Initial answer: Both, but learning science lets you focus on the cool while being appropriately cautious.
For example, Japan and the nuclear plant and all the questions about radiation are easy to classify as "scary." Part of the fear is the "not knowing"--first, not knowing whether you can trust information that comes from the people responsible for accident in the first place.
But the phrase "radiation exposure" itself sounds scary, scarier than it really is. Yes, in some situations, radiation exposure can be dangerous. Safe nuclear energy requires good reactor design, trained specialists, and safe work practices. But not all radiation exposure is lethal. All of us are exposed to radiation every day from the sun.
The fear is unwarranted, but it's also not news. Science literacy has never been strong among the American public, and I daresay "the average Canadian" is not necessarily better informed.
Learning science is definitely NOT scary. Learning anything new is a challenge, but that's not the same as scary. It's entirely possible for average, everyday people to learn about radiation. Yes, even you!! The International Atomic Energy Agency, for example, has very readable udpates and explanations about the situation in Japan.
When you start to pay attention to stories about science, you get to learn about really cool things, like this: A NASA spacecraft is now orbiting Mercury. Mercury has its Sputnik! MSNBC's article about it is here.
And then you can learn about connections between stories. For example, astronauts outside the earth's atmosphere have less protection from the sun's radiation. That's one reason why "unmanned," meaning "without personnel of any gender," spacecraft do so much of the exploration work in the solar system. Here's a page of articles with keywords "radiation" and "safety" from the nasa.gov site. You can see from these stories how NASA has always tried to take appropriate precautions to shield its astronauts.
Which is what we can all do: learn and then take appropriate precautions.
So, the original question needs to be reframed, because here's the answer. Life can be scary. Science can help us rachet down the fear and teach us really cool things.
And that's what we can hang onto during these times when all the stories seem to be about crises.
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Friday, March 18, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Complications and Connections of History
The pictures from Japan are shattering to look at. Those from the earthquake and tsunami are frightening enough. All physical signs of human habitation destroyed in a matter of seconds. The frailty of humans up against the power of nature. Et cetera.
And there are the nuclear plant explosions.
Broadcasters say things like, "Japan is the best-prepared country for handling a crisis like this," and "Of course Japan has extensive experience in rebuilding." I wonder how many Americans remember where that need for rebuilding came from, and how exactly we all know so much about the effects of radiation on the human body.
Further, I wonder how many Canadians know their own country's contribution to the development of nuclear weapons.
In 1998, Gordon Edwards wrote an anti-nuclear policy piece for the Montreal Gazette. It includes a brief summary of the work performed by Canadian scientists in Montreal during World War II. A link to it is here.
It's an excellent synopsis. Here are two relevant paragraphs:
My mother was one of those Canadian scientists. A mathematician with a Ph.D. from Radcliffe (the part of Harvard open to women at the time), she worked directly with researchers who went on to lead computing and theoretical groups at Los Alamos National Laboratory after the war.
Los Alamos--where both Fat Man and Little Boy grew up.
And, by the way, where you'll find Otowi Station Bookstore and Science Museum Shop, an excellent store with an extensive collection of books about history and science, as well as nice people and fun science toys. You should go there.
I am of course proud of my mother and her work. And it makes no sense to blame anyone now for the fact that we know so much about the effect of radiation on the human body.
At this point, we can apply what we have learned to fix the current situation. As the immediate crisis passes, we can also make sure we apply what we've learned so we can prevent nuclear accidents in the future.
And finally, we can dig through the butterflies-and-puppies, mushy elements of phrases like "we're all connected" to remember that in vital and direct ways, we really are all connected, in all our human frailty.
And there are the nuclear plant explosions.
Broadcasters say things like, "Japan is the best-prepared country for handling a crisis like this," and "Of course Japan has extensive experience in rebuilding." I wonder how many Americans remember where that need for rebuilding came from, and how exactly we all know so much about the effects of radiation on the human body.
Further, I wonder how many Canadians know their own country's contribution to the development of nuclear weapons.
In 1998, Gordon Edwards wrote an anti-nuclear policy piece for the Montreal Gazette. It includes a brief summary of the work performed by Canadian scientists in Montreal during World War II. A link to it is here.
It's an excellent synopsis. Here are two relevant paragraphs:
In 1942, the British moved their own plutonium-production research team to Montreal -- away from the Luftwaffe, closer to the Americans. Canada paid all expenses, and Canadian scientists joined the team.
The Montreal Lab focussed on the best ways to produce plutonium for Bombs. The French group was there too, with their heavy water. It was known that reactors moderated with heavy water would produce more plutonium.
My mother was one of those Canadian scientists. A mathematician with a Ph.D. from Radcliffe (the part of Harvard open to women at the time), she worked directly with researchers who went on to lead computing and theoretical groups at Los Alamos National Laboratory after the war.
Los Alamos--where both Fat Man and Little Boy grew up.
And, by the way, where you'll find Otowi Station Bookstore and Science Museum Shop, an excellent store with an extensive collection of books about history and science, as well as nice people and fun science toys. You should go there.
I am of course proud of my mother and her work. And it makes no sense to blame anyone now for the fact that we know so much about the effect of radiation on the human body.
At this point, we can apply what we have learned to fix the current situation. As the immediate crisis passes, we can also make sure we apply what we've learned so we can prevent nuclear accidents in the future.
And finally, we can dig through the butterflies-and-puppies, mushy elements of phrases like "we're all connected" to remember that in vital and direct ways, we really are all connected, in all our human frailty.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Delusions of Spring in TBay
Today, it snowed a little in the morning--just topping up the couple of inches we got yesterday and last night. Now the sun is out and we're heading toward a high above freezing. It's Delusions of Spring Day in Thunder Bay.
