Actually, this is not really about whales. More like, about humans.
Haven't really been following the anti-whaling debate but the very little I've seen from the headlines leaves me disgusted with the groups on the anti-whaling sides, particularly Greenpeace.
Considering the tactics they used, their name is an oxymoron.
On the whalers' side, they claim that they avoid species that are in danger, catching only those that remain plentiful such as the minke whales. That may or may not be true -- to verify that would take a lot more digging around as to the actual numbers. That said, the so-called Japanese 'research whaling trips' sound really dubious. Incidentally as dubious as the 'moose/bison/traditionally hunted animal cullings' in the US. So right, giving the whalers the benefit of doubt for the moment.
On the anti-whalers side, however, their claims remind me of the way the West decry the 'barbaric' way Chinese eat dogs (the *horror*). (Sidetrack: but, what's the difference between eating dog and cow? How about rabbits? Meat is meat.) There's a touch of xenophobia and arrogance in the anti-whaling statements. If groups like Greenpeace are truly for environmentalism, they should be focusing their efforts on the beef industry in the US and Australia. Oh wait, Greenpeace and such are also for saving species from extinction. Sure, the cows are in no danger of being extinct soon, but the beef industry creates a lot more environmental problems, which in turn leads to the extinction of a lot of other species, which are probably small and not as visible as the whale.
Cynically, I think it's simply easier to drum up outrage in the West against the whale-eating Japanese (conveniently forgetting that they are not the only group to eat whale; what about Norway or Greenland? Australians, I believe, also used to eat whales.) rather than go up against the beef industry. The tactics Greenpeace use seem more sensationalist than effective, their actions at odds with their message. Greenpeace say they have no money to 'head to the southern seas to stop the whalers', others claim Greenpeace is pulling in over $50,000 in donations a day. I'm not sure if that number is correct, but I should think that given their glossy advertising, that figure might not be far off. Overall, there's something a bit off about an environmental group that constantly slips in the message, give us money so we can do this and that.
Somehow, Greenpeace reminds me very, very much of NKF in Singapore.
My conclusion? Glass houses all around and lots of stones.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
ReNe: another big snow storm
Another snow post!
Well, there was another huge snow storm over eastern Canada yesterday, and all I see whenever I look out is snow. Activities over the weekened, or lack of, have to be planned around the white stuff.
This winter has been marked by the record levels of snow. The current storm system is interesting because of its size and duration. It's expected to dump about 15-25, or 20-30cm depending on the news source, of snow on Toronto, and up to 50cm in the worse-hit areas such as Niagara. Also, while most storms last 10-12 hours, this one was expected to last up to 36 hours and came in 2 waves; the first on Friday evening and the main event on Saturday afternoon and night. It could be the biggest storm of the season if it exceeds 30cm; the biggest storm this season was the one that dumped 30cm on CNY eve.
This was taken on Saturday, early afternoon. It may be hard to tell from the picture but not only is there snow coming down, snow is also being whipped up from drifts by the gusty winds. Truly an amazing sight. At this point, the snow was very small, even a little wet, almost on the verge of melting.
Late afternoon, I got really tired to being cooped up indoors and so we went out to buy groceries. It's actually pretty fun to walk outside in the snow and while driving is hard because of poor visibility and spinning wheels, it's not a big deal at all to walk in a snowstorm. Temperatures were cold though not unbearable; -7C, -17C with windchill. This was taken along Bloor; note the condition of the streets, the fact that roads are almost indistinguishable from the pavements, and the massive snowplows.
Normally if, say, 10 cm of snow fell on both the roads and pavements, there should still be a clear distinction between the two. However, because of the strong winds, snow gets blown up and re-distributed all over. I have stepped onto the roads by mistake because the curbs are hidden under the snow, initially thinking I stepped into one huge pothole and then realizing *not*. It's tricky. Also tricky is avoiding stubbing your toes on hard-packed ice from previous storms, hidden under a fresh coat of new snow or avoiding sheets of ice, also hidden under new snow.
Once in a while we see this: dogs tied up outside a shop/supermarket/cafe, while the owner is inside. Some of the bigger dogs seem all right, especially those with thick coats, though we've once seen a poodle (you know, the kind that's shaved) shivering badly. Anyway, this guy here just seems bored.
Notice the white-out conditions. You can't see clearly beyond two blocks. It is hard and dangerous to drive (I recall the blizzard conditions on the drive back from Toronto to St Louis last Thanksgiving) but fairly easy on foot.
The storm wreaking havoc across Eastern Canada resulted in so many car crashes on Saturday that police in Ontario stopped going to crash sites - instead telling those involved in a collision to get a tow and report to a designated centre.
Outside one of our favorite places to get groceries. P.A.T. is a Korean supermarket; stuff is relatively cheap, fresh and the variety is good.
And despite the mammoth storm, there are always the hard-corers. Always an inspiration.
For those confused, I'm referring to the cyclist. I've seen cyclists who are even out in -18C weather, ski-goggled and balaclava-ed Made us feel like a wuss for complaining about cycling in Singapore when it rains, eh?
Strong winds whipped the snow into knee-deep snow-drifts at parts. There was a stretch of deep snow just outside our apartment.
As noted, the late morning snow was small and wet, like little ice pellets. By the time we went out in the afternoon, the snow was thin and cylindrical. Odd, that. I wonder kind of conditions exactly are required to produce all these different types of snow. Towards the evening, the flakes became big and fluffy, and you can easily see the crystalline structure.
Well, there was another huge snow storm over eastern Canada yesterday, and all I see whenever I look out is snow. Activities over the weekened, or lack of, have to be planned around the white stuff.
This winter has been marked by the record levels of snow. The current storm system is interesting because of its size and duration. It's expected to dump about 15-25, or 20-30cm depending on the news source, of snow on Toronto, and up to 50cm in the worse-hit areas such as Niagara. Also, while most storms last 10-12 hours, this one was expected to last up to 36 hours and came in 2 waves; the first on Friday evening and the main event on Saturday afternoon and night. It could be the biggest storm of the season if it exceeds 30cm; the biggest storm this season was the one that dumped 30cm on CNY eve.
This was taken on Saturday, early afternoon. It may be hard to tell from the picture but not only is there snow coming down, snow is also being whipped up from drifts by the gusty winds. Truly an amazing sight. At this point, the snow was very small, even a little wet, almost on the verge of melting.
Late afternoon, I got really tired to being cooped up indoors and so we went out to buy groceries. It's actually pretty fun to walk outside in the snow and while driving is hard because of poor visibility and spinning wheels, it's not a big deal at all to walk in a snowstorm. Temperatures were cold though not unbearable; -7C, -17C with windchill. This was taken along Bloor; note the condition of the streets, the fact that roads are almost indistinguishable from the pavements, and the massive snowplows.Normally if, say, 10 cm of snow fell on both the roads and pavements, there should still be a clear distinction between the two. However, because of the strong winds, snow gets blown up and re-distributed all over. I have stepped onto the roads by mistake because the curbs are hidden under the snow, initially thinking I stepped into one huge pothole and then realizing *not*. It's tricky. Also tricky is avoiding stubbing your toes on hard-packed ice from previous storms, hidden under a fresh coat of new snow or avoiding sheets of ice, also hidden under new snow.
Once in a while we see this: dogs tied up outside a shop/supermarket/cafe, while the owner is inside. Some of the bigger dogs seem all right, especially those with thick coats, though we've once seen a poodle (you know, the kind that's shaved) shivering badly. Anyway, this guy here just seems bored.
