Feb 9, 2010
1) When you quickly ‘nip out’ in front of a great big moving tram that is five metres away from flattening you, you do not look inconspicuous, you do in fact look like a frightened bird about to get smashed by a bulldozer.
2) To all the people crowded (in this context, six or more is a crowd) around the door when the rest of the standing room is empty – the people in the seats don’t bite.
3) To the loud-mouthed man trying to squeeze on to the step of a crowded tram, shouting ‘Could people please move down the tram?’ – you may be in the right (see point 2), but you are still an arrogant tool.
4) It may be petty, but there is a small sense of satisfaction to be had when the person behind sharply says ‘Excuse me’, only to realise a second later their command was completely superfluous because you (and twenty others) are getting out at the same stop as them.
5) If there are only five people on a tram, why is there a need for a stranger to sit next to me? Are they lonely? Do they need comfort?
6) Perhaps I have my headphones in so I don’t have to listen to you – did you ever think of that?!
7) Why do so few people know the Golden Rule of tram-catching? If you have a) been waiting five minutes or more for a tram and b) two come at once and c) they are both going past your destination and d) it is a time of day when people tend to catch the tram, then you should always, always catch the second one. The first one is likely to have people sitting on each other’s shoulders, while you’ll be able to swing a set of shopping bags around the second one. (On second thought: maybe this should be kept a secret…)
Showing posts with label John Doe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Doe. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
The "John Doe" Posts No. 5 - Gluttony: The Melbournian Beer Hierarchy
Feb 3, 2010
Group One: Beers that can not be surpassed
1. Obscure beer drunk in small bar overseas that no-one can ever prove/disprove what it tastes like
Group Two: Credibility gainers and conversation starters
2. Beers from Victorian microbreweries (preferably close to your home, so that you can claim local knowledge) – e.g. Mountain Goat, Grand Ridge, 3 Ravens
3. Imported beers that nobody else at your table has seen before tonight
4. Beers from interstate microbreweries (preferably regional), and lesser known Matilda Bay beers – e.g. Bohemian, Dogbolter
Group Three: Generally acceptable choices
5. Little Creatures (too well-known to be considered a microbrewery)
6. Imported beers that are major exports but which you wouldn’t see advertised here – e.g. Quilmes, Erdinger
7. More commonly known Matilda Bay beers – e.g. Redback, Fat Yak
8. More commonly known imported beers – e.g. Corona, Asahi, Hoegaarden
9. Coopers (yes, despite it being from South Australia)
10. Crown Lager
11. Cascade/James Boag’s
Group Four: Acceptable if only beer available or only beer available on tap
12. Heineken, Becks
13. Carlton Draught
Group Five: Drink at the peril of your beer-swilling credibility
14. Victoria Bitter
15. Melbourne Bitter
16. Foster’s
17. Toohey’s New, XXXX, West End, Emu.
Group One: Beers that can not be surpassed
1. Obscure beer drunk in small bar overseas that no-one can ever prove/disprove what it tastes like
Group Two: Credibility gainers and conversation starters
2. Beers from Victorian microbreweries (preferably close to your home, so that you can claim local knowledge) – e.g. Mountain Goat, Grand Ridge, 3 Ravens
3. Imported beers that nobody else at your table has seen before tonight
4. Beers from interstate microbreweries (preferably regional), and lesser known Matilda Bay beers – e.g. Bohemian, Dogbolter
Group Three: Generally acceptable choices
5. Little Creatures (too well-known to be considered a microbrewery)
6. Imported beers that are major exports but which you wouldn’t see advertised here – e.g. Quilmes, Erdinger
7. More commonly known Matilda Bay beers – e.g. Redback, Fat Yak
8. More commonly known imported beers – e.g. Corona, Asahi, Hoegaarden
9. Coopers (yes, despite it being from South Australia)
10. Crown Lager
11. Cascade/James Boag’s
Group Four: Acceptable if only beer available or only beer available on tap
12. Heineken, Becks
13. Carlton Draught
Group Five: Drink at the peril of your beer-swilling credibility
14. Victoria Bitter
15. Melbourne Bitter
16. Foster’s
17. Toohey’s New, XXXX, West End, Emu.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The "John Doe" Posts No. 4 - Sloth: The Philosophers’ Guide to Ways in Which To Prioritize Your Life
Jan 31, 2010
The Epicurean Way: Do those things which bring you most pleasure.
