Team Awesome

2010-08-23T22:36:00.000-04:00

Man, I wish I had an easier way to share my reading lists.

I realize that it has been a while since I last updated my little "about me" blurb. No, I am not still reading the most recent (English-language) edition of Diogenes. But, since I do read numerous periodicals (bimonthly and quarterly publishing) and weeklies (the Economist, for one) it is pretty onerous to try to update my reading status each time.

I think that for the next little while, I will try to find a tool that will help me to easily share what I am reading.

2010-08-14T11:28:00.003-04:00

Water: the Reality of Scarcity

In a recently published special report, the Economist discusses the issues and problems that will arise because of the need for clean, drinkable water for a growing global population. In the report, the author(s) argue that "water is the new oil", and that the word (water) rarely appears in print without being followed by crisis. I found the report very informative, touching on all aspects of drinkable water on Earth. It starts with a straightforward analysis of what percentage of the Earth's water is drinkable, and goes on to look at a variety of topics: agriculture, global distribution issues, business, technology (conservation and power generation), and politics. As usual, the Economist does not shy away from admitting that providing clean, drinkable water to the global population will be a difficult and, potentially, explosive (or, charged) task. Nonetheless (or, "as usual"), the authors are optimistic that political cooperation, technology, and markets will spare the future from the very conflicts that they fear might arise.

What I found most interesting about the Economist's take on the political dimension was that the authors assumed that conflicts between nations would arise because of the scarcity of drinkable water. The tone suggests, to me, that flashpoints between states will ignite because there is not enough water, or one party is reducing the access to water of the other. This reminds me of an article by Samer Alatout published last year in Social Studies of Science, called "Bringing Abundance into Environmental Politics." In this article, Alatout illustrates how arguments for the abundance of a resource (in this case, water) are often overlooked as the opposite of scarcity. Instead, he argues, debate about the abundance of water deserve to be considered as a separate category apart from the arguments about scarcity.

This leads me to think that the political dimension of "water" does not revolve around the real or imagined scarcity of the resource. Rather, the more important factor to watch in conflicts (current or coming) about water is the extent to which one actor argues for its abundance. The conflict will occur over how and to what extent another party rejects the arguments for abundance.

2010-06-06T21:11:00.000-04:00

Contrastive Explanations and Debates about the Strong Programme in the Sociology of Science

In a recent issue of Sociology of Science, Jeff Kochan examines the use of "contrastive explanations" in critiques of the Strong Programme. I really enjoyed this article because it explains the Strong Programme methodology in a clear, understandable manner. And, it makes some very interesting methodological arguments.

The article is a pseudo-response piece to critiques of the Strong Programme methodology that were advanced separately by Nick Tosh and Tim Lewens (referred to in the article as "TL", and the same herein). Kochan starts with a description of contrastive explanation with the simple information request: "Why choose B, rather than any of the other alternatives in which A is true?" In this statement, "A" denotes the range of alternatives available from which "B" is chosen, which Kochan calls the "contrast space." The interesting thing about the idea of the contrast space is that it imposes structural conditions on an explanation. My take on it is that it is more than just "you cannot explain "B" without explaining "A"". Rather, the explanation of "B" can only be described within "A". That is, B, from the original information request, is a subset of A.

Methodologically speaking, this is fascinating because it very neatly explains how sociologists (especially my own teachers) examine scientific controversies and competing theories. My professor, Thomas Schlich, used to say that the most important step in any analysis is to show that you understand (or even assume) that your subject's perspective is internally consistent. Meaning, the scientist, physician, quack, holds to a countervailing opinion because, although they all see the same phenomenon, they "understand" it in the context of their own emotional-philosophical-social epistemic. If we return to the original information request, it means that different people will each have a different "A". Thus, two people (1 and 2) can see the same thing, "X", but come to competing conclusions ("B1 and B2"), because their "A" is ultimately different (A1 and A2).

I did not know anything about the "Strong Programme" methodology before reading this article, but Kochan makes it into an accessible topic by offering brief explanations and by returning to the main text critiqued by TL, a book written by David Bloor. Kochan's critique of TL also returns to Bloor's work, which used the electron-charge debate between Milliken and Ehrenhaft to explain the Strong Programme method. Kochan's critique starts by identifying where he thinks TL misunderstand the Strong Programme as outlined by Bloor. In a bizarre twist (IMHO), TL's misunderstanding of Bloor's text is highlighted, in a Freudian slip, where Tosh omits a key set of scare quotes in his citation. For Kochan, this indicates that TL believe Bloor is a scientific realist, which is a clear contradiction of Strong Programme assumptions (relativism).

The section of the essay that I find most interesting comes after Kochan's critique of TL (unconscious) scientific realism, where he examines the contrastive approach itself. Kochan examines TL's approach to the contrastive explanation and discovers a methodological "short cut". Apparently, TL structure a contrastive argument that is really a conjunctive statement: Why did A choose P rather than Q? Because A believes P and not Q. In other words, his explanation actually avoids contrastive format by using a conjunction: meaning, he should have answered "A believes P rather than Q, because A rather than Q". This is particularly interesting because, as Kochan points out, you don't really need to use a contrastive explanation in order to achieve the same point. As I understand it, your argument can demonstrate the same goal by using a conjunctive structure instead of a contrastive one (ironically said using a contrast).

To me, this means that, if we return to our original information request (modified per above), "Why choose P rather than any other item in A (e.g. "Q")?", we can say "because P and not Q", instead of (quoting Kochan) "P simpliciter". This returns to the earlier description of the contrastive space: we can explain why a scientist believes P rather than Q by explaining why P and why he does not believe Q, rather than explaining every single possibility in the contrastive space (A). Of course, this only works if your goal is to explain P and not Q. For instance, why did Milliken conclude that the negative charge he discovered applied to the electron and not the subelectron? This way, you do not have to entertain all of the other possible particles or explanations that could have won Milliken over.

Kochan's methodological argument is a fascinating one, and it works particularly well when examining the case made by different sides in a controversy.

2010-05-24T20:36:00.005-04:00

New Developments in the Net Neutrality Debate

In a recent issue of the Feliciter, two articles discuss issues and problems concerning the "net neutrality" debate in Canada and the United States. In the first article, Bruce Harpham gives a brief summary of the issues surrounding how net neutrality is "debated" in Canada and the United States. That is, he identifies some of the main arguments made in the American context, and contrasts them with how the Canadian context is taking shape. This issue is particularly interesting to me because it may impact, IMHO, how a "service" like the internet becomes a utility.

In the second article, Devon Greyson provides additional details about how the arguments about net neurtality will affect library professionals.

From these two articles, I gather that there are two main issues at stake in the general discourse about "net neutrality". One is the notion that data packets should travel with equal efficiency across the network of servers and network routers that make up the infrastructure of the internet. The other is that anyone should be able to access any content that they want on the internet, regardless of the source. In the second article, Devon Greyson seems to conflate the two issues. That is, she seems to imply that the ability to access information and the restriction-free transfer of information are the same thing. I disagree.
The reason that I think that these are two issues and not one is about the way that actors are involved. When it comes to the transfer of information (in the form of data packets) across the network, we are talking about a passive characteristic. Meaning, there should not be an active regulatory mechanism that gives certain data "priority" over others. In Ms. Greyson's article, she outlines a model of corporate interference in hte free-flow of information, where advertising and paid-content is more valuable than free and open-source content. I believe that, though the argument is a little sensationalist, it is a valid fear of the potential of corporate interest in the flow of information. Ms. Greyson argues that internet providers (ISPs) should be held to a "non-interference" standard. I agree with this argument insofar as it relates to the transfer of information across the network.

In the second issue: the ability for any user to access any content equally, there is a similar implication that there should not be a regulatory mechanism assigning priority to some data and not to others. However, I believe that in this regard we are missing an important aspect: users are actively seeking and accessing information. That is, there are two decisions being made by users: the type (category, keywords, database name) of information being accessed, as well as the size, meaning the extent, of the data. When looking up information about using Adobe Dreamweaver, for instance, one could look up information and access individual content pages (which are relatively small) or try to download the entire guidebook (which is potentially quite large). As she does with regard to the first issue, Ms. Greyson argues that users should be able to access any content of any size found on the internet. However, in both of the articles, the internet providers in Canada and the United States, allege that they should be able to “throttle” certain users who, by using peer-to-peer sharing networks, are “consuming” more bandwidth and server capacity than casual internet browsers. In other words, ISPs are throttling users accessing large amounts of content that has been deemed “low priority” (or, pirated).

In my opinion, Ms. Greyson's model of internet providers requires users to be able to access whatever they want and as much as they want, while burdening the providers with the cost of treating each user equally. This is troubling because it is not sustainable. If anyone, for personal or business/industrial purposes, could consume as much electricity as they want whenever they want to, the electric grid would be put under undue strain. Despite generous caps on the cost of utilities, users are limited by the cost of their consumption on the available supply of power.

A recent article by the Economist outlines a model that provides a middle ground. In the Economics Focus section, the implications of a recent FCC ruling are described. Apparently, the FCC has ruled that the internet providers in the US are subject to the common carriage protocols affecting telephony and railroads and hoteliers. I will not outline what “common carriage” describes here, but I will explain why I think it is an important ruling.

First, by subjecting ISPs to common carriage restrictions, it denies them the ability to regulate the priority given to certain packets of data being transferred. And, it denies them the ability to restrict the types of data accessed by users. So, the first half of the issue has been satisfied, as well as part of the second.

In my opinion, this leaves room for coming up with a model of internet use that is sustainable because the only “wiggle room” for ISPs is too charge more for higher volumes of usage, that is greater number of data sent and received.

I'm not sure how the FCC ruling might impact the Canadian debate on net neutrality, but I think that it is an important step towards encouraging a more mature “internet” market.

2010-05-03T17:41:00.011-04:00

Some Reflections on Marxism's Paradoxes
-Or-
Oizerman's "Paradoxes in the Communist Theory of Marxism"

I read this recent article by Theordor Oizerman today, and found it terrifically interesting. Oizerman identifies numerous paradoxical statements in the works of Marx and Engels, and provides analysis that demonstrates that the paradoxes are central to Marx's theory of communism. Normally, I'm not very interested in this sort of topic, but a few points really grabbed my attention. The first is that the paradoxes that one encounters in Marx's work are deliberate. The author explains that the paradoxes are in fact dialectic tools intended to foster the understanding of the theory. Marx did not just use Hegel's concept of dialectic to explain world history and class relations: it is pivotal to his theory of knowledge as well. So, for Marx, true understanding of his theory can only emerge from an appreciation of its dialectic, and seemingly contradictory, elements. Very cool and a little zen, non?

The next thing that grabbed my attention concerns Marx's "globalization/internationalization". Marx, back in the mid-nineteenth century, described a process he refers to as "the internationalization of production and capitalist transformation of society." This is particularly fascinating, because Oizerman suggests that Marx's theory of communism depends on what we, only recently, have called "globalization." So it seems that Marx could have "envisaged" the modern developments that we are only just beginning to understand. However, I am not so sure that our understanding of the globalization phenomenon and Marx's "internationalization" are completely connected.

The two concepts can be used to describe the creation of supply chains that span the globe. Products created in China, for instance, are created with materials from all over the world and sold in the United States. Thus, "international capitalism." Just as importantly, globally connected supply chains include the exchange of culture and ideas. Since Marx's theories rely on a strict materialism, cultural can be produced and traded in the same manner as machine parts. As Oizerman explains, the global exchange of cultural artifacts and ideas (what Marx calls "intercourses") eventually creates a homogeneous culture. And, since Marx also relies on Hegel's dialectic principle, this means that there should be two global populations: the bourgeoisie and the workers. Therefore, human existence is pointed to the inevitable emergence of global communism.

This is where I think that Oizerman's observation about the connection between globalization and "internationalization" starts to fall apart. Based my own understanding of the topic, globalization is about the "interactions" between nations, peoples, and cultures. No, the better word is "intersections". Globalization describes all of the new ways in which people interact with other people around the globe, and the platforms used to do so. In my opinion, it does not describe a movement towards homogeneous identity, but an awareness of how so many different "things" are connected. Of course, one could argue that globalization fosters development and that, in turn, encourages Western-style consumption habits. However, it could also be argued that as societies become more developed and people attain more disposable income (middle class), they also have the means to "want" more out of life. Although this seems a bit circular, I think that our understanding of globalization as a process of development and exchange of materials and ideas is more concerned with the increased interactions of a heterogeneous solution, rather than the transformation of heterogeneous elements into homogeneous ones.

