|
|
|
November 20th, 2008
11:21 pm - Obesity, disabilities, and airlines
This post on a controversial issue breaks a long term of silence on my journal. I felt compelled to post about this issue because it's one that I've been thinking about for a while.
First of all, here's the news article:
Okay, so I understand the need to make accommodations for people who are "disabled". I put that in quotation marks because while there are clear cases of disability that everyone can agree on, there are some grey areas. I do not seek to define that here so I put "disabled" in quotation marks to leave it a bit ambiguous.
Here's my take on the issue, though. An airline operates airplanes, which have two main resource constraints: space and weight. That is basically what they are selling. So, when a passenger requires more than one seat (for any reason) but only has to pay for one, I can see how the airlines get a bit bent out of shape for it. They need to give away more of their limited resources (space and weight) for the same price as someone who requires less.
Now certainly there should be some compassion and consideration for special needs, but where should the line be drawn? At what point does personal responsibility (i.e. inherent/genetic disability vs. lifestyle choice) play a role? If an airline had to give each passenger the equivalent of two seats but only charge for one, I think they would very quickly go out of business unless they doubled the price of a single seat to maintain the same amount of revenue. That's just simple math.
So this is what burns me about the airlines; if my luggage is over 50 lbs, an excess/overweight baggage fee is assessed. With Air Canada, that is $75 (!!). With AirTran (a popular discount U.S. carrier), it is $39. I realize there has to be a limit somewhere. But should it be a hard limit like that? Why can there not be a sliding, pro-rated scale? People who pack light should be rewarded, and people who pack heavier should pay more. They are using up more of the weight capacity of the plane.
Note that I usually fall into the latter group -- my suitcase is typically just toeing the 50 lb mark. But if I'm over 51 lbs (usually you get 1 lb of grace I believe), it's an automatic overweight charge that you get dinged on. I consider this to be stupid and inconsistent. Ignoring density for a moment, in most cases I think an airline should charge based on these criteria: how many seats you need, how many bags you are checking, and the total combined weight of you and all your luggage. This will generally account for all space and weight considerations, barring some exceptions.
Why should a 300-lb overweight person pay the same (or even less) than me for airfare? Let's say we bought airline tickets at the same time, at the same rate/fare price. We each get a single seat. Let's say that person's luggage weighs 45 lbs, and mine weighs 55 lbs. We're both using one seat with one suitcase in cargo (also assuming approximately the same size suitcase), but the other person's total combined weight is 345 lbs and mine is less than 200 lbs. But because my luggage was overweight, I have to pay the excess baggage fee. Is that in any way logical/fair/equitable based on the resources (remember, space and weight) that an airline is selling?
It's especially hilarious to me to hear about the extremes that some airlines are taking in an effort to reduce weight (to reduce the amount of fuel consumed on each flight). I'm sure there's still a margin for safety but airplanes are being loaded with less fuel for shorter flights, so you're not hauling around that weight; some that offer meals have replaced silverware with plastic cutlery; some have done away with snacks entirely. I'm sure every little bit makes a difference, but let's consider what difference that really makes. On a passenger plane with 300 occupants (not including crew), if each were to have a bag of pretzels (even a 50 g bag is larger than what you normally get), that is only 15 kg (33 lbs) of pretzels per flight. Even a single overweight passenger could easily cancel out the weight reduction/savings by not taking on pretzels. With 300 passengers on a plane I am sure that at least one person is more than 30 lbs overweight. That is nearly a mathematical certainty.
Do you see them getting charged more? Of course not. That would be "discriminatory". Discrimination has such negative connotations these days. But we all discriminate, even against people; not just the form of discrimination where we decide between chocolate and vanilla. Interviewers discriminate when hiring someone for a job. We discriminate between which people we choose to form friendships or relationships with. Of course there are certain criteria we legally cannot discriminate against, but there's no law for discriminating against stupid or inexperienced people (note that I am not referring to anyone with a learning or other disability) when hiring.
The real issue is whether the criterion you are discriminating on is *relevant* to the situation. An ugly accountant that doesn't have to meet clients can do a job just as well as an attractive one. But someone who is not "cosmetically gifted" does not generally get the leading male role in a movie unless he's playing the part of Quasimodo. Skin colour never really matters unless it's something like an acting role, for example. A white Othello (the character is a Moor from the Shakespearean play, usually interpreted as being dark-skinned) would make no sense unless you were reversing all the roles.
