Kamloops Hillside

Cue up the cowboy music!

A Photographic Respite from Winter

Although our white Christmas is over, the snow and the cold are not over and most likely won't be for some while - a good time to stay inside and play with photo layers! And to create some pictorial respite from the cold.

We need this

because we have too much of this

Happy New Year, everyone!

Gender Parity and Shoulder Pads

Margaret Wente, in The Globe and Mail, raises the issue of women in science from an economic and political perspective. She asks whether "Gender Parity Trumps Excellence in Science?"

The assumptions Wente makes in this article are quite staggering.

First, Wente's entire premise - that we should give up gender politics and not fund gender parity because we need excellence in science -  is based on what is not in a report done by experts!

"Nowhere in the entire 252-page [Strengthening Canada’s Research Capacity: The Gender Dimension] report is there an inkling that anything but men and culture might be to blame for this sorry state of affairs. Nowhere is there any speculation as to why this gender imbalance exists in every developed country – including those with better child care. Nowhere is there a hint that one reason more women aren’t entering these fields is that maybe they don’t want to ... Yet as far as this report is concerned, it’s all about discrimination – both subtle and systemic. The authors – all senior academics, with some gender-studies experts – also claim that the feminization of science and technology would be a very healthy thing."

Wente dismisses the findings of the entire report for being "as dated as the shoulder pads [she]wore in 1982" and bases her claims, rather, on the speculation that women don't want such jobs (and takes the writers of the report to task for not doing likewise!).

I have discussed the argument before that women simply do not choose jobs in certain areas of science and IT,  regardless of the opportunity to do so - the claim implies or outrightly states there is something inherent in women's genetics that are responsible.

A 2008 article in the Boston Globe by Elaine McArdle argues also that women simply do not want to work in the hard sciences, that the gender gap there is because women "self-select" other careers, mostly involving people.

The McArdle article is better argued than is Wente's but still does not really address the depths of discrimination in many societies. McArdle cites stats from countries in which women's legal rights  to job choice do not result in more women in certain fields.

To me, the fact that women need legal guarantees in job choice screams volumes about the still-extant depths of discrimination. If the choices were so rosy and easy, why legislation?

The title of Wente"s article itself demonstrates the discrimination so ingrained in our society,  in spite of its author claiming to applaud girls who win science prizes. Where is the proof that gender parity and excellence in science are mutually exclusive? Can we not have both? Might gender parity increase our scientific excellence? Why run immediately to a negative assumption about the effect of women on excellence in science?

Discrimination - probably of the kind cited in the report Wente castigates -  exists and acts on females from cradle to grave; it is so ingrained it becomes normal.

Imagine the work involved in becoming a top-funded researcher in one of the hard sciences - the years of study, the financial drain, the restricted social life, the subsequent years of experiment and publishing. Hard for anyone, male or female.

Then add to all of it ongoing discrimination - the articles on the role of women, on the biological clock, on the reduction of excellence in science, on the resulting slip in reputation and economic clout that Canada will surely suffer, on the claim that women don't really want these careers, and add in discrimination in school (my stepdaughter in grade three was told that girls don't really "do" math when she wanted to enter a math contest), in the wider media,  and generally in society - and no one should  be surprised that women don't want to entertain that battle.

And don't forget the glass ceiling, the difficulty getting hired, the derision of men who currently hold such jobs or would like to.

Wente claims that it's mostly an economic issue - our money would be better spent strengthening our competitiveness in certain fields:


"Canada desperately needs to strengthen its competitiveness in the so-called STEM fields – science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Unfortunately, adopting the recommendations in this report would be a giant step back. In effect, Dr. Marsden and her team want to dilute our research efforts by politicizing the way the money gets handed out. For example, they want more money to go to younger and more junior academics (so that more women will be eligible)."

Just how will we "dilute our research efforts" by funding younger and more junior academics, and more women? Those now working in the STEM fields won't be there forever, just as their research will not remain current. Surely, we increase our competitiveness by drawing on the brain power in our whole society and planning for the future.

Last, Wente throws out the spectre of China and India, overtaking us because they supposedly don't concern themselves with gender parity - "That’s not what India and China are doing."  Fact is, they are!

India has a scholarship program precisely to encourage more women to enter into or return to science and technology. It's a federal program run by the Ministry of Science and Technology. A Google search "percent women scientists India" also turns up a vast number of position papers and professional organizations in India with the goal of gender parity.

