Did you know that "earworm" is the literal translation of the German "ohrwurm"? Now you do!

At any given time, I don’t really get an earworm.  I get earworms, plural.  All too often, one tune will chase another around my head like squirrels around a tree.

Sometimes, it starts with something I hear, which for melodic, lyrical, or historical (either mine or the song’s) reasons will remind me of something else.  (The absolute worst earworm? Weird Al’s “Christmas at Ground Zero” morphing seamlessly into “Jingle Bell Rock.”)  Sometimes it’s pretty random.

Tonight’s earworms come courtesy of the Moody Blues and the band It’s A Beautiful Day. “Your Wildest Dreams” drifted into “Tuesday Afternoon” which for no discernible reason flowed into “White Bird.”

This led me to buy the latter two songs from iTunes.  iTunes loves it when I get earworms — half the time I do not own the music in question and am compelled to go out to buy it.  Come to think of it, that’s probably how I ended up buying “Heart of Glass” by Blondie.

Aaarrrrgggghhhh. Just writing the name of that song has readjusted the jukebox in my head.

Time to go listen to some Garth Brooks.*

At least it’s better than Madonna.

*To my friends who despise country — you know who you are — stop snickering.  It’s not like I am making you listen to “Friends In Low Places.” I like it precisely because it does not tend to get stuck in my head, although “Two Pina Coladas”……aaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh.

Posted in Culture (popular and otherwise), Music | 3 Comments

Note to self.

Two mugs of coffee plus a Venti Salted Carmel Mocha would be enough to give anyone the shakes, let alone someone who has some tremors to begin with.  What you gain in pure speed in typing (and clarity of thought) you lose in having to go back and correct all the typos from your fingers not hitting the keys accurately in the first place.

Good luck in getting to sleep at a reasonable hour tonight.

Posted in nothing special | Leave a comment

That’s my boy.

At school, The Red-Headed Menace was asked to describe his personality. He termed himself as being, among other things, “quixotic.” Just like his mom.*


*On the whole, he did a good job of describing himself, which if nothing else shows self-awareness.

Posted in KIds | Tagged | Leave a comment

Closets — and attics — can be lonely places.

In his talk at Stanford, Judge Alex Kozinski decried the extent to which so many of us live our lives in public these days.  We have lost a sense of what it means to be private, he mourned.

As examples, he talked about cell phones, and the intimate conversations we are often forced to overhear, and people who blog the most intimate and embarassing facts about themselves and those they know.  There is no sense of propriety anymore, in Kozinski’s view.

To some extent he has a point.  With the exception of a my circle of friends, there is no one whose sex life is of any interest to me whatsoever.  Even with those friends, I usually don’t want to hear details.  The only sex that has ever mattered to me is that I am involved in, and I am not talking about that in any great detail except to the other party involved. 

But there is another side here.  So much of what we have deemed private we have deemed shameful.  We did not talk about homosexuality, or mental illness, or rape not because there is inherently something private about it, but because to be homosexual was to be an abomination, to be mentally ill was to be a threat or at the very least an embarrassment, and to have been raped meant that to some people you were ruined forever and that it would have been better if you had died. We forced gay Uncle Bob to stay in the closet and crazy Aunt Agatha into a metaphorical attic not because we were protecting their privacy but because we were protecting our standing in the eyes of our neighbors.

Keeping people in closets and attics means to keep them alone.  Being isolated means that you develop a very real sense of just how broken you are, how much you are a lesser human being than those around you. It is soul destroying.

Breaking that “privacy” means reclaiming your humanity.  Breaking that silence is reaching out to others.  You are not alone — you are never alone.  You are one of God’s children, too. You matter.

In this blog, I have written three posts about what many would consider “private” (i.e., shameful) issues. There is another that I have written that I took down.  Aside from the two posts accessed by students looking to finish their term papers, these posts got more traffic than any others.  In the case of the three still up, I have gotten email and other feedback from people saying “Thank you for writing this.”  One in particular, dealing with my experiences after the birth of my first son, resulted in women telling me that reading my story gave them the courage to face their own, and to begin to heal. In the case of the post I took down, before I did so it was picked up by a website specializing in the disorder about which I wrote.