Notice the white-out conditions. You can't see clearly beyond two blocks. It is hard and dangerous to drive (I recall the blizzard conditions on the drive back from Toronto to St Louis last Thanksgiving) but fairly easy on foot.The storm wreaking havoc across Eastern Canada resulted in so many car crashes on Saturday that police in Ontario stopped going to crash sites - instead telling those involved in a collision to get a tow and report to a designated centre.
"Since yesterday when the storm started we've had close to 600 collisions," said Const. Dave Woodford of the Ontario Provincial Police on Saturday afternoon. "Then . . . over 200 collisions since 6 o'clock this morning."
[Canwest news service, 8 Mar 2008]
Outside one of our favorite places to get groceries. P.A.T. is a Korean supermarket; stuff is relatively cheap, fresh and the variety is good.
And despite the mammoth storm, there are always the hard-corers. Always an inspiration.For those confused, I'm referring to the cyclist. I've seen cyclists who are even out in -18C weather, ski-goggled and balaclava-ed Made us feel like a wuss for complaining about cycling in Singapore when it rains, eh?
Strong winds whipped the snow into knee-deep snow-drifts at parts. There was a stretch of deep snow just outside our apartment.
As noted, the late morning snow was small and wet, like little ice pellets. By the time we went out in the afternoon, the snow was thin and cylindrical. Odd, that. I wonder kind of conditions exactly are required to produce all these different types of snow. Towards the evening, the flakes became big and fluffy, and you can easily see the crystalline structure.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
ReNe: international women's day
Today is IWD.
This is the first time I've been aware of IWD. Why? Because it's Singapore's fault that IWD is not well-publicized? Because it's my own fault for not being more aware?
Well, whatever the case, because of the huge snowstorm outside, I spent most of today indoors and reading various stuff on the net, including many newspapers.
Not surprisingly, Singapore's not on that list. And not surprisingly as well, the US is also not on that list. And I'm gleeful to note that Canada is on that list.
In some countries such as Afghanistan, there is outright discrimination and abuse of women. That's physical abuse, and ironically, what I think is easier to address. What's more insidious is psychological abuse. Take any well-off country; laws prohibit outright gender discrimination and women do, seemingly, get equal opportunities in education and in work. But there's still a marked difference in the way women are treated; there are different expectations of girls and boys, who from birth are given gender-specific names, expected to play with gender appropriate toys, wear gender appropriate clothing, and so on so forth ad nauseum. Some will argue that girls and boys are different, to which I concede a point, but as long as society continues to emphasize the gender divide, there will always be discrimination because many of the ways in which this gender divide is enforced are through discriminatory means.
For example, what's the point of high heels? To shape a woman's buttocks and calves and emphasize the sway of her gait.
And why should that be desirable? To enhance her sex appeal.
Fine. Why don't guys do it? Because guys' bodies are different and high heels wouldn't enhance a guy's sex appeal.
All right. So is there an equivalent sex appeal enhancement tactic for guys that's equally uncomfortable, damaging and constricting?
I'd admit that's a very flogged example. There probably are uncomfortable sex appeal enhancement tactics for guys but I am sure they do not number as many as uncomfortable sex appeal enhancement tactics for women. My point is: many of these discriminatory methods still exists even in progressive societies, but often, they are not recognized as tactics that still shackle women. Of course high heels are not as bad as Chinese foot bindings, and tight jeans are not as bad as corsets. But even though these remnants are milder counterparts of archaic practices, they still carry shades of the old meanings. Worse, they have become mainstream, normal, *accepted*, and therefore will not be questioned. And so gender discrimination persists on. It's like not finishing a course of antibiotics because by the time you're three-quarters through the course, you feel 'fine'.
Happy International Women's Day.
This is the first time I've been aware of IWD. Why? Because it's Singapore's fault that IWD is not well-publicized? Because it's my own fault for not being more aware?
Well, whatever the case, because of the huge snowstorm outside, I spent most of today indoors and reading various stuff on the net, including many newspapers.
Not surprisingly, Singapore's not on that list. And not surprisingly as well, the US is also not on that list. And I'm gleeful to note that Canada is on that list.
In some countries such as Afghanistan, there is outright discrimination and abuse of women. That's physical abuse, and ironically, what I think is easier to address. What's more insidious is psychological abuse. Take any well-off country; laws prohibit outright gender discrimination and women do, seemingly, get equal opportunities in education and in work. But there's still a marked difference in the way women are treated; there are different expectations of girls and boys, who from birth are given gender-specific names, expected to play with gender appropriate toys, wear gender appropriate clothing, and so on so forth ad nauseum. Some will argue that girls and boys are different, to which I concede a point, but as long as society continues to emphasize the gender divide, there will always be discrimination because many of the ways in which this gender divide is enforced are through discriminatory means.
For example, what's the point of high heels? To shape a woman's buttocks and calves and emphasize the sway of her gait.
And why should that be desirable? To enhance her sex appeal.
Fine. Why don't guys do it? Because guys' bodies are different and high heels wouldn't enhance a guy's sex appeal.
All right. So is there an equivalent sex appeal enhancement tactic for guys that's equally uncomfortable, damaging and constricting?
I'd admit that's a very flogged example. There probably are uncomfortable sex appeal enhancement tactics for guys but I am sure they do not number as many as uncomfortable sex appeal enhancement tactics for women. My point is: many of these discriminatory methods still exists even in progressive societies, but often, they are not recognized as tactics that still shackle women. Of course high heels are not as bad as Chinese foot bindings, and tight jeans are not as bad as corsets. But even though these remnants are milder counterparts of archaic practices, they still carry shades of the old meanings. Worse, they have become mainstream, normal, *accepted*, and therefore will not be questioned. And so gender discrimination persists on. It's like not finishing a course of antibiotics because by the time you're three-quarters through the course, you feel 'fine'.
Happy International Women's Day.
ReNe: bylaw
There's a sign, visible from our window, and it reads: No Parking Any Time, bylaw 675-79.
It then occurred to us...
In Singapore, there are notices and signs everywhere, usually going "No XXX, by law", or "No XXX, by order". But by whose law? Whose order? If there's no specific reference to the authority that forbade this action, then who's going to enforce it? They might as well have put down, "No XXX". Full-stop. Why the need to appeal to some nebulous higher authority? (Well, that could be because people tend to obey even rules they do not like if that rule was enforced by some higher authority; case in point, the Milgram experiments.)
But I think what *probably* happened with Singapore is this: the formulaic notice started off as "some prohibition, bylaw prohibition reference number", so one knows under what section of the law this prohibition falls under. (A bylaw is a law by the municipal government or local government, by definition.)
Then some smart, or not-so-smart, alec in Singapore with powderful engrish decides that there should be a space between by and law because 'by law' does make sense and is more gramatically correct.... And what's the numbering at the back? Arh, let's just drop it. There, it looks neat now.
It then occurred to us...
In Singapore, there are notices and signs everywhere, usually going "No XXX, by law", or "No XXX, by order". But by whose law? Whose order? If there's no specific reference to the authority that forbade this action, then who's going to enforce it? They might as well have put down, "No XXX". Full-stop. Why the need to appeal to some nebulous higher authority? (Well, that could be because people tend to obey even rules they do not like if that rule was enforced by some higher authority; case in point, the Milgram experiments.)
