Life with a Two Year Old- This week's lexicon

Mimimimimi - a soliloquy of desired possession

Mineminemine - A variant chant, indicating the desire to do it onself

Tapit - Cut up the food into bite-sized portions

Wazis - Define the pointed-at object

SeetDown - I'd really like your complete attention

Choos - A concoction of cranberry and pomegranate juice mixed with water 

Choos peaz - I'd really like to have a glass of that juice

Bye Polar - Leaving a favorite stuffy, an Ikea polar bear, behind

Pannan - Another stuffy, the bamboo-eating panda bear

Baby Pannan - A smaller version of the above

Va, vis et deviens

The movie Va, vis et deviens follows the story of an Ethiopian boy airlifted to Israel as part of Operation Moses, an operation in which the Israeli secret service Mossad transported thousands of Falashas (Ethiopian Jews) to the Jewish homeland.  The film attempts a truly epic scope, depicting the life of the boy as he grows into manhood, at the same time capturing the struggle of  a people to survive and integrate into a foreign, untrusting, and ultimately xenophobic society.

It is this sweeping arc of the epic that presents problems to the viewer.  Its sweeping time scale require three different actors to represent the main character, Schlomo, as a child, teenager and adult, with varying degrees of success.  At times, the dialogue and contrived scenes make the viewer all too acutely aware that this is a movie.  While it is not overly preachy, the movie co-habitates uneasily with the confining nature of historical reality.

The plot revolves melodramatically around Schlomo and his mothers.  

It begins in a Sudanese refugee camp, where the boy and his biological mother, an Ethiopian Christian, have been displaced.  In the same camp, another mother weeps as her son dies.  This mother is Jewish.  An arrangement is made, though the boy is unaware until the moment of no-return.  A bus arrives, the Jews are being removed to a new life, a new hope.  The first mother orders her son to leave her, to go with this strange woman.  He must obey, keep his mouth shut, forget about her, forget about ever returning to his native land, a land without a future for him.

Unfortunately, the second mother, the proxy, dies soon after reaching Israel, though not before schooling the newly-named Schlomo on the names of his ancestors, his Jewish lineage. 

Next, he is adopted into a left-leaning, non-observant Israeli family.

The melodrama continues.  The elements are all present.  The new Jewish mother.  The racism of Israeli society.  The white girlfriend.  The racism.  The pining for a homeland, a history he must deny.  The wise Ethiopian elder.  Secret letters to a mother he can't acknowledge.  The ultimate trip back to past.

I suppose this film strives to make one think about what it means to be Jewish.  Or to be human, for that matter.  The film succeeds, more or less.

Predictors of Success

A Malcolm Gladwell article in a recent New Yorker attempted to analyze the problem of successfully predicting the success of individual candidates in a given profession, specifically with respect to the teaching profession.  The essay is chock full of obfuscating details, hip-hopping from supposition to fact back to supposition, and never forgetting to insert incredulous but sexy-on-the-surface comparison points.

The disparity between great teachers and bad teachers is presented as obvious.  A great teacher is full of energy, engages and inspires the students.  A bad teacher shuts down participation and loses control of the classroom.  Apparently a great teacher can get through three times as much material as his poor performing colleagues.  Of course, this type of analysis can be applied to many professions....

 As a comparison point, Gladwell reaches for a piece of low hanging fruit; he follows a NFL scout in his search for the next great quarterback.  The similarities are almost too obvious to point out.  There are perhaps fifty quarterbacks in the NFL, a few million teachers around the world.  Quarterbacks have to keep their head under pressure, dodge 300 pound behemoths seeking to separate head from back, and throw an oblong ball great distances to streaking receivers.  Teachers have to keep control in the classroom, impart some knowledge, and maybe display some empathetic wisdom to their charges.  

The  resemblances are striking.

To be fair, Gladwell's point is the training for these two professions doesn't predict the successful cases.  Let's see.  The training for a quarterback is to play the position in college football and pretend to obtain a degree.  The training for a teacher is to actually get a degree in a speciality, as well as some courses in education, and perhaps an apprenticeship in a classroom.  For some reason, Gladwell's is surprised that not all quarterbacks, or teachers for that matter, are created equal.  Or that achievements, academic or physical, are not always representative of future endeavor.  Perhaps we should think about measuring the capability to continuously learn, to adapt, to remain invigorated and challenged.

