It's called a PRINCIPLE. Not principal. PRINCIPLE.

Seriously.
I know that I am in a swiftly-decreasing minority for caring about grammar and the actual definitions of the words we use. But this is my blog and I can rant about whatever I like here. You people of the text message lexicon can shove off.

Today's irritant - Principle vs. Principal (as you may have gathered).
The catalyst for today's outburst comes from the release of Our Fair Share, the Alberta Auditor General's indictment of the Alberta oil revenue royalty regime.
Remember kids: this is a formal government document and is furthermore from the Auditor General's office, which means that it should theoretically be, you know, correct.

"The principals of transparency and accountability, I believe, were not followed. I'm not impressed."

"The department should demonstrate its stewardship of Alberta's royalty regime and provide analysis to support that stewardship and this was not done."

"The department's monitoring and technical review findings were communicated to decision-makers. The question is: Did they hear or were they listening? At the end of the day, I don't know, but they chose not to act."

(quote gratuitously ripped off of daveberta)

Do you see it there? "The PRINCIPALS of transparency and accountability."
Whatever could they mean?
The most commonly used (correct) meaning of the word would render the phrase like this:
"The most important of transparency and accountability."
hmm... that can't be it.
How about "The original sum of money lent of transparency and accountability."
Nope.
Let's try "The person with the most authority or administrative seniority (as in the principal of a school), of transparency and accountability."
That doesn't make sense either...
Last one in common usage, then: "The person for whom another acts as an agent for of transparency and accountability."
...I don't think that's what they meant either. Not even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and take out the 'of.'

Well, what a mystery. How could none of the commonly used definitions of the word 'principal' accurately portray the meaning of the sentence? That's so strange...

Well, maybe it's because the drafters of this document (and others) didn't consult a damned dictionary; maybe it's because they like sounding like illiterate monkeys when they're trying to stick it to the Ministry of Energy. That's the only reasonably explanation I can think of, since, if someone actually had looked up the word, they would have figured out that if you sub "principle" in for "principal" you look like less of an idiot when you try the exercise above.
Observe.
"The fundamental truths of transparency and accountability (that underly our system of beliefs)."
Hey! That's actually plausible.
"The general ideas of transparency and accountability."
That's kind of weak, but I get the basic idea.
"The morally correct attitudes of transparency and accountability."
Wait, it gets better...
"The fundamental laws of transparency and accountability."
Holy crap. That's a coherent sentence.

Today's lesson: if it's about being right, it's a matter of principle. Learn to spell, dumbass.

The Internet Isn't Magical, You Know

This isn't directed at any one of the far too many things I do and people who bother me electronically. Really, there's probably something generally wrong with the world, some I'm taking this obscure (and ironic) little opportunity to bring it to your attention.

Just because you can send more information electronically than you can ever hope to communicate in person doesn't mean that whoever's on the receiving end has time to deal with it.

I would like to say "Duh," but apparently, this is not a self-evident truth. I shall therefore have to employ an example.
In the last 70 minutes, I have been privy to the following electronic communications:
5 emails, 3 with attachments
1 MSN conversation
3 facebook private messages
7 wall posts and 5 "board topics" that I am expected to keep up with
and I haven't checked any of my online course discussion boards (we're up to 5-7 that I'm responsible for, depending on how you count) because I'm afraid. I also haven't checked my cell phone messages (because I can't find my phone).

The last 70 minutes. It's ALMOST TWO IN THE MORNING.

I refuse to total up the last 48 hours, mostly because I know that I've received more than 15 facebook event invitations in that time and don't really want to think about the rest.

Now, I know that there are all kinds of things in my behaviour that can be used to skewer me as the true perpetrator of this offense. I don't care what you think they are.

This is ridiculous! How am I supposed to read all of that, never mind respond to it? It is humanly possible for me to maintain a level of commitment commensurate with the one I am holding now - I've done it before. What's NOT possible is doing it when people believe that electronic methods of keeping in touch should not only be a substitute for getting together in person but can also be used as a supplement.
Don't get me wrong - the internet can be a wondrous help. It's nice to have things written down and sometimes, email is a better way to stay in touch and on top of things. That doesn't mean, however, that having access to a better way means that you should be using it to try and get people to do more things.

When you start asking for favours and feedback and work and information and attention and opinions and plans online, you start to forget that you're not just asking for a reply or a response or an RSVP or a reminder or a form - you're asking for someone's energy and possibly more importantly, their time. And though a combination of the internet and insomnia have allowed many of us to forget this next detail, one of the things that not even facebook has managed to change yet, and that detail is this - time, though it may be relative, is finite when measured in terms of the human capacity to use it. In other words, there are 24 hours in a day, and in this case, my 24 hours don't all belong to you. Stop expecting them to. Even if you have the time to email me to ask that I respond to this discussion group and that discussion group and upload 200-300 words on that novel and peer review those 4 response papers (I won't be sarcastic about the other things I've been asked to do tonight - I get that those are all important. I'm just cranky that they all showed up at once), I don't have the time to think about your little project for me, do the background, type it up, post it, rinse and repeat for the other people clamouring for the same "quick response" or "not a big deal to check/post" as well as sleep, eat, shower, read a real book, talk to people face to face, count the money I'm responsible for, do my laundry, wash my dishes, call my mom, visit my dad, and pass my classes, not to mention sending the ridiculous number of completely unreasonable e-requests out that I need to pass around, and finding my cell phone. Especially not when I could be blogging about how annoying the internet is instead.


I will now, try to concisely and elegantly sum up the point.
I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE TIME TO GIVE YOU. TRYING TO TAKE IT FROM ME VIA THE INTERNET ISN'T GOING TO WORK.

And, to be quite honest, I don't know where you find the time to write the damned email in the first place.

Oh curse you, thou wretched capitalist demons

So, I was trying to see if anywhere in Edmonton is showing the Pirates movie at midnight tonight. I thought that my best bet would be Silver City Theatres, given that they have ridiculously numerous showtimes.

Notice how I didn't linke the words Silver City anywhere? I'd like to say that's because I'm lazy. I really would.

Actually, it's because, as the trusty Edmonton Moive Guide tells me that Silver City Cinema has been renamed.

That's right. The Scotiabank theatre.

I don't normally get scandalized by this crap. It happens all the time (Rexall Place, anyone?). But Scotiabank theatre anyone? I mean, banks are boring. Movies, in theory, aren't.

So who wants to go see a movie at a bank? Especially a bank in the already very annoying West Edmonton Mall. And a bank is a terrible tourist attraction. They have those everywhere.

In conclusion: gross.