When did this become a discussion of chemistry?... Moving back to the discussion:

The next thing that really grabbed my attention is that Oizerman explains why Marx and Engels were proponents of a radical movement. This may need some room to explain. Earlier I mention that Marx's notion of societal evolution puts global communism at the apex of human development. Well, if we put this another way: why would Marx and Engels become proponents of violent revolution if society will inevitably become communist? Again, a paradox in the theory of Marxism.

Oizerman is very effective in his explanation. In the article, he argues that Marx and Engels contradict their assertion of an inevitable evolution of global communism because of the gravity of the plight of the working class. In other words, this paradox arises from Marx's sense of social justice, and his belief that the workers should preemptively establish global communism to escape their horribly misery.

I found this point very compelling. First, because the paradox had never occurred to me. Second, because the depth of Marx's philosophy leads a reader to understand by appreciating these paradoxes - back to my original description of the "fullness" of the dialectic philosophy. Oizerman pointedly explains that everywhere Marx saw the working class in Europe, he saw men and women whose earnings were pitiful and beneath the minimums needed to achieve basic necessities: food, shelter, and clothing.

Overall, the article is a fascinating read and is, IMHO, the most interesting in this issue of the journal.

2010-05-03T17:14:00.002-04:00

Team Awesome's Newest Member!
-Or-
Crate Training Cesar's Way Is Not as Easy as Cesar Makes It Look.

Yes, this is a post about a puppy. Since he is set to take up quite a lot of my time over the next few months, to say nothing of the years of friendship, I think that it is impossible to not write about him. His call name is Bifteck, and pictures of him will doubtless follow. The registered name has not been decided, since She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed conveniently left town for the last few days.

That said, this post is about some of the advice out there about dogs and puppy training. I read the Dog Whisperer's book about puppies a couple of days ago, and I was really sold on the crate training idea. My first disclaimer: I in no way have any pretensions of knowing how to raise a dog better than Cesar. However, I'd like to talk about how difficult some of his "easy steps" are to follow.

The only problem seems to be making the puppy see it that way too. The Dog Whisperer has this whole "calm assertive energy" thing throughout the book. I guess that it really underlines how much of an art his techniques are, as opposed to a science. Back to the crate training: the book explains that puppies should be introduced to crates at a young age, so that they will have a "den"- a place to be calm and relaxed. The added benefit that really impressed me is that it will be easier to house-train the dog, because a dog will do everything that it can to avoid being on or near its own waste. In an ideal situation, that means holding their bladder until they go outside.

So how does the Dog Whisperer recommend you go about introducing your dog to the crate? There are a couple of anecdotes about new owners who follow [the Dog Whisperer's] advice by "bribing" and "encouraging" the dog to enter and relax (and remain) in the crate by using their "calm assertive" energies.

I've got to get me some of that calm-assertive west-coast juice, because getting Bifteck (the puppy) to stay in his crate has proven difficult, if not impossible. The best that I seem to be able to do is to open all of the doors, and let him wander in and out of the crate. If I close the doors, he just freaks out on me. Of course, the book recommends that you "never try to crate an excited dog". But, what do you do when a "calm relaxed" dog becomes excited when he goes near the crate?

So far, my only hope is that Bifteck will start to relax in the crate. So I'm following the program of offering bribes and praise when he enters and settles into the crate. Maybe by the time he is 12 weeks old or so, he'll be more comfortable in there, and I can start to take down the maze of baby gates that my apartment has become.

2010-04-26T13:19:00.002-04:00

New Blogs and New Directions

One of the concerns that has long been in the back of my mind is "how can I manage a professional and a personal web presence at the same time?"

For a while, I wondered if there was any need to keep the two separate. After all, tagging and category settings can be used to separate "professional" from "private" posts. However, as the number of posts, of any kind, increases the blog starts to look more like a mess of clutter than the "balanced mix" of types of post that I originally envisaged.

This is why I am going to create another blog... This one will be used to post ideas and experiences related to work, or the sort of activities and ideas that relate to my work. The specifics have not yet been fully planned

However, I am certain that my work is taking me more and more towards training and instructional design. So, I am going to blog about topics related to ID, elearning, and elearning implementation.

I'm also planning on launching a Twitter account. If I can make it accept image files, I will share the random pics from my day that way. Otherwise, I'll be using it as a daily journal, without images.

The new blog is called "Operations Theatre" and, as mentioned earlier, it will focus on topics related to: elearning design and deployment; topics of professional interest; and, website design and deployment (I am a beginner on this one).

A note about coming topics: Team Awesome is getting a new member. Puppy pictures and stories will doubtless follow.

Edit: 29 April 2010 - The original title of the new blog, "Learner's Craft" was replaced with "Operations Theatre". I could not use "Learner's Craft", so I scrambled to come up with something new.

-- This post was sent fom a mobile device. I apologize for any spelling and grammatical errors that may have gone unnoticed.

2010-04-20T21:52:00.001-04:00

An ode to lost blogging...

It has been quite a while. The funny thing is: I don't really have an explanation. Did I fall off the planet? Might as well have.

Notice that I did not say "I don't have an excuse." It may seem a semantic difference to some, but if here is one thing that has started to irk me, it is explanations delivered as excuses. Delays, lateness, failing to respond... I seem to get a lot of comments that come down to "I'm just too busy and your tasks are too far down on my priorities." Actually, I like that explanation. Especially if it was followed with an estimate of when the situation will change.

So what is my own explanation? Working long hours, courses, playing computer games, swimming... the list can go on indefinitely. The main thing that I notice, upon reflection, is that I have not blogged in some time because I put something, anything, else ahead of writing.

I guess a lot of other people can sympathize. Especially when your job involves a lot of writing, and if you are taking a course that requires writing in the evenings, more writing just seems onerous and soul crushing.

But, I'm returning to the blog. My main motivation: to keep writing and updating my own personal thoughts. I came to realize that with so much "work writing" and "school writing", I was limiting the kind of thinking and discussion that I can focus on to those two areas as a function of the time devoted to both.

That is to say, I've read so many more things and had so many more ideas that I have not yet put to paper because all of my writing time is devoted to topics that are not personal.

Thus, my return to blogging. I've realized that I need to try to write and update this area regularly, because it is (right now) my best place for expression.

So I guess this is more of a paen to blogging than a real statement or post.

-- This post was sent fom a mobile device. I apologize for any spelling and grammatical errors that may have gone unnoticed.

2008-09-21T11:01:00.004-04:00

Liar, liar, campaign's on fire.

I came across this article today, that talks about how the word liar is traditionally an out-of-bounds term in American politics.

Hahahahahahhaahaha. I wonder what the article's author would think of our current election campaign, where everyone is accused of being a liar, and lying in favour of some kind of personal agenda?

Was there ever a time that Canadian politicians were more timid about accusing their opponents of lying (or “misusing the truth” or “using disinformation”)?

2008-09-14T10:06:00.006-04:00

Wii Fit?

It has been four months now since I bought into the Wii Fit craze. There were a lot of preliminary reviews that praised and criticised the gaming platform. I figured that I would let some time pass before I bothered adding my own impression to the discourse.

A couple of things: first, I disagree with suggestions that Wii Fit is just for fat, lazy gamers and stay-at-home moms. I am an above-average athlete, in that I workout/train for more than 8 hours each week, and I found some of the games rather challenging. Granted, when you start playing most of the games and activities are pretty easy. Most of the 'strength' category exercises only involve a few repetitions, and the 'aerobic' category games are very short. However, I was impressed by many of the "unlocked" exercises: especially the "challenge" games that push you to do an ever-increasing number of push-ups, or to hold the plank position for longer and longer. These exercises can challenge most athletes. Many of the games are really very fun, and I found myself learning quite a lot about my own centre of balance in the process.

Of course, WiiFit's limitations are manifold. The one peeve that I have seen repeated on the game reviews is that the exercises do not seamlessly connect, as they do when casually working-out. For instance, after doing a round of push-ups one is directed back to the exercise menu. However, before doing so the game suggests a yoga or aerobic exercise to combine with the push-up workout. I would like it if there was an option to continue on to the suggested exercise, rather than going back to the menu. This would reduce the time between exercises, and would make for a better workout.

Another comment that I recall seeing on some of the reviews (either by an author or as a follow-up comment) was that the game "was just a fad." I certainly agree that the game is just a fad. However, after the honeymoon period ended, and the novelty wore-off, I find that do return to it regularly. At first, I had tried to combine Wii Fit with my existing work-out regime (jogging, tennis and swimming). However, for reasons regarding loading times, I quickly dropped-off the amount of Wii Fit exercising that I would commit to on a weekly basis.

As an occasional supplement for a regular exercise schedule, I think that the Wii Fit is excellent. It has plenty of fun and challenging exercises that give it great re-play value.

2008-09-13T14:25:00.005-04:00

Catching up.

Somehow I seem to find the time to work on projects that should have been finished several weeks ago, and no time to keep up with my blogging. Some things I want to say:

Going to the Cinema
I had a chance to see the Dark Knight. I think that most of the movie reviewers have mentioned all of the high points, and the failures (length and slow-to-frenetic pacing). The one thing that I want to add is: people, please do not bring your CHILDREN to this movie. I knew that it was going to be rather disturbing, but I was much more disturbed by the number of young children in the theatre with their (stupid) parents.

Election Time
Canadian election season is gearing-up, right alongside a very exciting election season south of the border. So far the Canadian election promises to be amateurish and juvenile.

The liberals have started out strong by declaring that Harper and his cronies are liars. Well, everyone already knows that. When you make that into your message at a given event, it is sort of like calling the dumb kid and "idiot" in front of the class. It may be true, but you still look like an ass for having nothing better to say.

Layton and NDP, who looked primed to make a difference by challenging the conventional distribution of seats in Ontario and Quebec, have lost a lot of credibility as the "alternative party" by trying to block May and the Greens from the televised debates. Honestly, Jackie-boy, you have nothing to worry about. Let May get on camera, let her look like the hack she is, and then let her become the historical footnote that she is destined to be.

The conservatives....where do I begin? They have this "family guy" campaign on the radio and television right now. The only problem is, they are undermining themselves with a slurry of gaffes and fiascoes. The "pigeon pooping" and "Liberal Dad" incidents are not just INCIDENTS. They are SYMPTOMS of an aggressive, threatening and distrustful culture. These SYMPTOMS did not appear because a lone actor was "extreme" in their conduct. These SYMPTOMS appeared because the party cultivates it. Something is rotten in the state of Conservative land.

I'm not even going to comment on the Bloc.

The Green Party? Who?

Jogging
The weather is great outside...and I guess that one of the reasons I have failed to keep up with my blog is that I would much rather go jogging, or swimming, than sit down and write (once I am finished work for the day).

2008-08-31T19:44:00.014-04:00

The consequences of Stephen Harper.

-or-

What everyone has been missing.

Douche, turd, control-freak, automaton, 'neo-con': at some point or another, I have heard our current PM, Steven Harper, described with those words. On the one hand, Harper should feel quite flattered: even if people think he is douche, at least there is no one out there questioning his intelligence. On the other, it is troubling that despite the (seemingly) constant image-campaigning by the PMO, he is still thought of in less-than-flattering terms by Canadians. However, it is Harper's intellect that is the most under-analyzed aspect of the government. The Cons have had a tough summer, and I seriously doubt that anyone will disagree with that statement. After being "Cuillard-ed" in the spring, they have had to watch the economy slowly slink towards recession. On top of that, they have to had to plan a (real) response to the new Lib platform (I'll cover that one in another post). Then there is also the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan, and the (ridiculous) furor over the Order nomination of Morghentaller and the (equally ridiculous) furor over Bill C-61.

Personally, I sympathize with Harper the control-freak. After all, just look at the hand the guy has been dealt in terms of a government. His party was (at first) so entrenched in "opposition mode" that they came across as amateurish during question periods, when the most common response was to blame the Liberals for being corrupt or incompetent. Especially Baird "the Bulldog." With morons sitting in your cabinet, how are you supposed to come across as a credible GOVERNMENT? You micro-manage. First, you kick McKay to the sidelines because the only accomplishments of note that he could list (after holding a variety of portfolios and party positions) was being chummy with Condy Rice and making inappropriate remarks about his "dog." Besides, the guy is a douche who can't be trusted to keep his promises.