Today is the day I wash all the now-baggy-elbowed heavy sweaters I've been wearing as "top layers" for (too many to think about) MONTHS. Because when the days are sunny and the temperature is above freezing, it is obvious that I will NEVER need to wear these heavy sweaters EVER AGAIN. (Or at least until November.)
I do wash these throughout winter, of course, but when water is always the issue it is in the country, I let them get good and baggy in the elbows first. Plus, today I'm washing them all at once, trusting that I won't need one this afternoon.
When I was growing up in Oklahoma, a crocus or two usually popped up to bloom in late February. Certainly gardens had brave daffodils by mid-March. A late-season freak snowstorm might give you a couple of good "daffodils in the snow" shots in early April, but basically, you could see some signs of spring in the flora any time after Valentine's Day.
In contrast, we have new snow. It's shiny and pretty. But snow.
Body clocks, however, are hard to reset. Thus Delusions of Spring Day.
Because, I know, I WILL have to wear these sweaters again. Except maybe for the 100% wool Eddie Bauer sweater, which I wear on days that require serious artillery. A very serious day requires both the wool sweater and flannel-lined jeans. So possibly not that one. But the others, yes. And I'll be doing this same "wash all the sweaters" thing in May or June.
And in between, we have April (the brownest month) and the "something shiny" season, when I tend to buy electronics because I am tired of everything being brown and dirty with crusty old ice and snow everywhere.
But that's still in the future.
Today, just give me my delusions, okay?
Today is the day I wash all the now-baggy-elbowed heavy sweaters I've been wearing as "top layers" for (too many to think about) MONTHS. Because when the days are sunny and the temperature is above freezing, it is obvious that I will NEVER need to wear these heavy sweaters EVER AGAIN. (Or at least until November.)
I do wash these throughout winter, of course, but when water is always the issue it is in the country, I let them get good and baggy in the elbows first. Plus, today I'm washing them all at once, trusting that I won't need one this afternoon.
When I was growing up in Oklahoma, a crocus or two usually popped up to bloom in late February. Certainly gardens had brave daffodils by mid-March. A late-season freak snowstorm might give you a couple of good "daffodils in the snow" shots in early April, but basically, you could see some signs of spring in the flora any time after Valentine's Day.
In contrast, we have new snow. It's shiny and pretty. But snow.
Body clocks, however, are hard to reset. Thus Delusions of Spring Day.
Because, I know, I WILL have to wear these sweaters again. Except maybe for the 100% wool Eddie Bauer sweater, which I wear on days that require serious artillery. A very serious day requires both the wool sweater and flannel-lined jeans. So possibly not that one. But the others, yes. And I'll be doing this same "wash all the sweaters" thing in May or June.
And in between, we have April (the brownest month) and the "something shiny" season, when I tend to buy electronics because I am tired of everything being brown and dirty with crusty old ice and snow everywhere.
But that's still in the future.
Today, just give me my delusions, okay?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Disservice to the Discourse
I've already tipped my hand about What Is America, by Ronald Wright.* (To recap: I'm not a fan.) But after hearing comments about this book at a book club meeting over the weekend--a book club that contains perfectly lovely, educated people--I want to explain why I think this book does a disservice to American-Canadian political discourse.
For those of you who haven't read the book, here's what you're missing. The author, born in Britain and now a writer and lecturer in Canadian universities, puts forth the following argument: “[T]he New World made the modern world and now threatens to undo it” (p. 1). After a short introductory chapter, he chronicles the various waves of European contact, colonization, and/or settlement of North America through the centuries. Written before Barak Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and published before he won the 2008 election, the book ends with the suggestion that the best hope for real leadership now comes from the European Union.
Wright tells an ugly story. The continent's history is one of greed, conquest, and relentless domination of the indigenous people. It is a story of people--Europeans, some Spanish but mostly British who become Americans--who use and abuse natural resources until they are spent, and then move on to take advantage of the next resource. It is, in short, a story of people. And it's a story that can't continue in this way. There are precious few “new resources” left on this planet.
I don't dispute the story Wright tells, even as he moves into recent events. I agree that George W. Bush was a disastrous leader and that his “war on terror” has been terrifying indeed. Two years after Wright finished his book, we're watching President Obama struggle with an obscene tangle of economic, political, and social consequences of the Bush administration.
But I still say that this book does not provide any benefits to the political discourse in Canada about the U.S. and the Canadian-American relationship. I think this book, and others written on this same pattern, in fact harms that discourse, for four reasons.
1. Readers deserve a book based on scholarship they can see and trust. This book doesn't make its case. It is set up to look like a carefully researched history--but it's not. The subtitle, “A short history of the new world order,” also suggests history. The book includes 226 pages of text and 142 pages of notes and bibliography. It has all the earmarks of a history, but not the substance. On close inspection, the book doesn't add to the base of knowledge. The information in the text itself was part of the university courses I took in 1982 and before. The notes show that many of Wright's “sources” are not original; they're quoted in someone else's analysis of empire in the U.S. (for example). That's not good, convincing scholarship. Other notes fail to provide a source for the statement in the text. Many contain information of only distant relevance to the material it's supposedly supporting. Many statements of statistics have no footnote at all.
Therefore, it's not a book that can be taken seriously for its scholarly approach to its material, even though the information in the book may well be new or shocking to Canadians. In fact, because the information may be new to Canadians, it should be available in an academically rigorous (yet, ideally, readable) book. Canadians readers would do better to take Wright out of the loop completely and read a few of the books cited in the bibliography.