I was talked into taking down the one post.  I regret now having done so.  I do not regret the others one bit. They were important: if they helped at least one person say “thank God, there’s someone else out there who knows what this is like,” then they were well worth whatever potential embarrassment may result.

So yes, many people — myself included — are airing private matters in public.  We have let the world know that being gay does not make you a bad person, that being mentally ill does not mean you are not worth loving, that having survived being raped means that you are stronger than you understand.  We forgo that privacy, we shatter that silence, we open those closet and attic doors, in order to be recognized and accepted as full human beings.

We speak of these things, as hard as it as, so that we are no longer alone and invisible.  We speak of these things so that others will know that they are not alone, and that they need not be invisible.

We speak, so that we and others may live in the sunlight rather than the dark closets and shadowed attics.

We speak, so that we may live.

Posted in Social Issues | 1 Comment

Covering myself.

I am sitting in my favorite Starbucks, with Joni Mitchell playing in the background, trying to say good things about myself.  It’s very hard.  I have finally gotten the hang of tweaking my resume for individual openings.  It’s this cover letter that is driving me nuts. Selling myself is hard, and when I try it comes out sounding forced and stiff.

There are very few jobs that I am an *exact* match for.  That does not mean I would not be good in that job.  The position I am applying for is a case in point:  they want someone who can manage projects.  Check, did that at PAL.  They want someone who can multi-task.  Check, aside from having to do that at every job I have ever held, I was a stay at home mother — multi-tasking is what we do.  They want someone who can analyze, write and present ideas clearly and concisely.  I think that speaks for itself, at least to those of you reading this.*  A problem solver and quick learner.  Check and check — a  boss of mine once described me as her “utility infielder”: throw a problem to me and I take care of it.  Can work independently or as part of a team.  Check, just ask the people at PAL, the Census, or Kara. Sensitivity to persons with mental health, developmental and other disabilities and/or past community service work.  Check and check — I can handle people in crisis with tact and sensitivity, as I have to do when I answer client request calls at Kara.

But they also want….

Access.  I have had a one week introductory course in Access a year and a half ago, and remember none of it.  I have had more recent exposure to Exceed, a similar piece of software for donor tracking, but even that has been pretty limited in scope.  But I have a lot of experience with learning online databases: at PAL, I used two, at the Census, I had to learn two,** and at Kara I have had to learn three.  I learn quickly, and am very comfortable with reading manuals and learning on the fly.  I am positive that I can learn Access tolerably well in a few weeks, especially if I read manuals on my own time outside of work, which I would probably do.

They would prefer someone who is fluent in Spanish or Vietnamese.  That is the only part of their qualifications that not only do I not have, I have no hope of attaining, at least in the short term.  They state it as a preference, however, not a requirement.

I would be good at this job.  I can see myself doing it.  From their description, it sounds like a job that I can grown into and can grow with me.  I am sure that I can do this, and most likely do it very well.

I just wish I could explain that in this stupid letter.

*Okay, so maybe not so much the “concise” part.  I’m working on it.
**One of them was the regular Census database, the other was a database so confidential that if you left your desk with it running (even if it was not up and visible), you would get fired.  You could find out a scary amount of information from it: during training, we were only allowed to use ourselves (not even our spouses) as test queries.  My record included the address of my sister-in-law.  There was no real temptation to use it for nefarious purposes: our use was tracked, and looking for information on people we were not instructed to would result not only in termination but possibly prosecution.

Posted in nothing special | Leave a comment

New word to hate.

At the privacy symposium I went to, I heard a word I had never heard before.  It goes on my list of words I absolutely detest for aesthetic reasons, along with polyamory and gifted (as a verb).  That word is ….

“Monetize.”  As in “You found a way to monetize your information.”*

*shudder*

I guess it’s not enough any more to say things like “Did you find a way to turn a profit on this?”  I am all for using fewer words, but this one is simply ridiculous.

*Actual quote from a discussion about drones and privacy.