Then, you get the rest of the party to SHUT THE HELL UP. Baird the Bulldog can't be kept quiet, but you make damn sure that everyone else does not say a peep to the press because they are categorically so unreliable. Harper has recently received some flak from the liberals for his “culture of secrecy.” It’s not a culture of secrecy, it is a culture of “my guys are too stupid to talk to the press so I tell them to SHUT THE HELL UP.”

SO, after a couple of years of micro-managing, Harper finally has a government that can argue about policy and governing and not the usual fall-back of party-politics. Unfortunately for the Cons, whatever momentum they have been trying to gain is stymied by the Liberals: the official opposition is a very well-experience political machine, and they know how to make life a living hell by bringing party-politics to the centre-stage of media coverage. Committee this, committee that. This leaves you with two options: let your government get embroiled in the myriad lawsuits and committee inquiries that are threaten to derail your ability to govern; or, you seek a majority government in a snap election.

The Catch-22 is immediately apparent: the first option is an enshrined process integral to democratic society, seeking to avoid or subvert it is anti-democratic. On the other hand, Harper promised that elections would start being held on a regular schedule, so that the nation is not disrupted by opportunistic elections. Since Parliament was dissolved today, Harper loses any integrity he could pretend to have earned by going back on a promise (and bill) his government made. He deserves credit for being pragmatic, but certainly does not deserve votes.

Basically, I don't doubt that Harper is a capable leader. He may even be one of the best PMs this country has ever had. His government is simply plagued with an un-sellable brand, and a bunch of douches.

Unfortunately for Harper, though, I still think that he is a douche because his government is devoted to a program that is completely opposite to what I think Canada needs. Unfortunately, I feel that I am in the extreme minority of Canadians who understand this fundamental point.

Allow me to elaborate. Glance through any of the myriad news-sources that you can scan online, and you will come across a variety of mouth-pieces that make sly and vague remarks about how the Cons platform is "whatever it may be"; or, they try to make direct comparisons to the 'neo-cons' of the Bush administration. Both perspectives are missing an essential point. The current Conservative government DOES have a platform, and saying that it is similar to the neo-con politics of the Bush administration completely misses the mark.

Let's pull a quote from a recent Globe and Mail article:
Speaking to a Montreal business crowd, Mr. Harper launched his harshest attack on the Liberal policy, saying it would concentrate money and power in Ottawa.
“I tell you that this new tax on carbon is going to destroy all that our government has built in the last two and a half years,” the Conservative Leader said.
Waitaminute. What does it mean that everything achieved in the last two years is threatened by concentrating money and power in Ottawa?

Harper's platform, really more of a program, is one of de-federalisation. After all, what sort of an idiot cuts taxes AND raises spending? The sort of idiot that wants any (future) federal government's spending to be so tight that they can't meddle in regional affairs by holding a massive coffer of cash. That's right. Remember: ‘Stevie-H’ entered national politics as an advisor for Ross Perot and the Reform Party. A regional party devoted to preserving REGIONAL (in this case, Western) interests. In many ways they were just like the Bloc, but without the annoyingly puerile sabre-rattling of the Quebec separatists. From what I understand of the Reform agenda, they just wanted to make sure that the West (mostly Alberta) was protected from policy sent out by Ottawa.

Harper's government is simply actualizing this agenda. This is why, when I read the news, one can connect several seemingly independent events to form a single constellation of de-federalisation: recognizing Quebec as a "distinct society"; the listeriosis outbreak in Ontario; Arts Funding cuts; rejecting the goals outlined in the Kyoto accord; and, increasing military spending.

A distinct society?

The recognition of Quebec's "distinct" status should require little explanation: it is simply an instance of the federal government acknowledging (without submitting) regional interests. By giving French-Canadians recognition for being a distinct society, however, Harpo can accomplish two things: gain political capital and set the stage for more regional recognition. The Cons want to gain votes in Quebec, and the only way that they can do it is by showing that a (supposedly) federalist party can promote Quebecois identity more successfully than the Bloc. Since the Cons expect to be locked out of the urban areas (liberal strongholds) they will have to fight in the predominately Bloc battle-grounds.

Furthermore, recognizing Quebec’s distinct society easily paves the way to recognizing any number of other “distinct” societies. Why not also recognize the Gàidhealtachd in Eastern Canada and Eastern Ontario as distinct societies as well?

In my opinion, when you start recognizing “distinct” groups, especially in response to regional urging, you (as a Government) are setting a stage that will make permissible new means of exclusion.

Tainted Meat

The listeriosis outbreak (sandwich-gate?) highlights a program of eliminating federal-level inspectors in favour of local-level (corporate) ones. In the case of the tainted sandwich meats, we are seeing the detrimental result of limiting the federal government's ability to impact business.

It is one thing to remove strings that may impede business. Unfortunately, it is something else for a government to neglect its duty to protect its citizens from harm. Unfortunately, in Ontario, there are still strong memories associated with another (conservative) government’s cuts to inspector funding: Walkerton.

The Kyoto Accords

The Kyoto Accords, and the general discussion (argument) about environmental policy is certainly a touchy issue today. Here in Ontario and the rest of the Eastern Provinces, most people have the opinion that people living out West don't care about the environment, and don't mind the massive cloud of death sitting over northern Alberta. Why else would the government be so opposed to the accords, rather than taking the Liberal strategy of delay and re-write? Well, one of my best friends is from Calgary, and I have also had the opportunity to meet many people from Alberta. I left all of those experiences with the impression that the environment is very much a real problem on their minds. However, it was also quite apparent to me that they are thoroughly opposed to the Ottawa-East dictating how they should approach the problem. Based on these experiences, I doubt that Harper simply "does not care" about the environment in the way that many say he does. Rather, I think that he would rather let individual regions determine their own response.

When (the premiers of ON and Quebec) McGuinty and Charest announced plans to adopt carbon taxes, and their own commitment to protecting forests, the government was (perhaps uncharacteristically) demure in its response. Despite what Harper and his cronies may think, they will not try to force a regional leader's hand to follow the federal plan (cap-and-trade being the most recent suggestion). Of course, there are exceptions to this. Jim Flaherty (that moron among imbeciles) decided to let his own politics (as a Conservative) influence his reaction to the news of the Ontario economic slow-down. He decided to play Conservative against Liberal in that debate, and the Conservatives are going to lose ground in Ontario because of it. However, that instance is, to me, a failure by Harper to yank the leash in time.

Canadian Smut

At first, when I heard about Canadian actors and filmmakers lamenting the number of cuts made to Arts funding, I laughed and thought “if you can’t get enough private funding it is because your project is a bad idea.”

Of course, the issue is much more complex, and much more politically motivated. When your government is threatened by impending deficits, you have to cut money from somewhere. Well, why not strike two birds with one stone and cut money to Arts Funding?

On the one hand, the arts grants were established to help to promote Canadian identity. Of course, this assumes that everyone in Canada agrees on what the council that awards the grants determines to be “Canadian.” I have a strong feeling that when it “Bubbles Galore,” Canada’s “XX” film was revealed to have been produced through funding from the federal government, some of the more “conservative” elements in Canada (nationwide) may have felt slightly off-put by the insinuation that the film was in some way “Canadian.” Similarly so for many other productions that have benefited from the same funding system.

Hmmm…so, how does this relate to a program of “defederalisation?” Well, in my opinion, I would hazard a guess that a politician interested in representing regional interests would want to reassure voters that the federal government will no longer be giving tax dollars to film makers that present content that [voters] would find offensive. Basically, Harper wants to make sure that (Ottawa) the federal government cannot force a particular (disagreeable?) “Canadian image” on the Canadian people.

In some ways, the cuts to funding are similar to cuts to business inspectors. This is a program of removing the government’s involvement in the arts. I doubt that the intention is to stifle artistic development in Canada. Of course, this government’s decisions have proven to be nothing if not short-sighted (re: the Cadman Affair).

Arming the Army of the Republicans?

My final instantiation of the Conservative plan is, admittedly, a bit of a stretch. After all, if I am insinuating that Harper is so strongly in favour of regionalism why would his government promote a strong (central) military? This has more to do with the fundamentals of government’s responsibility than a particular agenda of de-federalisation. One of a government's responsibilities is the defense of the state. Pumping money into the army satisfies his government's desire to impress upon the international community a Canadian commitment to self-determination. Basically, I am betting that Harper has some advisor who has told him that the reason that other leaders don't take him seriously is because Canada lacks military muscle.

Or, maybe not.

So, the real problem with Stephen Harper? He believes that it is Canada's best interest to have a weak federal government. In a follow-up post, I will discuss why this view is erroneous.

UPDATE: added quote from recent Globe and Mail article.

2008-08-30T21:56:00.008-04:00

Why the Olympics need a new category of competition.

A couple of weeks ago I was watching Michael Phelps win his eighth gold medal in the men's 4x100 medley relay. It was a spectacular race, and it certainly reaffirmed my conviction that Phelps is probably the best human being to ever (purposefully or not) enter the water. Even if anthropologists find some failed version of the human species that had webbed fingers and ridiculously short legs, I doubt that they could compete with Phelps.

Of course, my enjoyment of the event was slightly tarnished by the presence of my...bombastic...friend and colleague, Dr. Sauce. The good Doctor expressed his jaded opinion that the Olympics are (And I quote) ridiculous because it is ultimately about rewarding the "best cheater." He went on to express his desire to see a "narc-Olympic" games where the winners are the pharmaceutical companies that make humans do the most ridiculous things.

Usually, I roll my eyes and laugh when Dr. Sauce gets talking this way, after which I express my (contradictory) opinion, and we get more drunk and forget what we were talking about.

-Before continuing, I want to make it clear that I enjoy sports and admire athletes that devote themselves to their event to the exclusion of a normal life.-

However, this time I could not quite let the good doctor rant without prodding his statement. So I happened to ask him: "why ever for?"

His response was interesting and illuminating: "Well why not just come right out and let everyone do the drugs that they are pretending not to do?"

Rather than take my usual contrary stance, I found that I (partially) agreed. Of course, there was a problem with his opinion. As I explained (and I admit I may be full of the bull$%!^ herein), performance enhancing drugs are banned from the Olympics because they are supposed to be accessible from any level of competition. Let's suggest that there is club swimmer somewhere in Manitoba. Depending on her competition times, she can become eligible to compete at the regional and then the nation level. Pending her results, she could represent Canada at the upcoming Olympiad.

However, if the Olympics were (overtly) just about who has the best drug regime, then casual and amateur athletes could never hope to compete at anything more than the local/club level. Unless they were willing to absorb the risks associated with taking performance enhancing drugs, there is no way to compete with 'professionals' that have been recruited into professional programs. This is why there had been a ban on professional athletes in Olympic hockey and basketball. (IMHO) The ban was lifted because the IOC (rightly) decided that programs outside of N. America and Europe could produce teams that can compete with the best Russian, European, and N. American squads (in hockey), and the best U.S. teams (in basketball). Of course, baseball was still limited to amateur athletes (before being canned this year).

So, the IOC tries to keep the games "clean" because they are supposed to be accessible. Basically, a swimmer in Saudi Arabia should be able to compete on equal footing with a swimmer from France or Australia.

Better yet, the individual sprints are true marker of just how accessible the Olympics can be. How much skill does it take to run 100m? None. How much work does it take to run it in under 10 seconds? That depends on your training. If the Olympics were just simply a drug regime, there is no point to allowing many of the world's nations to enter competition, since the wealthiest programs would make it impossible for the poorest to compete. Without drugs, it is about training, genetic predispositions, and more training. In essence it should be fair.

Of course after mentioning the 100m sprint I have to admit that the Olympics are also supposed to be a showcase for the expansion of (what is possible regarding) human potential. Every Olympiad, the 100m time decrease evermore below the 10-sec mark (in the men's event). It is on this point that I accept that Dr. Sauce is right. If we want to showcase (and to push) the limits of human performance, why don't we give the athletes every possible advantage?

