rex

Low-light of the weekend: a fever that went from non-existent to 102 in the span of about 6 hours. Fortunately, 24 hours later, I'm winning the battle.
High-light of the weekend: going to one of favourite used-book stores. Despite the fever, I decided to go out for a couple of hours and get some fresh air. That the temperature outside was north of -10C for the first time in over a week didn't hurt either. After browsing for about 20 minutes, I notice a copy of Alexander Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin". Given my interest in most things Russian (hence the name of this blog), it was an easy decision.

So I get home, and I tell my S.O. what I picked up. She mentions that the famous Canadian dancer Rex Harrington made his name playing Onegin in an adaptation of the story that was made into a ballet. My response to her was "Who is Rex Harrington?" As usual, she was disappointed, though not entirely surprised, at my lack of cultural knowledge. Anyways, no big deal. I decided to turn on the TV, and what did I see? A program on the CBC called "Life and Times" that was profiling Rex Harrington. Go figure. I watched the one-hour bio, and I have to say that he is a fascinating and extremely talented individual. It's strange how things turn out sometimes. I'm glad that I didn't let the fever get the better of me this weekend!!

curmudgeon alert

Why do people still forward stupid email messages/attachments? They were almost tolerable maybe 7 or 8 years ago when the internet was still somewhat of a novelty. Now, they are nothing more than a nuisance. I haven't forwarded or replied to one in years, and I tell people I know to stop sending them to me. Yet still the odd one gets through. Today, it was message with a list of 20 things we all should do (such as only say 'I love you' when you truly mean it, etc.). But the catch was, if the message was not forwarded within the next 6 minutes, something bad would happen. And they seemed quite serious too-and they were right! The message was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Anyways, the only forward that I remember being any good was a link to a short video called "The Meatrix". Given that I'm a veggie, that one hit a soft spot.

the underachiever

Have you ever experienced a co-worker, acquaintance, stranger, etc. say something to you like "You really could be doing something better with yourself"? I purposely did not include friends and family members in the above list for reasons that will shortly become clear. The impetus for this thought goes back to my post a couple of days ago entitled “The interview”. I was recently interviewed for the school newspaper where I work, and one of the questions regarded my education (I have attained a Master’s degree from a well-respected school). Now, given that when I applied for my current job, the listed educational requirement was a 1-year college diploma, I am certainly qualified for the position. However, since the interview was published, I have been approached by two co-workers, both of whom suggested (in not so many words) that I am working below my capabilities. One came right out and said “Do you ever feel like you are wasting your time?”

These are not the only two instances; even before the interview was published, at least two or three other people had raised the same notion. In every instance, I was left feeling rather awkward; while on one hand it is a compliment, on the other, it feels like a judgement. Not one has asked what it is that I want to do, or why I took this particular job; they have all assumed that since I am over-qualified for the position, I must feel unhappy, unfulfilled and perhaps even somewhat worthless. Projection maybe? Whatever it is, it bugs me. It is a situation completely different from a close friend or family member who knows you intimately and can therefore provide informed advice or support based on their relationship with you.

I remember reading a personal essay few years back that was published in the Globe and Mail (one of Canada’s two national newspapers). It was written by a man who had a Ph.D., and had done the academic thing for a few years before exchanging his keys to an ivory tower for those to a city bus. I remember him describing how he enjoyed the feeling of being out amongst people all day, earning a living, and then at the end of the day having the freedom (temporally and intellectually) to pursue other interests. I am starting to understand what he was getting at.

miscellany

I read in the New York Times yesterday that the average childcare worker in the U.S. earns $7.26 per hour. My part-time job in high school pumping gas paid $5.50 when I graduated. That was 14 years ago.

The article was actually about nannies, and families that 'share' nannies in order to make them more affordable. One of my sisters has a nanny; I wonder how much she pays her.

the interview

I was interviewed a couple weeks back by the school newspaper at the high school where I work, and they finally released the issue with the interview yesterday. So, I thought I would share some of what they asked me. First, a little background. I work in a private school, and the part of the school I work in has grades 7-12. Mostly teenagers in other words. Now I have admit that I was somewhat apprehensive when they asked if they could interview me (I've only worked there since October-they usually interview new staff). Of course I was going to say yes, but I was worried about how my answers would be perceived by those who read it. I have no idea if parents read the paper, or if the principals and headmaster (it's a private school remember) read it, or whoever else. I find the atmosphere of the school extremely image-conscious, and extremely uptight. I guess that isn't too surprising given that it costs 18,000/year to send your child there.

