Showers Should not be this Complicated

 

Showers are not terribly complicated from a mechanical standpoint. The technology that works them hasn’t changed all that much since it was invented a few hundred years ago. This being true, why on earth are showers so difficult in Europe? First off, there’s the dreaded “handshower”, you know, where the showerhead is has the little hose and isn’t attached at the top of the shower? If it just had the hose and an attachment high up, it would be all fancy, but since it doesn’t, you have to do all the aiming and have nowhere to put the showerhead besides the floor otherwise. You can never relax because you always have to be holding the showerhead, otherwise its showering water all over the place.

The handshower makes the next peculiarity of European showers particularly insensible: no shower curtain. Why? Seriously, I cannot think of a good reason not to have a shower curtain. Do Europeans just really like to get their whole bathroom wet when they shower? Its not like the shower curtain is a super-modern or expensive item either, so I don’t know what’s holding them back. They have regular curtains, like for windows and such, so clearly they are aware of the concept. We can keep the sun out our rooms, but not the water out of the bathroom? It doesn’t make any sense!

Now some showers do have curtains, but they’re so flawed as to be useless. For instance, one of the shower curtains I’ve encountered was about three and a half feet long and about five and a half feet off the ground (and hung from a curtain rod just outside the shower). What then, is the purpose of this? Its hardly blocking any water, and what it does catch drips off of it right into the main part of the bathroom. Why bother at all then?

Another baffling feature of European showers is that some aren’t at all differentiated from the rest of the room. Not only don’t they have a curtain, but they also don’t have anything on the floor, like a little ledge to keep water from running into the main part of a bathroom. Is this a personal preference this? Are there really just a bunch o Europeans who enjoy that flooded-bathroom feeling after every shower? Sometimes I hear people tell me that they want to move to Europe and become European, but if this is their attitude about showering (which should be a really uncomplex issue), I’ll keep my luxurious American bathrooms, thanks.

The Trouble With Time Zones

Written from Greece (and with a computer that keeps trying desperately to change my writing into Greek font):

The biggest issue with time zones is that the second I leave my usual zone, I have no idea what time it really is. Usually, when in the United States, it isn't so bad, because my phone (bless you, technology) usually updates immediately to the proper time. However, when traveling farther afield, like say...maybe Greece... I'm completely lost. This far out of its comfort zone, my phone can take days to "automatically" change to the correct time. I could change it myself manually, but then I'd actually have to know what time it is myself, which is the whole reason I need the clock on the phone anyways.

Now, of course, I could be old school, and use my watch like a normal person. But that is in Philadelphia time... which I'm not in anymore. Using the power of google, I determined that I am 7 hours ahead... Shouldn't be too hard then to figure out the time, right? Wrong. I can't do anything that involves numbers with any degree of certainty. So sure seven hours difference. So off I go to calculating and I get... 1:45am. Yeah...that should be fine...right? Hrm, well its a weird time, since its sunny out, and it really doesn't feel like the middle of the night. Must have done my time calculations in the wrong direction.

Then that's only half the problem. When I finally get everything set in Greece-time, I still have to figure out what time it is in the States so I can talk to my friends and family. But wait! They're in two different time zones, three hours apart. And then I'm completely lost.

Since I'm not a sun dial, its hard to me to accurately figure out what time it is. Yes, night = dark and day = light, but 11am and 4pm look pretty much the same when it comes down to it. I need to be like NASA with three different clocks displaying the different time zones I need to think about, to save me from my own calculation errors.

Certainly, it wouldn't do at all to just abolish time zones altogether, but there has got to be a better way than this madness! Everyone on the planet experiencing different times all at once? When you think about it, its kind of weird. And also, if you get a good look at a map with the time zone lines on it, that stuff is whack. Russia is split up every two hours instead of every one hour, India is on the half hour when all of its neighbors are one the hour, and the lines meander crazily about the map. Shouldn't they just be straight and uniform? Granted, I'm an idiot when it comes to numbers, but it seems like there's a lot of ways for a lot of people to get confused here.

New Everything of the Week 5.15.2011

It's Sunday, which means that it is time for a new Artwork and Quote of the Week! I've even got two new Words of the Moment to spice things up as well. Since I'll be out of the country for the next few Sundays, you might see these Things of the Week for a bit longer than a week- it can't really be helped.

