Brewing a tempest in a teapot

Most of the time, Queen's' name usually only comes up in stories about research or gripes about lack of funding.

So it was a surprise to learn from my friend that Queen's University's name appeared in the New York Times. And then I read the story from the Globe and Mail and the Kingston Whig-Standard...

Apparently our new Principal, Dr. Karen Hitchcock was embroiled in an ethics inquiry (during her transition from SUNY Albany to Queen's) regarding a supposed discussion with a developer about guaranteeing a construction contract at the university in exchange for endowing a chair that she could fill when she left her position of Principal at SUNY. The New York Times article apparently questioned why Queen's would hire her while she was involved in ths inquiry by the state's ethics commission.

State law in New York prevents further inquiry once she left her academic position. Her lawyer responded that Hitchcock answered all the commission's questions and that everyone was aware of her resignation, that it hadn't been accelerated or anything. In fact, she already had tenure, so why she would need an endowment from outside was also questioned. Our Chancellor Charles Baillie back her and the school's decision fully, saying that she had been forthcoming with the inquiry and that Queen's own investigation showed no reason to delay her hiring.

I would have to read the NY Times to see what the big deal really is about. This seems like one of those situations where it sounds and looks worse than it actually is. Had the inquiry actually found some substance to those allegations, I'm sure it would've come up during the hiring process and that local media would've picked up on it sooner rather than now. And I have confidence in Queen's that they wouldn't hire someone who may be ethically compromised. Therefore, I'm really intrigued as to why the NYT would bring it up now...but frankly, I can't be bothered to register their website.

What's really irksome is the response to Hitchcock's hiring. A friend who works for campus fundraising apparently had to prepare responses for her callers if alumni were to ask about these current 'allegations' (that have since been picked up by no one, thank goodness) or why Queen's decided to an American (gasp!) or a woman (gasp gasp!!). The American question was also made by sources of the Globe article.

If alumni are seriously asking these sorts of questions, then I'm truly ashamed. These are the same people who graduated from a university that prides itself on cultivating 'global citizens.' But apparently, we can't even donate money without bad-mouthing our neighbours to the south. Can someone give me a good reason why an American can't be our Principal? American universities attract our administrators all the time (ask UofT) because they look for the best, not because they're looking for a particular nationality. Why should we disqualify someone just because they're American? It's this type of knee-jerk anti-Americanism that gives the CPC (Conservative Party of Canada), Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson's ilk ammo for their mouths. And if you're asking why Queen's hired a woman, then you need to go back to the 1950s and stay there. There's no point in arguing with you. You're hopeless.

For most people, this is a non-story. For the Queen's alum readers out there, hoped you enjoyed this post with your afternoon tea.

A place called 'home'

My friend Jess has been applying to teaching positions all across Canada but can't make a decision on where to go. If you live or have lived in the following cities:

Ottawa
Calgary
Saskatoon
Vernon
Yellowknife
Vancouver
Victoria

why don't you go and make her life a little easier by telling her about the joys and pitfalls of that particular city? you'll receive her much prized appreciation and gratitude. You can leave a comment HERE.

Say something, say something...just not that!

Let me just say that I am against ballistic missile defence (BMD). I've yet to to hear convincing evidence that the system can hit a missile (let alone be able to hit the broadside of a barn). I think that terrorists are more likely to use low-tech methods (dirty bombs, etc.) against America (mainly) or Canada if they were to launch an attack. It seems to me that our defence dollars could be better spent on retrofitting our armed forces for rapid response to diffuse volatile situations abroad and to shore up continental and border security within existing land, sea and air organizations.

That being said, our PM Martin announced on thursday that we would not participate in BMD after our new ambassador to the US Frank McKenna stated that we were more or less involved in missile defence (because NORAD would share missile information and we're in NORAD). At this point, mass confusion ensues, as described by Paul Wells HERE and HERE, and the Christian Science Monitor.

After the announcement, ex-US ambassador Paul Celluci shoots off his mouth about how we've given up our seat at the table AND our SOVEREIGNTY by not participating in BMD while Martin retorts with a demand that the US consult us if the missile is to be shot down over Canada...

I think it's important to realize that regardless of whether we agreed to participate BMD or not, if the unlikely happened and a missile targeted the US, they will blow it up wherever it needs to be blown up in order to ensure the security of the American people. I'm sure they'll try their damndest to blow it up over the ocean, but if it needs to be done over Kelowna, it will. I don't think Celluci would have made such an outrageous comment if our government had articulated in a straightforward manner that we will not participate in this program, but we will participate in all the other programs that we jointly run to maintain continental security.

Secondly, I'm sure that PM Martin realizes that in the event of a missile attack, tough decisions have to be made quickly so I don't know what kind of consultation he expects. The most I would expect is a phone call telling me 'the missile is approaching over X airspace. It will likely explode over the Canadian town of Y. Get your emergency response teams ready...' They're not going to ask us permission to fire into our airspace. It's going to happen. Security of America will always come first. It's understandable and shouldn't be a surprise.