China is even further ahead. In 2010, nearly 37% (36.91) of all jobs in science and technology were held by women. The Chinese government has scholarship programs to encourage more young women to become scientists - applicants in every region can apply for a scholarship of roughly the equivalent of $12,000 US.

If China and India best us in research, perhaps it will be because they are attempting to draw on the brain power of their entire population, male and female, regardless of ages-old discrimination against women.

Wente may have ditched the dated 1982 shoulder pads she used to wear; she should also ditch the dated  and outmoded attitudes.

Single Malt with a Twist

Sometimes attempting one thing in Photoshop leads unexpectedly elsewhere - like trying to intensify a photo of single malt Islay scotch in a decanter and ending up with what might make a great ad for Bombay Sapphire gin!

It would be an interesting, if time-consuming, project to apply every filter, blend mode, and adjustment layer to every photo just to see. So glad I'm retired!

Around the Yard

Ole Blue Eyes the Cat

Bandit Sings Sinatra

I did it my way.

Faulty Logic in the Service of Intolerance

Others' opinions can be disturbing, but when clearly and fairly argued, I'll listen. But so often, opinions that display bigotry and intolerance rest on bad logic. No need to listen - it's always pretty clear what's coming.

The following example appeared on Facebook recently and demonstrates my point exactly.

For the uninitiated, the football player is Tim Tebow praying during an NFL football game. He has been criticized roundly for his individual display of faith in what some say is an inappropriate situation.

But comparing these images is comparing apples and oranges and doesn't make any meaningful point - except about the intolerance of the person doing the comparing and his or her faulty logic.

To make a point about praying during professional sports games one would have to show something like the following:

Why is this ok?

And this isn't?


The soccer player in the top photo is Muslim and praying on the field during a game.  The comparison works - like to like.


 The further point would look thus:

Why is this OK?

And this isn't?

Whatever one's opinions about religion, prayer, public prayer, individual prayer, there's room for discussion. But let's compare like points and not let intolerance drive the discussion.

Happy Thanksgiving

Fall in the Yard

Late Summer in the Meadow

(With apologies to Rogers and Hammerstein!)

There's a bright golden haze on the meadow,

There's a bright golden haze on the meadow,

The corn thistle fuzz is as high as an elephant's eye,

An' it looks like its climbin' clear up to the sky.

Chorus:

Oh what a beautiful morning afternoon

Oh what a beautiful day,

I've got a wonderful feeling,

Everything's going my way.

There is a beautiful meadow just five minutes from my doorstep - Moore's Meadow - a long gouge in the landscape, ringed round with a high ridge and laced with trails. A glacial kettle, this city park is home to wildlife and is the joy of walkers, snowshoers, and cross-country skiers.

Recently, we spent a glorious late summer afternoon circling the meadow on a high ridge to the north and descending to the meadow floor to enjoy the warmth of the sun and the incredible scenery.

We live in bear country, though - black bears, mostly - and spring and fall are the best for bear spotting (or bear caution, depending on one's state of mind).  We did spot some bear scat on the trail - enough for me to want to wait until winter to enjoy the park again.

Living in a small city has its drawbacks, but having this treasure so close goes a long way to make up for many of them. And the long path up from the meadow floor makes this a contender for the most scenic exercise equipment!

Most Eager for Fame

US presidential candidate Mitt Romney seems most eager for the fame of the presidency and more than willing to jeopardize the well-being of his country to achieve it.

The fictional warrior Beowulf was  "lof-geornost," most eager for fame. He put the safety and very existence of his people in jeopardy when he fought, and lost, his last battle.

But the similarity ends there.

Beowulf earned his fame as a highly successful warrior in his youth. He rid the Danes of the evil monster Grendel and Grendel's mother; won competitions of strength and bravery.

He did everything a young warrior must do. He "grew" his (well-deserved) fame, his brand. He demonstrated his loyalty to the kings he served.

Everything Beowulf did as a warrior, even his quest for fame, served the needs of his people. He earned the right to be the King of the Geats. And a good king he was for fifty years.

Romney has no such background of service for the good of his country. He grew his fortune - for himself.

Romney's fame is an inconsistent brand. He serves whatever master will guarantee him the presidency. He is for no exceptions for abortion; he is against no exceptions for abortion. He seems not to grasp the seriousness of his frivolous quest to please whoever's asking the question.