Posted in nothing special | 1 Comment

What you can find at .gov, if you look hard enough

Proof that the people at the Copyright Office have a sense of humor:

How do I protect my sighting of Elvis?
Copyright law does not protect sightings. However, copyright law will protect your photo (or other depiction) of your sighting of Elvis. File your claim to copyright online by means of the electronic Copyright Office (eCO). Pay the fee online and attach a copy of your photo. Or, go to the Copyright Office website,fill in Form CO, print it, and mail it together with your photo and fee. For more information on registration a copyright, see SL-35. No one can lawfully use your photo of your sighting, although someone else may file his own photo of his sighting. Copyright law protects the original photograph, not the subject of the photograph. 

From What Does Copyright Protect?*

[Edited to add: upon further reflection, I wonder if this was actual query received in the Copyright Office.  I know that in my time at the Census, we kept a board with the most bizarre things people said to the enumerators (without any personal information, of course).  I expect most customer service people have something similar, if only in their head.]

*I was looking at this to see if I could find out what it means in the U.S. for architectural works to be copyrighted. I wimped out and resorted to using Wikipedia instead.  This came about because I was looking for pictures of Paris, and there was a note in WikiMedia: “Photographs taken of buildings located in France can only be uploaded to Commons if the copyright on the building has expired, because the Copyright Law of France forbids the publication or commercial use of photographs taken of copyrighted buildings. The copyright term in France for buildings is the lifetime of the architect + 70 years + the end of the calendar year.”In the PowerPoint presentations I’m preparing,  I was only planning to use a picture of one recent building (Centre Pompidou).  It is a spectacularly ugly building (at least until you get used to it) so leaving it out won’t be that great a loss.

Posted in nothing special | Leave a comment

Quotes of the day, and an analogy

From Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

“In this Twitter world, having law enforcement monitoring you just increases your fan base.”

“People these days often shout so loudly on their phones that using the phone almost seems superfluous.” 

About an episode of Jerry Springer he watched,  [it used to be] “Cheating was a foible, and cheating with one’s wife’s sister would be in bad taste, to say the least.”

Also, talking about a woman who blogged about a man with whom she had sex, “…we learned that he likes spanking. Who doesn’t?”

Of course, he also said some things about bloggers. : “Bloggers are the type of people who wake up in the morning thinking that the world waits for their every thought. I know I’ve offended at least half of you… They put their every thought out there: full-baked, half-baked, and frequently unbaked.”*

*****************

And the analogy, from a friend of mine: our intellects and our ambitions are like a mountain.  Some of us are used to going to or being at the top.  We identify ourselves by the small amount at the top of the mountain that we reach that others may not.  When we fall short of that mountaintop, we identify ourselves by the amount we fall short rather than the totality of the rest of the mountain.


*There is a blog post (yeah, I know) just waiting to be written about the concurrent rise of blogging and reduction in social interaction, and how people talking about things that were “too private” is not necessarily a bad thing.

Posted in nothing special | Leave a comment

The reason for that last post

I am attending a symposium on privacy, as I said a couple of posts ago.  In one of the sessions, a panelist (I can’t remember his name without looking it up, except that it was not Eugene Volokh) was discussing the new European privacy laws.  He talked about the underpinning being “the right to be forgotten.”

He then said that Facebook and Google already had mechanisms which would allow you to take down embarrassing information that you placed on the web yourself.

No.  At least, not in the case of Blogger blogs.

In the last post, I was testing whether I could take down a post and have it disappear from Google Reader.  I already knew the answer; I was doublechecking that I was right. [Edited to add: D’oh! If you are  reading this on my blog, as opposed to Google Reader, you can’t see the last post because I deleted it.]

Occasionally there is a post I think better of later, usually because I was posting late at night and my judgment was impaired.  Or because in retrospect I felt the post was whiny.  Or because I had decided not to publish it (but still wanted to keep the piece of writing) but had hit the “Publish” button rather than the “Save” button. I have tried to remove them to no avail.

Once something is on Google Reader, it is there forever.  I have read other complaints about this from other bloggers on the Blogger forums.  The explanation I have seen given is that it is an RSS feed and once something is out there, it is out there.  I do understand about RSS feeds — I set up the RSS feed for LiveJournal to access.

But if it is an RSS feed, how come I can edit posts?  I can’t edit the posts that have been picked up by the regular RSS feed, but I can and have it show up in Google Reader.  It may be that there is some process by which one can write to Google and get them to delete posts, but I have yet to see it. [Edited to add: the test post did not appear on LiveJournal, which uses an RSS feed.]