2. Readers deserve to be told the truth about themselves. The kind of “history” in this book just allows Canadians to feel smug--mistakenly so--about their own past. Although Wright says “the America of my title has two meanings: the great republic most of the world simply calls 'America' and the American landmass as a whole” (p. 12), he focuses mostly on the “great republic,” and secondarily on ancient civilizations in what are now Central and South America. Precious little of his attention goes to Canada--though comments at the book club discussion suggest that perhaps it should have.
One comment at the meeting: “I've always been proud that my ancestors came from England to North America in the 1600s....and now [after reading this book] I'm so glad I don't have dual citizenship.” But until 1815 (or arguably 1776), Canadians and Americans were all British (except for those who were Native or from another European country). In fact, you could argue that Canadians weren't truly Canadians until 1867, by which time the pattern Wright describes--killing off or exploiting Native peoples and taking their wealth and land--had been in full force for nearly 400 years. The 140 to 200 years in which the two countries have had decidedly different histories total only two-fifths to one-fourth of the total time Europeans have been taking advantage of this continent.
Another comment: “I don't know how they [Americans] live with themselves.” The context for this statement was the treatment of native Hawaiians, particularly the last monarchy in the 1880s. Nowhere in the book does Wright mention Canada's 20th-century residential schools for Natives. And he dispatches Canada's history of western expansion and its relationships with Native peoples, including the war against Louis Riel, in two sentences with the remark that the processes in both countries “were all quite similar,” although there was “less fighting” in what is now Canada (p. 166).
Although Canadians are apparently Wright's intended audience (given the Canadian publisher), Wright does not effectively address his Canadian readers. He doesn't actively engage them in reflecting on their own history as part of the North American continent. Canadians could perhaps learn about their own history from the new biography series at Penguin Canada, Extraordinary Canadians.
3. Readers deserve a thorough, useful discussion of the major themes in a work. Yet Wright is ignorant of the history of religion in North America, beyond reading about (not direct reading of) the Puritans and beyond extensive quotation from Jon Krakauer's recent book about Mormonism.** Although Wright correctly identifies religion as a major cultural force in the U.S., he allows for no nuance in religious belief. “One in two Americans rejects the evidence for evolution; the rest of Christendom gave up fighting Darwin a century ago” (p. 16). I suspect this statistic comes from a general survey about religious belief, not specifically about evolution, but it's impossible to know--Wright gives no source for this statistic. (It's not even footnoted.) Wright seems not to understand that it is possible for (North) Americans to identify themselves as BOTH Christians AND scientists. He doesn't even acknowledge, much less explore, the deep divisions in mainstream Christian denominations in the U.S. For the past 150 years, progressive believers have struggled with fundamentalists, like those whose views Wright dismisses as archaic, over issues such as racial equality and marriage rights. These struggles form an important part of the culture and politics of the U.S.--but to Wright, they don't exist.
Another comment at the discussion: “What scares me is that someone who believes in an afterlife has his finger on the trigger of a nuclear device.” Wright's dismissal of nuance in religion lets his readers conclude (or continue to believe) that anyone who believes in an afterlife necessarily holds Earthly life less dear and is thus on the verge of annihilating the planet. Wright, like anyone else who writes about culture, politics, or society, had the opportunity to challenge the fundamentalist atheism of this comment, yet he didn't. Instead, he limits his consideration of the religious history of the North American continent to those aspects of Christianity that he seems to find puzzling or frightening.
Without a more complete picture of the role religion plays in the U.S., across faiths and denominations, and considering how each intersects with political and social perspectives, readers can't fully understand North America's present, much less engage in its future.
4. Which brings us to the future. Readers deserve a book that goes beyond fingerpointing. But in this book, Wright offers no real solutions--he doesn't even offer questions. Yes, Bush's administration was a nightmare for Iraqis, Afghans, and uninsured Americans, for starters. Yes, the North American continent has a long and sordid history. To which I ask: Now what?
Wright offers very little in response. The positive alternative he cites as the next possibility for “the world's best hope,” the European Union, is “discussed” in less than three full pages (pp 223 – 226).
The sad thing is, Wright missed a golden opportunity to speak meaningfully about the future to Canadians--who live in one of the countries that still has, arguably, a “frontier.” Canada's economy depends largely on its natural resources. Technology will continue to make it easier to extract oil from tar sands and to find and extract natural gas and minerals from previously inaccessible regions. In the next half-century, climate change could drastically alter the Canadian landscape, expanding the amount of arable land and triggering an influx of settlers from the south.
What if Wright had, from his expertise on the perils of colonial expansion, considered explicitly how Canada could create a different future? How could Canadians apply his accumulated knowledge, and the knowledge he draws on, and avoid perpetrating the mistakes of the past? Would it be possible for Canada to be the next “world's best hope”? Wright apparently didn't even entertain the notion.
Another comment from the discussion: “Why should we read books like this, that just offer apocalyptic views of the past and no hope for the future?”
My answer: we shouldn't. Instead, we should demand rigor from our writers, avoid national smugness, embrace nuance, and look for solutions instead of endless analysis. We should should read original sources, learn our own history, reject fundamentalist beliefs in whatever guise they come, and apply what we learn from the past to the future.
That's the biggest disservice Wright did to the Canadian-American discourse: He had the opportunity to write that book. And he squandered it.
~~
* Wright, Ronald. What is America? Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2008. Page references are to the hardcover edition.
** Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven. Rev. Ed. New York: Anchor, 2004.
For those of you who haven't read the book, here's what you're missing. The author, born in Britain and now a writer and lecturer in Canadian universities, puts forth the following argument: “[T]he New World made the modern world and now threatens to undo it” (p. 1). After a short introductory chapter, he chronicles the various waves of European contact, colonization, and/or settlement of North America through the centuries. Written before Barak Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and published before he won the 2008 election, the book ends with the suggestion that the best hope for real leadership now comes from the European Union.