Beowulf badly messed up when he let his greed for glory overrule the right thing to do for the good of his people. But he had been the foundation, the friend, the ring-giver, the companion and protector of his people for fifty years.

In Beowulf's world, a good leader  would "dispense /his God-given goods to young and old- / but not the common land... (Heaney 71-3).

Romney would hang onto as much of his God-given goods as possible; would do what it takes in legislation to move as much common property to himself and the rest of the one percent as possible.

America is in jeopardy. Romney has aligned himself with the forces of greed, religious zealotry, superstition, and oppression in order to become president. He has no plan for the good of his country, no plan to be the friend to his people.

Beowulf was "the kindest to his men, the most courteous man, / the best to his people, and most eager for fame ( Chickering 3181-2).

Romney is simply "lof-geornost," eager for fame.

Well Dressed in the Park

Happinez by the Glass

The Victorian zeitgeist of my hometown lasted long into the twentieth century and is well characterized by the lengthy presence of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), which still has some 5000 members worldwide. Even in the late sixties (1960s) and into the seventies, proper ladies did not enter a public drinking establishment, and the "ladies" who did (through their own special door with an escort!) were suspect. The "Swinging Sixties" and all that followed happened largely in a bubble of denial in terms of the city's self-view.

Harbourside, Saint John, NB

Fortunately, in the last ten to twenty years, the city has changed, leaving behind its brand of sternness and the ladies who did not drink.


How exciting now to see a downtown with many small restaurants and bars, some with small decks and patios where people can enjoy a drink outside. Nightly, there is music on the boardwalk beside the harbour - full with restaurants, bars, and people of all ages.

from the Happinez Bar website

My favourite discovery of this trip was The Happinez Wine Bar on Princess Street. In the lowest level of a late 19th C building, the bar has original exposed brick and stone, even an old bank vault that is now put to a much happier purpose as wine cellar.
The owner is personable and very knowledgable about his wine, of which there is a great selection. It really is "a little bar with lots of wine," as well as lots of atmosphere and service.

Saint John has changed its brand from the dutiful, stern city to one of fun and outdoor entertainment. The carpet stays out much later than it used to.

from the Happinez Bar website

And ladies may enter through the front door!

Thunder Riddle

Desmond has a barrow in the marketplace...

Hopeful

Happy Easter

Then and Now

I've lost count of how many times students have asked, "Can we just watch the movie?" I knew times had really changed when I was about to show a video of King Lear, and a student asked, "Do we have to watch the whole movie?"

Dwight MacDonald's essay "Updating the Bible," in Masscult and Midcult: Essays Against the American Grain reminds me yet again of just how much the study of literature has changed in the last twenty years.

No one reads; no one has time; no one has patience for anything complex. Which is exactly one of MacDonald's complaints about the felt need to revise the King James Version (KJV - 1611) of the Bible and replace it with the Revised Standard Version (RSV - 1952).

The words, phrasing, imagery that had been etched into the minds of most English speakers for nearly 350 years needed updating to better reflect the culture, character, and education of mid-century Americans. According to MacDonald, the whole enterprise was pretty much a dismal failure, replacing the reverberating "Thou Shalt Nots" with the more modern, but mundane, "You Shall Nots"  (by far not the worst of many sins).

MacDonald wrote about the failure to appreciate the KJV in 1959. What he said then applies to the study of literature now.

Speaking of what he claims is the exaggerated difficulty of the KJV:

Almost all of it is perfectly understandable to anyone who will give a little thought and effort to it, plus some of that overvalued modern commodity: time. Those who don't can hardly claim a serious interest in the Bible either as literature or religion. (172)

Which is exactly the criticism I have of contemporary students ( and just as often, their professors).


We err by making the "study" of literature today a study only of theory, of graphic novels, television, and tattoos. In doing so, "what is now simply a blunder...will become a catastrophe. Bland, flavourless mediocrity will have replaced the pungency of genius" (172).

But genius itself is suspect; canonical literature is a pale copy of theory, and the whole of the academy  is bent on catering only to what is relevant to and fun for eighteen-year-olds.

When "lol" and "bff" are one's linguistic currency, how fun can the "strange, wild, romantic, complex turns of style"(170) of Elizabethan English be?  - whether in the KJV or Shakespeare?

We will have lost something of great value when all we have is a cartoon version of the synopsis of King Lear with characters "txting."