Again, an airline is selling space and weight so the number of seats they are giving up plus the luggage issue are entirely relevant. Now, what about the issue of affordability? Well, last I checked an airplane ticket is not really a necessity so I don't think a case of financial hardship of having to pay for two seats will fly (haha). Businesses discriminate against people without money to pay for their goods and services. Nothing wrong with that unless it's an essential service or basic human right (e.g. as is the case with primary health care or 911 emergency services in Canada and some other countries).
I reiterate that there should be exceptions for compassion reasons but it is a slippery slope to force any business to start giving away more of its primary "product" or commodity for no additional charge. If the legislation and/or regulation tips the business model into being an unprofitable one and the airline falls over, guess who foots the bill? The government gives them money to keep them afloat, and that money comes from taxpayers like you and me. In a sense we would all end up subsidizing people who take up extra room or space on a plane that they (arguably in some cases) should be paying for. Yay.
Because the sale of space and weight are central to the business model of an airline (obviously having a direct impact to their bottom line), it does not seem so clear-cut to me that they should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of space and weight. If that's the way the game has to be played though, it should be consistent. I should be allowed my 5 lbs overweight luggage with no extra charge if Bubba ate too much McDonald's and weighs twice as much as I do.
I've repeated myself a lot and some of the thoughts may be disjointed but I was basically just typing as I thought of things. This is not an essay, so I'm leaving it as is.
|
March 9th, 2008
04:40 pm - One thing I don't like about church
There's one thing in particular I don't like about church. Gasp! Horrors! Blasphemy! For those of you who may have fainted, I'll wait till you recover...
...
Okay, moving on. I don't like shaking hands all that much. In business settings, when you're shaking hands with a very small number of people (typically 1-3 at most at any given time), I'm fine with that. But at church, I am disliking it more and more.
IMO, shaking hands with people is one of the most universally stupid things to do during cold and flu season (I'm not considering other things that are normally stupid to do like licking a bus or subway pole). Because not everyone covers his or her mouth and nose properly while sneezing or coughing (into an elbow, NOT a hand!), shaking hands becomes one of the most likely modes of transmission and infection, along with touching doorknobs/handles. If we could just stop being so handshake-happy, I'm sure we'd cut the rates of infection by a tangible amount.
People at church are usually very friendly and like to greet each other. I don't fault them for that at all. The problem is the handshaking. Not everybody wants to, like me...okay, maybe I'm in a very small minority. But at church, shaking hands with a half-dozen people during the course of the morning is likely equivalent to shaking the hands of a few dozen people, if not more. During cold and flu season, one of those people is very likely to be a carrier or be sick themselves.
We should be able to greet each other without the necessity of physical contact. Instead, Western society places a great amount of social pressure to conform to handshaking. Traditionally, most Asian (including but not limited to East Asian) cultures will bow as a greeting instead of shaking hands. I wish that were more acceptable in North America. I'd even be fine with the greeting style they used in "Demolition Man" (hehe). In that future they realized the potential danger of unnecessary physical contact like shaking hands. So instead, two people would each hold up one hand close to the other's hand (without touching), and make circles.
I'm aware of the history behind handshaking as a greeting to show that one wasn't carrying a weapon. Bowing in Asian cultures takes care of that, too; frequently, both hands are joined in front of you while bowing.
This has just been bothering me by an increasing amount since I became sick a couple weeks ago. I'm fine now, but for over a week I had a sore throat and at one point, lost my voice for several days due to voice strain. I'm quite positive due to the timing that I picked it up from someone at church. Those who know me well know that I almost never get sick. At work, I believe I've had only one sick day in the last 4.5 years, even while coworkers had been dropping off like flies. As for anything really "serious" (e.g. flu), I've not had something like that for longer than I can remember (definitely prior to high school). Thus I earned the title of "invincible". When they found out I was sick a couple weeks ago, they wanted to throw a party to celebrate :P (They were joking...I think.)
Unfortunately my objections to handshaking at church present me with a dilemma. I'd really rather not shake hands with so many people, especially during cold and flu season. But I see no polite way of avoiding it without pretending I'm sick all the time. Even then I think some people feel slighted if I withhold a handshake "out of consideration" for them.