Another comparison point caught my interest.  Gladwell recounts the recruitment techniques of an investment firm.  In order to find a few successful financial advisors, they start with thousands of resumes, whittle the candidates down into double-digits via interviews, send the remaining off to some sort of boot camp.  But that was all besides the point.  Their measure of success, swallowed whole by Gladwell, was the ability to attract hundreds of new clients every year.  No mention of the efficacy of their actual financial advice - apparently no one cares if these clients are better off.  

Likewise for teachers, we can measure test scores and material covered, evaluate how the students are engaged.  But should we take the metrics to the next level - how many of the students grow up to be a success.  How many become doctors or quarterbacks or even financial advisors?  

I'm all for improving the standards of teaching, as well as increasing their relative worth in our society, both in terms of salary and respect.  But Gladwell, known for his trendy and facile talking points Blink and The Tipping Point, should have put some more thought into his arguments....

Perhaps we should think about defining success before trying to imagine what predicts it.

Life with a Two Year Old- The Penalty Box

Bath was over, pj's were on, stories were read.  The lights were down, a bottle of warm milk, Sera was dozing off on the nipple.  Okay, count to thirty before moving her into the crib.  Hover over the crib wall, make sure she doesn't stir.  Lower her gently.  Touch Down!  

Take one step.  Pause.  Another step.  Curse the creaky self-laid hardwood.  

"Daddy!"  her strong voice inquires.

"Sh...." I attempt.  "Time for dodo, Sera."

"Sit down!"  she commands.

Daddy retreats back in the chair and watches while she's twists and turns all over the bed.  Eventually, she settles.  Daddy sits forward in the chair, listening to her breathing. 

Sera springs up.  "Sit down, Daddy."  She warns.

Daddy slumps back.  Another ten-minute misconduct for questioning the boss.

The Failure of Capitalism - Part 2

Joe the General Motors CEO has tried to get the darn bailout twice now.  First time, he tooled into Washington in his private jet - that didn't go over well.  Can I have 60 billion please, along a tax exemption for the fuel bill.  Try again, the pols said.  So he drove up next time in a Volt, a car they've neglected to market to any consumer.  Better to sell what the people want, even as it helps destroy the planet, as long as we can maintain that huge profit margin. 

Well, one can only rape the marketplace for so long.  Then you go cap in hand to Washington.  Or Ottawa or London or Berlin or Rome or Paris.  Perhaps next time, Joe will share a ride on a scooter, with his buddies from Ford and Chrysler.  I thought capitalism was only supposed to reward companies that produce a better product.  If the big three fail, why wouldn't something new and better rise in their stead.  Because then, those entrenched executives, along with the politicians they help fund, wouldn't get their bonuses.

In the meantime, while the economy collapses, it's politics as usual.  The president-elect's magic touch is tainted by the cynical greed of the Illinois governor.  Despicable and depressing.  But then I read a survey which notes that the great state of Illinois is only rated the sixth most corrupt state of union.  It seems the some southern states are better.  Or worse, depending on one's point of view.  Who knew.  And why is corruption so expected, so accepted, that they put together rating surveys.  This from a country that markets itself as the world's beacon of democracy.

And of course, some Republicans view all this with myopic gleefulness - putting their own priorities before that of their own country.  Oh and the ogre of neo-con movement, Newt Gingrich is making a comeback, believe it or not.

Politics in Canada is little different.  Democracy becomes a sap for the common man, a way to ensure the status quo prevails.  

Life with a Two Year Old- Chapter 1

The moon was bright, round and full in the hazy early morning sky.

"Moon" Sera said, beckoning me to pick her up so she could obtain a better view out the window.

"It's a full moon," Daddy said, "a big ball in the sky."

"Ball!" she exclaimed, then added.  "Sun!"  

"Yes, the sun is a ball too."

"Sun!" she repeated, as if trying to will it to appear in the sky.

"The sun is hiding right now, Sera, behind the clouds."

"Sun done."  she said.

"Yes, the sun is done," Daddy mimicked, marvelling at her poetic turn.

"Sun done"  Sera repeated, shaking her head furiously.

Daddy caught on.  "Oh, the sun is down."

"Sun down." She smiled brightly. 

"The sun is sleeping now," Daddy tried to explain.  "You see, we live on a big ball too, called the planet Earth, and it's in orbit in space around the sun, and the planet is spinning around and that causes..."

Sera put her hand over Daddy's mouth, as if to say enough already.

"Sun down,"  she proclaimed, "Moon up!"

Canadian Democracy

No, this is not a review of the next G'n'R album - that'll be a while coming, I'm sure.  The next Canadian election will definitely come sooner.