And still someone will ask, "Do we have to watch the whole movie?"

The Happiness Quotient

I was surprised to see in the most recent edition of The Costco Connection a discussion of "happiness research." The question for debate is "Should governments make policy based on "happiness research"?

My credibility detector went up immediately.

Economist John Helliwell says: "Happiness research, known as the science of well-being, has produced important insights for governments, community organizations, businesses and families. Research has shown that having money is a strong support for happiness, but it's not enough."

He further writes" "Research has also shown that...moving up only one point on a 10-point scale that assesses trust in management would increase the happiness of typical employees as much as would a one-third increase in income."

Helliwell's wording is common to arguments that have less than rigorous scientific substance: "research has shown" is one of the most common. It is often questionable just what research has shown, as it is often questionable just what the quality of any research was. Was it peer-reviewed, duplicated, extensive enough, conclusive or merely suggestive? Also the passive construction is typical of vagueness - whose research? whose research dollars funded it? where was it published?

Also words like "insight," "typical," "trust," "management," aren't the words of science, just as "happiness " was not until recently. What is the 10-point scale that assesses trust in management; how was that scale created? what were the principles involved? And who is the typical employee? Presumably anyone who would be happier with trust in management than in getting a substantial raise. And why the word "income," and not the words "wages," "benefits'" or "salary"?

Martin Masse, VP of content at the Montreal Economic Institute, elucidates some concerns and problems: "Much of the debate in the field of happiness research centres on the correlations that can or cannot be found between some factor and how happy people feel."

 The idea of correlation  is important - happiness and some factor occur in some related, but not necessarily causal way. Additionally, one's happiness level is very subjective, and what makes people happy is not universal. Concrete, measurable things like the GDP are much better tools on which to base policy.

Masse also says that using the results of happiness research "as a basis for government policies opens the door to social engineering on a massive scale."

 In Barbara Ehrenreich's book Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America, she takes apart many of the claims for happiness "science" and looks at its history and the pay-offs for its practitioners.

Mostly, the goals are money, health, and consumer goods. Businesses, religious sects, promoters of disease management all want us to develop positive thinking and greater happiness. Not a bad deal.

The dark side is that when someone engineers less than favourable circumstances, or allows them to continue, people suffer. How convenient to blame the suffering on a lack of positive thinking; how convenient to withhold raises or roll back wages and blame the employees for not changing their thinking.

I always hear in this a reduction in wealth for the 99% and in increase for the 1%. (Funny how this happiness doesn't ever seem to apply to the rich!)

What is not surprising is that the links to more information for Costco members are to two of the most right-wing conservative think tanks in Canada. Seems they are floating these nonsensical ideas in Canadian society to see if they can boondoggle us into taking the blame if the government arranges it so that the rich get richer and the rest of get poorer.

I agree with Masse here: "...control of one's own life may be a key condition for real happiness..." And some level of financial security allows for control over one's own life. I can work out my own happiness, on my own terms, without the manipulation of conservative think tanks and the federal government.

Art, iPads, and Auto-naming

I cannot believe how much fun it is, and how freeing, to make art on an iPad. I have started a weekly class and can't stop picking up the iPad and playing with some newly discovered aspect of the art app. 

There's something very freeing about not having to buy paint and pencils, canvasses and watercolour paper in order to be able to mimic the effects of it all on the screen.  I have always been a little intimidated to buy all of the paraphernalia; one needs enough to make things work well, but not so much as will be hard to give away if it's not the right thing...

I also love the "undo" and "trash" buttons. I can choose to struggle with a "fix" or just delete. Entirely freeing!

ArtRage is the app I am using, and it is quite wonderful with its range of tools and range of settings for each tool. Each new work is a sizeable file because of the way the app mimics wetness of paint and drying times, etc. There are layers to play with, colour samplers, importing of photos for tracing, and a palette knife (my personal favourite, so far).

One thing I haven't figured out yet is the "auto-namer" for paintings. 

For example, one of our assignments was to do a series of self-portraits. Following is one of me with a bad cold:

ArtRage named this "Boy with a Red Waistcoat"!

Another piece I did especially to see what name it would receive:

ArtRage name: "Ballet at the Paris Opera."

Auto-fillers are the subject of much recent humour and for good reason. But I've yet to see anything so serendipitous and delightful as the ArtRage one.

I admit that I am hooked and look forward to seeing how some of my work will look when printed - and just what odd delightful name it will have.