But I think what *probably* happened with Singapore is this: the formulaic notice started off as "some prohibition, bylaw prohibition reference number", so one knows under what section of the law this prohibition falls under. (A bylaw is a law by the municipal government or local government, by definition.)
Then some smart, or not-so-smart, alec in Singapore with powderful engrish decides that there should be a space between by and law because 'by law' does make sense and is more gramatically correct.... And what's the numbering at the back? Arh, let's just drop it. There, it looks neat now.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
ReNe: jesus camp
Ew. I just watched Jesus Camp (more like Mike started to play it even though I didn't feel like watching it...). Two words: bad memories.
I spent 10 years in a Catholic school, about 8 years in 2 churches, and I daresay I know all about the Bible and even more than I want to. Back then, I tried hard to 'believe' because everyone around me was 'believing'. Talk about peer pressure. I even tried hard to ask the existential questions (like, why am I here?) because 'everyone' was asking them, even though deep down, I couldn't be arsed.
Why am I here? Why not?
Can I accept I'm an insignificant speck in the universe? Yeah.
Does it make me feel small and unwanted? No, not really.
Who cares? Why are you forcing all these questions onto me?
Mike is against religion in an intellectual way and he can approach it dispassionately, but me, I've been so scarred that I alternate between denial and avoidance of religion, or ranting, because I've been *there*.
Watching the parts where they were chanting in tongues reminded me of a session at St Andrews Cathedral. As an Anglican church, the stereotype is that they're staid, so I supposed where they were trying to drum up more 'passion', and they held a session to 'encourage' us to speak in tongues. Now, try as I might, I couldn't. Maybe I didn't let myself go enough, probably I didn't 'feel' God enough. I'd admit I had serious doubts even back then when I was trying hard to believe about tongues; to me, it sounded like gibberish. I'm not a scholar in languages but even I knew a so-called language composed of a handful of syllables that goes on and on as if stuck on a repeat track, did not make sense. And how can every single Christian who speak in tongues all sound different, and also not understand each other?
Now, as the kids (well, teenagers to be exact; I was fourteen or so) started to speak in tongues, one by one they were allowed to leave the room. The adults continued to pray over the remaining kids, 'encouraging' them to speak in tongues as well. Then to my horror, I realized I was the last kid in the room. All of the adults (maybe 4 of them?) converged onto me, alternately praying for me in tongues and 'counseling' me in such a way as to insinuate that my belief was weak. Now, I've been in the session for 3 hours, I was starving and dehydrated and I was starting to feel more horrified by the language of tongues than inspired. I felt like I was in an exorcism, like I was in some satanic cult ritual more than anything else. Utterly desperate to get out, I *faked* it and was finally released.
Thinking back, I've never really believed, but I tried my hardest to convince myself to. How could I not, with all the guilt messages? Questioning inconsistencies (like the treatment of women in the bible) gets you shot down. I was even told to quit Judo, or at least to stop meditating, because it was satanic. As a teen, I didn't really have the confidence to rebut or to walk away even when it all sounded *wrong*.
It was child abuse. And from the show, it still is.
(Aside: there was one part in the show where the pastor was denouncing Harry Potter, and I was wondering, so what does she, or the church, think about metahumans or superheroes in general then? There were kids in the show wearing T-shirts with comic book superheroes on them... What about Superman, the alien from Krypton, the all-american hero raised in the bible belt?)
I spent 10 years in a Catholic school, about 8 years in 2 churches, and I daresay I know all about the Bible and even more than I want to. Back then, I tried hard to 'believe' because everyone around me was 'believing'. Talk about peer pressure. I even tried hard to ask the existential questions (like, why am I here?) because 'everyone' was asking them, even though deep down, I couldn't be arsed.
Why am I here? Why not?
Can I accept I'm an insignificant speck in the universe? Yeah.
Does it make me feel small and unwanted? No, not really.
Who cares? Why are you forcing all these questions onto me?
Mike is against religion in an intellectual way and he can approach it dispassionately, but me, I've been so scarred that I alternate between denial and avoidance of religion, or ranting, because I've been *there*.
Watching the parts where they were chanting in tongues reminded me of a session at St Andrews Cathedral. As an Anglican church, the stereotype is that they're staid, so I supposed where they were trying to drum up more 'passion', and they held a session to 'encourage' us to speak in tongues. Now, try as I might, I couldn't. Maybe I didn't let myself go enough, probably I didn't 'feel' God enough. I'd admit I had serious doubts even back then when I was trying hard to believe about tongues; to me, it sounded like gibberish. I'm not a scholar in languages but even I knew a so-called language composed of a handful of syllables that goes on and on as if stuck on a repeat track, did not make sense. And how can every single Christian who speak in tongues all sound different, and also not understand each other?
Now, as the kids (well, teenagers to be exact; I was fourteen or so) started to speak in tongues, one by one they were allowed to leave the room. The adults continued to pray over the remaining kids, 'encouraging' them to speak in tongues as well. Then to my horror, I realized I was the last kid in the room. All of the adults (maybe 4 of them?) converged onto me, alternately praying for me in tongues and 'counseling' me in such a way as to insinuate that my belief was weak. Now, I've been in the session for 3 hours, I was starving and dehydrated and I was starting to feel more horrified by the language of tongues than inspired. I felt like I was in an exorcism, like I was in some satanic cult ritual more than anything else. Utterly desperate to get out, I *faked* it and was finally released.
Thinking back, I've never really believed, but I tried my hardest to convince myself to. How could I not, with all the guilt messages? Questioning inconsistencies (like the treatment of women in the bible) gets you shot down. I was even told to quit Judo, or at least to stop meditating, because it was satanic. As a teen, I didn't really have the confidence to rebut or to walk away even when it all sounded *wrong*.
It was child abuse. And from the show, it still is.
(Aside: there was one part in the show where the pastor was denouncing Harry Potter, and I was wondering, so what does she, or the church, think about metahumans or superheroes in general then? There were kids in the show wearing T-shirts with comic book superheroes on them... What about Superman, the alien from Krypton, the all-american hero raised in the bible belt?)
ReNe: some snowy numbers
Another snowstorm, another 15-20cm dump yesterday. Coupled with the mild weather (about -2C), this made for a slushy commute both yesterday and today. As one unknown guy, overheard complaining loudly on his cell phone, said, "I'm crossing oceans here!"
As the average March snowfalls for Toronto is 19cm, that's a month's worth in one storm.
I am seriously considering buying a pair of rubber boots.
As noted before, this February (for Toronto) is the snowiest on record, at 75.8cm. Since Environment Canada started keeping records from 1937, the snowiest winter was that of 1938-1939, with 207cm of snow. The average (over the years) snowfall in winter is 115cm, and currently, this winter has seen 176cm so far, making it the 7th snowiest. There's about 2 weeks more of winter to go, and another big storm forecasted for this weekend. I can't wait.
(But that's not so bad. Ottawa, the snowiest city in Canada, received 355cm of snow so far this winter, the second snowiest on record. Their record was 441.1cm in 1970-71.)
As the average March snowfalls for Toronto is 19cm, that's a month's worth in one storm.
I am seriously considering buying a pair of rubber boots.