So I decided that I would stick to the straight and narrow. I would not mention that when I went to high school my primary concern was saving every penny so that I could go on road trips to see the Grateful Dead (oh my god!!! he must have done drugs!!). Or that I think people that choose to drive SUVs and other gas-guzzling luxury cars are completely selfish (every kid gets dropped off in an SUV at this school). Or that even though I have a Master's degree in science and work in the science department, I find most of science rather boring. You get the idea.

A sampling of our exchange:

Her: What is your favourite element from the periodic table?
Me: I have no idea. But I'll say nitrogen, though I can't justify it.

Her: Do you ever make stylistic changes to your lab uniform?
Me: My lab uniform consists of a lab coat. No changes, except that I never wash it. It's kind of a tradition amongst science graduate students.

Her: What is your favourite holiday?
Me: Christmas, because I don't celebrate it but I still get the time off.

Her: What do you see ME doing with my life?
Me: An ambassador. (it's a private school remember-lofty expectations. she liked my answer)

Anyways, that's about enough. I wish I could say that I was hiding the exciting stuff.

in the news vol. III: dying for progress

The biggest mistake that Zhao Ziyang ever made was suggesting that the Chinese communist government should actually listen to the hundreds of thousands of protestors that were occupying Tiananmen Square in May of 1989. This bold move precipitated his removal from the government (he was Party Chief), and he remained under house arrest for the next 15 and a half years until his death earlier this week.

News reports this week have credited Zhao with being largely responsible for the economic transformation of China over the last 20 years. The New York Times, while commending him for introducing a capitalist economic model to China, published an otherwise fluffy editorial piece. My own country's Globe and Mail recounted his political accomplishments, while meekly suggesting that our Prime Minister remind the current Chinese leaders of Zhao's contributions. Meanwhile, the "People's Daily" in China published a small paragraph about his death, while state radio decided that his passing was not worth mentioning.

Maybe I expect too much. At the same time that Zhao is being buried, Canada's government has an entourage, that includes Prime Minister Paul Martin, in Beijing to discuss trade. Would it be too much for Martin to publicly offer condolences to Zhao’s family? One could only imagine how the paranoid Chinese officials would respond-how many millions of dollars in trade (consisting mostly of useless trinkets costing less than $20 that we import) would be lost. Certainly we would get the cold shoulder from our cousins in the States and elsewhere. Also today, I read in The Independent that Britain’s foreign minister (who also happens to be in Beijing) plans to push the EU remove sanctions that bar the sale of arms to China; sanctions put in place directly in response to the Tiananmen massacres.

I suppose this whole episode is a reminder of not only how a communist government acts when confronted with a skeleton from its closet, but how governments in the West seem to be increasingly afraid to confront China, given its newly appointed status as an ‘emerging superpower’. China is in the news a lot these days, though mostly for reasons economic in nature; it wasn’t so long ago that human rights dominated news from China. But with China’s economy growing so rapidly (thanks in large part to Zhao), and dozens of Western governments lining up to help fuel its growth, it seems likely that conditions in China will continue to be reported in terms of GDP for the foreseeable future.

is it fair?

I recently watched a four-part documentary called "The Stans". It was done by a BBC reporter who spent the better part of a year traveling throughout central Asia; in each of the four parts he reported from a different country: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (had to check the atlas for the spelling of those!!). The first part was from Kazakhstan, where he visited a biological laboratory that stored vast quantities of disease-causing bacteria, including anthrax and the plague. His primary concern was the combination of the extremely lax security at the facility with the relative close proximity of Afghanistan. Fair enough.

But, global politics aside for the moment, what caught me was the sight of a lab technician administering a dose of the plague to a hamster. It was a fairly close shot of the animal; you could see the tension in its arms and legs, and you could also see how much force was required to hold the animal still. You could also look directly into the animal's eyes. I won't even hazard guess as to what was going through its mind, for I find it presumptuous to assume that we know what other animals think. Regardless, it didn't make me feel good. Then, in a matter of seconds, the demonstration was done, and the animal was placed back in its cage to serve out its sentence.