The Stoic Way: Do those things which need to be done and suck it up.
The Cartesian Way: Do those things which can not be thought or imagined away.
The Machiavellian Way: Do over others before they do over you.
The Positivist Way: Let Task 1 = x, and Task 2 = y, if x then y.
The Nietzschean Way: Do whatever the hell you want to.
The Augustinian Way: Do whatever the hell you want to, but God is right to punish you for it.
The Hobbesian Way: Do whatever the hell you want to, but your leader is right to punish you for it.
The Existentialist Way: Do whatever the hell you want to, but it doesn’t mean anything.
The Zen Way: Do and not do - it’s not about the doing at all.
The Taoist Way: The Way is neither doing or not doing.
The Heideggerian Way: Who is doing what now?
The Postmodernist Way: Doing is so last millennium.
The Skeptics’ Way: Find a reason not to do anything.
The Epicurean Way: Do those things which bring you most pleasure.
The Stoic Way: Do those things which need to be done and suck it up.
The Cartesian Way: Do those things which can not be thought or imagined away.
The Machiavellian Way: Do over others before they do over you.
The Positivist Way: Let Task 1 = x, and Task 2 = y, if x then y.
The Nietzschean Way: Do whatever the hell you want to.
The Augustinian Way: Do whatever the hell you want to, but God is right to punish you for it.
The Hobbesian Way: Do whatever the hell you want to, but your leader is right to punish you for it.
The Existentialist Way: Do whatever the hell you want to, but it doesn’t mean anything.
The Zen Way: Do and not do - it’s not about the doing at all.
The Taoist Way: The Way is neither doing or not doing.
The Heideggerian Way: Who is doing what now?
The Postmodernist Way: Doing is so last millennium.
The Skeptics’ Way: Find a reason not to do anything.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The "John Doe" Posts No.3 - Envy: The Consolations (or not) of 'The Black Swan'
Jan 22, 2010
In Nassem Nicholas Taleb’s ‘The Black Swan’, in a chapter called ‘Giacomo Casanova’s Unfailing Luck’, he points out the inevitable narrative bias in the stories that we read. Taleb relates how ‘Casanova felt that every time he got into difficulties, his lucky star… would pull him out of trouble’. But Casanova’s luck, it is argued, should not necessarily be seen as evidence that destiny favoured him above all others. Rather, out of all the ‘risk-takers’ in history who got themselves into scrape after scrape, there is going to be someone (or a few someones) that will pretty much always get out of them. And the stories we read will be written by these winners (the losers may well not live to tell their tales), who will attribute their success to their cunning, their charm, or their outlook on life, and pretty much anything besides their dumb luck in being one of the fortunate survivors.
Another example that Taleb gives are the books written by self-made millionaires providing tips and insights into how they made their dough. They will talk about what happened to them, and then make the generalisation that, if others only follow the same steps, they will get the same result. What they don’t see is that many other people with similar attributes did not turn out to have the same extraordinary level of success (while some were even miserable failures), because very few people want to read about those who did not succeed.
This line of reasoning potentially provides some consolation as to why you may be an excellent writer, musician, or stock market speculator and still, no matter how hard you try, not have the world at your feet. Or does it? The problem is that what Taleb calls the ‘narrative fallacy’ is so widespread that you will have a hard time convincing those smug, successful stock market speculators (or conversely, those who were abject failures) that their position in life is due in large part to blind luck. No doubt many of them will say you are making excuses for your lack of similar success. And they may well be right to an extent, but not as right as they think. In that case, if you want to wipe the smile off their face, perhaps the best you can do is hope that their dose of bad luck is just around the corner.