As noted before, this February (for Toronto) is the snowiest on record, at 75.8cm. Since Environment Canada started keeping records from 1937, the snowiest winter was that of 1938-1939, with 207cm of snow. The average (over the years) snowfall in winter is 115cm, and currently, this winter has seen 176cm so far, making it the 7th snowiest. There's about 2 weeks more of winter to go, and another big storm forecasted for this weekend. I can't wait.
(But that's not so bad. Ottawa, the snowiest city in Canada, received 355cm of snow so far this winter, the second snowiest on record. Their record was 441.1cm in 1970-71.)
[Numbers from Globe and Mail, Mar 5 2008; The Star, Mar 5 2008]
Sunday, March 2, 2008
ReNe: ontario science centre
Last Saturday, Mike's class went on another field trip again, this time the Ontario Science Centre (OSC), and I tagged along.
I couldn't help comparing this science centre with the Singapore Science Centre (SSC), as that's the only other science centre I've been to. Overall, this is much bigger (of course; everything here can be and is bigger than Singapore's). I only went to a couple of exhibits: The Question of Truth, and a bit of some engineering-related exhibit whose name I can't remember, and a bit of The Living Earth. Generally, they were better than SSC; they were more detailed, more interesting and more current and updated. Many of the exhibits at the SSC's seemed to be geared towards the primary school kid and often merely echoes the concepts taught in the primary science curriculum. There is a level at the OSC that is aimed at kids, so I presume the other exhibits were set up with an older target audience.
What I found interesting was the strong social justice component running through many of the exhibits. For example, in the Truth exhibit, one of the central themes was that with so many different viewpoints, what makes one more 'right' over another? For example, both the Earth-centred and the Sun-centered solar systems models could explain the peculiar elliptical orbit of Mars, so without the sophisticated equipment we have today, and without considering further evidence, both models might be considered equally valid.
On the other side of the spectrum, wars and genocides have been carried out in the name of upholding a particular 'truth', such as eugenics and the belief that 'defectives' (physically disabled, mentally disabled, or just people who are different, like gays) spoil the human population, or that some races are worth less than others. There was a good documentary shown, on eugenics, though as always, I can't recall very much of the show but little odd facts just jump up and stick. For example, I didn't know that the Nazi eugenics movement in Germany has its roots in the US eugenics ideas. I have heard or read about a lot of the ideas presented in the Truth exhibit, still, it's very good to see it presented in a coherent fashion and in a compact exhibition. There was a mental box (with a 'disturbing content' label on the door) you can step into to get a feel of the incredibly claustrophobic environments African slaves endured when they were shipped to the US. Then the recording in the box moves on to talk about the transportation of Nazi prisoners, and the box shrinks even further as one wall slides inward. Let me put it this way: the box narrowed to the exact width of my shoulders and I'm not big-sized at all.
Another thought-provoking exhibit discussed the Milgram experiments. That was new to me, and immediately brings to mind the Stanford prison experiments, even though both study different aspects of human psychology. Both return unexpected results, are extremely interesting from an academic viewpoint, and extremely disturbing from a social viewpoint. Even at the Living Earth exhibit, some of the exhibits likewise had a strong social justice vein; in that case, it was that of environmentalism.
This focus on social responsibility, I think, is a rather interesting difference between the SSC and OSC.
No nice pictures, unfortunately. Below is a picture of the view in the cafetaria. Yes, I just included it for fun.
I couldn't help comparing this science centre with the Singapore Science Centre (SSC), as that's the only other science centre I've been to. Overall, this is much bigger (of course; everything here can be and is bigger than Singapore's). I only went to a couple of exhibits: The Question of Truth, and a bit of some engineering-related exhibit whose name I can't remember, and a bit of The Living Earth. Generally, they were better than SSC; they were more detailed, more interesting and more current and updated. Many of the exhibits at the SSC's seemed to be geared towards the primary school kid and often merely echoes the concepts taught in the primary science curriculum. There is a level at the OSC that is aimed at kids, so I presume the other exhibits were set up with an older target audience.
What I found interesting was the strong social justice component running through many of the exhibits. For example, in the Truth exhibit, one of the central themes was that with so many different viewpoints, what makes one more 'right' over another? For example, both the Earth-centred and the Sun-centered solar systems models could explain the peculiar elliptical orbit of Mars, so without the sophisticated equipment we have today, and without considering further evidence, both models might be considered equally valid.
On the other side of the spectrum, wars and genocides have been carried out in the name of upholding a particular 'truth', such as eugenics and the belief that 'defectives' (physically disabled, mentally disabled, or just people who are different, like gays) spoil the human population, or that some races are worth less than others. There was a good documentary shown, on eugenics, though as always, I can't recall very much of the show but little odd facts just jump up and stick. For example, I didn't know that the Nazi eugenics movement in Germany has its roots in the US eugenics ideas. I have heard or read about a lot of the ideas presented in the Truth exhibit, still, it's very good to see it presented in a coherent fashion and in a compact exhibition. There was a mental box (with a 'disturbing content' label on the door) you can step into to get a feel of the incredibly claustrophobic environments African slaves endured when they were shipped to the US. Then the recording in the box moves on to talk about the transportation of Nazi prisoners, and the box shrinks even further as one wall slides inward. Let me put it this way: the box narrowed to the exact width of my shoulders and I'm not big-sized at all.
Another thought-provoking exhibit discussed the Milgram experiments. That was new to me, and immediately brings to mind the Stanford prison experiments, even though both study different aspects of human psychology. Both return unexpected results, are extremely interesting from an academic viewpoint, and extremely disturbing from a social viewpoint. Even at the Living Earth exhibit, some of the exhibits likewise had a strong social justice vein; in that case, it was that of environmentalism.
This focus on social responsibility, I think, is a rather interesting difference between the SSC and OSC.
No nice pictures, unfortunately. Below is a picture of the view in the cafetaria. Yes, I just included it for fun.
Friday, February 29, 2008
ReNe: leapling
I've never paid much attention to the 29th of February before, but today, I came across this article on the BBC news website about whether or not the 29th of Feb should be considered a day off. Personally, I'm all for the brilliant idea.
Later, I was talking to a colleague about people who are born today -- or leaplings, as they're called -- and we were wondering about technicalities like legal age (to drink, drive, whatever) and census. Turned out, most countries simply take Feb 28 as the D.O.B for these leaplings. Of course that brings up another question: given that about 10,000 babies are born each day, how do the statistics people handle the sudden apparent spike in 'Feb 28 births'?
When I left work, it was snowing. In fact, it had been snowing heavily for the past few hours. Already this February is record-breaking:
The previous record dump for February in Toronto was 66.6 centimetres in 1950. This February has already seen 69.8 centimetres of snow fall. [The Star, Feb 26 2008]
So I suppose if it wasn't for the fact that today is still technically part of February (most Februarys measured only 28 days) the record would have be capped at 69.8... the expected amount forecasted for today was 5cm, though it felt like more. Somehow, I feel quite chuffed that the first winter I've experienced in its entirety is a record-setting winter.
Later, I was talking to a colleague about people who are born today -- or leaplings, as they're called -- and we were wondering about technicalities like legal age (to drink, drive, whatever) and census. Turned out, most countries simply take Feb 28 as the D.O.B for these leaplings. Of course that brings up another question: given that about 10,000 babies are born each day, how do the statistics people handle the sudden apparent spike in 'Feb 28 births'?