Here's how the ballot should really look:

A.  The current ruling party led by a prime minister whose arrogant politicking caused the crisis that got us here.  Again.  So soon.  This party doesn't seem to realize that Canada is a parliamentary democracy, not a republic like our neighbour to the south.  Oh, and they don't have any sort of plan for the global recession or climate change.  Apart from that, they're a good choice.  Especially if you live in an oil-producing province that's not named Newfoundland.

B.  The official opposition party led by a lame-duck leader whose already resigned.  He has plans but can't explain them.  He does seem earnest though.  But then so did Harper once upon a time.  Then there's the pair of Longinus and Brutus lurking in the background, the repatriated intellectual and re-liberalized NDPer, waiting to seize center stage.  

C.  The party left of left that wants to hold the key to power, led by a little man with a big moustache who reminds me of a Terrier, forever yipping at your heels.  Or a used-car salesman, apropos given his mission to prop up the Big 3 automobile manufacturers and keep his constituents working in this dying industry.

D.  The separatists re-invented as the federalist saviours, led by the only truly bilingual leader.  They must really like their parliamentary pensions.

E.  The Greens with Envy, looking from the outside in.  Maybe one day the leader will win a seat and be able to form a coalition.  Or maybe Canada will become truly democratic and institute some form of proportional representation.  Well, at least she got a seat at the debate and broke up the usual view of white men in power ties.

The Failure of Capitalism?

Another radio interview, this time I didn't catch the interviewee's name.  He was talking about the failure of capitalism.

Obviously, the current economic crisis is on most people's minds.  The stench of financial incompetence and corporate greed is inescapable. 

A few years back, I remember the Bush administration announced some sort of tax rebate to the American public, a thousand bucks or so.  And his PR minions were out there wailing away about how people should run out and buy a new fridge or the like - to keep the economy moving, they shouted.  And I wondered, can that be true?  Is our economic system so frail, completely reliant on relentless consumerism?  And I thought - how irresponsible, when so many people are struggling with too much personal debt, to advocate more spending without a moment's pause.  The government is living beyond its means, and many people are too, and they're enabling each other's bad fiscal habits like a couple of alcoholics on a non-ending bender. 

Well, it has to end sometime.

A couple of weeks ago, Bush made a speech at some world leaders' conference.  Don't give up on the global economy, he exhorted, free trade is what makes the world economy grow.  And it needs to grow, and keep growing, our financial system is built upon that bedrock assumption.

And I wondered, how is it possible for the economy to grow infinitely?  Aren't we going to consume everything at some point, all the resources, the planet itself?

Back to the radio interviewee: The genius of capitalism, he said, is its incentive for invention.  Entrepreneurs see a way to fulfill consumer need, and are able to make a profit doing it.  Unfortunately, he added, the system stopped working somewhere around the 1950's.  All the basic needs of the average Western consumer had been met.  So the system system began to invent new needs (and products to fill them) and sell these to the consumer.  This treadmill of consumerism is still running, and most of us are stuck firmly in place.

There is, of course, real need out there.  But our capitalist system always wants to make a fast buck, the easiest buck.

What the worlds needs is capitalism with an ethical conscience, a system that is able to renew and fill real needs.  

There are examples out there.  Collectivities of people sharing their expertise and energy to create useful, needed things.  The free software movement, Wikipedia, the $200 laptop program, and countless renewable energy movements.  

It's impossible to change the direction of the world economy overnight.  Or even in a generation.  But a person can alter his own lifestyle a little bit, one decision at a time, one action at a time.

 

The New World Order?

In a radio interview, Ronald Wright explained the thesis outlined in his book "What is America:  A short history of the New World Order".   

It isn't pretty.  His picture of how the U.S. rose to the status of superpower in two short centuries is convincing, if a little depressing.  First, the invaders from the European continent wipe out the existing indigenous population through a deadly combination of war and infectious disease, and take over their land and agricultural techniques.  Second, they institute a well-worn strategy of importing a ready-made workforce, otherwise known as slavery, to begin the process of building and profiting from this new world.  

From this inauspicious start, a new country was borne with an impressive mandate - to create a land where the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness must prevail over all.  The writers of the U.S. constitution meant to create a form of governance in which 'rational thought' would trump the inherent prejudice of a 'supernatural' belief system.

But this was easier said than done.   Religious institutions dominated the nascent American culture, and some politicians were quick to exploit this predilection.  Andrew Jackson was apparently the first populist president, but certainly not the last.  He promulgated a platform that disparaged intellectuals and secularism, pandering to the extremists who actually supported theocratic rule.  

