a wolf angel is not a good angel

Now, the sad thing is that I’m only at “What’s my line”, which means I have well over an entire season to go before I can hit the new DVDs I just received today (yay!). I might skip some of the terrible episodes — “Go Fish” comes to mind (as does, alas, “Beer Bad”, for my money the worst episode ever, which I just paid some actual real money for) — but still, there aren’t *that* many.

Plus I want to nap right now. I want to nap, but also I want to watch Spike while he was fun and evil.

I remember watching “What’s my line? pt 1″ with my mother (she watched the show for a while), and the total shock at the ending of the episode, even given all the clues they dumped earlier in the show. Kendra the what?

You know, I appreciate the show’s discussion of moral ambiguity (Angel in seasons 1,2; “Lie to me” s2). The discussion of friendship and responsibility (”Prophecy Girl”,s1 “When she was bad” s2, Angel in season 2), also. Yes, Buffy was good, and did good, but Buffy made mistakes and endangered people because of it (as did Giles, “The Dark Age”s2, “Helpless” s3 — there are always other examples, but the first three seasons I remember best, so there we go). As discussed in an old post at Sappho’s Breathing, there was always the knowledge that the Scoobies were good, even if they did the wrong things — bad things. (Xander in “Becoming”, Willow in the magic-is-addiction-instead-of-power story arc.) Spike, also, did a fair bit of saving Buffy (when it was more helpful to him than trying to kill her, anyhow). I felt that the nuance was something the show always did quite well.

The obvious part, of course, is the little blonde girl in heels kicking ass: the feminism in it. There were many comments made on the anti-father bias the show espoused, though I think Giles (ignoring his exit in s6) was a good-enough father figure to balance out some of it, and showing the idea that family is made up of more than just genetics. But in the end, who were the most grown-up characters? Giles, always, and perhaps obviously — but consider Buffy at the end, Willow at the end, and Xander at the end. Xander was the most adult (in the positive senses) of the Scoobies (excepting the wedding issue, which I also thought was entirely improbable). Of course he had no super powers, but I found it an interesting change to the show. Faith, on the other hand, had finally become an adult. (Faith was also a good example of ambiguity in the show: could anyone not love Faith & the mayor together?)

What I most liked, I think, was the emphasis on choices there was, but also on how chance can make or break things (this was best shown in “The Wish”). You make the choice to act, or not act, to do what you think is right or not, to do what is easy or not. You sometimes make the wrong choices, or choices based on incorrect information, and then you have to live with the consequences of those choices. (I never understood why there was no real payback for Xander’s lie in “Becoming” — the 3 second exchange in s6 or 7 was not nearly enough.)

But of course the best part of the show was that all of these were bound up in a fun show about killing vampires.

Update: hah, I’m reading old TwoP Buffy recaps (well, MBTV, then) and I forgot this line.

It’s a shame there’s no way Spike and Buffy can have a romance, because SMG and James Marsters together sizzle like a thick, fatty steak over a blazing mesquite fire. Especially in comparison to her scenes with Marc Blucas, which sizzle about as much as boiled cod drenched with gravy.

I bought BtVS Season 4. (Slowly but surely. I’m only watching season 1 now, so I have a while before I get caught up.)

I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry about this one:

Most linguists worship Noam Chomsky. It is so extreme that often Chomsky will comprise 75% of the references in a linguist’s article and the peer review board will think nothing of it. However, Chomsky is prolific, and almost not linguists have has read all of his writings. So if you challenged by a peer on some point, they can usually say “I believe Chomsky wrote that somewhere…” and it will usually shut the challenger up. The only thing they have to be careful about are those linguists who hate Noam Chomsky — a small but fiesty bunch.

But I can be pretty certain which group this guy person (I misread Matthew as the author; Matthew is defectiveyeti Matthew) is in. (And I’ve never seen journal articles with that much Chomsky-cite, except perhaps his own. Squibs? Maybe. Handouts or course papers? Absolutely.)

How do I prevent ( c ) showing up (c)? It’s really irritating.

Today the CBC was having its discussion about assisted suicide, and whether it should be legal. (Background note! Some mother just helped her 36ish year old son with MS to kill himself.)

There were some interesting arguments:

• If you can get help killing yourself, you’re not likely to rush to do it while you’re still capable of it. This one seemed fairly reasonable to me: if you know you’re not going to lose the chance, you won’t hurry up to die.
• If there were better pain control, fewer people would want to kill themselves. Whatever, Margaret Somerville. (Yes, this was the very first argument she put forth. No, I have never liked her.)
• I have a disability and it’s worse than the guy who died’s was! I don’t want to die. I used to imagine if I were in a wheelchair I’d prefer to die, but it turns out I’m happier than I used to be, though of course I’d prefer not to be in a wheelchair. People project their own fears onto people with disabilities (very true), so that guy was probably just responding to that and didn’t actually want to die.
• The fact that the exception is carved out for (a) people who have terminal diseases; (b) people who have incurable, painful diseases; and (c) people with disabilities is bigotry. Lots of people with disabilities don’t want to die. Plus it’s offensive to call it courageous, especially since people call suicide-because-of-depression tragic (oddly, this was in response to someone who called any suicide courageous, but tragic)
• Anyone who wants to die should be helped/allowed to, if you can’t talk them out of it. (This is where I lean, though I realise there need to be lots of checks in the system first.)

The entire debate was fascinating. I — perhaps — got in too late, but I had no idea what the host felt about assisted suicide. But it’s interesting the facets people have about it: people who knew others with terminal illnesses tended to be for it; people with disabilities, against. Psychiatric illnesses were kept mostly excluded, which is too bad, because I think that this is where the most interesting discussion comes, in the intersection between untreatable cancer (say) and untreatable depression.

