Hockey Season's Almost Here...

Last Words

Greetings Friends,

It's no secret that new words enter our language on a somewhat regular basis. We find new ways in which to express ourselves, and before we know it, those new words and expressions we find ourselves using, go viral.

These days, you don't even need the stamp of approval from Merriam Webster or Oxford. They are no longer the last word when it comes to words. Now, all you have to do is plug your word into Google, and chances are, you'll find a Wikipedia page with a detailed explanation of what whoever wrote the page, thinks the word means. And the list keeps on growing.

When I was working towards my undergraduate degree, I took a Linguistics course as an elective. One exercise the professor made us perform was to make up words that were a combination of other words. Not compound words, but words that combined similar ideas. It was never my intention to become an etymologist, but the concept intrigued me. The way people use, and often misuse words, greatly intrigues me.

So, it's time for another Friday list: Nava's Favourite "New" Words:

Jeggings: This is one I just became aware of the other day. They're a garment that resembles a very tight pair of jeans, but are actually leggings. The effect is supposed to look tight, without actually being tight.

Bromance: a close, platonic relationship between two men.

Frenemy: a person with whom you are friendly, but inherently despise.

Metrosexual: a straight man who cares exceedingly about his appearance and personal grooming habits.

Defriend/Unfriend: the act of deleting someone from your online social networking universe. The modern-day equivalent of "flat-leaving".

Staycation: a cheeky term used to define one's decision to stay home, because taking a vacation is too expensive.

Tweetup: A meeting arranged via Twitter posts.

Microblogging: posting very short entries on a blog. Aren't those actually Tweets?

Netbook: a small laptop. Too bad; I'm partial to the big ones.

Soft Skills: the ability to interact effectively and harmoniously with others. I'm sorry, but I prefer "social" skills; abilities many people seem to be lacking nowadays.

Hikikomori (Japanese): the abnormal avoidance of social contact, typically by adolescent males. Just because I spend most of my days with my laptop, does that mean I'm "hikikomoric"?

Toxic Debt: debt which is at high risk of default. Duh.

Chillax: to simultaneously calm down and relax. There's a town in British Columbia named Chilliwack; is it cool to "chillax" in Chilliwack?

And finally, some oldies, but goodies:

Sick: a term used to describe something that looks or is, smokin' hot, as in, "Those shoes are sick with that dress".

Perfumista: similar to a "fashionista"; someone who adores fragrances.

Dude: a term of friendly endearment, like "buddy". When did it become acceptable to call everyone "dude"?

Have a sick weekend.

Nava

Men and Women Still Can't Be Friends. Or Can They?

Greetings Friends,

As a prelude to tomorrow's contribution to The Perpetual Post, I give you two iconic scenes from one of my all-time favourite movies, When Harry Met Sally... Please scroll down to view the first "men and women can't be friends" segment. Technology, once again, has not been fully cooperative.

Nava

Men and Woman Can't Be Friends

Evil Canadian Empires

Greetings Friends,

Back in my Brooklyn days, getting cable TV was about as easy as finding piles of hundred dollar bills in random shopping bags. After much kicking and screaming and fighting with Cablevision, my favourite New York cable television entity, technology came to my household in August, 1989. This was after years of living vicariously through people whom I knew, living outside New York City, who had been enjoying Sportschannel, CNN and MTV since their inceptions. Living in New York City, well within range of over-the-air network television signals, meant that we lagged far behind the rest of the state, which didn't have that luxury; unless you were privileged enough to live in Manhattan, with access to Manhattan Cable and all the freakish public access channels. Alas, I was not so lucky.

I spent close to 20 years complaining there was nothing on television, despite the hundreds of channels I had access to. Now that I no longer have a top-of-the-line cable system, I am lost without it. Yeah, I still have cable, but access to premium channels like HBO are prohibitively expensive here in Canada. Why? As the title of this post explains, the two biggest providers of cable (or satellite in Bell's case), Bell Canada and Rogers Communications, are extremely adept at fleecing the Canadian population, charging outrageous amounts of money for premium television channels, as well as high-speed Internet, mobile phone service and even land-line phone service.

Since I've been living in Toronto, I've had major run-ins with both companies. When I first moved here last year, I entered into an agreement with Bell's offshoot mobile phone company, Solo, for a plan I was told included long distance minutes to the US, as part of the monthly charge. After 10 days, my service was cut off because I had exceeded the "spending cap" they had placed on my account, because the charges for the long distance minutes I'd racked up exceeded the amount of credit they were willing to give me. It took me over a month to get a straight answer from anyone, which ended up coming from someone at a Bell Canada corporate office here in Toronto. I was allowed to break my contract, since I was so obviously mislead by an inept sales rep who erroneously told me my long distance minutes were included in the charges. That sent me scurrying to Rogers Communications, who graciously offered me an iPhone 3G for less than the going rate, because I purchased a high-end package which includes long distance service to the US, a data plan for Internet access, unlimited texting, and a mobile Internet device for my laptop. All told, Rogers gets close to $200.00 a month out of me for all this; but this relationship has also been fraught with lies and miscommunication. My plan includes free talk time on nights and weekends. I was clearly told that this included long distance to the US. Of course, I made a point of talking to my friends and family in the States during the allotted "free" periods, until I received a bill one month for close to $300.00. After scraping myself off the floor, and sifting through the details of this bill, I noticed that I went over my allotted 500 long distance minutes, and was charged 35 cents a minute for every call over and above that limit. I was flabbergasted, and seething. I placed a call to Rogers, and thankfully, the excess charges were waived, but I was again misinformed about the long distance situation. This seems to be an issue with all the Canadian service providers, whereas in the US, they've been long been offering unlimited calls to Canada and across the US, in their upgraded packages. Here in Canada, you still have to purchase your US long distance minutes separately, at a pretty hefty cost; usually about $25.00-$35.00 extra per month. Why is this the case? Well, the reason, these usurious thieves claim, is because Canada does not have the population to support more reasonable charges for these services. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you; in Brooklyn.