When I left work, it was snowing. In fact, it had been snowing heavily for the past few hours. Already this February is record-breaking:
The previous record dump for February in Toronto was 66.6 centimetres in 1950. This February has already seen 69.8 centimetres of snow fall. [The Star, Feb 26 2008]
So I suppose if it wasn't for the fact that today is still technically part of February (most Februarys measured only 28 days) the record would have be capped at 69.8... the expected amount forecasted for today was 5cm, though it felt like more. Somehow, I feel quite chuffed that the first winter I've experienced in its entirety is a record-setting winter.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
ReNe: the god delusion
Am currently reading The God Delusion now, a book by Richard Dawkins that I've been wanting to read since early last year, but with all the locational upheaval, never got around to doing it. I start off an agnostic... and am curious to see if I will be convinced to atheism by the time I'm done.
MiKE: Mental disconnect
Whenever I see skies like this:
I always think that it must be kinda warm outside. You know, bright blue skies, sunny, and all that?
Well, this morning's scenery was accompanied with this thermometer reading at my (closed) window:
Yes, yes, the window is filthy. This is the one right next to the cooker hob; no oil splashes there, of course, but i'm kinda lazy to clean it now. Besides, clean windows at this kind of temperatures? The water will freeze and then jam the window in its tracks, in the open position... And, there have been no 'camera tricks', no 'shopping. Here is a clip from the Environment Canada page:
Some other shots.. We've been baking. This is dough that has risen, all bubbly. The yellowish parts are the oil that the dough was sitting in to prevent it from sticking to the pot. Yes, a bit too much.. Eventually, this dough turned out to become some really nice bread :)
Sunset yesterday. The sun has been setting progressively later now - it is almost up to 1-3 minutes later sunset every day; so it is an amazing thing to notice. I love the beautiful colours of sunset:
I always think that it must be kinda warm outside. You know, bright blue skies, sunny, and all that?Well, this morning's scenery was accompanied with this thermometer reading at my (closed) window:
Yes, yes, the window is filthy. This is the one right next to the cooker hob; no oil splashes there, of course, but i'm kinda lazy to clean it now. Besides, clean windows at this kind of temperatures? The water will freeze and then jam the window in its tracks, in the open position... And, there have been no 'camera tricks', no 'shopping. Here is a clip from the Environment Canada page:
Some other shots.. We've been baking. This is dough that has risen, all bubbly. The yellowish parts are the oil that the dough was sitting in to prevent it from sticking to the pot. Yes, a bit too much.. Eventually, this dough turned out to become some really nice bread :)
Sunset yesterday. The sun has been setting progressively later now - it is almost up to 1-3 minutes later sunset every day; so it is an amazing thing to notice. I love the beautiful colours of sunset:
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
ReNe: about an old article I wrote
We're currently watching a documentary, The Corporation, directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, and it's a really powerful film. Starts off like a Business 101 course, from the basics, about the concept of a corporation, the huge role corporations play in our lives today, and rapidly moves onto facts about the corporate world that most of the public don't know or are misinformed about. For example, I hadn't realized that the 14th Amendment, put forth after the American Civil War originally to emancipate former black slaves, was also used to grant corporations status as a legal person, allowing them, among other privileges, to own things or buy property. So, in the eyes of the law, a corporation is the same as a person.
One part I found interestingly familiar. Two investigative Fox new journalists (Steve Wilson and Jane Akre) turned whistleblowers talked about how after they found that, quote, "a large share of America's milk supply has quietly become adulterated with the effects of a synthetic hormone (bovine growth hormone, or BGH) secretly injected into cows", they were pressured first by the Monsanto, which made the hormone, and then Fox TV, to 'drop' or 'edit' their report.
What was the particularly interestingly familiar part? When I was still writing articles for Asia-Pacific Biotech News, I once wrote a not-so-complimentary article about Monsanto, though nowhere as negative. One day, after reading short news articles on the good results of Monsanto seed trials in countries like Bangladesh and the Philippines, I thought to read the original research articles so as to be able to write a better article that didn't just lift from the original news source. Turned out, the results from the research articles were not so positive after all. In fact, I would summarize it as: no significant difference (between using Monsanto's GM seeds and using ordinary seeds) when all factors are considered. The crop yields from the GM seeds were higher in years or in places that had ample rainfall, good fertilization and high levels of sunlight, but were *lower* if the weather that year was drier or just not so favorable. High gain, but higher risk of crop failure. And weather is dreadfully unpredictable. So, all things considered, I wouldn't draw sweeping conclusions such as "GM seeds are better". But that's not to say that we should stop GM research; it was research like this that led to the Green Revolution and the GM seeds do return good results, albeit under a narrow range of conditions. BUT. What I did have an issue with was the way the big GM companies forced their products onto the farmers, who were basically given little or no choice in spending a lot of money on the GM seeds.
So I wrote up my article, which as I said, was more neutral than negative, though it was not positive. The editor read it, frowned, and said, "Monsanto is our magazine's biggest advertiser." Damn, forgot about that.
"And the magazine is barely keeping in the black." I knew that, because we was constantly reminded in every single meeting with the big boss.
"Sorry, cannot publish."
Sigh. I guess I should have expected it and not have wasted my time researching and writing it up, though it was informative to me at least. After that, I requested to change beats because of some principle called integrity, though I suppose it was a rather half-assed kind of integrity.
One part I found interestingly familiar. Two investigative Fox new journalists (Steve Wilson and Jane Akre) turned whistleblowers talked about how after they found that, quote, "a large share of America's milk supply has quietly become adulterated with the effects of a synthetic hormone (bovine growth hormone, or BGH) secretly injected into cows", they were pressured first by the Monsanto, which made the hormone, and then Fox TV, to 'drop' or 'edit' their report.
What was the particularly interestingly familiar part? When I was still writing articles for Asia-Pacific Biotech News, I once wrote a not-so-complimentary article about Monsanto, though nowhere as negative. One day, after reading short news articles on the good results of Monsanto seed trials in countries like Bangladesh and the Philippines, I thought to read the original research articles so as to be able to write a better article that didn't just lift from the original news source. Turned out, the results from the research articles were not so positive after all. In fact, I would summarize it as: no significant difference (between using Monsanto's GM seeds and using ordinary seeds) when all factors are considered. The crop yields from the GM seeds were higher in years or in places that had ample rainfall, good fertilization and high levels of sunlight, but were *lower* if the weather that year was drier or just not so favorable. High gain, but higher risk of crop failure. And weather is dreadfully unpredictable. So, all things considered, I wouldn't draw sweeping conclusions such as "GM seeds are better". But that's not to say that we should stop GM research; it was research like this that led to the Green Revolution and the GM seeds do return good results, albeit under a narrow range of conditions. BUT. What I did have an issue with was the way the big GM companies forced their products onto the farmers, who were basically given little or no choice in spending a lot of money on the GM seeds.
So I wrote up my article, which as I said, was more neutral than negative, though it was not positive. The editor read it, frowned, and said, "Monsanto is our magazine's biggest advertiser." Damn, forgot about that.
"And the magazine is barely keeping in the black." I knew that, because we was constantly reminded in every single meeting with the big boss.
"Sorry, cannot publish."
Sigh. I guess I should have expected it and not have wasted my time researching and writing it up, though it was informative to me at least. After that, I requested to change beats because of some principle called integrity, though I suppose it was a rather half-assed kind of integrity.
Monday, February 25, 2008
ReNe: the joy of gay sex
A provocative title. Very nicely drawn pictures. How could I resist?
