I'm....
I just....
I don't....
I'm sorry if I seem a bit incoherent at the moment. It's just ... have you ever read something that inspired so many thoughts and emotions you didn't quite know which one to follow? That's the way I feel right now.
I mean, how am I supposed to react when Time freaking Magazine runs a story on its web page about the growing trend in Japan that involves using a cell phone application to fight public train groping?
I don't mean groping public trains, obviously. I mean ... well, you know what I mean.
How do I react to the news that Japan, a country with a reputation for good manners, apparently finds itself the victim of a happy hands epidemic?
Should I be concerned it's become so difficult for Japanese women to keep their private parts private that many have turned to technology for an answer?
Should I worry that interpersonal skills have degraded to the point someone would rely on the assistance of a cell phone in a situation when a more direct response seems called for?
Should I hop a plane to Tokyo to find out just how effective this new kind of hands-free phone is?
I honestly don't know.
Here's the thing. According to Time this so-called "Anti-groping appli," released in late 2005, has recently climbed to No. 7 on the list of most popular cell phone applications. The free, downloadable program works by flashing what Time describes as a series of increasingly threatening messages from the gropee to the groper. The messages progress from, "Excuse me, did you just grope me?" (Does anyone ever actually admit this?) to "Groping is a crime." To "Shall we head to the police?"
There is not, so far as I can tell, a message that reads, "You want to keep those fingers, buddy?"
A "warning chime" accompanies each message, and users can advance from one to the next by hitting a button labeled "anger."
In other words, Japanese women are responding to blatant violations of their personal space with a chime, possibly the least threatening warning sound ever.
Citing numbers from the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Time reports that 1,853 people were arrested in 2005 for groping passengers on trains in Tokyo. Experts (in groping? In trains? It's not clear) say the actual number of incidents in which passengers are harassed is much higher, but women are embarrassed to report them.
I respect Japanese culture. I really do. It's given us reliable hybrid cars and dancing robots and cartoons about adorable creatures that fight to the death. But there are certain situations that call for good, old-fashioned American directness. Women shouldn't be embarrassed about getting groped. They should be ticked off. Not button-pushing, chime-ringing ticked off, either. I'm talking about in-your-face, call-attention-to-the-creepy-guy, "Buddy, your hand better not be where I think it is," angry.
Dealing with subway gropers doesn't call for an anger button. It calls for a button that makes a giant boot pop out of the top of the phone and kick the mister grabby hands somewhere that will get his attention a whole lot faster than a digital threat to call the cops.
Now that's some useful technology.
----------------
Now playing: Radiohead - Bodysnatchers
via FoxyTunes
Friday, October 26, 2007
@%*&#!
This is a big week for swearing-related news. Turns out, letting loose with a few choice expletives every now and then has certain benefits and certain drawbacks.
The week's better news for fans of blue language comes from the University of East Anglia, which reported earlier this week that, far from being inappropriate, spewing the occasional four-letter word in the workplace can benefit everyone by reducing stress and helping people get along. Because who hasn't felt better about their co-workers after letting loose with a long string of obscenities?
Randomly cursing at a computer when it won't print the document you want isn't causing a disruption, says the study, published in a recent edition of Leadership and Organisational Develop-ment Journal (Darn, and I just let my subscription lapse.). It's blowing off steam.
"In many cases, taboo language serves the needs of people for developing and maintaining solidarity, and as a mechanism to cope with stress," Barach told England's Sun newspaper. "Banning it could backfire."
Basically, the co-workers who curse together stay together.
Finally, a f***ing management style I can get behind.
Baruch seems to believe swearing at work is simply too common to control.
"Employees use swearing on a continuous basis, but not necessarily in a negative, abusive manner," he said. Apparently there is a way to swear in a positive, nurturing manner. "I love you, you little @#!*."
Though it is never specified, I can only assume the University of East Anglia has a lot of sailors on the payroll and that Baruch and Jenkins conducted the bulk of their research in the locker rooms of professional sports teams.
The news isn't all good on the pottymouth front, though. While swearing at work is apparently all the rage across the pond, in Pennsylvania the occasional curse word aimed at a malfunctioning potty can land you in jail.