Wright tells an ugly story. The continent's history is one of greed, conquest, and relentless domination of the indigenous people. It is a story of people--Europeans, some Spanish but mostly British who become Americans--who use and abuse natural resources until they are spent, and then move on to take advantage of the next resource. It is, in short, a story of people. And it's a story that can't continue in this way. There are precious few “new resources” left on this planet.
I don't dispute the story Wright tells, even as he moves into recent events. I agree that George W. Bush was a disastrous leader and that his “war on terror” has been terrifying indeed. Two years after Wright finished his book, we're watching President Obama struggle with an obscene tangle of economic, political, and social consequences of the Bush administration.
But I still say that this book does not provide any benefits to the political discourse in Canada about the U.S. and the Canadian-American relationship. I think this book, and others written on this same pattern, in fact harms that discourse, for four reasons.
1. Readers deserve a book based on scholarship they can see and trust. This book doesn't make its case. It is set up to look like a carefully researched history--but it's not. The subtitle, “A short history of the new world order,” also suggests history. The book includes 226 pages of text and 142 pages of notes and bibliography. It has all the earmarks of a history, but not the substance. On close inspection, the book doesn't add to the base of knowledge. The information in the text itself was part of the university courses I took in 1982 and before. The notes show that many of Wright's “sources” are not original; they're quoted in someone else's analysis of empire in the U.S. (for example). That's not good, convincing scholarship. Other notes fail to provide a source for the statement in the text. Many contain information of only distant relevance to the material it's supposedly supporting. Many statements of statistics have no footnote at all.
Therefore, it's not a book that can be taken seriously for its scholarly approach to its material, even though the information in the book may well be new or shocking to Canadians. In fact, because the information may be new to Canadians, it should be available in an academically rigorous (yet, ideally, readable) book. Canadians readers would do better to take Wright out of the loop completely and read a few of the books cited in the bibliography.
2. Readers deserve to be told the truth about themselves. The kind of “history” in this book just allows Canadians to feel smug--mistakenly so--about their own past. Although Wright says “the America of my title has two meanings: the great republic most of the world simply calls 'America' and the American landmass as a whole” (p. 12), he focuses mostly on the “great republic,” and secondarily on ancient civilizations in what are now Central and South America. Precious little of his attention goes to Canada--though comments at the book club discussion suggest that perhaps it should have.
One comment at the meeting: “I've always been proud that my ancestors came from England to North America in the 1600s....and now [after reading this book] I'm so glad I don't have dual citizenship.” But until 1815 (or arguably 1776), Canadians and Americans were all British (except for those who were Native or from another European country). In fact, you could argue that Canadians weren't truly Canadians until 1867, by which time the pattern Wright describes--killing off or exploiting Native peoples and taking their wealth and land--had been in full force for nearly 400 years. The 140 to 200 years in which the two countries have had decidedly different histories total only two-fifths to one-fourth of the total time Europeans have been taking advantage of this continent.
Another comment: “I don't know how they [Americans] live with themselves.” The context for this statement was the treatment of native Hawaiians, particularly the last monarchy in the 1880s. Nowhere in the book does Wright mention Canada's 20th-century residential schools for Natives. And he dispatches Canada's history of western expansion and its relationships with Native peoples, including the war against Louis Riel, in two sentences with the remark that the processes in both countries “were all quite similar,” although there was “less fighting” in what is now Canada (p. 166).
Although Canadians are apparently Wright's intended audience (given the Canadian publisher), Wright does not effectively address his Canadian readers. He doesn't actively engage them in reflecting on their own history as part of the North American continent. Canadians could perhaps learn about their own history from the new biography series at Penguin Canada, Extraordinary Canadians.
3. Readers deserve a thorough, useful discussion of the major themes in a work. Yet Wright is ignorant of the history of religion in North America, beyond reading about (not direct reading of) the Puritans and beyond extensive quotation from Jon Krakauer's recent book about Mormonism.** Although Wright correctly identifies religion as a major cultural force in the U.S., he allows for no nuance in religious belief. “One in two Americans rejects the evidence for evolution; the rest of Christendom gave up fighting Darwin a century ago” (p. 16). I suspect this statistic comes from a general survey about religious belief, not specifically about evolution, but it's impossible to know--Wright gives no source for this statistic. (It's not even footnoted.) Wright seems not to understand that it is possible for (North) Americans to identify themselves as BOTH Christians AND scientists. He doesn't even acknowledge, much less explore, the deep divisions in mainstream Christian denominations in the U.S. For the past 150 years, progressive believers have struggled with fundamentalists, like those whose views Wright dismisses as archaic, over issues such as racial equality and marriage rights. These struggles form an important part of the culture and politics of the U.S.--but to Wright, they don't exist.
Another comment at the discussion: “What scares me is that someone who believes in an afterlife has his finger on the trigger of a nuclear device.” Wright's dismissal of nuance in religion lets his readers conclude (or continue to believe) that anyone who believes in an afterlife necessarily holds Earthly life less dear and is thus on the verge of annihilating the planet. Wright, like anyone else who writes about culture, politics, or society, had the opportunity to challenge the fundamentalist atheism of this comment, yet he didn't. Instead, he limits his consideration of the religious history of the North American continent to those aspects of Christianity that he seems to find puzzling or frightening.
Without a more complete picture of the role religion plays in the U.S., across faiths and denominations, and considering how each intersects with political and social perspectives, readers can't fully understand North America's present, much less engage in its future.