The Globe and Mail reports that by refusing to join BMD, "the government would have had a say in the evolution of the technologically challenging project, and would have had a role in the day-to-day anti-missile operations." Really? Do they really think that the amount we would've put towards the project would've given us a big enough say in how it works? The Americans have put billions into this boondoggle of a project. They're not going to let someone who's late joining the party in on all the goodies.

The only thing our acceptance of the program could've given them is more political legitimacy. We shouldn't have and the government made the right decision in its refusal. Giving different answers to please different people was not the way to go on this one. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Bush probably would've done a better job articulating our refusal than Martin in this situation, and that's saying something.

Today is 'Free Mojtaba and Arash Day'

For those interested in preserving human rights and journalism:

GO HERE

Everyone's gotta have a hobby...

So you want to destroy the Earth...

Why?! Why?! Why?! Why?! Why?!

So I put on the Brit awards on MuchMusic as background noise because frankly there's nothing decent on after midnight on a Saturday night. Anyways, it was background noise until they introduced Minnie Driver as having recently released a 'rock album' over in England...

Yea gods...I don't know what's worse: the album itself, or the fact that some music producer thought it was a good idea...

Freudian slip

While marking a question about the difference between traditional breeding and transgenic breeding techniques, I came across this student's offering as an example of traditional breeding techniques in his/her midterm:

"a farmer would breed with a sheep that produced more wool."

In Cryptic City, nothing is what you know

Off I go back into posts where nothing really makes sense unless you're directly inside my head, because these are the times when I inadvertently return to Cryptic City and everything's changing without an explanation. That's what makes this place so great: everytime I return, it changes into something unfamiliar, so it's always somewhat of a surprise.

Having been away since my wrong turn at Alberquerque, I thought I had found road less traveled...the sun's shining and the top's down on this baby. Then I hit this patch of fog that came out of nowhere and it just starts pouring. I barely had a chance to get the top back up but it didn't matter. I was soaked and so was the interior. It didn't let up either. When my windshields couldn't get any cleaner, I somehow hit the city limits and next thing I know I am posting from an internet cafe off the main street before my next assignment.

But this has a place in my heart. Whenever nothing out there makes sense, I end up here where it's just as confusing, but I at least understand the confusion. It's the meeting point for contradictions, and there's nowhere else quite like it...

Oh, what's my assignment you ask? To figure out how to how to communicate in the dark, how to make words tangible and to look for the missing link. Yeah, what is up with that? I seriously have to stop agreeing to these jobs.

You might as well hide it under the bed...

Sheila Fraser issued a report today about the lack of accounatability in non-government grant-giving foundations and how, although the government's given about $9 billion to these foundations, $7.7 billion remain in bank accounts. Accountability to me seems a minor problem as long as SOMEONE does an audit on the foundation's annual reports to make sure each cent is where it should be.

One question I have is whether the money isn't being spent because the $7 billion is the principal used to generate the interest (which becomes the grant itself), so that the grants are available in perpetuity? If not then, what the hell are they doing with the cash? My Urban Planning school in particular's definitely strapped for cash and could use a couple dollars to hire profs for research/teaching and to expand the computer lab. I'm sure there are many labs and departments across the country who are in the same situation.

One possibility is that there isn't enough good research out there to warrant giving out that money. In which case, we've a bigger, more systemic problem of not producing good researchers. Though, I highly much doubt that.

As for value-for-money auditing, that seems ripe for politicking when we start asking who decides which research has value (besides the experts who sits on the foundations. And if that's not the case, my argument fails). I'm also concerned if the foundations do start doling out cash, some will invariably criticize these organizations for spending it frivolously on 'needless' research, which relates to my previous point.

One solution would be to make the grants bigger or make the applications easier. I know many profs who finish applying for one grant only to start on another application. Now, it would seem to me that this time could be better spent doing research. Providing bigger grants for longer periods of time would probably help that situation.

'til then, I'll be joining the line-up of students and professors killing many trees as we fill out forms in triplicate for the money available now...Joy.

THIS (Canada TV) is Wonderland...

My friends know I complain ad nauseum about the wasteland that is the TV landscape. There are enough reality TV shows out there to choke a donkey. People complain further about the lack of good TV shows, especially from Canada, and especially with the demise of Hockey Night in Canada (way to kill the season. I'm looking at the players AND the owners).

I'm not here to complain. Instead, I'm here to tell you that within the vast detritus of the American TV dominated landscape, tehre's actually a lot of good shows out there, Canadian-made, that are worth watching:

1) This is Wonderland- a tight, well-written drama about a small group of public defenders (i.e. lawyers) that has many, many funny moments. I can not rave about this show enough. It's set in Toronto without having the blatant "I'm set in Toronto! Look at me!" feel to it. All the actors are phenomenal and unlike most of the legal dramas out there, this ones deals with many different social issues, from mental health to assaults, drugs, you name it. Though the show is supposed to focus on Alice (get it?), the entire cast has the kind of depth that makes every character interesting and endearing, something I haven't seen since the early seasons of the West Wing. I hope CBC puts this out onto DVD. I can watch this repeatedly.