I absolutely think that it would be fantastic to "see" a human being break the 9-sec barrier in the 100m. However, I seriously doubt that is possible without performance enhancing drugs (and without surgery). In another 50 or 60 years? Maybe. But not until then. With performance enhancing drugs? Why not?

I would like to recommend a "games" from my conversation with the doctor: "athletes" compete in the typical blue-ribbon Olympic events. However, medals are not gained by performance alone. Rather, judges (a mix of physicians, physiologists and ethicist(s)) determine how detrimental to health an athlete's regime is (in the long run), and award handicaps to the athletes that adopt a supplement regime that favours performance over health. So, a sprinter that takes some performance-enhancing supplements that will eventually render him dead from a bloated and weakened heart will be awarded a lower "score" than one that adopts a regime that only improves muscle-twitch with no long-term affects.

Basically, what I would want to watch is a Games where human potential is pushed beyond its current limits. However, the public can rejoice in these Games because they will showcase technologies that may one day improve their own lives. Dr. Sauce should be applauded for his desire to see a "NarcOlympics."

However, having said that, I believe that the current Olympic philosophy, of keeping the games accessible, should be encouraged and preserved. Winning a Gold Medal, after four years of hard training, is an award that should never be tarnished.

Simply put, I think that we should create a venue for those athletes that want to push the human speed limit, or the amount that a body can dead-lift.

Of course, I may be wrong about the Olympic philosophy (I know I neglected to mention all of that nationalist crap about sportsmanship around the world), so my vision may be worth nothing.

Meh.

2008-08-27T12:51:00.004-04:00

A Busy Summer, and "On Being Too Important to Update My Blog (?)"

Well...I really have no excuse this time. I have spent much (most) of the summer in front of computer screens, as I have somehow found myself working my butt off.

For what? I'm not sure. Nonetheless, I have managed to not once update my blog. All of a sudden, it is the end of August and I wonder what I have been doing.

SWMBO thinks that I am a loser and would rather work than socialize. Then again, her opinion of me changed after I announced that we are going to go to Chicago in September. Now, her faith in the Captain and President-for-Life of Team Awesome is magically restored.

Aside from work, lots of stuff has been happening. I am expecting to write some posts on:

Harper's Subversive Strategies (and why Canadian Historians will agree with me);
The Green Shift- great Tax reform, poor environmental action plan;
Why OLD (text)books should be digitized;
Team Awesome's Emissary to Australia;
Delusions of Fitness (WiiFit after three months);
What I love about jogging;
And, how to make a better Olympiad.

Updates are forthcoming. To my (one or two) readers, the long wait is near an end!

2008-06-26T14:02:00.008-04:00

The Great Beef Soup Challenge Commences!

I was in the canned soup aisle of my local grocery store last night when I was hit by a sudden urge for canned beef soup. It was not one of those "I need beef soup now" urges, but one of those "you know what would be really good for lunch tomorrow? Beef Soup" urges. There was just one problem: choice.

Rather than risk getting "the bad" canned beef soup from the large selection, I decided that I would spread myself across the board: I bought one of each and will spend the next week eating beef soup for lunch.

I haven't eaten this way since I was an undergrad, so there is an off-chance that I will go insane by the end of next week. Now, this may sound strange, but that result will be a little comforting as it will help to explain those "crazy undergrad" years. Kind of like the discovery of the heavy amount of lead in ancient Rome's water pipes...

First up: Campbell's Healthy Request Vegetable Beef with Barley.

I decided to start with the "Healthy Request" selection because I guessed that "less sodium" and "healthy request" would also equal "no taste" and "leaves you strangely hungry." It turns out that I was right on both accounts. The soup has the thickness and texture of a good beef soup (chewy-but-not-tough meat and squishy vegetables), but none of the flavour. Aside from the faint taste of beef, I could have been eating any kind of soup at all. Very disappointing.

2008-06-25T15:06:00.006-04:00

Bad MDG

I am really pissed-off by MDG Computers right now. I took in my less-than-one year old PC, as well as SheWhoMustBeObeyed's (SWMBO's) PC to get serviced last week. My unit required the mother-board to be replaced because of a faulty LAN card...that was alright because it was still under warranty. SWMBO's PC, it turned out, was having come problems because its version of Windows (XP SP2) was corrupt. Whatever, the PC is 5 years old so this sort of thing is expected. There was also a recommendation to upgrade the RAM to 1 GB (to which I agreed).

When it came time to pick-up the units, I "discovered" the following facts:

1) My antivirus software was no longer functioning, my start-up group of programs had been modified, and my version of windows required activation;

2) And, (this is the important complaint) SWMBO's harddrive was completely wiped because Windows had to be re-installed.

When I called to ask (re: yell until I was satisfied that the moron on the other end was just as angry with me as I was with him) about what was going on, I was given some lame-ass explanantion that:

"It is MDG policy to ask about whether or not a back-up should be made, at extra cost ($X), in the event that Windows requires re-installation."

Since no request was made, a back-up of the (SWMBO's) hard drive was not produced. Well, well, well. The big problem with that statement is that I was never offered a "back-up", and I was never told that this service would result in SWMBO's hard-drive being purged. Of course I would have wanted a backup if I was told that the hard-drive was going to be wiped! And, there was a big "silence" at the other end when I asked why my antivirus and startup settings were modified (re: broken).

Now, I have been pretty happy with my MDG computer and I am NOT recommending against buying one. I am proud of the fact that the computers are built and sold by techs and salespeople here in Canada. However, if you are going to get your computer serviced, stay as far away from the Etobicoke store as you can get. They may have gotten my $300, but they will never get me to return.

2008-06-23T13:33:00.006-04:00

I am going to bet it was goose poo.

The National Post recently published a warning issued by the Toronto Police Department concerning a spate of dog-poisoning in High Park. I run through the park 3-4 times a week, and my money is on goose-poo being the culprit. At this time of year, there are so many geese wandering the park and the area around Grenadier Pond that the path is, in some places, covered with a slick green slime.

I feel really bad for the owners of the dogs, since it is impossible to watch your dog for every minute of the walk. It is especially impossible- and, I would argue cruel- to keep them from sniffing (and thereby licking) at the things that interest them. No I don't mean that dogs sniff by licking, instead, I am trying to say that if one is to prevent a dog from licking foreign objects/substances, one must prevent them from sniffing it since their tongue and nose will be equally close to the object of inquiry.

Here's to hoping that a pathologist or veterinarian figures out the vector for the poison. Once again, I am betting it is a massive bacterial infection caused by ingesting goose feces.

Update: According to this story the dogs have been poisoned in what appears to be a deliberate attack, against them and their owners. Personally, I don't buy the "person disgruntled against the off-leash areas" statement made by the police. However, I guess that I am not quite willing to accept that someone would be willing to do something so cruel and petty over such a tiny matter. Then again, one would have to be the sort who regards an issue like off-leash areas to be quite important to be willing to lay such a cruel and petty trap. Not to mention pathetic, tiny (morally and literally), and weak.

2008-06-17T13:33:00.008-04:00

On the topic of beer.

I wanted to take a look at the Stella Artois site today to get an image of the brand logo ,or an image from their advertising, for a joke I wanted to make about the beer. To my surprise, I found a rather impressive assortment of flash-based movies and games. Then again, it is a web page for beer...

My beef with this whole "Courage 1366" campaign that they are promoting is that it is absurdly anachronistic. Medieval Europeans did not think that the world was flat: anyone who lives in a coastal city would have told you as much as they watched a boat disappear over the horizon. Another thing about the other games is the talk of "gods" and "spirits". Although I won't deny that Europeans were a superstitious lot, they were (at least back then) devotedly Christian. Although they would not have explained lightning as static charges, I doubt that the common farmer thought that Zeus was hurling bolts at him.

But, I digress. While out at dinner last night, I ordered a pint of Stella Artois with my dinner. When asked by a friend to describe the beer, I replied:

It's flavour is sort-of on the border of being French; but it also has an invasive German bitterness.

It's official: I should give up everything and become a comedian.

2008-06-10T14:13:00.017-04:00

We Are All Scottish Now.

-or-

"How the Scots Invented the Modern World."

Writing popular history is something like a tight-rope act: lean too-much in one direction and you will plummet to oblivion. In "How the Scots Invented the Modern World", Arthur Herman attempts such a perilous act.

Herman's central thesis is far from new: "western" institutions, culture, and practices have been fundamentally shaped by "Scottish" culture. In a narrative that alternates between argumentative storytelling and meandering anectodotes, "How the Scots" is a story of Scotland and, at the same time, the story of the long eighteenth century.

Although I may joke as much when among friends: the narrative of this book does not reduce all things to "Scottish origin," in the way the dad from "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" reduces everything to Greek origin. Rather, the fundamental point is that the socio-politico-economic and moral conditions in Scotland that encouraged the period of intellectual, cultural and technological advancement now recognized as the "Scottish Enlightenment". In other words, a more apt name for the book could be "How SCOTLAND invented the modern world."

This notion of a "Scottish Enlightenment" has only recently gained attention in the historical community. Most historians of philosophy and STM had long recognized the influence of a "scottish school" in the late eighteenth century, but there had not been much work that focused exclusively on it. Herman's narrative is drawn from a diverse selection of older and recent literature that does just that.

Starting with a Braudelian examination of the geography of the Scotland, the story explains how a unique landscape produced recognizably "Scottish" social and economic conditions. Conditions which ultimately produced a highly literate and, for the main part, disciplined population. Basically: the Scotch are a product of Scotland. Duh.

Yet, the story is not so simple. As the first few chapters explain, the geographic factors that produce Scottish socio-economic conditions also condemn the Scotch to inferior status with regard to their southerly neighbours: the English. In fact, not only are the Scotch inferior to their southerly neighbours, they are pretty-much inferior to the whole of Europe.

This may lead one to ask: so, the "Scottish Enlightenment" occured because of pressure to overcome a northerly inferiority complex? As the author explains, the answer is "yes and no." Yes, inferior economic and political power encouraged innvoation and new ideas. At the same time: no, because the "Scottish Enlightenment" has a quintessentially "Scotch" character.

Herman explains that conditions in Scotland produced a unique a mindset (or perhaps the better term would be epistemic mode?) that encouraged the aforementioned "enlightenment." Without making reference to any "other" cultural mindsets, the Scots are made out to be a people who are uniquely capable of reconciling progressive idealism and cynical realism. To illustrate, the first Scottish figures whom the author turns to are the "founders" of the "Scottish School:" Francis Hutcheson and Lord Kames.

In an analysis of their respective philosophies about the nature of man and modern society, Herman attempts to show that both men, though quite divergent, demonstrate the essential "Scottishness" on which the rest of the story will rely. In a pseudo-biographical analysis, Hutcheson and Kames' teaching careers and social activities are traced, to demonstrate how subsequent "waves" of Scotch intellectuals can be traced back to them.

The rest of the book covers the philosophies espoused by the giants of the eighteenth century, with David Hume and Adam Smith being the main players. The narrative does not just talk about the intellectual achievements of the Scottish, but also illustrates the social achievements of the Scottish people in their homeland and throughout the world. Unforunately, Herman tends to rely on biographical stories to such an extent that the book seems to be as much a story of the Scottish people as it is a chronological who's-who-and-did-what in the eighteenth century. Ranging from the Scots fighting in the American Revolution (on both sides), to the opium runners in the Far East, it seems as though everything is in some way Scottish.

Of course, that is the point of the book. However, it is also its failing. Herman fails to establish anything particularly "Scottish" about most of the people (men) he mentions. Yes, in many cases a particular person demonstrated a worldview that appreciated both the ideal and realist perspectives. But, as the book progresses, there is little strength in his claim that all of the Scotts he mentions belong to the same School: for instance, how can Sir John A MacDonald (Canada's first PM) and Alexander Graham Bell (telephone) belong to the same "Scottish" school? Aside from being of Scotch descent, the men had very little else in common.

Herman casts his argumentative net too far, which results in too many holes, to be able to justify that being well-educated, pragmatic, and influential are necessarily Scottish traits. There is a wealth of information to be gleamed from this book, and it is also a very enjoyable read because of the smooth-flowing prose. However, by the end of the tale, I do not believe that the thesis will stick with most readers.

2008-06-08T14:06:00.006-04:00

Objectivity and the Future of Knowing (anything) with Certainty.