4. Which brings us to the future. Readers deserve a book that goes beyond fingerpointing. But in this book, Wright offers no real solutions--he doesn't even offer questions. Yes, Bush's administration was a nightmare for Iraqis, Afghans, and uninsured Americans, for starters. Yes, the North American continent has a long and sordid history. To which I ask: Now what?
Wright offers very little in response. The positive alternative he cites as the next possibility for “the world's best hope,” the European Union, is “discussed” in less than three full pages (pp 223 – 226).
The sad thing is, Wright missed a golden opportunity to speak meaningfully about the future to Canadians--who live in one of the countries that still has, arguably, a “frontier.” Canada's economy depends largely on its natural resources. Technology will continue to make it easier to extract oil from tar sands and to find and extract natural gas and minerals from previously inaccessible regions. In the next half-century, climate change could drastically alter the Canadian landscape, expanding the amount of arable land and triggering an influx of settlers from the south.
What if Wright had, from his expertise on the perils of colonial expansion, considered explicitly how Canada could create a different future? How could Canadians apply his accumulated knowledge, and the knowledge he draws on, and avoid perpetrating the mistakes of the past? Would it be possible for Canada to be the next “world's best hope”? Wright apparently didn't even entertain the notion.
Another comment from the discussion: “Why should we read books like this, that just offer apocalyptic views of the past and no hope for the future?”
My answer: we shouldn't. Instead, we should demand rigor from our writers, avoid national smugness, embrace nuance, and look for solutions instead of endless analysis. We should should read original sources, learn our own history, reject fundamentalist beliefs in whatever guise they come, and apply what we learn from the past to the future.
That's the biggest disservice Wright did to the Canadian-American discourse: He had the opportunity to write that book. And he squandered it.
~~
* Wright, Ronald. What is America? Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2008. Page references are to the hardcover edition.
** Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven. Rev. Ed. New York: Anchor, 2004.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Juxtapositions
Lots of back and forth, this week--the cultural equivalent of the weather this February. One day the temperature is above freezing and everything in sight is melting; twelve hours later the temp is 11 below C or 11 above F, the winds are howling, and it's snowing again. Go figure.
So here are three other pairings.
High tech: In Canada, several federal agencies--Finance, Treasury Board, and Defense Research and Development Canada--are under cyberattack. The attackers are sophisticated enough to make it look like they're working for China. Employees of those agencies who require internet access have been authorized to work in cafes and from home (because those internet connections are so much more secure??). This has been going on for some six weeks but came to light only recently (did a cloaking device fail?).
Low tech: Minister Oda hand-drawing a caret (like this ^ ) and writing "not" to deny funding to an NGO. Here's a picture. My earlier take is here (hey, the "not" jokes used to be funny). Political commentators, and not especially left-leaning ones, either, are still talking about this, with ever-heightening rhetoric.
Haves: In the U.S., the Obama administration extended the Bush tax cuts for those whose income is more than $250,000 (for a couple, $200K for a single). Reason: people who pay taxes in the U.S. (and those of us U.S. citizens who legally DON'T because we PAY PAY PAY in another country but are still forced by U.S. tax law to justify EVERY SINGLE YEAR why we don't pay in the U.S. TOO, not that I'm bitter) are still voters. In the U.S., voters hate "tax increases," even if they are technically just cuts that are expiring, and even if they apply only to people who make a whackload more than you.
Have-nots: The new budget in the U.S. includes a $5.50 (Canadian? The loonie is worth more these days!) surcharge on people entering the U.S. from Canada by air and sea. This will net $100 million or so in revenue, a tiny blip on the screen of their need for revenue, especially compared to what they could have made had they reversed those tax cuts on the wealthy, but like whatever. Reason: Few paying the $5.50 vote in U.S. elections. I say "few" because Americans travel from Canada into the U.S. at times, too. However, I won't be paying this surcharge because flying from Minneapolis cuts the cost of travel significantly, even with gas/hotel/time factored in.
If you like shouting: read What is America, by Ronald Wright (Alfred A. Knopf Canada). Written in 2008 before the election, it's full of sloppy scholarship and polemic. In fact, the title could use a caret: What Is ^ America; at the caret, insert Wrong With. His thesis seems to be that "America," a term that changes meaning several times in the book, is and has always been a horrible, exploitive place and that the neoconservative fundamentalist approach to life and the world is wrong. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I just don't think shouting is the same thing as making an effective case. Also, he's lazy in his research and writing, and he has no solutions. (Yes, some of the shouting related to this book came from me as I read.)
If you like muttering: read Doing the Continental, by David Dyment (Dundurn Press, Toronto). Full disclosure: I have only been able to dip into this book. However, I heard him speak, and he claims his book was aimed at the regular, nonspecialist person riding the ferry or the subway. If that's true, his editors should have had him try another pass, especially at sentences like this one: "The Americans are so much a part of our reality that they contextualize us" (p. 16). However, what I appreciate about this book and the writer is that 1. he claims a new type of relationship between the two countries is possible and 2. that Canada holds the power to effect this change.
That's enough whiplash for one week, eh.
So here are three other pairings.
High tech: In Canada, several federal agencies--Finance, Treasury Board, and Defense Research and Development Canada--are under cyberattack. The attackers are sophisticated enough to make it look like they're working for China. Employees of those agencies who require internet access have been authorized to work in cafes and from home (because those internet connections are so much more secure??). This has been going on for some six weeks but came to light only recently (did a cloaking device fail?).
Low tech: Minister Oda hand-drawing a caret (like this ^ ) and writing "not" to deny funding to an NGO. Here's a picture. My earlier take is here (hey, the "not" jokes used to be funny). Political commentators, and not especially left-leaning ones, either, are still talking about this, with ever-heightening rhetoric.