In Nassem Nicholas Taleb’s ‘The Black Swan’, in a chapter called ‘Giacomo Casanova’s Unfailing Luck’, he points out the inevitable narrative bias in the stories that we read. Taleb relates how ‘Casanova felt that every time he got into difficulties, his lucky star… would pull him out of trouble’. But Casanova’s luck, it is argued, should not necessarily be seen as evidence that destiny favoured him above all others. Rather, out of all the ‘risk-takers’ in history who got themselves into scrape after scrape, there is going to be someone (or a few someones) that will pretty much always get out of them. And the stories we read will be written by these winners (the losers may well not live to tell their tales), who will attribute their success to their cunning, their charm, or their outlook on life, and pretty much anything besides their dumb luck in being one of the fortunate survivors.
Another example that Taleb gives are the books written by self-made millionaires providing tips and insights into how they made their dough. They will talk about what happened to them, and then make the generalisation that, if others only follow the same steps, they will get the same result. What they don’t see is that many other people with similar attributes did not turn out to have the same extraordinary level of success (while some were even miserable failures), because very few people want to read about those who did not succeed.
This line of reasoning potentially provides some consolation as to why you may be an excellent writer, musician, or stock market speculator and still, no matter how hard you try, not have the world at your feet. Or does it? The problem is that what Taleb calls the ‘narrative fallacy’ is so widespread that you will have a hard time convincing those smug, successful stock market speculators (or conversely, those who were abject failures) that their position in life is due in large part to blind luck. No doubt many of them will say you are making excuses for your lack of similar success. And they may well be right to an extent, but not as right as they think. In that case, if you want to wipe the smile off their face, perhaps the best you can do is hope that their dose of bad luck is just around the corner.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The "John Doe" Posts No.2 - And God Bespoke
Jan 16, 2010
The term ‘bespoke’, used in Britain, is (according to Uncle Wiki) derived from the verb bespeak, meaning ‘to speak for something’, and is used to refer to items that are made according to a particular buyer’s specifications. I became familiar with the term from reading the UK version of Esquire magazine, which primarily used it in relation to suits. A writer for Esquire claims that a bespoke suit helps ‘you achieve the perfect figure’ and ‘moves like a second skin’ (Esquire, Jan 2008, p. 141). The magazine then devotes several more pages to suggesting that one’s whole wardrobe be bespoken, including shirts, ties, shoes, sweaters, and even one’s scent.
But why stop there? Surely there are other items in life that one would like to have made to one’s exact specifications or to express who they really are? Here are at least five examples that I can think of that would be ripe for bespoking:
Bespoke desktop computer – Mine would have tightly fit, absorbent keys to protect it from crumbs and errant beverages. I would also want a monitor that instantly vanishes whenever someone attempts to peep at my screen and a function that automatically saves documents every ten seconds to save my paranoid self from doing so. Oh, and I’d need an Ana Ivanovic screensaver too.
Bespoke car – To truly express my attitude towards driving I would have my car do all my driving for me while I sat back and drank margaritas, and have it fitted out with mechanical arms with permanently raised middle fingers.
Bespoke Christmas tree – All layers of the tree should start at my chest level so as to facilitate the easy hanging of baubles (hence, saving my already 50 year-old back), and then be raised and lowered as required. This latter function would also allow my somewhat shorter partner to complete most of the festive decorating.
Bespoke theme music – I reckon some ‘Morning Glory’ by Oasis when I woke up (won’t the neighbours love that?), followed by some Grizzly Bear for when I’m walking to work, particularly if there’s some light rain, otherwise maybe Peter Gabriel’s ‘Solsbury Hill’, Radiohead is appropriate for pretty much any situation in the workplace (‘Paranoid Android’, ‘Everything In Its Right Place’, ‘A Wolf At The Door’, etc.), and then when I go out, I’ll choose whatever is the hit single from whatever album I bought in the past four days. Yes, I know I could just play all these songs on my iPod, but everyone should have to listen to and appreciate my musical taste, dammit!