I recently had the opportunity to attend a conference at U of T titled: “Reclaiming the World: The Future of Objectivity” (St. George Campus, The Bahen Centre for Information Studies, May 23-24 2008).

Now the first thing that I have to get off of my chest is the fact that it was run really poorly. Admittedly, my opinion may be negatively skewed, as I showed up on the Friday afternoon to find no record of my registration. I HAD registered about a week before-hand, but this did not seem to matter to the folks who were organizing it: they were content to have my money. My main peeve about the registration was that despite being a paying client, I was treated like some bozo who just “wandered in.” I was left wondering why I had even bothered paying. I had verified that it would not be a problem if I missed the morning lectures (as I had a conflicting appointment), but obviously this was not quite the case.

That said, I was very impressed by the speakers and discussion at the conference, and I found the variety of topics fascinating. Certain papers were particularly interesting: Karen Barad’s examination of “objectivity and the ontology and ethics of knowing” through the example of the brittle star (starfish); Mike Pettit’s history of the use of deception in early psychological studies; and Natasha Myers' discussion of embodiment in protein crystallography.

I really want to committ some of my notes to digital form, but I also do not want to write a fifteen-page blog post. In the future I will try to discuss those papers individually, so that they can get some attention on the web.

Speaking of getting attention on the web, the keynote address for the conference was also very interesting. Delivered by Bruno Latour, it was a rather convoluted lecture about using new virtual tools to encourage an epistemological shift in techniques of representation. Dissent and argument that stems from the implicit political nature of “matters of fact” and “matters of concern” can be overcome by new tools that enable a witness to enter into any stage of a controversy, as well as trace the facts and opinions therein.

Does that make any sense? I’ve read that paragraph a couple of times now, and I am really not too sure what I mean by it. Basically, Latour was making a case for a new methodology used in science studies, namely co-author and co-citation mapping. Of course, the applications that create these maps can be used for much more than co-citation: that is merely the extent of my experience.

The underlying message of the lecture really seemed to rely on a kind of pseudo-positivism. In order for the datascapes of a controversy to be as accessible (and accurate) as Latour says they CAN be, the digital archive has to catch-up and parrallel the natural world. In a lot of ways, I think that this can be possible: after all, surgeons can perform laproscopic operations through devices that are located in operating rooms in different parts of the world. It is merely another step to make the operating theatre just as remote, and at the same time just as intimate, because the witnesses COULD share the surgeon’s “perspective”: or, “representation.”

In other words, the problems and politics of objectivity can be overcome by relying on a “second-degree” objectivity that enables the tracing and representation of all matters of fact and matters of concern at any intermediary step.

Obviously, the lecture was incredibly interesting and (believe it or not) very useful. I believe that Latour is correct when praising the potential of the usefulness of the digital archive, but I disagree about accessibility that (he argues) it offers. On a personal note, I am quite interested in the study of objectivity in so far as it relates to standards and protocols. When I consider how procedures are written one of my main concerns is the amount of information that can be learned.

Whether it is a text-based manual, or an interactive tutorial, there are implicit goals and assumptions framing how a process is created. If all of the parties involved in a procedure, (broadly speaking) the producers and the users, can use the digital archive to demonstrate and interact on individual levels, then a standard (objective), becomes inaccessible. For instance: person A says it should be one way, and writes it as a textual process; person B says it should be another, and records the process in flash (.swf) format; while person C says the process should be articulated in a completely different manner, and draws a schematic. All three persons may be talking about how to logon to Windows, but they describe the (simple) process very differently.

There are a variety of tools available to map this controversy over starting Windows, but if I look at it this way (where every party can articulate a procedure differently, and present their version differently) I still fail to see how the digital archive can overcome the problem of whether or not there is a standard (objective) protocol that can be agreed upon.

I am going to wrap-up this post before it gets terribly long. However, I will probably revisit the topic in later posts.

2008-06-01T12:31:00.007-04:00

What the F!*K Was That?

Back in April, Team Awesome attended our inaugural showing of Evil Dead: The Musical. As expected, we had a great time. In fact, we had such a great time that we went again, a month later! We invited a group of our friends, and after the show the general consensus was “Hells Yes! It was Awesome! (We’re Awesome).”

The production does a great job of capturing the ‘camp’ feel of the classic horror movies. Lots of gore, ridiculous situations, and witty dialogue interposed by hilarious musical numbers delighted the entire audience.

At the same time, the script reveals a lot of reflexivity with regard to the genre and the movies on which it is based: upon hearing a strange voice urging her “Join Us!” coming from [offstage], one character asks “What was it my mom always told me to do if I hear a strange voice coming from outside a cabin? [pause] Oh yeah! Don’t wake the others and tell them, and go out alone to investigate!” Another character acknowledges that he is just a “bit-part demon”, and laments his fate: doomed to be killed by the hero.

The story itself is true to the Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 movies. In fact, since Evil Dead 2 retcons the story from the first movie by limiting the weekend getaway to Ash and Linda, it is more of a combination of the two. The first act covers the events of “The Evil Dead”, where Ash and his friends go to a cabin in the woods (also the title of the opening number), with disastrous results following their discovery of an ancient book bound by flesh.

The second act retells the events of Evil Dead 2, where the daughter of the cabin’s owner arrives with her friends to discover a mutilated (one-handed) Ash in the midst of chainsaw-ing his demon-possessed girlfriend: “This isn’t what it looks like!”

A great aspect of the script is the way that the famous one-liners from Army of Darkness are interpolated throughout the play. The audience, especially yours truly, delighted in hearing classics such as:

“Wait! It’s a trick: use the axe;”
And, “Good, Bad: I’m the guy with the gun;”
And, of course, “THIS is my BOOMSTICK!”

Those members of the audience who recognized the lines would join-in, delivering with a roar the famous quotes that made Bruce Campbell into a B-Movie icon. Given the ‘intimacy’ of the venue- the audience sits right up at the edge of the stage- I expect that the producers intended for this level of involvement.

Of course, the ‘intimacy’ of the theatre brings me to the last point: the splatter. I can’t describe the experience without bringing up the enormous amount of blood sprayed from the stage onto the audience. Before the second act commences, one of the theatre staff travels throughout the first couple of rows and distributes rain ponchos, explaining that things will get a little “wet” if you are sitting up-close. Important note: you can bring your drinks with you into the theatre, as the show is great to watch over a pint of beer (or two).

Naturally, Team Awesome did not fear getting covered by a little “blood.” The final fight scene, which follows the Time Warp-esque “Do the Necronomicon”, had so much splatter that Team Awesome was more than a little soaked:

All in all: fantastic time. I recommend being familiar with the movies, as you will better appreciate the one-liners and some of the humour. Most importantly: sit close, get soaked, and have a great time! Great show.

Note: the title of this entry refers to one of the musical numbers.

2008-06-01T11:18:00.003-04:00

Missing In Action

I'm going to take a second to re-orient. I've been pretty busy for the last couple of months...and (obviously) have not been able to sit down and write a post.

A combination of a busy work schedule, and then lacking free-time on the weekends to write conspired to keep my number of new posts limited to one for all of April, and nil for May.

I have been pretty busy: finished a couple of books, saw a few movies, went to Evil Dead: The Musical (twice- hells yes!), attended a conference on objectivity, and painted my apartment.

I've made a promise to myself to try to put as much as I can to paper (or blog). Subsequent posts will be coming promptly.

2008-04-09T17:09:00.021-04:00

Not Forgetting Sarah Marshall anytime soon.

A couple of nights ago, Team Awesome went to see an advance screening of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." What little information I could find about the release indicated that it was made by the "guys who brought you 'Knocked Up' and 'The 40-year Old Virgin'." Since I really enjoyed seeing both of those movies, this one had some expectations to live up to.

And it did. Sort of.

Allow me to explain.

There has been a bit of a viral marketing campaign appearing on street corners and on the TTC, running ads about how much Sarah Marshall sucks, and how "I am so over you, Sarah Marshall." Here's an example:

A better ad that I could not find an image of was the "I am so over you, Sarah Marshall." Based on the choice of phrase on these posters I was expecting a sort of 'disastrously immature campaign of emotionally masochistic demonstrations of 'moving on' with the goal of regaining lost love.' Well, I was only partly right.

After being dumped by his five year girlfriend, now a famous actress, Peter Bretter (Jason Segel) sets out on a campaign of debauchery to try to ease his aching heart. He whirls through a series of intimate encounters: ranging from the humiliating to just plain strange. But hey! At least he's getting action, right? Well, Peter admits to his brother-in-law that he is still feeling depressed and uncomfortable, as well completely heart-broken. So, he figures that the best cure for his melancholy is to do the one thing the two of them always talked about doing: take a trip to Hawaii.

Well, as any RomCom veteran should know, it just so happens that the (in)famous ex-girlfriend has also decided to do the whole 'Hawaii vacation' thing- with her new beau, an outrageous British rock star (played by the scene stealing Russel Brand- just wait for the serenade). Of course, awkwardness and hilarity ensue.

In between scenes of emotional breakdown, Peter makes some new friends: a newly-wed husband who experience failure anxiety during sex because of his sense of spiritual cleanliness; a surfer-dude who suffers (albeit unknowingly) from anterograde amnesia; a massive native Hawaiian; and others. Of course, among the 'others' is the new love-interest: free-spirited Rachel (played by Mila Kunis).

I'm pretty sure that you can figure out the rest from there: Boy goes on vacation to forget lost love, encounters lost love, pines, gets comforted by new friend, realizes new friend is hot chick and promptly falls for her...blah blah blah...just wait for the dinner scene, because it is great.

That said, here are the (IMHO) highlights:

The Good:

Full frontal male nudity. There's no better way to combine humiliation and anguish than to have a man dumped while he is butt-naked;
The music. The soundtrack is good, the original soundtrack is fantastic. I can't do it justice by trying to describe it here;
Ridiculous segues from drinking with the buddies to crying alone on the balcony. Well, not so ridiculous;
Rachel's fight with her ex-boyfriend. It's funny and very effective character-building;
The dinner scene. Fantastic. It's too bad it comes so late in the movie;
And, a vampire puppet rock opera. 'Nuff said

The Bad:

Marketing really did not do a good job on this one, as I was expecting something else before I could get comfortable with this story.
Too long. The movie is 2 hours, where there could have been about 20 minutes less.

All said, if you liked Knocked Up, you'll definitely enjoy this one. The humour is very similar, especially considering the number of appearances by actors from other Apatow productions. It's a very funny movie, just get ready to be in there for a while.

2008-04-06T13:54:00.004-04:00

Boring? Surely Not Canadian History!

Part 1: Wherein your author rants about the geopolitical relevance of Canadian history.

I was speaking with some work colleagues the other day, and the conversation turned towards my area of historical specialty. I did the usual "I studied this in grad school", which leads to "so I am very knowledgeable of A, B, and C", which is why today I am doing (X). Usually, turning to this area tends to be a bit of a conversation killer. My area of specialty is rather esoteric, so most hear about it, nod their heads, agree that it is quite interesting and that I must have done a lot of work, and then: silence.

This time, however, a rather interesting remark was made: "well, it makes sense that you don't do Canadian history, because it is just so boring." I was more than a little taken aback. First, I thought I had made it clear that although I am not a Canadian-ist, I am very familiar with Canadian history. I have studied events in Canadian history for the purposes of comparative analysis, as well as for case studies. So in a way, although I may not identify as a Canadian historian, I certainly do believe that there is merit to the study.

My response to the statement was a little long-winded, but I'll summarize it here: Canadian history is more than just about Canada, it is a case study of modern state building. Now, a quick definition for a "State": a political entity with clearly defined geographical borders, autonomous authority over that territory, and effective power with which to coerce its population. "Modern States", IMHO, are characterized by a central government with a complex bureaucracy, having the power to levy tax(es) and legislate policy. In Europe, the "Modern State" GREW out of the ancien regime. Parliamentary democracy and bureaucratic institutions came about through a slow trial and error process.

Canada, on the other hand, came into existence with the entire arsenal of a modern state. Parliament and various federal ministries came into being with the ratification of a single document, the BNA Act. Now, quibbling about the nature of the ruling British authority aside (not to mention the transfer of power from the colonial office), the Canadian state came into existence with all of its modern machinery intact.

This is different from the experience of the United States (equally interesting, but different) where the people making up a territorial region chose the incarnation of their state, and determined its structure and powers.