Haves: In the U.S., the Obama administration extended the Bush tax cuts for those whose income is more than $250,000 (for a couple, $200K for a single). Reason: people who pay taxes in the U.S. (and those of us U.S. citizens who legally DON'T because we PAY PAY PAY in another country but are still forced by U.S. tax law to justify EVERY SINGLE YEAR why we don't pay in the U.S. TOO, not that I'm bitter) are still voters. In the U.S., voters hate "tax increases," even if they are technically just cuts that are expiring, and even if they apply only to people who make a whackload more than you.
Have-nots: The new budget in the U.S. includes a $5.50 (Canadian? The loonie is worth more these days!) surcharge on people entering the U.S. from Canada by air and sea. This will net $100 million or so in revenue, a tiny blip on the screen of their need for revenue, especially compared to what they could have made had they reversed those tax cuts on the wealthy, but like whatever. Reason: Few paying the $5.50 vote in U.S. elections. I say "few" because Americans travel from Canada into the U.S. at times, too. However, I won't be paying this surcharge because flying from Minneapolis cuts the cost of travel significantly, even with gas/hotel/time factored in.
If you like shouting: read What is America, by Ronald Wright (Alfred A. Knopf Canada). Written in 2008 before the election, it's full of sloppy scholarship and polemic. In fact, the title could use a caret: What Is ^ America; at the caret, insert Wrong With. His thesis seems to be that "America," a term that changes meaning several times in the book, is and has always been a horrible, exploitive place and that the neoconservative fundamentalist approach to life and the world is wrong. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I just don't think shouting is the same thing as making an effective case. Also, he's lazy in his research and writing, and he has no solutions. (Yes, some of the shouting related to this book came from me as I read.)
If you like muttering: read Doing the Continental, by David Dyment (Dundurn Press, Toronto). Full disclosure: I have only been able to dip into this book. However, I heard him speak, and he claims his book was aimed at the regular, nonspecialist person riding the ferry or the subway. If that's true, his editors should have had him try another pass, especially at sentences like this one: "The Americans are so much a part of our reality that they contextualize us" (p. 16). However, what I appreciate about this book and the writer is that 1. he claims a new type of relationship between the two countries is possible and 2. that Canada holds the power to effect this change.
That's enough whiplash for one week, eh.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
In Praise of Technology, Science, and Mathematics
I love nuance and shades of meaning. Really, I do. But sometimes, all that chiaroscuro gets to me. I like a world in which problems have solutions, not just "well, this might be the least bad option." I like it when I can figure out a scientific solution to a problem and dredge up the technology to implement it. I like it when I can find out information that helps me make decisions. I like when I can map out other factors in that decision. And if I can't do any of those things myself, I like being married to someone who can.
So today I am loving me some technology, science, and math. Here are the specific whys.
1. Problems can suggest their own solutions. The water in the lake is low, and that magnifies the effect of weather patterns (high-pressure systems, low-pressure systems) on the water level. High-pressure systems mean water is pushed down here and goes to another part of the lake. Low pressure here allows water levels to rise here. It's all really cool and beautiful to watch--until the fluctuation causes the water level to fall below the intake valve, which causes the pump to lose its prime, which in turn messes up the water system at the camp property, and that's important because someone is staying there and wants to flush toilets and take showers.
So, to isolate the water intake from the fluctuations in the lake level that are caused by atmospheric pressure, Roy upended a container of water over the intake. The container is long enough that it creates a little world of plentiful water over the intake. Now, regardless of the vicissitudes in water level around the intake, the intake is essentially "underwater." The same properties of water that allow you to suck it up through a straw (or juice in a turkey baster)--the same ones that make the intake vulnerable to atmospheric pressure in the first place--make this all possible. I'd draw a picture but this is all too much like work. It's a genius technological solution, trust me.
2. The scientific method lets you find out stuff. Take my car (please). It's a 1994 Camry. For the past three years (at least), I have struggled with whether to buy a new one or fix the "whatever is making that sound" on this one. So far, I have fixed it, but now it's leaking oil. This might be a deal-breaker. But part of the information we need to know is how much oil it's leaking. So there's a plastic tray under the car. When it's been there 24 hours, we'll go check it out. And then we'll know. And that will be useful information for #3.
3. Mathematics helps you make decisions. I don't just mean arithmetic, though knowing that $15,000 is greater than $1500 is also helpful. It's the analytical part, the decision-making part, the part that lets you know when exactly you're at the point of diminishing returns. Sure, $1500 is always less than $15,000, but is $1500 this month plus another $2000 next month plus another $3000 four months down the road, for a total of $6500 in a six-month period, a wise investment? Or is it time to put that $6500 toward a $15,000 car that won't require any serious outlay of fixing $$ until the day after the warranty expires?
Some of the factors in that decision are human and thus squishy. But some aren't. And the mathematics (okay, and the arithmetic) stops me from deciding to buy a new car just because it's spring (okay, almost summer) and I'm a sucker for clean and shiny in the spring. Mathematics lets me create a decision tree that weighs my financing options vs. my income (should there be any). And sure, I probably don't need those random semesters of calculus to figure out that income is good when you're thinking about buying something. But it's comforting to be able to look at the numbers.
The fact that not one of these solutions was my idea doesn't diminish my satisfaction in them, either. To be fair, the decision analysis is mostly my bailiwick, Roy being susceptible to the shiny himself. And that's okay, too, because science, technology, and mathematics are all about teamwork.
So go, mathletes, engineers, and techno-nerds--especially the ones working to fix BP's mess. We are grateful for you, the people who use the physical principles of this world and who explain them to us, even when we try your patience because we should have learned some of this in grammar school. Today is your day, and today we say "thank you!"