It's not always possible to wash one's hands immediately after handshaking. But you can't do that all the time, either; too-frequent handwashings will reduce your skin's resistance to threats (through drying out). The anti-bacterial gels won't cut it for me, either. I don't like those anti-bacterial gels for a number of reasons. First, even those with anti-microbial properties can't really kill viruses very effectively (if at all). Colds and flus are caused by viruses. Secondly, using anti-bacterial agents unnecessarily only contributes to bacteria building resistance (the strains that survive will continue to proliferate, and this is becoming a very serious problem). Thirdly, anti-bacterial gels almost invariably have a high alcohol content because the primary mode of killing bacteria is through dessication. That necessarily makes your hands dry. An alcohol-based anti-bacterial with a moisturizer is really sort of backwards, IMO. It's not really possible AFAIK to be effective at both since they have opposing goals. Since I already have dry skin and eczema, dry hands ain't so great for me. Fourthly, most anti-bacterial gels contain some sort of fragrance to smell nice. I don't like that either since I'm allergic to some of those fragrances added to gels/lotions/creams.
If someone has a better idea of how to deal with this, I'm all ears...err...eyes.
|
February 24th, 2008
04:01 pm - Tories snub Canadian Nobel laureates
Recently, there was a reception to honour Canadian scientists who participate(d) in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC and Al Gore were awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". The achievement by the participating Canadian scientists was apparently not acknowledged in any meaningful way by the Conservative Party. Neither Harper, nor Minister of the Environment John Baird, nor any other official Tory delegate attended. Not even a token letter or certificate of recognition from the federal government. Maybe if the Tories stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem, the issue of man-made climate change will go away. Because ignoring a problem is an incredibly effective way to resolve it.
First article:
Second article:
|
February 10th, 2008
06:45 pm - White House "accidentally" lost a lot of e-mails
This whole thing totally pisses me off, especially as I am an IT professional. The truth is nearly inescapable; the U.S. government was (and possibly still is actively) engaged in the willful destruction of evidence.
An AP article I saw on Yahoo News is below.
I'll offer up another article, from the Washington Post:
How the heck do they get away with this? "Recycling" backup tapes? Is the Administration suddenly concerned with the environment for this one, lone, inconsequential issue while U.S. oil consumption for gasoline alone is over 9 million barrels per day (U.S. Energy Information Administration), or 20.73 million barrels per day in total (CIA World Factbook)? Or are they recycling because they're too damn cheap to spend the money on more tapes? Unlikely, given that the U.S. is spending $720 million PER DAY (Washington Post) on the war in Iraq. LTO-4 tapes wth 800 GB native capacity cost only $100 each; and e-mail, being primarily plain text or HTML, compresses extremely well. So a single 800 GB tape could hold well over 2 TB (2000 GB), compressed (and that's at an extremely conservative compression ratio for text and some attachments of 2.5:1).
It's just totally bullshit. The government can pass legislation like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and others, which dictate data retention requirements from the fallout of scandals like WorldCom and Enron. But for their own records, who cares? Just overwrite the tapes...looking at the first article, the timing of "gaps" in e-mail archives is remarkably coincident with leaks and scandals, like the Valerie Plame/CIA issue and "a five-day span starting on Jan. 29, 2004, when the White House was dealing with the possibility of an election-year probe by Congress into Iraq intelligence failures."
There's no way that anybody responsible for system administration in the White House could possibly think that recycling backup tapes is an A-okay practice. A policy decision must have been explicitly made to reuse old backup tapes. And that likely came from the CIO, Theresa Payton (at least that's where the buck should stop). Hanlon's Razor cannot reasonably be applied here (okay, well, maybe Grey's Law). This is not incompetence. This is intentional malice. The sysadmins would know that reusing the tapes was destroying data that should be archived. As far as I am concerned, everyone involved, down to the dude(tte) who manages the backup tapes, has done something incredibly illegal. These e-mails and other documents are not kept just for historical purposes. They are and should be kept as evidence to ensure government accountability; either as a defence against litigation, or for prosecuting criminal offences committed by those in office.
The Presidential Records Act indicates that ALL records must be preserved and only data that no longer has "administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value" can be destroyed AFTER approval by the Archivist of the United States. Destroying the records by overwriting backup tapes is a felony offence. It's so damn ironic that the government can destroy records at will while wiretapping the hell out of everyone, working with AT&T and other telecomm companies to monitor every single binary digit (voice, data, everything) passing through national and global networks. It's not even apples-to-apples, because the government should record everything about themselves. They're in public office, and should be accountable to the public. Nothing should be private except "state secrets"; and now, it seems like everything's a frigging "state secret" to preserve "national security". Let's also not forget about the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The public has the right to request information from federal departments under a FOIA request. Can't very well do that when the information no longer exists.
