet peeves. You're an author; invest in a thesaurus, for goodness' sake!)
• How personally interesting I find the word/phrase. If it "sounds good" to me, I'm more likely to take the time to look into it.
  

I suppose stopping and looking things up is almost the only way we improve our vocabularies, once we leave the classroom. Obviously it's good for us to continue to learn, but I also feel that an author who continually forces his/her readers to stop and reach for the dictionary (or the keyboard) is running a certain risk. Every distraction takes away from the story, I think. Besides, people don't like to be "talked down to". If I feel that the author is more interested in flaunting how many thirteen-letter words he knows than in weaving a good tale, I'm not impressed.