I’m not arguing one way or another about the European policy privacy, or privacy in general, simply making an empirical observation.

Posted in nothing special | Leave a comment

I think I like this guy.

Mandy Patinkin says his favorite drug is Viagra.

[Predictably, and perhaps sadly, the comments have been overrun by Princess Bride references.  Okay, so he was Inigo Montoya.  Give it a rest, already.]

Posted in nothing special | Leave a comment

Rightful places.

[Written last night by hand. And yes, I do put footnotes in my handwritten drafts.  I live for footnotes — or haven’t you noticed? I’m weird that way.]

Sad to say, there are not a lot of things which will draw me out of my hermitage (other than spending time with actual friends).  My social anxiety — bordering on mild agoraphobia — has become too acute.  I’m working on overcoming it.

One of those things, however, would be “The Privacy Paradox: Privacy and Its Conflicting Values,” a day and a half symposium at Stanford Law School.  The first session covers drones, which are interesting, but for me the meat of the symposium is tomorrow, with discussions on medical records and privacy; data gathering and politics; and privacy, tort law and the first amendment.

This is why I am sitting one of the large classrooms in the law school.  I know no one here; I cannot figure out if this is a bug or a feature.

I am trying to appear invisible.  Maybe that’s why I wore all black. On the other hand, on a whim  I wore my most outrageous earrings, red chandeliers with drops that fall almost to my shoulders.  They were my effort to reclaim my unique sense of self.  They were to give me courage.

They’re not working.

Returning to Stanford Law School is always am emotionally fraught experience for me.*  I am proud I went here:  a degree from Stanford, in any discipline, is most decidedly not chopped liver.

Yet that pride competes with a vague shame, a sense of failure for the direction my life moved in that I did not use my degree much.  I feel like I’ve let the side down, so to speak.**

This symposium, which covers so many areas of interest for me (medical records privacy! data gathering! politics! the First Amendent!) is one of the few things to overcome my reluctance to revisit what actually was a very good place for me. I learned a lot here, and not just law.  I learned a way of thinking and being in the world.  Regardless of where I went after, this place changed me, for the good. I need to get back here more often, if for no other reason than to remind myself that, yes, regardless of whatever I have done with my life, I am intelligent enough to have belonged here once.  To belong here today.

*There is also a more defined sense of panic.  The last time I was in this specific classroom I was taking Tax, a class in which I did not do particularly well (I ended up taking it pass/fail, if memory serves) and which I hated every minute of, Professor Bankman’s skill as a teacher notwithstanding.  I have to keep reminding myself that I also took Evidence in this room, which I loved and in which I got an A.


** I feel the same way about Wellesley.  My alma mater is also the alma mater of secretaries of state, astronauts, high-profile journalists, and Miss Manners.  Had the Democratic primaries gone differently in 2008, it would have been the alma mater of the first woman President of the United States. (It was also the alma mater of the best teacher my sons had in middle school.) It’s a heady thing to live up to. 

Posted in nothing special | Leave a comment

Yes, I changed the design. Hope you like it.  In case you didn’t notice, the background is the picture I posted in “Understanding Vincent.”

Posted in nothing special | Leave a comment

Shopping local

There is a new grocery store in my area.  It is a Fresh & Easy, part of a chain that, if memory serves, began in Britain.  I love this place.

It is small, about only 2/3 the size of the nearest Safeway, and probably 1/4 of the mega-Safeway they are building a couple of miles away.  The produce tends to come pre-bagged, but all the produce I have gotten so far has been of good quality.  Their pre-made meals are tasty, and they have a number of in-house products that far and away beat other store brands. (Everyone in my house loves their pre-made puddings.)  They also, amusingly, have some British goods as well.  Their prices are comparable — or lower than — Safeway’s, and their milk prices are lower than Costco’s.

We can’t get quite everything there: we still do a lot of bulk purchases at Costco (teenage boys? “Plague of locusts?”) and Fresh & Easy doesn’t carry unscented cat litter, which is a must in our house because the scented varieties give me migraines. Nonetheless, they carry almost all the things we need. And it may be silly, but I actually like checking myself out.  If I forget the linen bags, I can put my goods in one bag rather than the three that the Safeway baggers use.