I have been around animals that were used for research purposes; in fact while I was in graduate school, there were certain parts of the biology building where you could hear dogs howling from behind steel doors. Doors that had neither a window or lock; some sort of pass card was required to gain entry. Often while riding in the elevator I would share it with a researcher hauling a cart full of small cages, baby mouse in each.

There is neither room or time enough for a debate on the relative merits of using animals in research. Whenever I raise concerns about this kind of research to someone, their first response is: well if you were sick, would you not want to benefit from research that used animals? Again, I find presumption irritating. If I am ever in such a situation, I will make a decision that I am most comfortable with. But I will say this: I have very strong feelings within me that suggest improper treatment of animals (or any living entity for that matter) in any circumstance is inherently wrong, regardless of what potential human benefit might be derived.

Your thoughts?

in the news vol. II: CNN

I am amazed at how often CNN is in the news. Actually, I am amazed any time the media presents a story about themselves, but let's stick to CNN for now. I don't like CNN. I can't watch CNN for more than about 10 seconds, and I haven't watched it for any longer than that in years. Yet I read about it all the time: newspapers, magazines, on the web; really, its hard not to know what's going with the world's largest news network.

In the winter of 1991, while George Sr. was taking care of business in the Gulf war (which has yet to end), my sister was living in Israel. We received almost daily faxes from her (can't remember why she couldn't call) in which she would update us on such things as how well her gas mask fit, and the decor of the bomb shelter. Two things remain quite clear in my mind from those times: first, the image of her hand writing on the fax transcripts, and two, the reporting of Peter Arnott and Bernard Shaw from a hotel in downtown Baghdad. I am certain that any of us old enough to remember will never forget the image of the anti-aircraft fire turning the dark Iraqi sky into what looked like a game of asteroids played with green lasers. That I can still remember the names of CNN's correspondents speaks not only to my own personal attachment to the situation, but perhaps more pointedly to the sheer intensity of CNN's coverage of the invasion.

I am certain that the Gulf War changed CNN’s perception of itself. An already successful global news organization became bigger than the news; in many ways, it started to become part of the news. The focus seemed to shift from what was being reported, to who was reporting and what the ‘journalist’ was wearing. Words that come to mind are petty, and vain; instances that might be acceptable on the local nightly newscast were now on display for the entire world. Journalism was taking a backseat to image. As on-screen banners got bigger, a snowstorm in the northeast became BREAKING NEWS; an O.J. sighting was A LIVE EVENT; and a mother driving her two infant boys into a lake and blaming it on a black thug became A TRAGEDY UNFOLDING. And finally, the intelligence level of those running the network was made most clear by the addition of a scrolling newsticker across the bottom of the screen. A newsticker during a live broadcast indicates the following: what the host, guest or journalist you are watching right now is saying is not important, so here is some useless fodder to keep you entertained.

All this wouldn’t really bother me so much if it wasn’t for the constant reference to CNN in the media. I read an op-ed recently that was written by a university professor who suggested that CNN was a valuable news resource. Appearances by politicians and other ‘important’ people are often cited in editorials of national newspapers. Larry King has attained cult-like status. At least he’s a baseball fan.

cookies??

maybe it's just me, but . . .

So I work in the science department of a private school. I don't teach exactly; I am responsible for preparing materials for the science labs, working with students on their science projects, etc. The other day I walk into one of the classrooms and the students are huddled around the teacher, watching one student massage the back of her neck. Not really THAT strange in the grand of scheme of things. The teacher happens to be the department head, she is relatively young (maybe 30), a workaholic, and appears to like the attention she receives from her students a little bit too much. I often see her having lunch with them, conversing with them between classes, and generally it seems as if she is trying to "fit in" with them, though on their level, (i.e. as a teen-ager). And to top it off, a couple weeks back, I see her bring in a tray of homemade cookies for one of her grade 10 classes. Sure, a nice gesture, maybe for a kindergarten teacher!! She comes across to her students (and me) as being extremely laid back. Then yesterday I hear her say to her students something like "Oh I wish I was more laid back in high school and university-I worked WAY too hard and didn't have any fun." In other words, I'm guessing she was a super-nerd. Now she's trying to go back and do it all over again. I think it is kind of pathetic. But then again, I have been feeling rather curmudgeonly today.