I read a hilarious comment about this line from the article:
"White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he has no reason to believe any e-mails were deliberately destroyed."
This was "fixed" as:
"White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he has no intention to admit any e-mails were deliberately destroyed."
I think that this Administration is quite possibly the most egregiously dishonest and corrupt in the entire history of the United States. It has left this country in a profound mess for the next Administration to deal with. Thought experiment: if a Democratic president is elected, what will happen? How will they deal with all the problems they've inherited, from the neverending war, to the tanking economy? Will they get blamed for everything, only to be ousted at the next election and replaced with another Republican? Is there much hope left, or as the U.S. gone too far down the slippery slope? Inquiring minds want to know, and Canadians fear we will be dragged down with them.
|
January 26th, 2008
08:10 pm - His Worship, the Mayor?
It was recently brought to my attention (while reading a news article) that a mayor is addressed as "His Worship [Fred Flintstone], Mayor of [City]". That's the case in Canada, anyhow.
Is it a criminal offence to mock the style of address of a dignitary? I like a style of address that Han Solo used when talking to Princess Leia. He said, "Your Worshipfulness". Hehe.
Seriously though, I think it's antiquated and a bit ridiculous. It's even worse when politicians are so frequently undeserving of the titles or respect they supposedly command (e.g. "The Honourable..."). I don't feel so strongly as to campaign for changes (waste of time and money compared to other priorities), but as some politicians act in decidedly dishonourable ways, it's a bit discordant to see such titles before their names.
|
January 22nd, 2008
11:29 pm - False statements preceded war [on Iraq]
Surprise, surprise, huh? Here's an AP news story about a study that was conducted by two nonprofit journalism organizations.Study: False statements preceded war
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.
"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.
"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.
"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.
On the Net:
Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx
Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/ I call bullshit on what White House spokesman Stanzel said ("The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world"). Look at the multinational force in Iraq. On the same page, look at the incentives that the U.S. offered to coalition members. Now, check out the U.N. security council. Of the 5 permanent members, 3 refuse to participate (China, Russa, France). Of the elected members at the time (2003), none (including Germany, a G8 nation) sent troops as a show of support (Germany opposed the invasion outright).
The fact that the Administration continues to assert these fabrications should be an affront to all Americans. Your Commander-in-Chief lied to you, and continues to lie to you. The senior staff at the time are all culpable...Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell. The level of deception and misinformation involved totally invalidates incompetence as an explanation for the whole Iraq issue. Based on this and so much else, I can draw no conclusion other than that this was willful and deliberate, and possibly even malicious in pursuit of hidden agendas at the expense of many lives (soldiers and civilians alike) and the U.S. economy.
|
January 17th, 2008
01:20 am - Patience FTW! Chocolate inventory has been re-stocked!
Exercising patience and persistence usually pays off. In 2006 after Hallowe'en, supermarkets were clearing out their candy. I was on the lookout for boxes of Nestle Favourites chocolate (50's), as I like Aero, Coffee Crisp, Kit Kat, and Smarties (in no particular order). A local grocery store had marked them down from perhaps $8 or $9 to $4 per box. So I bought eight (!) boxes. A good deal! The chocolate lasted for a whole year even after giving a box away to a coworker's son with peanut allergies (like myself) and frequently sharing my stash with coworkers.
In 2007, I planned to go out again to get Nestle chocolate after Hallowe'en. Unfortunately, I went to the grocery stores on November 1. They had all marked down the Nestle boxes on October 31, so it was all gone by the time I checked. I was greatly saddened as I ventured from one grocery store to the next, trying to find someplace that still had them in stock.
One such grocery store, Sobey's, still had them in stock; but only because they remained at the full retail price of $7.99. What a rip-off. I asked the grocery manager if he had intended to mark them down soon; he said no. I made it a point to check Sobey's at least 2 times a week from the beginning of November to see if it had been marked down yet. I knew it was only a matter of time; it had become a contest of wills.
Over the last few months (including Christmas holidays), boxes were slowly disappearing off the shelves, being sold at full price. There were over 100 to begin with, so there was still a substantial number remaining after the holidays.