For the Artwork of the Week (possibly several weeks), I've picked another Flemish Master (I remember there being one before, maybe a month or two ago). There's just something about those incredibly detailed 15th century paintings that gets me every time.

Annunciation, Jan van Eyck. 1434/36. National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.

There are a lot of really amazing details in this painting. Look at the floor tiles! Each one of them has its own scene! Or the rainbow wings on Gabriel (or the incredible fabric of his robes). Check out the gorgeous architecture of the church in the background. There is so much going on in the painting, but it doesn't main point of the image. Anyways, I really like this one, so I hope everyone likes it too!

Now, for the Quote of the Week, I've got something from a book I read last week:

"Organizational skill is the boring gift of the untalented."

-Rosalind, One Perfect Rose, by Mary Jo Putney

That quote is for my brother, who was graced with most of the cool talents (artistic skill, mastery of mathematics), when I got stuck with the boring skills (spelling, organization). I'm always jealous of people with cool talents, like my brother, and every person on the planet who can sing well, or play an instrument, etc.

As for the Words of the Moment, I've got two new ones: salubrious and scurrilous.

Salubrious (suh-loo-bree-uhs)

adj. Favorable or promoting health.

Origin 1540/50

Vegetables and exercise are salubrious.

Scurrilious (skur-uh-luhs)

adj. 1) grossly or obscenely abusive 

2) characterized by or using low buffoonery

Origin 1570/80

I think of this word as relating more to bad guys in dark alleys.

Rasputin carried out his scurrilous plot to assassinate the royal family.

The Evolution of the Kilt

There once was a time when people wore skirts. All people, not just women. Thinking back, probably some of the first people to popularize the kilt variety of manskirt are the Egyptians (arguably, they are far from the first civilization with men who totally worked the loincloth or tunic look). Fashionable Egyptians (including many a pharoah) wore the "shendyt" (call it what you want, ancient dudes: it's still a manskirt) for hunting, combat, and other extremely manly activities. The shendyt usually came to above the knees (mini-manskirt), and extra-special pharaoh versions tend to have a big triangular part in front. Here's a lovely picture of Pharaoh Ramesses III (he's one of the coolest- if anyone ask, say he fought the mysterious Sea People) rocking his manskirt:

Ramesses III offering a sphinx, Sanctuary of Khonsu Temple, Karnak, Egypt

The shendyt is a fairly practical garment for ancient Egypt: lightweight for the hot weather and apparently great for the freedom needed for manly outdoor activities. So... it makes sense that they would wear them. But, you wear where kilts don't make sense? Probably the most well-known home of the manskirt: the Scottish Highlands. It is cold and rainy there, and any girl can tell you that is bad weather for a skirt. The Scottish kilt apparently originated in the 1500s (which shocks me- I thought they'd been around since at least the 1300s, but I guess not). Originally, they were one long piece of plaid fabric that served as kilt/skirt plus some extra to throw over your shoulder. Eventually this evolved into just the skirt-only version we're more familiar with. Here's another fabulous photo, this time of a Highland soldier in his "great kilt" (as opposed to the later skirt-only version):

Highland soldier 1744

The Scottish are definitely best known for their kilts, but the old tradition has gone decidedly trendy. Believe it or not, a small segment of the American male population have decided they need more manskirts in their life. I believe the trend originated in Seattle with the invention of "Utilikilts", which is a camo/cargo-pocketed version of the Scottish staple. They're also a bit longer, covering the wearer's knees (good thing?). I feel more than a little creepy looking for photos to show you (they don't do ad campaigns, so the only pictures are of "real wearers", and that's just too weird for me), so you'll have to google to yourself if you're dying to know what the modern manskirt looks like.

Ed. Note: Sorry there haven't been posts in the last few days- Blogger has been down! But it's back up and I'll be posting for another week! After that, I'll be gone for a month- reminder to let me know if you want to guest-blog!

John Cabot Isn't English?!

Sometimes you discover something that completely undermines your historical assumptions. This is one of those times. I always thought English explorer John Cabot was English... but no!!! John Cabot, like most of the other early world explorers is Italian!