The other side is how much help should you be given. Should doctors be allowed to prescribe fatal overdoses, as long as you take them yourself? Should you need to have 2 doctors saying okay? Should doctors — or family members — be allowed to help? At what point does it go from helping to pushing? Can you leave a living will that says “once I get to this stage, I want to die, I want to be killed”? Is it truly more ethical to say “well, yes, you want to die, but it’s wrong to make you dead, so we’re stuck”?

What was interesting is how well-thought out the pro-euthanasia group’s arguments were, especially in comparison to the anti-euthanasia group. (After the idiotic comments about pain control — not that it’s untrue, not that pain control isn’t an issue, but that the presence or absence of such doesn’t say much about the morality of euthanasia — Margaret Somerville had much more informative comments about the abuses of the system in the Netherlands, and the better system in place in Oregon.)

Suddenly perhaps because I’ve been putting off work and now I have a meeting tomorrow and need to bring up more work. In good news, I get to start a more interesting project shortly (and will postpone the boring one I have been working on). In less good news, the flights to Europe — in the FALL! when it’s supposed to be CHEAP! — are a fortune. Also my dear friend hasn’t written me back yet, and starting medical school in another country while not speaking the language (the courses are in English) is hardly an excuse. Though she did say I could visit whenever (and since she’s moved), and specificially whenever-this-fall . . .

I must be making myself potloads of coffee this evening. And working in front of Buffy. Starting with season 1 and working my way through until . . . whenever. Hopefully not past season 3. Maybe I should invest in the next few seasons.

My computer decided it was not fond of this post, apparently. I was, but that’s too bad: I need to rewrite the whole thing. Oh yay.

I strongly suspect I’ve already decided what to do. I suspect this based on the happiness I felt when someone suggested I should leave now, based on the resignation I felt when my family suggested I stay.

That said, I’m going to think it to death anyhow.

If I stay, I would have the lovely feeling that I can actually finish something I start. I left my first degree program in what was supposed to have been my last semester (in reality, I would have taken one more). I left my PhD program without a PhD. I’ve dropped hobbies and plans and all sorts of things. Follow-through is totally not my forte.

You could argue — and argue well & correctly — that it was right for me to have left these programs, and that indeed the biggest mistake was not to have left them earlier. (Well, perhaps not with the PhD, because it is good I have an MA. But it was good to have left it when I did. Look! I am alive. It is good!)

But do I know yet that it’s right? I’m frustrated with the first few weeks, and I’m not ecstatic about being in school (again). Doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t do this. It would be good for me to be a better programmer; it would be even better for me to learn machine learning & NLP techniques. I would be more employable.

And yet — when I’m this uninspired, I stop showing up (check); I don’t do the work well (check). What would be the point? Why waste time and money? I *can* learn how to program on my own — it’s not the ideal way for me, but I can do it. And I could go visit my friend in Prague (and visit other nice places nearby, while I’m there, why not? I’d love to see Vienna . . . ).

Oh well. I will sleep on it again. I’ve put energy and work and all into this (not particularly much money, though, yet). I don’t want to drop it all. On the other hand, that idea of sunk costs still works. No point throwing good time after bad. But shouldn’t I just suck it up, deal with the frustration, take what I can, and come out better on the other side?

See, I can’t tell if that last line is speaking from intelligence or bloody-mindedness. That’s where my problem lies.

The Journey

One day you finally knew
what you had to do, and began,
though the voices around you
kept shouting
their bad advice–
though the whole house
began to tremble
and you felt the old tug
at your ankles.
“Mend my life!”
each voice cried.
But you didn’t stop.
You knew what you had to do,
though the wind pried
with its stiff fingers
at the very foundations,
though their melancholy
was terrible.
It was already late
enough, and a wild night,
and the road full of fallen
branches and stones.
But little by little,
as you left their voices behind,
the stars began to burn
through the sheets of clouds,
and there was a new voice
which you slowly
recognized as your own,
that kept you company
as you strode deeper and deeper
into the world
determined to do
the only thing you could do–
determined to save
the only life you could save.

-Mary Oliver

Yom Kippur passed. We had tonnes of extra food. I have no idea what happened.

My mother’s cousin’s girlfriend’s niece was here. She’s 3 (and a half), and decided to adore Sam, who, being fairly amiable, accepted it. She was very serious about him, playing with him like he was a science project.

We spent a while figuring out what he eats. “Vous aimez les fraises? Vous aimez les pommes?” No tutoyer for Sam.

I watched Apprentice last night. I hadn’t watched the first two, but there are too many people to care about at the beginning, anyhow.

A few comments on clothing: bowties aren’t cool. Ever. At all. The women seem to have learned to bring longer skirts (and even pants), even though they’ll be on TV, which is a big plus.

A few comments on why I don’t know I’ll be watching this season: Omarosa was a little crazy, yes. However, you didn’t need to choose Omarosa-lite (coincidentally the only black woman, just like Omarosa the first) to make the show “interesting”, especially when something (I was unclear on what, except that it had to do with a magic 8 ball) will make you fire her within weeks. Yet again, TheDonald, you seem to be showing your racism (two token blacks? one Asian? And that’s *it*? Hundreds of thousands of people applied, and all the good ones were attractive and white?) though the sexism seems to be a little less, for now. I’d like to see how he deals with men in the boardroom, because that was where it was evident last season. Except then I’d need to watch it again, and I’m not convinced.

Update: TWoP says this

Trump claims that these people are “the best and the brightest of what America has to offer.” America cringes. Canada? In hysterics. They’re like, “Oh, my God, now I get why that one guy is President.”