There is a lot of emphasis these days in the sorts of political circles I travel in on “buying local.”  By this, people mean buying locally grown produce (organic where possible) to help reduce the carbon footprint. By this measure, this store fails, miserably.

But in another way, it succeeds quite well.  It allows people in the neighborhood to walk to the store rather than having to get in the car and drive. People can send their kids to pick up a few items.  More importantly, it transformed a store which had stood empty for years, serving as an eyesore and a trouble spot, into a clean and bright business.*  I support them as much as I can.

And I think that’s okay.

*Kudos also to the Starbucks, which created a neighborhood meeting place where none had existed, and kept the shopping strip it inhabits with the F&E from closing completely.

Posted in nothing special | Leave a comment

The Politics of Soundbites.

I hate “gotcha” politics.

I long for a mythical era when people of good intent coulddiscuss their differences rationally, and not look for every sound bite thatcan be taken out of context and used to bludgeon their opponent.*  I want people to be judged on the content oftheir ideas, not the particular phrasing of their statements.

I never thought that I would be saying this, but Mitt Romney is being treated unfairly.

In an interview after the Florida primary, Romney was quotedas saying “I’m not concerned about the very poor.”  Shocking! Cold-hearted!  And this from a man who aspires to bePresident!

Republican opponents, Democrats and liberals (the last twoare not interchangeable) jumped all over this. People were quick to make metaphorical political hay while the spotlightshone brightly on the beleaguered Republican frontrunner.

The problem is that that statement was part of a largersentence that puts Romney in a different light.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor,” Romney said… and thenwent on “We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. ”

That is a much different statement.  Does Romney have a grasp on just how tatteredthe safety net is and what poor support it offers for people who depend on it? Probably not. Will whatever solution he has to fix the holes work? Given his views, Ithink probably not.  But believing that the safety net takes care of the very poor so that we don’t need to concentrate on them as much is not the same as saying that the very poor can go hang.

I don’t necessarily think Romney is acold-hearted man.  I think he may be outof touch with how most people live,** but then I think that of all of the GOP’scandidates.  He is the only one that Ithink is rational, which quite frankly counts for more than his occasionalmissteps.

And seriously, compared with Gingrich hinting that millionaires are eligible for food stamps and that one could go to Hawaii on them, or thatyoung people have a bad work ethic and that students should be made to serve as janitors in schools (ignoring the real, hard, full-time work that goes intobeing a janitor) – who is more out of touch? And more to the point, who islikely to hurt the country less? A man who believes in fixing the holes in thesafety net, or someone who questions whether it should exist at all?
*I know this is mythical: see Wikipedia on  the 1824 and 1828elections.  In some ways, the nastinessof today’s politics has nothing on that period of American history.
**That betting Perry 10K thing?  I still can’t understand what people find sooffensive about that.  Romney has the money,Perry has the money, and unless you find gambling inherently sinful, that moneyis theirs to do with as they please. Do people really not know how wealthythese guys are?
Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

DInnertime Conversation.

Discussion at dinnertime:

Periods of classical music.

Tchaikovsky.

The 1812 Overture.

The War of 1812 — both Napoleonic and American theatres.

Napoleon’s attempt to capture Moscow.

Hitler’s attempt to capture Moscow.

The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, and how Hitler was stupid for opening  a second front.

Technologies and transportation during W.W.II, including why diesel would have been much better than steam, but was not possible due to the need for petroleum to be used elsewhere, armaments transported by rail, the specifics of British rail during the war, with a small detour to discuss the Maginot line and the taxicabs of the Marne in W.W.I.

The difficulties Hitler would have faced in invading America.

How one would geographically structure an invasion, and logistical difficulties, with a brief detour into a debate about whether New York or Texas would be more of a problem for invaders. (Including quotes from Casablanca.)

The participants: an aerospace engineer with an interest in history; a former lawyer who has a B.A. in History, specializing in 20th Century European History; a teenaged railroad savant; and a student currently taking AP Modern European History.

This actually is not that unusual a conversation for us, although it is often subjects other than history. (Politics is a big topic, so are various scientific issues.)

I love my family.

What do you talk about over dinner?

Posted in Family | Leave a comment