Of course, the first thing that pops into my mind is: "Since when is anyone Italian ever named John Cabot?" But history books have been lying to you on this one too! John Cabot's real name is Giovanni Gabato (sounds much more Italian, doesn't it?)! The English just decided to pretend he was English and completely Anglicized his name. I mean, this is the man who discovered the territory that would become the Thirteen Colonies for the English!

Now, the whole Cabot thing is definitely a complete surprise for me (John Cabot isn't English! I'm still trying to reconcile myself to this fact), but there are of course lots of other Italian explorers who set off on their grand adventures for other countries. For instance, Christopher Columbus, who is from Genoa, navigated the seas and discovered the New World for Spain. How about Amerigo Vespucci, from whose name we get "America"? Also Italian. More Italians: Giovanni da Verrazzano (explored the New World for France), Pietro di Brazza (explored Africa for France).

Moral of the story: John Cabot is Italian, not English!

My Tirade Against Pens

I know people like pens,  but I kind of think they're a menace. After all, what good can a pen do that a pencil can't? Pencils overall are much better, I think (mechanical pencils especially). You know why I love mechanical pencils? Because they can erase. Sometimes I make mistakes when I am writing, and its pretty embarrassing when you can't erase. Think about it: with a pencil, when you mess up, you just erase and write whatever it was correctly- even if you mess up again, you can just erase and have a do over. With a pen, you have to cross it and write again, which really only brings more attention to the fact that you can't write. No good at all. For instance, I really dislike being told I have to use pen on an exam, because when I get all stressed (as tends to happen in exams), and I have to think quickly, my writing goes to heck in a handbasket (my dad's phrase, borrowed, I think, from a bumper sticker). It would be great to just erase little spelling, grammatical, etc. errors, but nooooo. Instead I'm writing with a pen, which means I have to scratch it out and make a mess of my blue book.

Another thing: you can't use a pen in a museum. Because they tend to mark things in a pretty permanent manner, a lot of museums forbid you from using a pen if you're going to be anywhere near artifacts. And why do anything that would make you forbidden to hang out with artifacts? Just another reason pencils are better.

Furthermore, you can't shade with pens, which is bad for doodles, drawings, etc. Another point for pencils.

Also: pens eventually run out of ink, which is really annoying (especially if you're in the middle of a test, because then you have to go and ask for another pen, even though you are clearly holding one in your hand- but of course it doesn't work because it is out of ink!). Mechanical pencils (the true winner of all pencils) don't really have this problem. When they run out of lead, you just open them up and add more- its brilliant.

You know why else I don't like pens? People click them. And clicky pens? Probably one of the most irritating things ever. And people sometimes don't even realize they're doing it, so as the constantly clicking is slowly driving you into madness, they keep on blithely clicking along. Aaaaagh (I swear I'm not losing it... okay, finals might be getting to me).

One final thing I like about pencils. When you find a mechanical pencil you like, its pretty much a sure thing that there are several million more of them out there. So if you lose it, or it gets borrowed by some kid who never gives it back (hey kid, you have my pencil, don't think I forgot), you can always get another pack of 20 identical pencils. But pens? Ooooh no. You find that one pen you like, and no other pen is really like it. Doesn't quite feel the same, doesn't quite write the same. No two pens are ever completely alike, so when one gets "borrowed" or you lose it (or it runs out of ink), you've lost your favorite pen forever.

So now that I've written way more than I intended on the topic of pens v. pencils, I hope that you agree: pencils are far superior to pens. Of course, if you disagree, that's fine too, since pens really aren't that much of a contentious subject. Honestly, if you really want to stick to pens, that's totally cool for me. More pencils for me anyways.

Finals Season

Its Finals Season...alternately known as Term Paper Season. If anyone wonders why I haven't blogged in the last few days, I humbly apologize and offer up finals as my excuse. I've read so many early 20th century newspapers for one term paper that I've forgotten how to properly use a comma (early 20th century newspaper articles: fun to read, but they really don't bother with grammar). I've visited the library website so many times (I figure that if I keep searching the library database, it will eventually find more useful books) that I really should give up my pride and bookmark it on my computer. My room is no longer my room, instead it is merely my command center, where I research and write (with occasional/frequent breaks for food).