2) Corner Gas- Half hour comedy set in the middle of Sasketchewan. You'd think they'd run out of ideas pretty quickly. But they're in the second season and it's still very funny. Strong cast + absurd, rural Canadian situations = who needs laugh tracks, anyways? Plus, they've got the Hip guess starring in an upcoming show...SWEET!

3) The Newsroom- back for a third season from Ken Finkleman, this is the Canadian version of The Office before The Office even existed. Like the rest of Ken Finkleman's work, every show is painfully funny in its awkward situations...

4) Degrassi-The Next Generation- I personally haven't watched it but it's been getting rave reviews from everywhere, especially since they are more willing to talk about more diverse adolescent issues than most shows. Plus, you can't go wrong when it's got the Kevin Smith seal of approval, right (for those who don't know, Kevin Smith and the Jay and Silent Bob characters were an entire storyline unto itself)...

So my suggestion. TURN OFF CANADIAN/AMERICAN IDOL!!!!! These shows are infinitely better. Trust me on this.

Addendum: This is an Amy recommendation- Sticks and Stones is a CBC Fifth Estate documentary on American Media. It's very fascinating. I'd recommend you watch the whole thing before they take it off; at the very least watch the short clip where Ann Coulter makes an ass of herself...it's hilarious.

Sittin' on a goldmine

Once again, Matthew Yglesias came through for me tonight. Going through his post, I find one to a link of a counter-response to a critique on New Urbanism. As a planning student, I obviously had to read the post, which came from City Comforts Blog. What's even better is their blogroll, which consist of various urban spaces issues blogs and ENVIRONMENTAL blogs (with such names as Alternative Energy Blog and Real Green). I'm hesitant to add their links because I've yet to read them, but at least they're out there and they're accessible.

The bad thing is, I just found out what I'll be doing this weekend at night when I should be doing work...

Google's takeover, one function at a time

Way back when, someone postulated about the future of the media, they dubbed, "Epic" HERE, in which Google, and not Microsoft, became the convergent force that brought the collection and distribution of information into one outlet.

While I thought it was a very novel idea and was skeptical how far Google's influence could be, it seems my skepticism is being whittled away.

Google News, Gmail, Google Scholar were the latest addition I had heard of, and there were rumblings of Google working on its own browser, especially when they hired away one of Mozilla's developer.

Now comes Google Maps (courtesy Matthew Yglesias), a map function ala Mapquest. It's still in the beta phase and while earlier attempts proved...not so successful, tonight's test run of their directions function from Newmarket to Kingston (the more accurate address, the better) provided pretty good directions. Suggestions for us Canucks in the north: have the ability to change from miles to kilometres. Not a big deal, but I'm a metric man m'self. Love those 1's and 0's.

And now, I await the next Google takeover: Google Travel Agent. Trip planning and flight-booking wherever you need to go...

Laws of Nature

Lunchtime
Originally uploaded by blackhole.

So I turned the corner of my apartment on my way out and I came upon this...

Needless to say, I was capitvated by what was going on. I'll let the picture speak for itself. Now, can I get a confirmation from someone (Katie or Amy?) that this is a Cooper's Hawk enjoying a fine meal? (Click on the picture to enlarge...)

Smog on the horizon, Cap'n.

Today, parts of the US and Southern Ontario got the first winter smog alert...and everyone's shocked and dismayed.

What's more shocking to me is that we've accepted summer smog alerts as a given and only show concern when an alert appears in the winter. We don't even blink an eye in June, but in February, it's news all of a sudden.

This should spur us to work towards bettering our air quality, but it won't. Give us enough time and we'll just adapt to these winter alerts and not have our children or seniors go outside because of the smog. We'll continue on with our lives as if winter smog alerts weren't all that special. Maybe when everyday turns into a smog alert day we'll get off our asses and do something about all the crap we put into the air.

So, from here on out, don't be surprised anymore by winter smog alerts. You'll definitely be seeing more in the future.

Men (and Women) with Brooms

Tonight, I'm very pleased to say that we notched up our first victory in intramural co-ed curling at Queen's, with an impressive 6-3 win.

While half our team (actually, all the women on the regular lineup) was unable to attend, their spots were filled-in very nicely by friends.

We were lead by our skip tonight, Matt Fletcher, who placed excellent shots at key moments. Andria got him a pair of real curling shoes to use and in this case, the shoes definitely played a key part (yes, yes, he shot well too...).

But congratulations should also go to the rest of the team for playing a solid and gritty game. In no particular order (since there's 6 of us, we rotated positions):

Grant Baldwin, Katie Hopkins, Katie Langin (last year's teammate) and Andria Sherstone.

Our regular team will return, but I worry not. We're just building momentum from here, folks!

Worst. Slogan. Ever.

So this is the slogan of one of the candidates running for a student trustee position:

"You can trust me."

What do you say to that. Really?