The charges are so high because idiots like me are willing to pay them, and they're pretty much the same at the smaller companies like Telus and Fido. Recently, more competition entered the market, but the long distance plans are just as expensive. This is nothing more than an across the board cash-grab.

As for the cable television services, I'm afraid the same applies. Right now, basic cable is all I can afford; even the same, high-definition digital cable box I had in the US, which was free with the high-definition cable plan I had, costs almost $500.00 here in Canada. And, the premium digital channels, such as HBO Canada, and Canada's The Movie Network, which shows many of Showtime's and Starz's original programming, are extra. So, in total, mobile and land line phone service, high-speed Internet and premium cable/satellite,  is about a $450.00 a month expense. If I were a smoker, I'd rather light my cigarettes with that money, instead of giving it to these thieving bastards. At least I'd be contributing to my own demise, instead of lining someone else's pockets. And I remain unconvinced that the fact that Canada's population is 1/10th that of the US is the reason. They charge what they charge because they can, and that excuse is a biggest load of malarkey I've heard since Glenn Beck landed at Fox News.

Last night, I missed the premiere of HO's newest blockbuster series, Boardwalk Empire. I've missed a year of Real Time with Bill Maher, and a bunch of other programming I used to watch religiously. That doesn't mean I'm not glad to be living here in Canada, but it's never been more obvious to me how life is full of so many little trade-offs. Television is just a small part of life for me, but when it's intelligent television I'm missing, that pisses me off. I'm not saying Canadian television doesn't have its share of intelligent programming, but I really can't help feeling deprived. It's a small price to pay for all the advantages I have here, but I still wish I could have the best of both countries on my television. Hopefully one day I will; then, I'm sure I'll find something else to bitch about.

Nava

Are They Insane?

Greetings Friends,

Here she goes, picking on the women again... but if this doesn't make you shake your head, I honestly don't know what will.

The image on the left is of clothing designer Georgina Chapman, wife of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, and purveyor of the Marchesa line of gorgeous red carpet-ready gowns. Actress Ali Larter (last seen in the series Lost) is on the right. Both are perfect examples of how to look gorgeous when you're pregnant, and I give them kudos for that. The one thing I must take issue with are the shoes; particularly Chapman's: is it really necessary to potentially do harm to yourself and your unborn child by wearing such ridiculously high platform stiletto heels? Especially when you're tottering perilously close to a subway grating? Hell, at least Larter is safely on the red carpet. We all know that smoking, drinking and drugs are at the very least verboten while pregnant, so shouldn't high heels fall into the same category? Methinks the answer is an unequivocal "yes".

I'm not saying that women should have to succumb to the Victorian notion of "lying in" while they're great with child. Nor do I believe they should swaddle themselves in the maternity attire of yesteryear that tends to make one resemble a float in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. There has to be a happy medium somewhere, and those heels are not it. Wouldn't a simple 2 inch heel suffice? Pregnancy isn't a permanent condition; a few short months of stylish compromise never killed anyone, but those heels could potentially cause some lasting damage. With all the technology at our disposal - the ultrasounds, amniocentesis, and the myriad other tests pregnant women are now subjected to, you'd think they'd want to take every possible physical precaution, including the stowing of the Louboutins and Blahinks in favour of something a bit more sensible for the time being. I realize a pair of Chuck Taylors wouldn't be complimentary to either frock, but lopping off a few inches of heel height wouldn't have landed either one of these women on any "worst dressed" list. Is that too great a sacrifice to make for your unborn child?

What I'm trying to wittily (I hope) bring to light is the fact that women, and men, are no longer willing to make the sacrifices necessary to become parents. During a woman's pregnancy, there isn't much the daddy is affected by, until the screaming bundle finally lands in his arms. But the defiance on the part of pregnant women, particularly those who find themselves subject to a "bump watch", like Chapman and Larter, is maddening. Other women will find it necessary to emulate this defiance, by attempting to sashay through their own pregnancies wearing stiletto heels. These are the women who may find themselves flat on a gurney on their way to a hospital emergency room after taking a spill in a pair of 6 inch heels. The possibility of something like that could be life threatening for both mother and unborn child. Why take the chance? Yes, we would all love to walk the red carpet, looking as glamorous as the Hollywood A-listers, but there comes a time when you need to think of someone other than yourself. Especially when that other person is incapable of deciding what's best for them. So, before the breast milk vs. formula debate ensues, protect yourself and your foetus by sticking those heels in storage for a while. Get used to having to worry about someone else for a change. Your child will thank you for that.

Again, I must disclaim that I do not have children. However, I did discuss this topic with my friend D., the mother of two wonderful boys, and she concurred that the footwear choices above were "absolutely ridiculous".

Have a safe and wonderful weekend.

Nava

I Don't Like Spam!