Now, I'm generally as serious as anyone else is about studying/exams/papers, but I've really gone crazy for one of my papers. After a month researching and writing the first draft, I submitted it to my professor, eagerly awaiting her praise. Finally, she returned my draft back to me and I read her comments. She hated it- her comments tore my precious paper to shreds. Normally, this would hurt briefly and then I'd get over it, edit the paper a bit, submit a final draft, and never think about the paper again. But this paper was on the Middle Ages...and art....I like those things...I like thinking I'm pretty good at writing about those things. My professor's criticism cut deep. So now, I'm on the warpath. This paper will be the best thing she's ever read, or else. No stone will go unturned in my research (and by stones, I mean books...and by "no stone", I mean "no stone that isn't written in French, because I can't read French"). How serious am I? Real serious. I have even read all of these (plus another one that was sitting open and I forgot to grab):

If you are looking for one of these books...sorry that I'm hording them. I should be done with them soonish. In that pile are books from 7 different libraries, at schools all across the Northeast. I refuse to let my professor say that there isn't enough secondary (or primary for that matter) research in my beast of a term paper. Sunny weather be darned- I am hunkered down in my command center ignoring all distractions (except of course blogging, but since I haven't posted in two days, I sort of have to, right?) Anyways, back to work!

That's the command center...my desk was too small to fit all of the books I needed. Anyways, good luck to all the people out there who are still studying to exams and writing papers like there's no tomorrow! Summer will come soon enough. And to those of you who have finished their tests and papers already and who are currently enjoying summer? I'm secretly really, really jealous of you.

Important News and A Mediterranean Vacation

Dear Readers,

Later this month (May 20th), I'll be leaving for the distant land of Greece. I'll be working there for a month, during which time my internet access will be sketchy at best (and international phone service is always iffy). Subsequently, I will not be able to blog May 21st- June 18th. I promise you all some excellent posts when I arrive back in the United States (and I won't even overload you with Mycenaean stuff- which is what I'm doing in Greece). I thought I'd let you all know now, before I forget to say it, then everyone will wonder if I just quit blogging all of a sudden. No fears- I am here now and I will be back.

Since there's still some time before I leave, and I hate to leave the blog barren for a full month, I'd like to pose a question to you all: is there anyone who would like to guest-blog for the month? Maybe only once, maybe once a week, maybe whenever they feel like it. If the idea interests you, reply in the comments- I'm happy to have someone guest-blog whilst I am away!

Now, since it is finals, I am once again in the mood for a mini-vacation. But of course, since it is finals (and I have no money), it will have to be an imaginary vacation. For so today's post, I'll add a photo vacation to the Mediterranean (it was going to be just to Greece, since that seemed relevant, but as I was digging through some old vacation photos, I decided I liked some of the other ones better). The good news is that you don't even have to pack or pay for airfare, just sit back, relax, and prepare your eyes for this visual vacation:

 Sorrento, Italy

Capri, Italy

 Erechtheion, Acropolis, Athens, Greece

 Mykonos, Greece

 Mykonos, Greece

 Mykonos, Greece

 Old City, Rhodes, Greece

Library at Celsius, Ephesos, Turkey

Ignoring the fact that I clearly avoid taking pictures with people in them and don't take any notice of wonky horizon lines, I hope you enjoyed today's photo vacation!

New Artwork and Quote of the Week- Plus a Whole Brand New Feature!

For this week's artwork, I went with something a little older than usual. I decided to kick it up in the Neolithic today and go with Stonehenge. Stonehenge sits in the Salisbury Plain (I am under the impression they make delicious steaks there), which is in southern England. It is also a UNESCO World Heritage site- one of the first to be put on the list. Also, did you know that the Queen technically owns Stonehenge? True fact, although why she wants it, I'm not entirely sure. She's lot lots of lovely crowns, castles, and other nice things already.

Anyways, archaeologists determined that Stonehenge was built in three major stages. Stonehenge 1 was started as early as 3100BC, which is firmly in the Neolithic period. The second phase dates from around 3000BC, although you can no longer see these parts today. Stonehenge 3 (parts I-V) are from 2600BC- 1600BC, and make up mostly what we see today.