Is Canadian history boring? Certainly no one who has studied any of it would say it is. I think, however, that the intent of the person from whom the original statement emerged was to conflate uninteresting and irrelevant into one term: boring.

As far as the relevance of Canadian history is concerned, I tend to think that it is more relevant than the histories of most other nations. This is not just because I am both Canadian and an historian. If you just look at Canadian history "from afar", you are looking at the colonial and post-colonial experience of the people living in Canada. The fact that Canada came into being with a fully-formed modern State, and continues to exist today is incredible considering the problems that the nation has had to face: uniting an ethnically and religiously divided population, as well as uniting and maintaining control over a vast geographic area.

I think that if you want to find out what has gone wrong in other areas of the world where a post-colonial modern state has crumbled, it is more than useful to compare that story to the Canadian one. By understanding what went right in Canada, and what made the Canadian state as successful as it has been; one can gain a useful understanding of the problems facing other regions and other peoples today.

2008-03-31T19:09:00.011-04:00

Mansy Fool's

I came across this little ad in a local paper last week. My initial reaction was "What the shit"? What could be a rather serene picture, unfortunately involving yoga, is ruined by a modified lady's speedo. The main thing that disturbed me: why did my eyes keep getting drawn to the crotch? My original title for this post was going to be: "Why I am never moving to the West Coast."

However, something about the ad just did not sit right with me. First of all, it was too outrageous for a Lululemon ad; I might expect this from American Apparel, but not Lululemon. Then there is the "Mansy available April 1" note down in bottom left. Unfortunately, you can not see it clearly in the photo I found here, but trust me: it is there.

So I did a little bit of searching on the net. Aside from a hack at the National Post treating the ad as though it was a real shock campaign, the general consensus seems to be that it is just some plain ol' viral marketing. For an April Fool's joke to be delivered well, a company has to show great brand awareness, and be able to communicate it well enough that people will get the joke. At the same time, I think that there is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek poke at recent American Apparel ads. This is probably why some people look at it and still think that lululemon is trying to 'set a new trend.'

So kudos to Lulu, despite the fact that I still hate them and the yuppie crap that they stand for.

Photo by Tobyvs from Flickr.

2008-03-30T12:00:00.010-04:00

Evil Dead: the Musical

Some rumors have been circulating for the last week-or-so, and I think that it is time an annoucement was made to clear things up.

It's official: Team Awesome is going to see "Evil Dead: The Musical".

I'm stoked about this show, because the movie franchise is one of my favourites. I'll admit that when I first heard about the show, I was a little concerned. However, after some consideration I became baffled by my initial response. The movies basically have one set, the Cabin, where all of the action takes place. Talk about ideal for moving it onto the stage.

Then I did a little research, and came across this little quote in the FAQ section on the show's website: "...we cannot guarantee you won’t get blood on you (so perhaps you should save the white cashmere sweater for another outing)."
...
Cannot guarantee that you won't get blood on you?

Intrigued, I read on: "What do I need to wear in the Splatter zone? Can I bring a raincoat/umbrella?"

Hells yeah. Basically, I am expecting this show to be like a trip to SeaWorld, but with blood. A whole ton of it.

Unfortunately, SheWhoMustBeObeyed forbade the purchase of tickets in the splatter section. Something about 'not wanting to be covered in blood when we go out for dinner that evening.'
Obviously I am considering a renegotiation of SWMBO's position on Team Awesome.

Luckily, SheWhoMustBeObeyed does not know that:
the spraying, splashing, pouring, and splattering of blood into the audience is not an exact science, so if you are sitting in the first few rows, it is entirely possible you will get some blood on you.

I'm hoping that our tickets, which are in 221-224, are still close enough to get some action.

If the show rocks (I think it will), Team Awesome will be returning at a later date. In the splatter zone.

Since we are not going until April 18th; if anyone has a review or any comments that they would like to share, feel free to let me know what you thought of the production.

2008-03-03T14:46:00.014-05:00

This week's LCBO gem.

Alright, I'll admit that I am a bit of a wine-o. I grew up in a household where wine accompanying a meal was chosen according to its characteristics and flavours. So, aside from being a wine-o, I am also a bit of a wine snob.

But, that does not mean that I believe that good wine is only found in the vintages section. In fact, I prefer to pick out bottles from the variety found in the aisles. Sometimes I will try out something cheap, sometimes it will be a bit expensive.

Admittedly, I tend to drift towards the cheaper bottles, as it is easier to buy 2 or 3 at a time, and not feel as though I am taking a dent out my budget. After being a student for so long, these considerations tend to come naturally.

So, I recently came across this little gem at the LCBO:

It's the 2007 "Astica" Sauvignon/Semillón bottled by Trapiche. The wine is described as a "remarkably fresh with soft tropical fruit flavours." Now, I am not so sure about the "tropical fruit" descriptor, since the dominant flavour seemed to be peach: a fruit local to the Niagara region.

Quibbles about the tropical-ness of the fruit flavour aside, the wine went really well with stuffed chicken breast, accompanied by rice and a creamy mushroom sauce. Although the recommended serving temperature is 10-16°C, I find that serving it in the 6-10° range compensates for the acidity that follows each sip.

The best part about this find: the price. At $8.10, it is a deal. The wine can be served casually, or you can also keep it around for special occasions. It’s probably best with chicken or white fish, but it is also pretty good along with nachos and mango salsa.

So: Peachy, cheap, and a little dry.

Details:
Trapiche (Argentina)
Sauvignon/Semillón
LCBO#: 359083
750 mL bottle
Price: $ 8.10

White wine, slight dryness with mild peach flavour

2008-02-25T15:07:00.004-05:00

Obay This

For the last couple of weeks I have noticed some rather peculiar ads while riding the TTC.
Here's an example:

If the "From the makers of WhyBecauseISaidSo" did not jump out at you, the subtle tongue-in-cheek humour of the ads implies that something else is going on here. I think that most people would immediately suspect some kind of viral marketing campaign, but the immediate question was: whose?

My own suspicions were that it was some kind of "anti-ritalin" awareness campaign.
Turns out that the campaign source is a little more mundane. According to a recent article, the guys at Torontoist managed to trace the campaign to (get this) Colleges Ontario, a group representing 24 colleges across Ontario.

Kudos to Colleges Ontario for the creative campaign. I will be keeping an eye peeled for any more details surrounding Obay and its "side-effects for Ontario's Post-Secondary education."

Photo by Mark Belvis, from the Obay Marketing Flickr Pool.

2008-02-19T11:14:00.004-05:00

The (triumphant) Return. Of me. To the blogosphere.

Whew...better blow the dust off of this before I do any writing...

It has been a little over a year since I last published anything. Main reason: laziness.
Second reason: school.
Third reason: I could not log onto my blogger account. I suck. Neglect and forgetfulness combined to thwart my attempts to reclaim the blog, as I could not remember my password and username.
Months passed, and I thought: “no point in starting a new blog, I just need to remember the old one…”
Then, out of the blue, I found an innocuous little slip of paper in the back of my desk drawer. Sure enough, I had scribbled all of my relevant blogger information on it. For once, my inability to throw away anything on my desk worked to my benefit!
I’m back!
Today’s lesson: Don’t throw out anything. No matter how trivial. Ever.

2006-12-04T19:12:00.000-05:00

Update

It turns out that I have some borken links on my blog, so I am going to take a couple of articles down, and find a new path to the information that I wanted to link to the entry.

Also, there are still a couple of posts that I have yet to finish. They concern my attempts at tagging digital media. If you are interested: I am getting butt-whooped by the code.

2006-12-03T22:44:00.001-05:00

Greek Computers

A recent article in Archaeoastronomy describes a study performed on an ancient lump of metal. It turns out that the Antikythera Mechanism is the equaivalent of an ancient Greek computer. Now, images of a P4 logo etched on face aside, this article leaves a few questions unanswered.

First, the device is supposed to be able to 'calculate' "the position of the sun, moon and planets against the celestial sphere". What the article does not specify is what version of the solar system it is employing. The ancient greeks had competing models of the universe: geo-centricism and helicentricism. Now, most people are familiar with the ancient geocentric model because most textbooks like to bash it to show how "stupid" everyone was until Copernicus.

So, which model does the device use? I am going to assume that it is the geo-centric model, but that is only because the Arab world and the medieval West both had similar devices that used it: the astrolabe and the armillary sphere.

2006-11-20T21:06:00.002-05:00

The origins of the mouth-breather.

Alright. One post on how much I detest mouthbreathing was just not enough for me. So, herein I am going to try to investigate the historical status of the mouthbreather. I just want to understand where we went wrong.

Wikipedia has a useful entry on mouthbreathing, covering both the medical definition and the common impression of the behaviour. Note that I am obviously not the only one on this most-just crusade. Actually, I have found at least one supporter on the net.

However, wikipedia does not give me any information on when the term first entered use. So, I checked out dictionary.com…that veritable treasure-trove of idiomatic knowledge…and I got bupkis. Nadda. There was one definition, and it was simply concerning the mechanical/medical status of mouth breathing. There was nothing on the social appearances, or the negative impact of the behaviour.

I started to suspect a conspiracy. Could the mouthbreathers have allies high-up enough that they are preventing common-knowledge from being recorded? Could The Man be a mouth-breather?

Worried, I decided to re-start my search with a resource that features the “common” usages of terms. That’s right- the Double-Tongued Dictionary. I was delighted to find that the definition for “mouth-breather” was (rightly so):
mouth-breather n. a stupid person; a moron, dolt, imbecile. Related: English, Derogatory, Slang

What is even more useful about the DTD is the fact that the site provides a list of citations supporting their definition. This way, one can get a sense of when the term started to take on its meaning. In this case, the earliest citation of “mouth-breather” used in the manner described by the definition (after all, what is the definition of a word other than how it is used in a phrase?) was from 1944.

I was a little doubtful of this date, so I decided to check if it appeared at all earlier. Much earlier. I decided to search for “mouth breather” on EEBO. And once again, I got bupkis.

So it seems that the pathology of mouth-breathing was not discovered (or, dare I say it: created) until the current century. There was an etymology discussion on washingtonmonthly.com surrounding where the term may have originated. The earliest that this author could find of the use of the term was with regards to the physical effects of mouth breathing on hearing.

So I tried using FindForward’s “early century” search counter. The results gathered by the search for “mouth breather” suggest that the use of the term peaked during the 1940s. However, since this search does not allow me to actually see the data gathered, I can not say for sure if the results are relevant to my search.

The “later century” search saw some interesting variation in the use of the term (peaking in the early 80s), but once again, since it does not actually allow you to access the data, I can not determine the relevance. However, what is interesting is if you compare these results to a search of the term “mouthbreather” (one-word). The results peak around the same years. Once again, though, the fact that I cannot examine the data for myself makes the results dubious.

2006-11-17T16:15:00.001-05:00

I hate mouthbreathers.

I know that this is definately not a post about using digital sources to do historical research, but I really have to say something. While doing some crowd wathcing over lunch this afternoon, I must have counted something like 20 mouthbreathers. Some were even

In the new regime, I am going to put a public tax on mouth-breathers.

Seriously. I think that there are one or two other things that one could do to successfully tell the world that they are barely thinking. Now, before writing this off as just another diatribe- which, admittedly it is- just stop to think about it. Have you not ever seen someone walking on campus with their mouth half open? Haven't you also noticed the fixed-forward stare of these people? Honestly, it looks as though they are asleep on two feet. What's worse, is the dull, glazed-over expression that dominates the face. Why don't these people take a look in the mirror? Moreover: the sound. I swear that whenever I go to a movie theatre, in that moment when the lights go down and the audience quietly awaits the film to start (or, properly, the commercials), I can always hear a cacophany of mouth breathing. That's right. It's this not-quite-a-snore-but-damn-louder-than-NORMAL-breathing sound.

Well, it could just be that they are living down a long evening, or they are suffering through a long day, and they really are starting to fall asleep on their feet. But I doubt that that is always the case. This seems to me to be an abnormality that is fostered by our health-care-centric, lazy, sedentary lifestyle. If people were more active, breathing through their noses would become normal. Yes, it is true that you can draw more air through your mouth. So when you are exercising it makes sense to inhale through the mouth. However, it is also very effective to exhale slowly. Come on, everyone has done those calming exercises where they are told to "breathe in 1-2-3, hold, and exhale 1-2-3-4".