I borrowed the book from one of Toronto's public libraries because I was curious about gay literature. Sexuality, including gay and lesbian, is a commonly seen section in many libraries and bookshops here, while it was close to impossible to find (good) LGBT literature, or even literature on heterosexual sexuality, in Singapore. Nothing like banning or suppressing something to stir up (my) curiosity!
The Joy of Gay Sex, by Charles Silverstein and Felice Picano, reads like a A-Z manual aimed at a gay who's new to everything... so I didn't learn very much, heh. Mostly. I'll say about three-quarters, maybe more, of the book didn't tell me anything I didn't know, but it was a good read still. I'd admit I didn't really get some aspects of gay culture, like camping or tearooms, but the book gave a good explanation. My previous understanding was akin to reading about an unknown word in many different sentences and piecing together a meaning from the usage, but it's not quite the same as actually cracking open the dictionary.
What I found particularly interesting were the authors' accounts of gay civil rights and liberation, and the changes in the gay scene in the US from the 60's and 70's to the 90's, especially since the authors speak with spades of personal experience. I mean, I know what I think about homosexuality and various related issues (I think there's nothing wrong with homosexuality at all, or any kind of sexuality), but it's interesting, enlightening and even a bit sad to read about it or hear about it from a friend about the other point of view. For example, the issue of coming out. I'm the passive-aggressive type, so if I were gay (and if I were in some place like Singapore), I'd move to a place that is more gay-friendly before outing. So the authors of the book discussed it from a couple of perspectives: coming out is a very personal decision, and in some cases, it's just not viable or safe to do so; however, coming out is a form of very crucial support for the gay community in general. The rights gays enjoy today were built on the bravery and struggles of the gays in history who dared to come out despite the negativity and discrimination -- and that statement stuck with me.
Throughout my life, I tend to form strong, personal but usually quiet opinions about many things. I feel uncomfortable standing up and saying loudly what I really, really think. That's something I want to change.
I borrowed the book from one of Toronto's public libraries because I was curious about gay literature. Sexuality, including gay and lesbian, is a commonly seen section in many libraries and bookshops here, while it was close to impossible to find (good) LGBT literature, or even literature on heterosexual sexuality, in Singapore. Nothing like banning or suppressing something to stir up (my) curiosity!
The Joy of Gay Sex, by Charles Silverstein and Felice Picano, reads like a A-Z manual aimed at a gay who's new to everything... so I didn't learn very much, heh. Mostly. I'll say about three-quarters, maybe more, of the book didn't tell me anything I didn't know, but it was a good read still. I'd admit I didn't really get some aspects of gay culture, like camping or tearooms, but the book gave a good explanation. My previous understanding was akin to reading about an unknown word in many different sentences and piecing together a meaning from the usage, but it's not quite the same as actually cracking open the dictionary.
What I found particularly interesting were the authors' accounts of gay civil rights and liberation, and the changes in the gay scene in the US from the 60's and 70's to the 90's, especially since the authors speak with spades of personal experience. I mean, I know what I think about homosexuality and various related issues (I think there's nothing wrong with homosexuality at all, or any kind of sexuality), but it's interesting, enlightening and even a bit sad to read about it or hear about it from a friend about the other point of view. For example, the issue of coming out. I'm the passive-aggressive type, so if I were gay (and if I were in some place like Singapore), I'd move to a place that is more gay-friendly before outing. So the authors of the book discussed it from a couple of perspectives: coming out is a very personal decision, and in some cases, it's just not viable or safe to do so; however, coming out is a form of very crucial support for the gay community in general. The rights gays enjoy today were built on the bravery and struggles of the gays in history who dared to come out despite the negativity and discrimination -- and that statement stuck with me.
Throughout my life, I tend to form strong, personal but usually quiet opinions about many things. I feel uncomfortable standing up and saying loudly what I really, really think. That's something I want to change.
MiKE: Humber beach
Two saturdays ago (seems like that's the delay we've been having in posting. too bad, we're not some news site or something), we went to Humber beach, or at least, that's what I think it's called. We took the 501 streetcar, headed west this time (previous times we went east), and then got off where we saw a beautiful beach. Actually, we did not get off immediately; we rode the streetcar on, because it was supposed to make a short turn somewhere. At the short turn, we got out, took a walk to the nearby Sobeys supermarket to stretch our legs a bit, and eased our bladders. When we got there, there was so much a sense of deja vu; Sobeys is located at a place which looks almost exactly like the malls we saw at St Louis - a ring of low rise, warehouse like buildings around a huge car park, the entrance to which was marked by a huge signboard with the corporate logos of the stores located there. Nothing much to see, I guess, but when we went back toward the station, we saw this:
This needs some contextualising - the earlier part of the morning had been rather bright and sunny, with bright blue skies that made it look like winter was over. With skies like that, it was hard to believe the Environment Canada warnings about a imminent snowstorm that was expected to bring along 15-20 cm of snow from a strom system that had developed in Texas and was tracking its way up toward Ontario. The storm was supposed to hit late Saturday evening, and snow right through Sunday. In this shot -- you guessed it, the blue part of the sky was the Northern part, and the clouds were seen over the Southern part. Pretty dramatic hur?
So, we took the streetcar back about 4 stops, and then got off, to cross this long overhead bridge that overlooked the Frederick G Gardiner expressway, a major arterial road that connects Toronto with Missisauga and other places.
A shot from the bridge. Serene will definitely complain that she looks 'photoshopped' into this frame, but what to do: she would have been backlit without the flash.
A shot of the park from the bridge:
There's not really very much to say.. we went to the park, we took pretty pictures, we felt cold, we went back. So, let me just show you the pretty pictures:
And the snowstorm? It did not arrive at all; it was so disappointing. This winter has become of record breaking proportions in terms of snowfall. Great. It would be quite sad if we were to have come all this way to a place that experiences winter to only get a piddling amount of snow.
This needs some contextualising - the earlier part of the morning had been rather bright and sunny, with bright blue skies that made it look like winter was over. With skies like that, it was hard to believe the Environment Canada warnings about a imminent snowstorm that was expected to bring along 15-20 cm of snow from a strom system that had developed in Texas and was tracking its way up toward Ontario. The storm was supposed to hit late Saturday evening, and snow right through Sunday. In this shot -- you guessed it, the blue part of the sky was the Northern part, and the clouds were seen over the Southern part. Pretty dramatic hur?So, we took the streetcar back about 4 stops, and then got off, to cross this long overhead bridge that overlooked the Frederick G Gardiner expressway, a major arterial road that connects Toronto with Missisauga and other places.
A shot from the bridge. Serene will definitely complain that she looks 'photoshopped' into this frame, but what to do: she would have been backlit without the flash.
A shot of the park from the bridge:
There's not really very much to say.. we went to the park, we took pretty pictures, we felt cold, we went back. So, let me just show you the pretty pictures:
And the snowstorm? It did not arrive at all; it was so disappointing. This winter has become of record breaking proportions in terms of snowfall. Great. It would be quite sad if we were to have come all this way to a place that experiences winter to only get a piddling amount of snow.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
ReNe: playing with ice
2 weekends ago (actually, the sunday after the zoo trip), it was a very cold day; -18C, and with the howling winds, the windchill was supposed to be -30C.
I've read accounts and seen pictures where people throw boiling water up in -40C temperatures and it comes down as ice. I'd like to do that one day too, but for now, we made do with -18C.