Stonehenge, Salisbury Plain, England. 3100BC-1600BC

Many uses for Stonehenge have been proposed, although the immense number of burials around the site indicate it served a community/cultural burial purpose. It also likely served as a cultic spot, something to the with the sun, moon, stars, etc. as very, very many people have noted (those Druids were some serious party people). Despite a number of claims made in a variety of History Channel specials, it is highly unlikely that aliens had anything to with Stonehenge. (Yes, it is amazing that such gigantic stones were placed there, however, carrying large rocks is not an impossible task for humans. Case in point: the pyramids. All pyramids.)

For this week's quote, I'm going to use something I came across while researching for a paper (welll, technically while trying to find citation information for my paper). Some brilliant copyright lawyer decided to write this:

All rights reserved, including that of translation into foreign languages, including the Scandinavian.
Copyright MCMIX, by A. Conan Doyle

-from the Copyright page of Arthur Conan Doyle's The Crime of the Congo (1909)

"The Scandinavian"? There's such a thing as Scandinavia, but various Scandinavian people speak various languages. There isn't one single Scandinavian language... Well, also- shouldn't "foreign languages" pretty much include everything already? Unless "the Scandinavian" isn't a language...? Just thought I'd share that gem with everybody for the Quote of the Week.

Starting this week, I'm going to add another special thing (eventually I will clutter that sidebar beyond all recognition)- I'm adding a Word of the Moment. It is of the moment, not the week, so I can/will change it as often as I want (or as little as I want), depending completely on my mood. This section is in honor of my little brother, who knows many words, but not so many definitions (love ya, Nick). For this week, I picked "vitriolic", because I like how it sounds and have trouble getting the spelling correct.

Vitriolic (vɪtrɪˈɒlɪk) -adj.
1. (of a substance, esp. a strong acid) highly corrosive
2. severely bitter or caustic; virulent: vitriolic criticism
 
Example: Mark Twain's opinion on King Leopold's actions in the Congo Free State are evident in his vitriolic work, King Leopold's Soliloquy.

The Definition for Nick: Basically, super mean criticism. Like if I got really mad and started insulting you, that would be vitriolic.

Turn of the Century Newspapers; Yay for Yellow Journalism

You know how sometimes people say that "kids say the darnedest things"? Well, I think early 20th century newspapers have kids beat any day of the week. After spending my Friday and Saturday trolling through historical newspaper archives (oh term papers, how I love thee...NOT), I came across some of the weirdest articles ever put in print. I'm pretty sure that they could publish anything that struck their fancy back then, no matter how ridiculous.

For instance, one article I was reading talked about how a particular colonial government in Africa (we'll call it the Belgian Congo for the sake of fun) had hired 20,000 native cannibals to eat people who misbehaved or didn't meet their work quotas. Belgian Congo was pretty bad, (think random killings and amputations) but cannibals is a bit sensationalist. Another article I was reading about the King of Belgium (circa 1904) called the man a "King of the Stage Door Johnnies". What does that even mean? (Further inquiry reveals that it means something along the lines of "a man who waits at the back door of theaters for loose women".) But seriously, insulting the reigning monarch of a European nation right in the title of your news article? That's bold. I mean, I feel like today we would never have anything like "Floozy Queen Across the Pond" or "President Whatever of that Lame Country" in the New York Times. You really could get away with printing anything you felt like writing- the more out there and incendiary the better!

I say hoorah for yellow journalism and ridiculous. Most of what I end up reading for class is very boring, so its nice to have a dash of the ridiculous thrown in there just to liven up my many hours spent researching.

Then again, maybe times were just naturally more interesting back then. For instance, one article I was reading about the evil King Leopold II of the Belgians (quite a bad guy, honestly) was right next to a completely separate article about how an army officer gallantly attempted to bust the Princess Louis out of an insane asylum, which her husband had incarcerated her in. Need I add that the valiant army officer was madly in love with the Princess and trying to save her from her awful fate? Oh 1906, why can't the news be like that now? Maybe that is why print newspapers are going out of business- because they are all boring and polite. Spice things up! Yellow journalist worked back then (case in point, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer), why wouldn't it work now?