Finally, this past Friday, a lucky break; all Nestle boxes were moved that day to the centre aisle, and marked down to $2.99. w00t! I claimed another eight boxes for myself. Victory was mine! Mwuahahaha! People looked at me funny as I walked up to the register, carrying eight boxes. They're great in the office for snacking and/or employee morale, and I've also been told, by first-hand account, that it's a good way to bribe students for favourable course evaluations. Hmmm, maybe I should try that this term, although my course evals so far have all been quite positive.
|
January 14th, 2008
10:14 pm - A plea to evangelicals — from an evangelical (but not me)
It's been a while since I posted...this one's a good read, though. It's an opinion article from USA Today.
I think that Gushee has it pretty much bang-on. I've previously written about how the "religious right" are one- or two-issue voters. I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone (never mind Christians) still supports the Bush Administration, given its terrible track record. The people composing the Administration, as a whole, are almost completely morally bankrupt. I would nearly say that they are totally evil given some of the things brought by this Administration (unjust war based on fabricated evidence, doctrine of pre-emption, prisoner abuse, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping of citizens, extraordinary (as well as erroneous) rendition, secret prisons, waterboarding and other means of torture, illegal detainment of citizens, willful destruction of evidence, abuse of executive privilege, erosion of civil liberties, no-bid contracts to companies with ties to the Administration, government corruption by industry lobbying, highly questionable and provably compromisable voting machines used in elections, the VP pretending he's not part of the executive branch, cronyism, nearly doubling the U.S. national debt in two terms, geez have I missed anything??), but then I remind myself of Hanlon's Razor. Maybe they're just bloody incompetent. But that's getting harder and harder to believe with each new scandal or piece of legislation designed to rip away the rights and freedoms of U.S. citizens in the ongoing "security theatre".
|
October 23rd, 2007
11:04 pm - Do I look like I work here?!, Part Deux (new record!)
I officially have a new record for mistaken employee identity. On this past Saturday, I was assumed to be an employee by other customers at four (4) distinct stores. First, it was at Canadian Tire; second, at Food Basics; third, at The Barn Markets; and finally, at Zellers.
I was wearing a green Adidas golf shirt and khakis. Food Basics and The Barn Markets have green golf shirts as uniforms, but then they don't have an Adidas logo (and they also have name tags). Canadian Tire and Zellers have red golf shirts as uniforms, so maybe those customers were colour-blind (but again, I had no name tag). The fact that most customers mistaking me for an employee do not speak English as their first language continues to ring true.
This new record is going to be tough to beat. It's almost a challenge to be beaten.
|
October 8th, 2007
02:03 am - Do I look like I work here?!
It seems that I am frequently mistaken as an employee of whatever establishment that I happen to be in. The way in which it happens is that some other patron or customer decides that I'm an employee and proceeds to ask me a question of some sort (for example, "how much is this?", or, "where do I find...?"). Every time, I feel a combination of amusement, annoyance, and incredulity.
Not too long ago, my friends and I went to a Canadianized Chinese buffet restaurant. I was mistaken for a waiter although I was not remotely dressed like any of the other waitstaff. That's understandable though; I mean, Chinese guy in a Canadianized Chinese buffet restaurant. I must work there, right?
The most recent cases of mistaken employee identity occurred this weekend on Saturday and Sunday. In TWO days, I was mistaken for an employee THREE times. The first time was at Sears on Saturday. I was browsing the hardware section, admiring the fine array of Craftsman tools (man, their screwdrivers with acetate handles haven't changed in something like 30 years). Some guy figured he'd ask me how much something cost, even though the sign was RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. There's also the fact that the hardware folks at Sears often wear red golf shirts, identifying them as employees.
The second time was at Wal-Mart on Sunday, when Hannah and I were getting curtain rods. I wandered off by myself to look for something in electrical, and some lady asked me where she could find something. Yes, I must be an employee at Wal-Mart, even though my wardrobe decidedly lacked a blue vest with name tag. I suppose it's possible she thought that I was a representative of one of the many Chinese companies whose products are stocked by Wal-Mart.
The third time was at Canadian Tire on Sunday, when I quickly ran in to pick up a wall-mount kit for a telephone (geez, you can't seem to buy the wallplate screws with extended pegs on their own). In the phone section, some guy asked me how much one of the GE cordless phones was, even though the price tag was RIGHT ABOVE THE BOX. Oy. Canadian Tire employees all wear red golf shirts, and I was not wearing anything remotely resembling red (although I was wearing a golf shirt). Maybe he was colour-blind.
There is one thing that is almost always common to each situation; excepting the Chinese buffet restaurant, it has been someone for which English was not their first language. I don't know what that suggests, if anything, but it's a curious fact.
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
jedinite8's journal