This is not just some yoga-new-age-mumbo-voodoo. There is a physiological rationale here. When you exhale too quickly, you throw off the CO2 balance in your blood. This is usually referred to as hyperventillation. Not healthy, to say the least. When your CO2 balance is off, your body stops functioning properly. This results in the fatigued I'm-so-tired-that-can't-even-find-the-strength-to-close-my-mouth look.

Aside from leaving the body in a panic-response mode, imbalances in blood pH can lead to immune deficiencies, and increase sensitivities to allergens and other air-borne pollutants. There are also several other points about the detriments of mouth-breathing, but the last one that I will bring up is that mouth breathers are obviously bad kissers.

Take running, for instance. Hmmm....now that I think of it, running may be a bad example of nose-breathing vs. mouth breathing since most people do not have to worry about breathing rythm. Also, I think that the general consensus among runners is that whatever works is good for you.

But that doesn't help to prove that nose breathing is better. Swimming: there's a sport where your breathing rythm affects performance. Try swimming while exhaling through the mouth, and then through the nose. You should find that you need to take fewer breaths/length when exhaling through the nose. Inhaling through the nose is a bit more difficult due to (proper) head position, so a combination of mouth-inhaling and nose-exhaling is probably best.

My bottom line here is that mouth breathing is just ugly, aside from being un-healthy. Especially when not exercising. Now, as a nose breather I know that nose-breathers can be equally loud. I am pretty sure that everyone has had that experience where they go from walking outdoors and sit down inside and then their nose starts running. If you don't have a bunch of tissues on you, you end up making sniffing sounds every couple of minutes. Believe it or not, but I find that this sound is much more tolerable than the slightly-audible grating of a mouth breather.

So, to all of the mouth breathers out there: there is hope for you. Admit you have a problem, and seek some rehabilitation.

2006-11-05T11:30:00.001-05:00

Throwing Swords for Dummies

Alright, admittedly this post is not in keeping with my previous ones, in that I am not going to be strictly commenting on internet tools for historians.

I'm not sure if I am the only movie-buff in the world who has noticed this, but sometimes it just seems this way. Have you ever watched a movie where the main character throws their sword? The most recent flick that I had seen it done in was "The Last Samurai" where Tom Cruise throws his sword, and it impales some guy like a spear.

Honestly, I can't help but start laughing whenever I see this. What strikes me as so funny is, first: the idea of using a sword as a spear sometimes seems to be a result of not actually having a spear in the prop department.

It kind of makes me think that our civilization does not actually remember what sword is for.

Second: (and I admit that I could be flat-out wrong on this one) Swords cannot be thrown like spears/javelins. Trust me, I have tried throwing any number of sword-like objects in the past (hey, we were all kids once!), and swords are just not balanced like spears, or knives.

Now, I have tried searching the web for this topic, but it seems to me that no one has actually posted on the real-world physics behind throwing swords. When performing a search on the google, the main hits returned were from a bunch of RPG-players trying to come up with the stats for "throwing swords", and sword manufacturers. There was one site that seemed as though the author had done some credible empirical research, until he made the following statement:

"...pointed out that there's a LOT more momentum behind a missile from a horse. Partly because of the extra height, partly because you've got that extra 30 mph to add to the missile. So, yes, a thrown big knife will do enough damage to be noticed."

Once again, demonstrating to me that scienticians (my definition: non-science people commenting on science) should take some physics.

So to end of this rant, I am going to start a list of movies that incorporate a scene where the hero throws a sword and impales his/her enemy, or cuts some object at the last possible moment to stop a chain of (possibly deadly) events from unfolding:

1) The Last Samurai; Tom Cruise impales the racist American colonel, from horseback.
2) Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves; Morgan Freeman throws his bizarre scimitar at the witch just before she stabs Robin in the back.
3) Any Movie with Schwarzenegger holding a sword; Conan, Red Sonja, the Conan Sequels, Predator (apparently this a machete, but hey!)
4) Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail: The Black Knight, anyone?
5) Gladiator: Russel Crowe gets one of the riders in the colosseum (who is on horseback)

If anyone would like to add to the list, please feel free.

2006-10-30T15:00:00.001-05:00

I (heart) Python

So I have finally decided to sit down and try to learn some of this programming mumbo-jumbo. After glancing over a couple of the beginner's guides, I have settled on Guido Van Rossum's Python Tutorial. I find that his guide is much clearer on indenting than some of the others, but the one thing that I would really appreciate is a syntax guide. Even if it was just a list of the most basic functions would be helpful, as it would spare me from constantly growling at the computer.

2006-10-25T19:37:00.001-04:00

Context-hunting computers?

During an in-class discussion the other day, a question was posited about how a computer program could be made to search a digitized text for its context (or was it subtext?)

This got me thinking about a tool that can be easily accessed on the internet: the linguist's search engine. Basically, it is a program that can break down a phrase/sentence into its syntactic parts. So, if you enter the statement: "The Chinese community was blamed for the 2003 SARS pandemic", the program will identify that the subject of the statment is the "chinese community".

What I think would be pretty awesome is a tool that can take a search query (like the one stated above) and first identify the syntactic role of the various word-strings. Following this, it could create an ad hoc storage base not only of the separate word-strings, but also for word-strings semantically related (re:synonyms (probably the first three entries of an on-line dictionary)) to those data pieces. This way, you could have a program that can perform a broad non-specific search for a particular phrase.

I had always wondered if there was a way to graphically represent people's reactions following a particular event in the news. With a program like this, I believe that it would be possible to find out how many people thought, e.g., that the Michigan Militia (re: T. McVeigh) was responsible for the attacks of Sep 11/2001, before al-qaeda released a video taking responsability.

I'm not too sure how to make a program like this work, or even if it is feasible. BUT, in theory it seems sort of cool.

Any thoughts?

2006-10-21T16:04:00.001-04:00

Faking it on the Web

The proliferation of internet "digital hoaxes" brings several things to mind:

First: the urban legends

These popular pictures spread as attachments that were forwarded a billion times across the web. Some of them were just obviously ridiculuous, such as the "Bert is Evil" campaign. However, there were others that seemed at least slightly plausible. They were often grotesque images with an accompanying explanation. I’m pretty sure that everyone got at least one of them: the “eye-infecting dust-worms”, “breast infection”, and “contaminated sushi” seemed to be the most famous. In the instance of the breast infection, a doctored photograph did the trick, but the other two used actual pictures. The stories describing them were invented.

I believe that our fascination with this sort of spectacle can be connected to the 18th century fascination with cabinets of curiosities. The only difference is that the ‘curiosities’ can now come to us. In the past, people would question the veracity of an exhibit simply because of what it was presented with. Now that these curiosities are coming to us via email, it seems that the onus of determining a thing’s “truthiness” depends on the viewer’s own ability to check sources, as well as their ability to be skeptical, or at least agnostic.

Second: Mechanical Objectivity

I think that our visual gullibility can be connected to a cultural acceptance of what Lorraine Datson and Peter Galison have termed “mechanical objectivity”. Basically, with the invention of the camera, people believed that they finally had a way to present reality without worrying about bias in the presentation. Now, this was back in the 19th century: since then we have also learned to be skeptical of photographs. However, we can’t forget that the idiom: “Pictures don’t lie” is based on the assumption that a camera always discloses the truth.

Third: Political manipulation of imagery

Once the public accepted the notion that “pictures don’t lie”, various groups/individuals/institutions have tried to use this belief against us for their own rhetorical ends. During the 2004 election campaign, John Kerry’s picture appeared in an image with “Hanoi Jane” Fonda at an anti-vietnam rally. Now, I do not necessarily believe that this sort of manipulation resulted in Kerry’s defeat…the man did it to himself (or rather, did not do it)…but it is clear that whoever doctored the image did it for propagandist ends.
As an historian, I tend to historicize things. In this case, doctoring photographs for propagandistic ends has been an old tactic, and does not depend on digital technology. The case of Trotsky disappearing from Lenin’s side was accomplished, after all, through analog methods.

Fourth: Coded Objectivity?

The article on Farid’s truth-seeking algorithms makes me think about our own era’s notions of objectivity. If the truth is no longer in the camera (which can be manipulated), does this mean that the truth is in the code?

2006-10-06T15:40:00.000-04:00

Spiders crawling all over the web...

JavaWorld.com has a very interesting article on creating web spiders. The article is pretty technical, however, after parcing through it there is alot of useful information to be gleamed. Using a web spider is kind of like using google. However, as I understand it, the information returned by a webspider follows a directed path of links starting from the "root"; whatever website you choose to have the spider start following links from.

At the bottom of the article there is a downloadable Demo program of a spider. Very fun program to play around with. Once I became used to the advantages/disadvantages of using various breadth and depth settings, I was able to return some intereseting results.

For instance, if you set the maximum search depth to "100", this particular program will follow each link until it has travelled 100 links from the root. At that point it will start the "breadth" field of the search, which involves travelling along each of the links found on each website, until it can travel no farther.

So, it seems as though the Demo Spider has two modes: first, the depth mode, it travels along the first link it encounters until it can not travel any farther, or it reaches the maximum number of sites to travel along. Following this, it "backtracks" to each site, and explores any other links available, until there are no more, or it reaches the maximum depth specified.

As a tool, this strikes me as extremely useful since it searches the entire website for you. Rather than try to search through a site map for specific content and links on a website, one can make the spider do it for you! If one wanted to create a database of links on a particular subject, this program performs an exhaustive search. Granted, you have to go through the material yourself. However, there is an added tool in the program to make that task much easier.

You can enter keywords for it to pay attention to, so the program will highlite any webpages that match the criteria that you specify. This is not like a key word search on google as it does not isolate the sites that return the keyword. However, it is useful for "seeing" the shape of the net.

2006-09-25T10:30:00.000-04:00

Tagging and the Natural History of Art

While going over a couple of readings on the current project to make museum catalogues more searchable by generating non-expert keywords, I was reminded of a book by John Pickstone (Manchester) called "Ways of Knowing".

The book is essentially a history of Science, Technology and Medicine from the Renaissance to the present. Pickstone addresses the limits of local history (local referring to a particular time, place and theme), by experimenting with a novel historiographic approach. This approach is intended to outline the larger features of the history of science, technology and medicine (STM) without limiting his narrative to only one tradition.

So what does WoK have to do with Museum tagging? Pickstone distinguishes between 3 types, or ways of knowing in the history of STM: natural history, analysis, and experimentalism. He includes the way of “technoscinece” to analyze relations between science, technology, industry and policy.

What struck me as very interesting was the similarity between tagging and the tradition of "natural history". Pickstone describes natural history as the tradition which “covers all the things that can be named and collected”, and all forms of “collecting, describing and displaying". Basically, taking a natural history of a thing involves the naming and describing of it. Essentially, one has to "create" a place in their world-system by naming a thing. Although natural hsitory was most prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries in the history of STM, Pickstone suggets that natural history as a way of knowing can be seen in the world wide web: a place where things are categorized by their names, not by an hierarchical categorization.

2006-09-25T10:26:00.000-04:00

Update

I just went through my old posts and did some spell-checking, and I also added some titles to the posts. The presentation of the blog seems a bit more coherent for the moment...

2006-09-22T15:37:00.000-04:00

Don't try this one if you have a life (if you're like me, then it's okay...)

After an in-class discussion about open-source software, I was reminded of one of my favorite video-games, The Battle for Wesnoth.

Basically, it is a combination Strategy/RPG where you lead an army against your enemies. Not very original, neh? What I believe makes this game quite unique is the fact that- aside from the fact that it is free to download and play!- the source-code is not protected. Basically, people who play the game are free to edit it and to add to it as they please. The programming language used for the editor is not simple, but it is also not impossible to learn (actually, a little experience with Deductive Logic may go a bit farther than computer programming language here). The only expectation of the players is that if they make some change to the maps/scenarios/sprites/etc, they should share it. That is it.

It's encouraging that there are communities like this on the intra-web. My only real wish is that someone would make the Reseau-Lu software open-source...and free!

P.S.: I do not accept any liability for time lost becuase you get addicted to the game.