Anyways, I have always found her off-putting. In the strange hierarchy that is a high school, I don't really have a boss; but she would definitely qualify as my supervisor. And she did make up 5o% of the committee that hired me a few months back. It is one of those fake, cordial work relationships that most of us have to deal with. It could be worse. Eventually, I'll get on to my former graduate school supervisor, who was such an egocentric, conceited jerk, that I quit my Ph.D. A blessing in disguise though.

it's hot out there!

So the weather went wacky today - it warmed up to around 15 (~60F). Predictably, I hear some weather person interviewed on the news; they were trying to convince the journalist that no, it is unlikely that global warming is to blame for today's weather. I wonder how a journalist can retain their job after asking such a stupid question. I mean, do they really think that there are people out there that are dumb enough to believe that global warming is the answer every time it rains in the winter? For what it's worth, I do believe that the globe is warming (the evidence is pretty solid). Whether or not human activities are accelerating the warming trend is still up for debate.

OUR planet is doomed . . .

I’m not exactly sure from where a writer derives their inspiration; if I had to hazard a guess, I would posit that it comes from his or her consciousness. In other words, the totality of one’s sensory experiences.

The thought occurred to me immediately after reading the following: “The reality is that within the working lifetime of people reading this review, the fate of our planet will be decided”. The statement evoked many emotions from within me, which can be best summed up as: what an egocentric, narrow-minded and foolish thing to write. I excerpted it from, of all things, a review of the book Coal: A Human History. While placing most of the blame on the lax environmental policies of the U.S, the author is making the point that if coal continues to be burned at the current rate, our planet is in big trouble. Now if his point was that Homo sapiens is in trouble, I could at least understand what he was thinking (though coal or not, we’re still in trouble!!). But physicists figured out long ago that the fate of Mother Earth is in the hands of Mr. Sun – once he runs out of gas in another five billion years or so, Earth will, well, you know . . .

Anyways, my point is this: no matter what we do to the planet, it will get on just fine, with or without us. It is not OUR planet, it just happens to be where we reside. I get irritated by the notion that we are its keepers, because we’re not. I believe some of us are concerned with preserving it the best we can, at least in part so that it remains habitable for our offspring; this to me is a perfectly normal biological action. However, if we’re going to determine the absolute fate of our planet, I suggest that it will take a bit more than burning some coal and driving around in gas-guzzling S.U.V.s (more on them later).

in the news, vol. I

Now that two weeks have passed since the earthquake and tsunami disaster in south Asia, the media is predictably (and regrettably) starting to change its focus in an inward direction. Front-page stories are changing from coverage of death, grief and hope to that of how our government responded, and continues to respond to, the crisis. Now don't get me wrong; I believe that an independent media plays a vital role in challenging decisions made by democratically elected governments ( proof in point: check out media from Iran, China, and Russia). But I find too much forced introspection at this time not only unnecessary, but also distasteful.

In a crisis the magnitude of the tsunami, relief agencies are best equipped to provide immediate aid to those in need. That's why the incredible financial generosity of Canadians has been directed towards these agencies, and not the government. Already, MSF has stated that it received more money than it needs for south Asia (hard to comprehend), and is directing funds to other projects. Governments in the West are in a position to provide relief in ways that NGO's cannot: debt relief to affected nations, as well as facilitating diplomatic negotiations with governments facing ethnic strife or internal tension (Sri Lanka and Indonesia specifically). Canada should also be praised for its ongoing attempt to expedite the immigration process for those residing in countries that were affected by the tsunami. It is for these reasons that public debates in the media such as: how fast our government returned from vacation to make a public statement; or whether they have pledged enough money; or how fast they deployed a disaster response team to the area, are highly insignificant.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t call out the opposition parties, who will scream and yell at the elected party any chance they get. Recent polls suggest that an overwhelming majority of Canadians approve of how the government has responded; further proof that the opposition leaders are acting completely out of vanity, and in the process are disrespecting those that voted for them. Which leaves one final question: why doesn’t the media just ignore them? The answer: a fear of being perceived as biased towards the ruling party. But come on, we Canadians are smarter than that.