According to web site ananova.com a West Scranton resident faces the possibility of up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $300 after her neighbor, a police officer, heard her swearing at an overflowing toilet. The police officer asked the woman to quiet down. When she didn't, he reported her.
I have to be honest, if this is the kind of trouble you can get in for swearing at inanimate objects in the privacy of your own home I just might go away from life.
For the record, the woman said she doesn't remember exactly what she said to her backflowing porcelain throne but admits she was frustrated and might have used some off-color language. She is fighting the charge with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"You can't prosecute somebody for swearing at a cop or a toilet," ACLU representative Mary Catherine Roper told the Times-Tribune.
Darn tootin'.
----------------
Now playing: Mazzy Star - Bells Ring
via FoxyTunes
The week's better news for fans of blue language comes from the University of East Anglia, which reported earlier this week that, far from being inappropriate, spewing the occasional four-letter word in the workplace can benefit everyone by reducing stress and helping people get along. Because who hasn't felt better about their co-workers after letting loose with a long string of obscenities?
Randomly cursing at a computer when it won't print the document you want isn't causing a disruption, says the study, published in a recent edition of Leadership and Organisational Develop-ment Journal (Darn, and I just let my subscription lapse.). It's blowing off steam.
"In many cases, taboo language serves the needs of people for developing and maintaining solidarity, and as a mechanism to cope with stress," Barach told England's Sun newspaper. "Banning it could backfire."
Basically, the co-workers who curse together stay together.
Finally, a f***ing management style I can get behind.
Baruch seems to believe swearing at work is simply too common to control.
"Employees use swearing on a continuous basis, but not necessarily in a negative, abusive manner," he said. Apparently there is a way to swear in a positive, nurturing manner. "I love you, you little @#!*."
Though it is never specified, I can only assume the University of East Anglia has a lot of sailors on the payroll and that Baruch and Jenkins conducted the bulk of their research in the locker rooms of professional sports teams.
The news isn't all good on the pottymouth front, though. While swearing at work is apparently all the rage across the pond, in Pennsylvania the occasional curse word aimed at a malfunctioning potty can land you in jail.
According to web site ananova.com a West Scranton resident faces the possibility of up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $300 after her neighbor, a police officer, heard her swearing at an overflowing toilet. The police officer asked the woman to quiet down. When she didn't, he reported her.
I have to be honest, if this is the kind of trouble you can get in for swearing at inanimate objects in the privacy of your own home I just might go away from life.
For the record, the woman said she doesn't remember exactly what she said to her backflowing porcelain throne but admits she was frustrated and might have used some off-color language. She is fighting the charge with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"You can't prosecute somebody for swearing at a cop or a toilet," ACLU representative Mary Catherine Roper told the Times-Tribune.
Darn tootin'.
----------------
Now playing: Mazzy Star - Bells Ring
via FoxyTunes
If you don’t read this column....
Back when I was spending my junior year of high school in Sweden there was a series of ads for self-adhesive bandages — they might have been Band-Aids, they might have been some Scandinavian equivalent that users had to assemble themselves with an allen wrench; I can't be sure — that featured adorable young children about to suffer some kind of misfortune.
One adorable moppet, no doubt blonde-haired and blue-eyed as adorable Swedish children tend to be, was about to step barefoot onto a piece of broken glass. Another was on the verge of scraping himself on a nail or some other such sharp, menacing object.
The tagline on these ads, roughly translated, was, "Accidents happen so easily."
I always found them immensely disturbing. Why, I wondered, do the advertising efforts of Sweden's bandage industry sound so much like they were written by a low-level mobster running a protection racket.
"That's a real nice kid you got there," these Nordic bandage thugs seemed to be telling potential customers. "Be a shame if something happened to him."
Is the Scandinavian Mob (The Møb?) really so heavily invested in the home healthcare industry?
That could be, I suppose. But I'm starting to suspect there's more to it than a cunning crime syndicate that wants to both break your thumbs and sell you splints to set them with. I realize now that vaguely threatening advertisements involving children are far more common than I realized.
Take my trip out West earlier this year. I mentioned this a few months ago, but it seems worth bringing up again, if only because it was seriously creepy. Somewhere in Montana there was a billboard that featured a stark, black-and-white picture of a young boy aiming a firearm at the camera. "If he doesn't believe in God," the tagline read, "will he believe in you?"