So today I am loving me some technology, science, and math. Here are the specific whys.
1. Problems can suggest their own solutions. The water in the lake is low, and that magnifies the effect of weather patterns (high-pressure systems, low-pressure systems) on the water level. High-pressure systems mean water is pushed down here and goes to another part of the lake. Low pressure here allows water levels to rise here. It's all really cool and beautiful to watch--until the fluctuation causes the water level to fall below the intake valve, which causes the pump to lose its prime, which in turn messes up the water system at the camp property, and that's important because someone is staying there and wants to flush toilets and take showers.
So, to isolate the water intake from the fluctuations in the lake level that are caused by atmospheric pressure, Roy upended a container of water over the intake. The container is long enough that it creates a little world of plentiful water over the intake. Now, regardless of the vicissitudes in water level around the intake, the intake is essentially "underwater." The same properties of water that allow you to suck it up through a straw (or juice in a turkey baster)--the same ones that make the intake vulnerable to atmospheric pressure in the first place--make this all possible. I'd draw a picture but this is all too much like work. It's a genius technological solution, trust me.
2. The scientific method lets you find out stuff. Take my car (please). It's a 1994 Camry. For the past three years (at least), I have struggled with whether to buy a new one or fix the "whatever is making that sound" on this one. So far, I have fixed it, but now it's leaking oil. This might be a deal-breaker. But part of the information we need to know is how much oil it's leaking. So there's a plastic tray under the car. When it's been there 24 hours, we'll go check it out. And then we'll know. And that will be useful information for #3.
3. Mathematics helps you make decisions. I don't just mean arithmetic, though knowing that $15,000 is greater than $1500 is also helpful. It's the analytical part, the decision-making part, the part that lets you know when exactly you're at the point of diminishing returns. Sure, $1500 is always less than $15,000, but is $1500 this month plus another $2000 next month plus another $3000 four months down the road, for a total of $6500 in a six-month period, a wise investment? Or is it time to put that $6500 toward a $15,000 car that won't require any serious outlay of fixing $$ until the day after the warranty expires?
Some of the factors in that decision are human and thus squishy. But some aren't. And the mathematics (okay, and the arithmetic) stops me from deciding to buy a new car just because it's spring (okay, almost summer) and I'm a sucker for clean and shiny in the spring. Mathematics lets me create a decision tree that weighs my financing options vs. my income (should there be any). And sure, I probably don't need those random semesters of calculus to figure out that income is good when you're thinking about buying something. But it's comforting to be able to look at the numbers.
The fact that not one of these solutions was my idea doesn't diminish my satisfaction in them, either. To be fair, the decision analysis is mostly my bailiwick, Roy being susceptible to the shiny himself. And that's okay, too, because science, technology, and mathematics are all about teamwork.
So go, mathletes, engineers, and techno-nerds--especially the ones working to fix BP's mess. We are grateful for you, the people who use the physical principles of this world and who explain them to us, even when we try your patience because we should have learned some of this in grammar school. Today is your day, and today we say "thank you!"
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Own the Podium
For my American friends, "Own the Podium" is the push in Canada to...brace yourself...WIN MEDALS AT THE OLYMPICS.
It's true! Seriously! Canadian athletes want to win medals. The Canadian Olympic infrastructure supports them in that by doing things like using science and technology to improve performance and paying athletes' living expenses. Isn't that SHOCKING?
And this part is true, too: the program is controversial in Canada.
Granted, part of the controversy is whether it makes Canadians too much like, um, Americans. Not that anyone characterizes it in that way. Too polite and all that. But trust me, that's what they're thinking.
After the first week of the Olympics, Canada is doing just fine in the medal count, not that that's the best yard/metre-stick for measuring the value of a country in the world or anything. Are Canadian athletes winning more medals than U.S. athletes? NO. Is every athlete with a shot at the podium getting there? NO. Does this mean the program is unsuccessful? NO. It just means that it takes awhile for investments to pay off.
As to whether "Own the Podium" is somehow un-Canadian--honestly, people. That attitude leaves me nearly speechless (and yet I will keep typing). In the U.S., wanting to achieve excellence in athletics is about as controversial as getting out of bed in the morning. And if you think South Korea and China don't have comparable programs for their athletes, you're delusional.
If you want to talk about un-Canadian, let's consider Canada's "leadership"--or lack thereof--in addressing climate change and protecting the rights of its own citizens around the world. Let's discuss the war in Afghanistan, and the possibility of abuse of detainees, as we celebrate Canada's response to the earthquake in Haiti. Let's consider other ways we could have spent the "Own the Podium" funding. All of those are legitimate questions, so let's debate.
Oh, wait. We can't. The Harper government prorogued Parliament, suspending the democratic process. None of those discussions can take place.
Now that is un-Canadian.
It's true! Seriously! Canadian athletes want to win medals. The Canadian Olympic infrastructure supports them in that by doing things like using science and technology to improve performance and paying athletes' living expenses. Isn't that SHOCKING?
And this part is true, too: the program is controversial in Canada.
Granted, part of the controversy is whether it makes Canadians too much like, um, Americans. Not that anyone characterizes it in that way. Too polite and all that. But trust me, that's what they're thinking.
After the first week of the Olympics, Canada is doing just fine in the medal count, not that that's the best yard/metre-stick for measuring the value of a country in the world or anything. Are Canadian athletes winning more medals than U.S. athletes? NO. Is every athlete with a shot at the podium getting there? NO. Does this mean the program is unsuccessful? NO. It just means that it takes awhile for investments to pay off.