This constant tension between rationality and religion continues to pervade the U.S. political systems - the present day split between right and left is starker than it has ever been.  Wright goes so far as to posit that a group he labels the 'neo-cons' have taken over the Republican party, in large part by exploiting the religious beliefs of its core supporters even though these politicians are not all religious.  According to Wright, they have an entirely different agenda.  These neo-cons began their latest putsch in the Reagan era, recklessly cutting taxes and racking up huge deficits, despite their claims of fiscal prudence.  Their goal was no less than to wreck the "New Deal" of FDR and the democrats, by rendering the government incapable of paying for these 'socialist' policies.  Apparently, some of these people were adherents of Objectivism, pursuing the Randian ideal of a government responsible only for policing and national security. 

I am always skeptical when claims are made of audacious conspiracies, when dogmatic incompetence or simple stupidity can adequately describe the obvious failures of policy.  The Bush legacy of out-of-control spending, unimaginable debt and egregious failure is so out of proportion, perhaps there was a hidden agenda.  A new world order unencumbered by any normal sense of ethical behavior or empathy for others.   

Mission accomplished.  Or not.

Prime Minister Dion, anyone?

Here in Canada, for some unfathomable reason, the ruling Conservatives seem intent on denying that the global recession will have any impact in the land of maple leaves, beavers and Alberta oil. As a consequence of Harper's magnificent arrogance, he may have opened to the door to a defeat of his six-week-old government, uniting the Liberals, NDP and Bloc together into an unlikely coalition of the left.

Canadians could end up with an interim Prime Minister by definition, a guy who's already resigned as the leader of his party in advance. A writer couldn't make this stuff up.

Top Ten Reasons not to argue with a republican supporter

10. Once provoked, republican supporters really don’t like it when the other side starts singing “Na na na hey hey goodbye” .


9. Be aware – they haven’t closed Guantánamo Bay quite yet.


8. Apparently it’s not okay to point out that the republican party desperately needs to rid itself of its ‘evangelical’ base and reinvent itself as relevant in the 21st century.


7. Most people seem to have noticed that Barrack Obama was just elected the first black president of the U.S., a noticeable and inspirational achievement in itself, to say the least – yet somehow, this is not obvious to some observers.


6. Audacious claims that the Bush presidency only went wrong in the “past couple of years” can cause one to doubt his conception of the universe.


5. Rational arguments can always been drowned out in the raucous din of failed ideology.


4. Underneath all that rancor, republican supporters can be nice, rational, even sane people with big, big hearts – really, it’s true!


3. Living in Canada – classified in some circles as a non-democratic, one-party-rule, socialist haven of liberal thought – tends to discredit one’s arguments.


2. Even though it’s tempting to point out that the only way for the Democrats to lose that election would have been to appoint the “Harold and Kumar” ticket, it’s hard to resist…


1. Sarah Palin in 2012 – that threat could render anyone speechless.


* Bonus Reason 0 – Risking one’s own credibility by using the first letter of the ten reasons to spell a cute message….

I'm Not There

"I'm Not There" is of course a movie that's not all there.  It's missing a
coherent plot, for example, although quite likely, that is what the
director intended.

The film chronicles the life of iconic folk singer and enigmatic rocker,
Bob Dylan.  However, the word ‘chronicles’ has to further defined.
Sometimes a movie will be ‘based’ upon a book or story.  Or sometimes it
will be said to have been suggested by a book, which typically means that
it bears as much resemblance to the original story as James Frey’s memoir
did to his real life.

The average viewer will not know what to make of “I’m Not There”.  Is it at
all representative of Dylan’s actual life?  Since the movie employs six
different actors, ranging from a young black child-actor to a bound-up Cate
Blanchett to an whiskery Richard Gere, all of whom play characters with
names not equal to ‘Bob Dylan’, it’s hard to know what is going on.  Some
of the events are symbolic, some of the events more or less happened, it’s
left as an exercise to the viewer to figure out which is which?

The decision to cast multiple actors to play the same ‘character’ has its
interesting moments.  Cate Blanchet definitely steals the show as a
somewhat effeminate rock star with all the typical rock star problems.
Unfortunately, most of the other actors, and the characters they play,
blend into an irritating soup of sameness.  One exception – Marcus Franklin
as the youthful embodiment of a guitar-playing hustling black-skinned and
southern-twanged Arlo Guthrie – is interesting, if a bit hard to figure.
The other exception – Richard Gere as an hallucinating Billy the Kid figure
– is an outstanding example of miscasting – an acting icon playing a
mythical icon standing in for another musical icon.  All the viewer can say
is, hey that’s Richard Gere and he needs a shave.