In other words, take your kid to church or he'll shoot you in the face.
Then there's the ad I saw Wednesday night. The one that brought this all back to mind. It features a woman getting ready for what appears to be a night on the town. Her daughter, presumably about to be left behind with a babysitter while Mom and Dad whoop it up, is playing dress-up along with Mommy. They're laughing. They appear to be having the kind of happy mother-daughter moment they’ll both treasure in their later years. But then Mom does something terrible. She puts some lipstick on, then turns to apply a little to her daughter's lips. Meanwhile, an ominous-sounding voice-over warns us that if we adults fail to get our flu shots, "You're not just fluin' yourself."
Awful puns aside, I'm not convinced this is really the best way to push flu immunization. I'm not sure a message like, "Get immunized or BIRD FLU WILL KILL YOUR CHILDREN!" really makes me want to rush out to the clinic. Mostly it makes me want to lock myself in my bedroom and not come out until spring.
I’d do it, too. But I'm afraid there's something sharp in there. And accidents happen so easily.
----------------
Now playing: Radiohead - The Tourist
via FoxyTunes
One adorable moppet, no doubt blonde-haired and blue-eyed as adorable Swedish children tend to be, was about to step barefoot onto a piece of broken glass. Another was on the verge of scraping himself on a nail or some other such sharp, menacing object.
The tagline on these ads, roughly translated, was, "Accidents happen so easily."
I always found them immensely disturbing. Why, I wondered, do the advertising efforts of Sweden's bandage industry sound so much like they were written by a low-level mobster running a protection racket.
"That's a real nice kid you got there," these Nordic bandage thugs seemed to be telling potential customers. "Be a shame if something happened to him."
Is the Scandinavian Mob (The Møb?) really so heavily invested in the home healthcare industry?
That could be, I suppose. But I'm starting to suspect there's more to it than a cunning crime syndicate that wants to both break your thumbs and sell you splints to set them with. I realize now that vaguely threatening advertisements involving children are far more common than I realized.
Take my trip out West earlier this year. I mentioned this a few months ago, but it seems worth bringing up again, if only because it was seriously creepy. Somewhere in Montana there was a billboard that featured a stark, black-and-white picture of a young boy aiming a firearm at the camera. "If he doesn't believe in God," the tagline read, "will he believe in you?"
In other words, take your kid to church or he'll shoot you in the face.
Then there's the ad I saw Wednesday night. The one that brought this all back to mind. It features a woman getting ready for what appears to be a night on the town. Her daughter, presumably about to be left behind with a babysitter while Mom and Dad whoop it up, is playing dress-up along with Mommy. They're laughing. They appear to be having the kind of happy mother-daughter moment they’ll both treasure in their later years. But then Mom does something terrible. She puts some lipstick on, then turns to apply a little to her daughter's lips. Meanwhile, an ominous-sounding voice-over warns us that if we adults fail to get our flu shots, "You're not just fluin' yourself."
Awful puns aside, I'm not convinced this is really the best way to push flu immunization. I'm not sure a message like, "Get immunized or BIRD FLU WILL KILL YOUR CHILDREN!" really makes me want to rush out to the clinic. Mostly it makes me want to lock myself in my bedroom and not come out until spring.
I’d do it, too. But I'm afraid there's something sharp in there. And accidents happen so easily.
----------------
Now playing: Radiohead - The Tourist
via FoxyTunes
Friday, October 05, 2007
Up in smoke
Boy, did I choose the wrong week to start smoking.
Just when I figured out the best way to fit in with the cool crowd is by sucking on a flaming tube of dried leaves and chemicals, the state of Minnesota tells me I can’t light up when I go out for a drink. If there’s a better time to fill your lungs with cancer-causing agents than when you’re soaking your liver in alcohol, I don’t know what it is.
I don’t know why it took so long for me to see the Zippo-fueled light when it comes to smoking. I made it through high school and college without once feeling the urge to pick up a cigarette. I’d like to think I was above that kind of peer pressure. Or that I was smart enough to recognize the many health risks associated with tobacco. Or even that I was so committed to my role as a mediocre junior varsity soccer player and cross country skier that I didn’t want to jeopardize the health of my lungs. You have to be able to breathe deeply if you want to cheer adequately from the sidelines.