Bespoke nose – To fit the specifications of my face.
The term ‘bespoke’, used in Britain, is (according to Uncle Wiki) derived from the verb bespeak, meaning ‘to speak for something’, and is used to refer to items that are made according to a particular buyer’s specifications. I became familiar with the term from reading the UK version of Esquire magazine, which primarily used it in relation to suits. A writer for Esquire claims that a bespoke suit helps ‘you achieve the perfect figure’ and ‘moves like a second skin’ (Esquire, Jan 2008, p. 141). The magazine then devotes several more pages to suggesting that one’s whole wardrobe be bespoken, including shirts, ties, shoes, sweaters, and even one’s scent.
But why stop there? Surely there are other items in life that one would like to have made to one’s exact specifications or to express who they really are? Here are at least five examples that I can think of that would be ripe for bespoking:
Bespoke desktop computer – Mine would have tightly fit, absorbent keys to protect it from crumbs and errant beverages. I would also want a monitor that instantly vanishes whenever someone attempts to peep at my screen and a function that automatically saves documents every ten seconds to save my paranoid self from doing so. Oh, and I’d need an Ana Ivanovic screensaver too.
Bespoke car – To truly express my attitude towards driving I would have my car do all my driving for me while I sat back and drank margaritas, and have it fitted out with mechanical arms with permanently raised middle fingers.
Bespoke Christmas tree – All layers of the tree should start at my chest level so as to facilitate the easy hanging of baubles (hence, saving my already 50 year-old back), and then be raised and lowered as required. This latter function would also allow my somewhat shorter partner to complete most of the festive decorating.
Bespoke theme music – I reckon some ‘Morning Glory’ by Oasis when I woke up (won’t the neighbours love that?), followed by some Grizzly Bear for when I’m walking to work, particularly if there’s some light rain, otherwise maybe Peter Gabriel’s ‘Solsbury Hill’, Radiohead is appropriate for pretty much any situation in the workplace (‘Paranoid Android’, ‘Everything In Its Right Place’, ‘A Wolf At The Door’, etc.), and then when I go out, I’ll choose whatever is the hit single from whatever album I bought in the past four days. Yes, I know I could just play all these songs on my iPod, but everyone should have to listen to and appreciate my musical taste, dammit!
Bespoke nose – To fit the specifications of my face.
The "John Doe" Posts No.1 - Greed: In Appreciation of Scrooge McDuck or 'Scrooge and Society'
Over the next several weeks, I will reproduce on this site the "John Doe" posts that I wrote for the seemingly-defunct Sins Weekly blog. As you will see, each of the posts was based on one of the seven deadly sins. Enjoy! - TW
Jan 7, 2010
In an interview in ’93, comic book writer/artist Don Rosa talked about the first appearance of Uncle Scrooge and the scene in that issue which, to him, ‘just seemed to perfectly crystallize the personality’ of Scrooge McDuck. This scene, Rosa argued, indicated that the reason Scrooge wanted all his money wasn’t greed at all. As his nephew Donald is leaving he says that, “You may not know it, Uncle Scrooge, but for all your money you’re only a poor old man.” The next panel shows Scrooge wondering if Donald may be right, and then he replies, “No man is poor who can do what he likes to do! And I like to dive in my money like a porpoise. And burrow in it like a gopher. And toss it up in the air and let it hit me on the head!” Rosa suggests that perhaps Scrooge’s words meant more to him than anything in his life, as it showed that ‘you’re not poor as long as you can do what you dream about.’ (Advance Comics, Number 54, June 1993, p.24)
Recently I’ve been involved in editing an article on social inclusion, which is essentially the idea of providing people with the resources, rights and opportunities to engage in society. The case of Scrooge McDuck though presents an intellectual quandary to social inclusion theorists. Scrooge has all the resources he could ever need, yet has little interest in interacting with his fellow man (or duck, as the case may be). And yet he’s perfectly happy to keep it that way. Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud (1999) struggled with the notion of whether the concept of social exclusion should be extended to those who choose not to participate in society (Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud, Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-95, Social Policy and Administration, Vol.33(1), p.227-44.). Their concern was that while the individual may prefer to spend their days sitting alone in their mansion staring angrily over their spectacles, it may not be a positive thing for society as a whole. In the end they basically create two different definitions of ‘social exclusion’, one in which voluntary exclusion is a problem and one in which it isn’t, and they concentrate their efforts on exploring the former.