Apparently, at -18C (or -30C, as it was very windy outside), if your window is single-paned and the room is steamy, the condensation on your window will freeze... producing, literally, frosted glass.
The window panes were iced as well.
And so I got the brilliant idea to produce more frosted glass by splashing water on the outside of our double-paned windows. It froze within seconds.
What can I say? We were bored.
I've read accounts and seen pictures where people throw boiling water up in -40C temperatures and it comes down as ice. I'd like to do that one day too, but for now, we made do with -18C.
Apparently, at -18C (or -30C, as it was very windy outside), if your window is single-paned and the room is steamy, the condensation on your window will freeze... producing, literally, frosted glass.
The window panes were iced as well.
And so I got the brilliant idea to produce more frosted glass by splashing water on the outside of our double-paned windows. It froze within seconds.
What can I say? We were bored.
ReNe: zoos in general
This is directly related to the previous post about zoos, but more along a serious vein of: what are zoos for?
(It's not intended to be a through, serious discourse. More as an foot-note and rumination based on the zoo trip post.)
I won't deny I do enjoy going to zoos. They are interesting, especially to a city-kid. But zoos also have their negative aspects. Caging animals for humans to gawk at -- that's an ugly side of zoos. Sure, there is an educational aspect, but people *do* go to the zoos to be entertained, hence the popularity of animal shows and the unequal treatment of 'star' animals. More than that, do humans have any right to confine animals like that? Don't people feel uncomfortable when they read the information signboards that say, "this animal has a natural forage range of x square kilometers", and then realize that said animal is currently kept in an enclosure a tiny fraction of that range?
So zoos started off as a way to showcase the exotica. However, these days, we *know* of zebras and giraffes and other animals that would have amazed the masses a century ago. We can read about them in books and watch them in their natural habitat in documentaries... certainly those are more humane options and probably a lot more educational as well.
What other purpose do zoos serve? To allow people to see animals 'up close and personal'? I don't agree with that, and personally think it probably does more harm than good. Petting zoos seem rather traumatic for the animals, I should think. Personally, I think zoos only have one 'good' function left, and that's as a genetic repository. Sure, saving the habitat is important, but sometimes, there may not be a habitat left for that species -- zoos can play the equivalent of a sperm bank and safehouse. And not just for endangered species -- storing the genetic material of any species could possibly come in useful in the future. Of course, in that case, then the concept of a zoo would have to be drastically re-evaluated.
To sum, I enjoy going to zoos but if zoos were to be banned because, to put it a little clumsily, they were deemed unjust to animals, I would support that.
(It's not intended to be a through, serious discourse. More as an foot-note and rumination based on the zoo trip post.)
I won't deny I do enjoy going to zoos. They are interesting, especially to a city-kid. But zoos also have their negative aspects. Caging animals for humans to gawk at -- that's an ugly side of zoos. Sure, there is an educational aspect, but people *do* go to the zoos to be entertained, hence the popularity of animal shows and the unequal treatment of 'star' animals. More than that, do humans have any right to confine animals like that? Don't people feel uncomfortable when they read the information signboards that say, "this animal has a natural forage range of x square kilometers", and then realize that said animal is currently kept in an enclosure a tiny fraction of that range?
So zoos started off as a way to showcase the exotica. However, these days, we *know* of zebras and giraffes and other animals that would have amazed the masses a century ago. We can read about them in books and watch them in their natural habitat in documentaries... certainly those are more humane options and probably a lot more educational as well.
What other purpose do zoos serve? To allow people to see animals 'up close and personal'? I don't agree with that, and personally think it probably does more harm than good. Petting zoos seem rather traumatic for the animals, I should think. Personally, I think zoos only have one 'good' function left, and that's as a genetic repository. Sure, saving the habitat is important, but sometimes, there may not be a habitat left for that species -- zoos can play the equivalent of a sperm bank and safehouse. And not just for endangered species -- storing the genetic material of any species could possibly come in useful in the future. Of course, in that case, then the concept of a zoo would have to be drastically re-evaluated.
To sum, I enjoy going to zoos but if zoos were to be banned because, to put it a little clumsily, they were deemed unjust to animals, I would support that.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
ReNe: the toronto zoo
Two weeks ago, we went to the Toronto Zoo. It was part of Mike's coursework (I, too, want to take courses that do fieldtrips as a requirement; is it too late for me to become a geologist?) and I tagged along because I've not been to the Toronto Zoo yet.
So while Mike went to listen to a lecture and look at a rhino, I went around on my own. Unfortunately, we somehow decided that Mike should hold our only camera, which on hindsight was a little dumb because I saw a lot more walking on my own; he, on the other hand, took like a hundred shots of that *one* rhino.
So, there will not many pictures in this post.
It was 10am on a Saturday morning and it had been snowing heavily the week before; in fact, it was still snowing that day. When I was walking around the exhibits, the only people I saw were a few zookeepers, driving around in pickups.
It was pretty surreal. For one, snow, everywhere. Fresh, pristine snow, with no slush.
Two, no 'zoo-smell'. The fact that the temperatures were below zero probably had something to do with that.
And best of all, no crowds. It was a Saturday, and while I knew there were other people in the zoo (Mike and his classmates, at the very least) the only people I saw when I was walking around were a few zookeepers. A white, silent landscape around me; all I heard was snow crunching under my boots, and occasionally, the honking of geese as flocks flew by overhead.
I could very easily imagine I was walking in some Canadian nature park instead of a zoo.
Another reason I felt like I was in a nature park was because the exhibits, or at least the ones I decided to see, were pretty sparse and far apart. Unlike the Singapore zoo, the Toronto zoo could afford to sprawl out. In the first 15 mins, I had walked past the half-way point of the zoo and all I saw was a fast-food restaurant (coincidentally, the only eating place open during the winter season, with the exception of a snack bar near the ticket counter). I walked for another 15 mins before I saw a couple of cougars. They seemed pretty bored; it seemed like they heard me coming because they came out some warm shelter to stare at me when I walked past their cage, and went back in only after I walked away.
In other words, I spent a lot more time walking than I did on animal sightings. Moreover, with the sub-zero temperatures and falling snow, many of the animals were hiding. Getting closer to see the animals --that is walking off the main path and right up to the cage-- involved some tramping through knee high snow.
It was all rather fun.
The zoo is divided into several domains, based on geographical regions. I figured that the animals that came from a warm climate were probably kept indoors in winter, or they would not be active, so that ruled out the African and Indo-Malaya exhibits (probably two of the largest exhibits). I also figured that since I'm in Canada, I should go and see their local specialties.
So I went to the Canadian domain. There were only *nine* exhibits. I was pretty surprised; shouldn't Canada have more animal species? But then, I realized why. People go to the zoo to see 'exotic' animals. This is Canada, not Singapore. So if the zoo makes a decision not to keep animals that could be found in someone's backyard... no wonder the Canadian domain is the smallest. And the furthest away from everything, beyond a steep incline with a sign that recommended that wheelchairs and strollers should not go beyond that hill because it was so steep.
So there were nine exhibits. And not all nine were open. I recalled seeing the bald eagles, the arctic wolves and the bison. Not sure what happened to the rest. The eagles, well, it's hard to look majestic in a cage. The wolves, a pack of seven, were pretty active, pacing around their enclosure and looking right at home in the snow. That was probably my favorite exhibit. The bison were kept in a very large field; squinting, I could make out one bison and maybe a hundred geese (not sure if they were the zoo's or just visiting migratory birds). According to the signboard, the zoo has a herd of 73 bison. It must have been a very, very large field.