As to whether "Own the Podium" is somehow un-Canadian--honestly, people. That attitude leaves me nearly speechless (and yet I will keep typing). In the U.S., wanting to achieve excellence in athletics is about as controversial as getting out of bed in the morning. And if you think South Korea and China don't have comparable programs for their athletes, you're delusional.
If you want to talk about un-Canadian, let's consider Canada's "leadership"--or lack thereof--in addressing climate change and protecting the rights of its own citizens around the world. Let's discuss the war in Afghanistan, and the possibility of abuse of detainees, as we celebrate Canada's response to the earthquake in Haiti. Let's consider other ways we could have spent the "Own the Podium" funding. All of those are legitimate questions, so let's debate.
Oh, wait. We can't. The Harper government prorogued Parliament, suspending the democratic process. None of those discussions can take place.
Now that is un-Canadian.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Who, Indeed?
Did you hear the one about how The Government can track your location based on the currency you carry?
I did, and I live in the very last house on Paranoia Lane so everyone else must have heard it by this time. There are strips in $20 bills that tell the government where you are at any given time. It's true. It was on The X Files. Seriously. (Or maybe not so seriously. It was on The X Files, though.)
Here's a new twist. Now, FOREIGN Governments can track your location through radio frequency transmitters embedded in their money. If you happen to be carrying one of these poppy quarters, that is.
The quarters were issued to commemorate Canada's war dead. Apparently the coating over the red poppy was designed to protect the poppy from rubbing off as the coins circulated. Or to hide a radio transmitter, according to widespread rumors in 2006. Depending on your level of paranoia.
Here's the AP story. Note this part:
"Who knows"? Seriously, that's the response? In 2006, five years after 9/11 and amid the ongoing mistaken belief that the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada, U.S. officials at the Pentagon still didn't have a sense of Canadian security?
I'm not necessarily saying that Canada is as serious about border security as the U.S. I have no idea -- but then again, I don't work for the Pentagon (as far as you know). Surely U.S. security officials, whose job it is to protect U.S. borders, have some idea of the policies and attitudes in Canada, the country that shares the much-touted longest undefended border.
You'd think, anyway. I know I'd expect that.
But then again, who knows?
P.S. Can I also mention that perhaps the U.S. does NOT grossly underestimate Canadian intelligence forces? It's entirely possible for Canadians to be as bad as the next bad guys (in an extremely polite way, of course). Perhaps Canada designed this tracking system to see which Americans actually hang onto their Canadian currency after it's slipped to them accidentally in casinos.
No doubt CSIS worked with the keen minds in charge of security at the Royal Canadian Mint, which last summer lost $15.3 million in gold. That's actual gold, not $15.3 million in value. The stuff they show in blocks in the movies. The real thing. And thank goodness that they're pursuing this investigation "rather vigorously," according to the story.
Finally, stories like this one remind Canadians that the U.S. really doesn't understand that it is NOT the centre of the universe. Or center, either.
I did, and I live in the very last house on Paranoia Lane so everyone else must have heard it by this time. There are strips in $20 bills that tell the government where you are at any given time. It's true. It was on The X Files. Seriously. (Or maybe not so seriously. It was on The X Files, though.)
Here's a new twist. Now, FOREIGN Governments can track your location through radio frequency transmitters embedded in their money. If you happen to be carrying one of these poppy quarters, that is.
The quarters were issued to commemorate Canada's war dead. Apparently the coating over the red poppy was designed to protect the poppy from rubbing off as the coins circulated. Or to hide a radio transmitter, according to widespread rumors in 2006. Depending on your level of paranoia.
Here's the AP story. Note this part:
"I don't think it is an issue of the Canadians being the bad guys," the Pentagon's counterintelligence chief wrote, "but then again, who knows."
"Who knows"? Seriously, that's the response? In 2006, five years after 9/11 and amid the ongoing mistaken belief that the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada, U.S. officials at the Pentagon still didn't have a sense of Canadian security?
I'm not necessarily saying that Canada is as serious about border security as the U.S. I have no idea -- but then again, I don't work for the Pentagon (as far as you know). Surely U.S. security officials, whose job it is to protect U.S. borders, have some idea of the policies and attitudes in Canada, the country that shares the much-touted longest undefended border.
You'd think, anyway. I know I'd expect that.
But then again, who knows?
P.S. Can I also mention that perhaps the U.S. does NOT grossly underestimate Canadian intelligence forces? It's entirely possible for Canadians to be as bad as the next bad guys (in an extremely polite way, of course). Perhaps Canada designed this tracking system to see which Americans actually hang onto their Canadian currency after it's slipped to them accidentally in casinos.
No doubt CSIS worked with the keen minds in charge of security at the Royal Canadian Mint, which last summer lost $15.3 million in gold. That's actual gold, not $15.3 million in value. The stuff they show in blocks in the movies. The real thing. And thank goodness that they're pursuing this investigation "rather vigorously," according to the story.
Finally, stories like this one remind Canadians that the U.S. really doesn't understand that it is NOT the centre of the universe. Or center, either.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Americana: A Modern Celebration
Below is a link to a fabulous updated Web 2.0 celebration of American culture. I tried to embed it but it's too big for this page. But seriously. Click through.
Web Site Story
For Canadians, Pandora is one of the technical marvels that we don't have access to. Like Hulu. Or the Amazon Kindle.
I'm not really sure what the lesson is--perhaps "beware of expecting consumers to click through." But it's clever and fun. Much like some Americans.
Web Site Story
For Canadians, Pandora is one of the technical marvels that we don't have access to. Like Hulu. Or the Amazon Kindle.
I'm not really sure what the lesson is--perhaps "beware of expecting consumers to click through." But it's clever and fun. Much like some Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