But the other issue here is who the exclusion is really a problem for? Not for Scrooge I think – maybe the Dickensian version had his Christmas epiphany, but the whole point of the passage above, as Rosa understood it, is that his feathered successor wouldn’t change a thing. Really the concern here seems to be that others could benefit if the Scrooge McDucks of this world cared more about what was going on outside their money bins. But if all those who wanted to be included in society could do so without Scrooge’s help, would we really care about what that crazy old bird did? I suspect not. In other words, Scrooge’s inclusion in society would be a means to an end, but not an end in itself. Tax him for all he’s worth sure, if that’s how you think those ends can be achieved, but when all is said and done perhaps Scrooge’s preferred attitude towards society is to reject it. And, you know what, que sera sera ... not everyone wants to be a Donald, and maybe very few people want to be a Scrooge, but surely a fully functioning society is big enough to accommodate both of them… isn’t it?
Jan 7, 2010
In an interview in ’93, comic book writer/artist Don Rosa talked about the first appearance of Uncle Scrooge and the scene in that issue which, to him, ‘just seemed to perfectly crystallize the personality’ of Scrooge McDuck. This scene, Rosa argued, indicated that the reason Scrooge wanted all his money wasn’t greed at all. As his nephew Donald is leaving he says that, “You may not know it, Uncle Scrooge, but for all your money you’re only a poor old man.” The next panel shows Scrooge wondering if Donald may be right, and then he replies, “No man is poor who can do what he likes to do! And I like to dive in my money like a porpoise. And burrow in it like a gopher. And toss it up in the air and let it hit me on the head!” Rosa suggests that perhaps Scrooge’s words meant more to him than anything in his life, as it showed that ‘you’re not poor as long as you can do what you dream about.’ (Advance Comics, Number 54, June 1993, p.24)
Recently I’ve been involved in editing an article on social inclusion, which is essentially the idea of providing people with the resources, rights and opportunities to engage in society. The case of Scrooge McDuck though presents an intellectual quandary to social inclusion theorists. Scrooge has all the resources he could ever need, yet has little interest in interacting with his fellow man (or duck, as the case may be). And yet he’s perfectly happy to keep it that way. Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud (1999) struggled with the notion of whether the concept of social exclusion should be extended to those who choose not to participate in society (Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud, Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-95, Social Policy and Administration, Vol.33(1), p.227-44.). Their concern was that while the individual may prefer to spend their days sitting alone in their mansion staring angrily over their spectacles, it may not be a positive thing for society as a whole. In the end they basically create two different definitions of ‘social exclusion’, one in which voluntary exclusion is a problem and one in which it isn’t, and they concentrate their efforts on exploring the former.
But the other issue here is who the exclusion is really a problem for? Not for Scrooge I think – maybe the Dickensian version had his Christmas epiphany, but the whole point of the passage above, as Rosa understood it, is that his feathered successor wouldn’t change a thing. Really the concern here seems to be that others could benefit if the Scrooge McDucks of this world cared more about what was going on outside their money bins. But if all those who wanted to be included in society could do so without Scrooge’s help, would we really care about what that crazy old bird did? I suspect not. In other words, Scrooge’s inclusion in society would be a means to an end, but not an end in itself. Tax him for all he’s worth sure, if that’s how you think those ends can be achieved, but when all is said and done perhaps Scrooge’s preferred attitude towards society is to reject it. And, you know what, que sera sera ... not everyone wants to be a Donald, and maybe very few people want to be a Scrooge, but surely a fully functioning society is big enough to accommodate both of them… isn’t it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)