 

Journalism's Epic Fail

One of journalism's criminal failures is well known: last year's infamous phone-hacking scandal of Rupert Murdoch's News of the World that caused its ultimate demise.

A more recent scandal is from Canada. In October 2011, Sun News, a cable "news" channel, staged a Canadian citizenship affirmation ceremony, peopled not with new citizens but with government bureaucrats standing in for them. The ceremony was not announced as a dramatization; it was presented as an actual ceremony. The occupations of the "actors" demonstrate just how supportive the channel is of the current government.

Count two failures here - the fraud of the staged ceremony and the ideologue channel masquerading as objective news media.

The truly epic fail is not those spectacular, scandalous frauds and crimes. The most damaging, sad, and epic fail of so many news media is the fraud of masquerading as objective news media.

Not all news organizations do so, and not all guilty ones do so all the time or with intent.

Examples abound, but two recent and important ones well demonstrate the point.

Toronto's Globe and Mail has just published a piece on the Sun News fraud. And while it seems to recount the circumstances objectively, the whole tone of the piece is screamingly uncritical of Sun News.  What starts out as "fraudulent" slides over into being possibly "a rookie mistake," a production of a "faux ceremony." Sun News was really just trying to be ultra Canadian. Why even the CBC does that!

The backhand swipe at the CBC may well be the real point of the piece, but that is just my speculation. The real failure here, though, is that "news" from a national, supposedly objective, news source can so blithely skim over journalistic fraud - indisputable and unsupportable fraud that needs serious comment.

The second example comes from another of Canada's national publishers.

Earlier this week, an Ontario jury returned a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder for a man, his wife and son who planned and then murdered three of the couple's other children, teenage girls who had "dishonoured" the family. They also killed the man's first wife in a polygamous marriage. Horrific!

Columnist Jonathan Kay in The National Post believes that the jury got it wrong about the mother and possibly about the father.

I am appalled that anyone admitting what Kay does about his limited knowledge of this case feels entitled to publish his opinion as somehow authoritative.

He did not attend the trial - not at all. He read about the trial in the reporting of another of The Post's writers.  Everything I found by this other writer did indeed report the facts of the trial, but in language so "loaded" that it was clear what she believed of the accused. Kay says that he has a gut feeling about the guilt and innocence of the convicted murderers.

So here we have a writer who got his information secondhand from a biased source, a fraction of the information included in the 40-day trial; he has a gut feeling about the jury's decision.

We all have our opinions.  Some are crazy, illogical, and biased. But we share them with friends and family only, or sometimes not at all.  Kay's kind of commentary shouldn't present itself as objective and authoritative. I would say to him that sometimes the little voice in the head expressing gut feelings should stay in the head!

Many journalists bemoan the intrusion of citizen journalists and uppity bloggers like me. They say we don't have the training or objectivity to get it right. But as news outlets lean more and more towards "soft," even "yellow" journalism, they shouldn't try to have it both ways.

The epic fail of journalism, for some writers and publishers, is that it has sold out, but wants to retain the appearance of objective commentary.

Veuve Clicquot and Terroir in Blueberries

If  terroir is expressed in wine, coffee, and tea, why not in blueberries - and potatoes and kumquats for that matter.

Argentinian blueberries have, I am certain, a distinctive and charming terroir - an ever-so- slight lavender flavour. I hesitate to admit to buying Argentinian blueberries in winter in northern Canada, what with the energy involved to get them here, but I succumbed and discovered something wonderful.

Wanting to repeat the experience, I purchased more without looking at the label and found myself with Chilean blueberries instead.  I'm sure they were the same variety, but the flavour was disappointingly different. I froze them for baking.

The Veuve Clicquot was the half bottle we purchased for New Year's Eve and didn't quite get to - we barely managed to see in the New Year, but Champagne was not in the cards.

The result of our New Year's "libation fail" was lemon blueberry cake accompanied by the Champagne. Sometimes such unplanned pairings become an event in themselves, so much so that all the Champagne and a goodly portion of the cake are gone. And a very pleasant past Saturday evening it was, too.

While I am convinced there is a discernible terroir in blueberries, I am also certain that it does not survive being baked in a cake.

So for my next pairing of Veuve Clicquot and blueberries, I would like to have Argentinian blueberries au natural with the Champagne  and, as good as it was, forget the cake. Perhaps a trip to Argentina is in order!