More likely, though, I just knew I was unpopular enough that taking up smoking would never make me cooler. Just wheezier.
Things are different now, though, and I’m not sure why. I can only assume that exposure to countless images of celebrities smoking cigarettes has helped me to realize just how totally awesome I could look with a cigarette in my hand.
I’ve seen lots of pictures of Britney Spears smoking, and everybody thinks she’s cool. Right? And Lindsay Lohan? I’ve seen pictures of her smoking and she’s pretty much the epitome of Hollywood glamour these days. Isn’t she?
Anyway, I see both of them on the covers of People and US Weekly just about every time I go to the grocery store, so I figure they must be doing something right.
Celebrities are always smoking in movies, too. Although, now that I think about it, most of the characters that smoke are villains. Batman is dark and mysterious, but you never see him with a bat-cigarette lighter in his utility belt. Superman was a stalker and a deadbeat dad in his most recent movie, but he never used his heat vision to fire up a butt.
Heroes only smoke when they are in their darkest hour. Or maybe when they need a cigarette to create a delay for the fuse of a bomb. So, I guess cigarettes are useful for foiling evil plans, too. There’s pretty much nothing they can't do.
Now our state legislators want to take the cool-making, world-saving power of cigarettes out of our hands when we’re out at dinner or at the bar for a drink. And what do they offer us in return? Healthier workplaces for members of the service industry? Clothes that don’t reek of exhaled chemicals after a Friday night out? Free reign to look down our noses at people huddled outside bars in the middle of winter just so they can satisfy their urge for a cigarette?
Is it really worth it?
----------------
Now playing: Teddybears - Cobra Style
via FoxyTunes
Just when I figured out the best way to fit in with the cool crowd is by sucking on a flaming tube of dried leaves and chemicals, the state of Minnesota tells me I can’t light up when I go out for a drink. If there’s a better time to fill your lungs with cancer-causing agents than when you’re soaking your liver in alcohol, I don’t know what it is.
I don’t know why it took so long for me to see the Zippo-fueled light when it comes to smoking. I made it through high school and college without once feeling the urge to pick up a cigarette. I’d like to think I was above that kind of peer pressure. Or that I was smart enough to recognize the many health risks associated with tobacco. Or even that I was so committed to my role as a mediocre junior varsity soccer player and cross country skier that I didn’t want to jeopardize the health of my lungs. You have to be able to breathe deeply if you want to cheer adequately from the sidelines.
More likely, though, I just knew I was unpopular enough that taking up smoking would never make me cooler. Just wheezier.
Things are different now, though, and I’m not sure why. I can only assume that exposure to countless images of celebrities smoking cigarettes has helped me to realize just how totally awesome I could look with a cigarette in my hand.
I’ve seen lots of pictures of Britney Spears smoking, and everybody thinks she’s cool. Right? And Lindsay Lohan? I’ve seen pictures of her smoking and she’s pretty much the epitome of Hollywood glamour these days. Isn’t she?
Anyway, I see both of them on the covers of People and US Weekly just about every time I go to the grocery store, so I figure they must be doing something right.
Celebrities are always smoking in movies, too. Although, now that I think about it, most of the characters that smoke are villains. Batman is dark and mysterious, but you never see him with a bat-cigarette lighter in his utility belt. Superman was a stalker and a deadbeat dad in his most recent movie, but he never used his heat vision to fire up a butt.
Heroes only smoke when they are in their darkest hour. Or maybe when they need a cigarette to create a delay for the fuse of a bomb. So, I guess cigarettes are useful for foiling evil plans, too. There’s pretty much nothing they can't do.
Now our state legislators want to take the cool-making, world-saving power of cigarettes out of our hands when we’re out at dinner or at the bar for a drink. And what do they offer us in return? Healthier workplaces for members of the service industry? Clothes that don’t reek of exhaled chemicals after a Friday night out? Free reign to look down our noses at people huddled outside bars in the middle of winter just so they can satisfy their urge for a cigarette?
Is it really worth it?
----------------
Now playing: Teddybears - Cobra Style
via FoxyTunes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