By then, it was 11:30am. I had spent an hour and half walking around in the cold and saw about five exhibits. I even got lost because a snow-covered service road looks just like a snow-covered walking path. I walked back to the fast-food place, noticing that there were two sets of footprints along the path to the Canadian doman; mine, on the way there, and also mine, on the way back.
I had lunch, and then met Mike and some of his classmates when they were done with class and needed food too. After their lunch, class was considered over and I followed Mike and a few of his classmates to the African Rainforest Pavilion.
Below are some of Mike's photos.
A photo of his class. This was the wintry landscape of the zoo I had been attempting to describe, though a picture presents a far more immediate image.
Like I said, geese *everywhere*.
What most of the animals were doing.Despite coming from a tropical climate, these Malayan tigers seemed to be all right. In another exhibit, some monkeys were all huddled around the heater...
One of the biggest and well-kept enclosures.
Another spacious and well-kept enclosure. I found it interesting that the big apes are housed in the best enclosures and given stimulating toys, while other animals were not. I think it has to do with their entertainment value; people like to look at big, impressive animals, and of the various biggish animals, the big apes are the most active.Speaking of which, when we were at the orangutan exhibit, Gabriel, an ex-Singaporean who now resides in Canada, said suddenly, "Did you know? Ah Meng died yesterday."
Friday, February 22, 2008
ReNe: so this is british humor
I've heard of Monty Python for a long time, but hadn't actually known what their films were like. In fact, I actually thought it was one film, called 'Monty Python'....
Anyway. Recently, I've watched 'Erik the Viking' and 'The Meaning of Life'. I saw a bit of 'The Life of Brian' but didn't really like it so I didn't finish it. 'Erik the Viking' was all right, a little simple (I'm certain I've watched it before, when I was very young).
'The Meaning of Life' ... that was hilarious. It took a while to get into the plot, if there was one in the first place, but I'd say I really started enjoying it right after the Middle of the Film. It seemed random and all over the place, yet managed to come together. It reminds me very much of 'Little Britain', and especially 'Hitchhiker's Guide'.
Hm. What did I like about it? The story was simple, yet twisted. There were blatant (*extremely* blatant) sexual inneundoes, and some even more direct than that, everywhere. Bare boobs and outrageous scenes of gore. The sex-ed lesson. Mustn't forget the drag queens. And throughout it all, the extremely polite language.
Anyway. Recently, I've watched 'Erik the Viking' and 'The Meaning of Life'. I saw a bit of 'The Life of Brian' but didn't really like it so I didn't finish it. 'Erik the Viking' was all right, a little simple (I'm certain I've watched it before, when I was very young).
'The Meaning of Life' ... that was hilarious. It took a while to get into the plot, if there was one in the first place, but I'd say I really started enjoying it right after the Middle of the Film. It seemed random and all over the place, yet managed to come together. It reminds me very much of 'Little Britain', and especially 'Hitchhiker's Guide'.
Hm. What did I like about it? The story was simple, yet twisted. There were blatant (*extremely* blatant) sexual inneundoes, and some even more direct than that, everywhere. Bare boobs and outrageous scenes of gore. The sex-ed lesson. Mustn't forget the drag queens. And throughout it all, the extremely polite language.
ReNe: greening
One of the many things I like about Canada is their environment friendliness. A thought that strikes me whenever we go shopping at one of the nearby organic food shops, which we just did. So I'm rather pleased.
On the whole, I'd say Singaporeans are not terribly wasteful, and that's good. They buy less stuff and throw away less stuff than North Americans, though I've been noticing a shift towards more disposables in recent years. However, it was hard to recycle -- I can count on one hand the number of paper recycling bins that were in convenient locations for me, and it was even harder to find recyling bins for stuff other than paper. It was also hard to buy organic; organic produce in Singapore tended to be twice or thrice the price of non-organic produce, and I only know of *one* dedicated organic shop. In the whole of Singapore. And it's *expensive*. (In Toronto, there are *two* organic shops within 5 mins walking distance of our apartment.)
In St Louis, there were recycling bins in my apartment (in fact they were downright common), and it was easy to buy organic; they are usually not much pricier and commonly found in regular supermarkets. Plus, there are huge dedicated organic stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe's. Buying second-hand stuff is also easy (a practice that is not so common in Singapore). However, as noted in the video clip 'The Story of Stuff' Mike posted a while back, it's not enough to take care of the back-end (that is recycling), one has to also take a hard look at the front-end (that is to buy less stuff). And unfortunately, the American culture is quite consumerist. People will buy trash bags while throwing away or recycling plastic grocery bags. While shopping at Whole Foods, I got the impression that some of the people who shop there do so not because it is more environmentally friendly, but because it is the 'in' thing to do these days. Someone I know likes to collect the Whole Foods paper bags because they're nice and sturdy but she does not re-use them when buying groceries; she looked rather stunned when I pulled out my own bag at the counter... And let me not go into the irony of buying pre-packed cut fruits/salads in plastic containers in an organic shop.
Toronto, in comparison, is more sane. There are recycling bins everywhere, and organic produce is easily available. I see loads of people walking and cycling to work, even in winter. The Canadian culture isn't quite as consumerist as the American culture, though it could be better. And what I really like is how green policies in Canada are passed and adhered to because people genuinely see a reason for it, and not because of the bottom line, as is often the case in $ingapore.
On the whole, I'd say Singaporeans are not terribly wasteful, and that's good. They buy less stuff and throw away less stuff than North Americans, though I've been noticing a shift towards more disposables in recent years. However, it was hard to recycle -- I can count on one hand the number of paper recycling bins that were in convenient locations for me, and it was even harder to find recyling bins for stuff other than paper. It was also hard to buy organic; organic produce in Singapore tended to be twice or thrice the price of non-organic produce, and I only know of *one* dedicated organic shop. In the whole of Singapore. And it's *expensive*. (In Toronto, there are *two* organic shops within 5 mins walking distance of our apartment.)
In St Louis, there were recycling bins in my apartment (in fact they were downright common), and it was easy to buy organic; they are usually not much pricier and commonly found in regular supermarkets. Plus, there are huge dedicated organic stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe's. Buying second-hand stuff is also easy (a practice that is not so common in Singapore). However, as noted in the video clip 'The Story of Stuff' Mike posted a while back, it's not enough to take care of the back-end (that is recycling), one has to also take a hard look at the front-end (that is to buy less stuff). And unfortunately, the American culture is quite consumerist. People will buy trash bags while throwing away or recycling plastic grocery bags. While shopping at Whole Foods, I got the impression that some of the people who shop there do so not because it is more environmentally friendly, but because it is the 'in' thing to do these days. Someone I know likes to collect the Whole Foods paper bags because they're nice and sturdy but she does not re-use them when buying groceries; she looked rather stunned when I pulled out my own bag at the counter... And let me not go into the irony of buying pre-packed cut fruits/salads in plastic containers in an organic shop.
Toronto, in comparison, is more sane. There are recycling bins everywhere, and organic produce is easily available. I see loads of people walking and cycling to work, even in winter. The Canadian culture isn't quite as consumerist as the American culture, though it could be better. And what I really like is how green policies in Canada are passed and adhered to because people genuinely see a reason for it, and not because of the bottom line, as is often the case in $ingapore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