2006-09-22T14:43:00.000-04:00

ANT, Reseau-Lu, and a wish-list

There is a particularly useful lesson on datastructures posted on this online computer science tutorial. The reason that the lesson is particularly useful to me is that it provided some answers concerning some new technologies being in science studies(made up philosophers, historians, anthropologists, and sociologists- mostly the last group.)

Actually, I think that the wiki on science studies provides a pretty useful tool if you want to find out what it is all about. Since the history of medicine oftentimes converges with the history of science, I have had some experience with this sort of literature.

Of my experience, I have found that one of the most interesting (-and dare I say useful?-) tools to come out of this field is the Actor-Network Theory. Once again, the wiki provides a decent over-view of the theory, but it also leaves out the more recent changes and developments.

This theory is particularly useful as the basis for schematizing the spread of scientific knowledge. Recently, some science studies articles have used certain computer programs to create a two-dimensional representation of these scientific networks. The most current co-citation software being used is Reseau-Lu.

The program was used by Alberto Cambrosio (McGill), Peter Keating (UQAM), and A. Mogoutov (Aguidel) in an analysis of antibody reagent workshops (Social Studies of Science 34/3 (2004):325-64). By using Reseau-Lu, the authors were able to create a two-dimensional map of the cluster-designation workshops that was not limited to just the relationships between people: the map included the relationships between workshop groups, molecules, cell markers, and equipment. Interestingly, the methods employed by the authors to analyze the heterogeneous map were similar to those used by the scientists to develop a cluster designation nomenclature. Here is one of the maps used in the analysis:

Now, back to data structures. The lesson that I mentioned at the beginning of this page helped me to visualize just how this sort of software operates. The nodes seen on the map are basically the nodes described in the lesson. It strikes me that the Graphing Data Structure lesson can help one to appreciate how a program like Reseau-Lu operates. This sort of program could be extremely useful to historians who want a way to represent complex interactions between people, places and objects in the past. With a little tweaking, the program could even be used to represent various periods (years, decades, etc) of the network.

The only thing that I can see preventing me from using this sort of software is price. As I understand it, it happens to be pretty expensive, and it does require some training. Then again, it's not as though my weekends are completely booked these days, so that is not much of an excuse. Money...now that is certainly holding me back...

2006-09-18T22:32:00.000-04:00

Getting Wiki-fied

It's late at night, and I've just finished reading Rosenzweig's article on the history of wikipedia. I'm a little too tired to post all of my thoughts on the article, but one thing that seemed clear to me was that my own opinion of Wikipedia are not really that unique. Another thing that caught my attention was how Rosenzweig compared the current concerns over Wikipedia's "objectivity" to the birth of the AHA, described in Novik's seminal work.

One issue that neither author brings up is the question of just what sort of objectivity is being discussed. For instance, in the beginning of Novik's book, objectivity is used as a yardstick to determine the extent to which an historical work is scientific. That is, connected with the values of late 19th Cent. science. However, those values were not static. More recently, historians like Lorraine Datson, also Peter Gallison have demonstrated that "objectivity" itself has a history, and that its usage by people aspiring to it has varied across historic contexts.

Don't get me wrong, it is not that I feel it takes away from Rosenzweig's article, it is just a thought that popped into my head. Otherwise, the article also impressed on me that there are a lot of issues surrounding wikiality.

Did you just ask what 'wikiality' is? It's a little bit of pop-trivia. I am a pretty big fan of the Colbert Report, and while reading the article, I suddenly remembered one of his monologues from over the summer. Stepehen discusses Wikipedia, and how through it we can create a reality that we can all agree on- the reality we just agreed on.

2006-09-15T15:27:00.000-04:00

Thinking Machines, Racing Brains, and conversations with ALICE

I've just finished going over this lesson concerning AI. Now, all joking aside about computers taking over our world, and watching a computer and a brain race away, get awarded trophies and frown over losing...Bah, who am I kidding? I laughed at that animation until milk came out of my nose! It was awesome!

Now, since I am not a scientician (sic) in any real way (does watching star trek count?), when I first came across a lesson on AI, I thought: WOOHOOO! Now I'm going to find out how long it will be before I can buy a computer program that will write a publishable paper for me! Much to my chagrin, it turns out that my dreams do not stand a chance of becoming reality. Boo-urns.

What struck me as particularly interesting about the lesson (aside from the responses by the ALICE program to my very inappropriate questions) was the notion of "expert systems". The potential for new diagnostic technology was particularly intriguing to me. At the same time, the complexity required for such a system to be actualized is daunting. The lesson made it clear to me just how much of our cognitive processes are in fact the sum of several thousand at once. The instances of language and visual recognition were very illustrative. In order for a computer to become an expert diagnostician, it would need to be able to analyze huge amounts of data, reconciled by various tasks. However, at the same time it seems that there are certain factors in play in a clinical encounter that the computer could never really get around. For instance: after testing positive for a form of leukemia, would a computer prescribe a high-toxicity chemotherapy to a patient that is already severely weakened by the course of the disease? What factors influence a physician's decision in such a matter, and can they all be reformatted into a useable computer program?

I suppose such a situation could be handled by a logic tree of some sort, but it strikes me that the clinical encounter requires too many implicit value judgements for a program to be able to handle.

At the same time, it strikes me that historical analysis may be quite far beyond the current theories of AI. After all, where does one's inspiration come from when we choose a particular topic to investigate? I know that this is an old "art" argument, but I am surprised that nothing like it what covered in the articles. It is possible to apply fractal algorithms to Pollock's art, but how does one even begin a program to create such a piece? I guess that I'll have to keep looking for an answer...

Then again, it may be the case that I am just a neo-luddite.

2006-09-14T19:47:00.000-04:00

Historical Algorithms?

So I recently found myself doing some readings on algorithms. I found this lesson pretty interesting, if a little rudimentary. I thought that the principle characteristics of a good algorithm were well explained, but the lessons themselves involved a little too much guiding by hand. Luckily, the good ol' intraweb has the resources to help me read more about the topic. One thing that did interest me comes from the page on worst case scenarios. What caught my eye was how the authors skipped doing all of that summation work for the selection and instertion sorts by recognizing the trend seen in the first order of magnitude analyzed. However, how would they have solved the equations: (n-1)+(n-2)+(n-3)+...+1 if they did not have the simple sort to compare with?

After a quick Google search with "math" and "summation" as my principle search terms. The first result returned was for the title "the algebra of summation notation". I found that the site was fascinating.

Although the site did not explain exactly where some of the "well-known" summation rules came from, I could see that the (n*(n-1))/2 shortcut used in the algorithm lesson was based on rule #2, where S(n)(i:n)= (n*(n+1))/2. I could also appreciate that rule #2 could be derived from rule #1...now, rule #3 and #4 are a little difficult to appreciate. Where do the 6 and 4 come from?

I guess that I will have to figure that one out on my own...

The sorting algorithm strikes me as an essential tool for anyone doing research that involves collecting pieces of data. However, it is significant as a stochastic tool, as I believe that it will not return sorted data in a way that is meaningful to historians. Of course, this last point is certainly up for debate...

2006-09-14T18:43:00.000-04:00

Wikipedia, Phlogiston, and Tradition

When looking at the Wikipedia link about the Phlogiston theory, a couple of things stand out. First, and I think that this is just becuase becuase I am the sort of person who reads the end of a story first, the bibliography only contains one reference, and it is from 1900.

1900? Since it is not a primary source, I find it a little circumspect. Couldn't the author have found the information from a more current source? It is not that I believe that the content of the article is erroneous...it isn't...it's just that really old sources like that cannot be connected to the current literature in a significant way.

The next thing that stands out about the article, to me, is the way that the description of the theory removes it from its historic context. It is one thing to explain who developed the theory and what it stated. I think that that would be in traditional encyclopaedia form. This article in fact tried to elaborate on the history of the theory by describing its "enduring aspects":

'Phlogiston theory allowed chemists to bring explanation of apparently different phenomena into a coherent structure: combustion, metabolism, and formation of rust. The recognition of the relation between combustion and metabolism was a forerunner of the recognition that the metabolism of living creatures and combustion can be understood in terms of fundamentally related chemical processes.'

This statement reeks of positivism. I have a personal dislike for arguments that try to directly connect the science of the present to what was being done in the past. Earlier I mentioned that the article removed the theory from its historic context. I'll elaborate on that now. From my own reading on the subject, what one has to consider when looking at eighteenth century theories is that people saw the world completely differently from the way that we see it. That seems pretty obvious doesn't it: they were living over two hundred years ago, right?

What the article does not explain about the Phlogiston theory is why the theory appeared when it did. Why did it not appear earlier, or later? Perhaps the latter is easier to answer, in the article the author explains that Lavoisier "discovered" oxygen, leading to the notion of oxygenation.

However, why did Becher come up with the theory when he did (by the way...the article does not give an exact date as to when the theory was developed)? That is, why did it appear then? I beleive that this is important information that the aticle negelects to bring up. Becher's theory should be understand as a philosophical theory as much as it is a "scientific" one. The notion of Phlogiston is akin to earlier notions of "life force" (soul, pneuma, chi). That is, it is an unquantifiable factor at play in everyday life. The theory was postulated as a resistence to the iatromechanism of the day.

This is why I thought that the author missed the point of the theory. It was not a precursor of modern chemistry, specifically because it was not intended to help explain physical phenomena in terms of reducible, quantifiable substances.

The wikipedia article is interesting, as a primer. However, it removes the theory from its historic context, and creates illusory links to modern chemistry.

2006-09-14T18:14:00.001-04:00

Phlogiston on the Web

So continuing the elaboration/rant about the phlogiston theory, I suppose that I should explain it. Rather than pull out references to the particular print literature that discusses the history of the theory, I am going to try to use this 'intra-web' thingy to assemble useful information about the history of the Phlogiston theory.

After entering "Phlogiston:" as my basic search term on Google.com, the top results were (in descending order):

Wikipedia
Infoplease
JimLoy.com (a personal webpage)
A transcription of Joseph Priestly's 1796 Essay: "Considerations on the Doctrine of Phlogiston and the Decomposition of Water" (transcription by C. Giunta, Dept. of Chemistry, LeMoyne College).
Each of these websites is interesting, and (hopefully soon) I will share some of my thoughts on how useful they are to a historian.

2006-09-14T18:05:00.000-04:00

Why not a blogiston?

Some of you may have noticed that the title of my blog is "Phlogiston". I chose it for several reasons:

first, I thought that I might try to use the term "blogiston" as a title, then decided against it since it sounded a little too much like the name of a central asian republic.

Second, one of my historical interests is the history of science. My main field of study is the history of medicine, but the two subjects tend to share alot of the same material. Especially before nineteenth century (*arguably). The "Phlogiston" theory was a particularly interesting philosophical theory during the eighteenth century. Notice that it was a philosophical theory. Simply put, "science" as we practice it today was markedly different from what was done in the past. Before the modern era, alot of the experimental research of the past was categorized as "natural philosophy". I'll post more on the specifics of the phlogiston theory later.

Lastly, I chose the title of my blog because I thought that it sounded cool.

2006-09-14T17:56:00.000-04:00

Post the First

For my first post, I am going to offer a disclaimer: this is my first attempt at blogging, so my posts may seem a tad amateur to some. If that is the case, I welcome any comments and criticism concerning my future posts. After all, (constructive) criticism is an excellent tool for learning!

I guess that I will say a couple of things about myself:

I am currently working on my Master's at the University of Western Ontario, in History. I originally hail from Toronto, but I did my undergraduate study at McGill University in Montreal. My main area of historical study is the History of Medicine. I am particularly interested in modern medicine, and the various ways that the social/cultural environment has influenced standards and protocols. In the past, I have been involved in research projects on the history of orthopaedic surgery in Canada, as well as the history of standards and protocols in orthopaedics. I am also interested in the "Scientific Medicine" of the 19th Century, specifically how scientific rhetoric influenced clinical practices.

My 'other' interest of the moment is in the novels of Haruki Murakami. He's a very popular novelist in Japan, who has recently garnered alot of international acclaim. His oftentimes unique narrative structure, as well as the way that the lines between reality/unreality are blurred make for very interesting reading. I've nearly completed my collection of his works, as I am only missing a few (including the most recent...grrr...). If you are interested at all, don't worry about familiarity with Japanese/Japanese culture. His short/concise style translates very smoothly into English, and I have not had any complaints with the translations so far.

I look forward to discussing history (or anything else) this year...