PETRONA

The urge to criticise

Watching the news of this year's Nobel prize winners appearing on Twitter and elsewhere over the past week has been a learning experience for me. The first couple (physiology or medicine and physics) were fine - the reactions were largely excited and congratulatory. But then came chemistry. Even before the announcement that Yonath, Steitz and Ramakrishnan had won for their studies on the structure of the ribosome, the twittosphere was replete with sarcastic wit about the fact that a biological discovery would probably win. And sure enough - the fact that the ribosome is a biological structure seemed more important to many twitterers and bloggers than the achievements of the prizewinners. As Nature put it:
"It is the third time in seven years that the chemistry Nobel has been awarded to crystallographers who have determined the structure and function of a complex biological molecule. "It does seem to be a recurring theme," says Thomas Lane, president of the American Chemical Society. But at its heart, this structural biology is "fundamentally chemistry", adds Jeremy Sanders, head of physical sciences at the University of Cambridge, UK, "even if many chemists had never heard of any of the winners"." A commenter at the Sceptical Chymist blog wrote: "To me, chemistry is the study of atomic and molecular structure and understanding how these structures affect the properties of molecules and molecular assemblies. In this respect, the work of Ramakrishnan, Steitz and Yonath falls right into the heart of what chemists do." Quite.

This was nothing, of course, to the reaction to the announcement that Herta Muller was to be awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. Many in the UK and America, myself included, had never heard of this writer. Rather than by reacting with curiosity and interest in her work, the main intent of twitterers seemed to be to sneer either at her or at the Nobel committee, implying that the award was not deserved in some way. I was glad to read a piece in the Guardian today correctly pointing out that "By awarding the 2009 Nobel prize for literature to Herta Müller, the Swedish Academy is not only honouring a beautiful writer, but also expanding our concept of Europe". (I'll refrain from commenting here about the non-winning, introspective, self-regarding US literature about the collapse of the American Dream, etc;-). ) I was also glad to read that the publishers Serpents Tail and Granta are to reissue two of Muller's books in translation. No doubt, as a result of the Nobel, more will continue.

And even this was a storm in a teacup compared with today's announcement that Obama is to be awarded the Nobel Peace prize. Frankly I'm nauseated by the constant carping nastiness and "jokes" on twitter today, and have "unfollowed" several people as a result - not because of any views one way or the other about the recipient, but because I wish that rather than impulsively and emptily criticising, people might bother to think or find out why the award is given, before jumping in to share their knee-jerk petulance with the world. I was impressed, both by a video interview between a very highly groomed American TV lady and the chair of the Nobel committee in which he explained their rationale for the award (unanimous, across the political spectrum of the committee members from left to right), and with another one of Obama's reaction speech (video embedded at link). There's lots of good in all of this if people care to listen, not least in the mood of consensus building, which is essential if the world is to make anything of the political, economic, social and environmental mess it is currently in.

People power and guestlords

"I'm going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there's an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened". This remark is attributed to George W. Bush, last night in Alberta, commenting on the memoirs he is writing (or thinking of writing).

Putting people in place is the business of "guestlord", which is the adorable name you are given if you write a guest post on Lords of the Blog, the House of Lords' blog. This particular guestlord is Lord Renton of Mount Harry, chairman of the House of Lords Information Committee, who asks "when does a Blogger, writing about himself, turn into an Inquisitor and ask lots of questions?" In his initiative People and Parliament, he and his team want to know. 

How could the House of Lords improve public understanding of its work?

How could the House of Lords increase people’s interest in its work and Members?

How could the House of Lords best enable people to interact with it?

They particularly want to hear from young people, so not only have they set up an e-consultation but are also Twittering, so you can follow or contribute that way. Who thought these Lords were old fuddy-duddys? I'm impressed: I wish many professional types half the age of these elevated bloggers and Twitterers were taking to the social web with such enthusiasm. (Can you imagine bankers blogging and Twittering to improve public understanding of their work, allow people to interact with them, and provide updates on what they are doing to improve their stewardship of our money? Some way to go, I think.)

Sarah Paretsky and voices of women

Reading a post on the ever-interesting blog by crime-fiction author Sarah Paretsky, creator of V. I. Warchawski - and, incidentally, learning where and how you can take a quick snap of Barack Obama's home - I read this:

If you watch movies, you may not ever have noticed, but most of the speaking parts go to men.  In fact, 72 percent of speaking parts go to men.  Women can talk less than a third of the time on screen, but, in fact, this mirrors real-life social experience.

A variety of studies, most recently at the University of San Francisco, show that in mixed groups, whether at work or at play, women can speak about a third of the time.  If we take up more time — more space — than that — we’re labeled as conversation hogs, as aggressive bitches, and social pressures are marshaled to silence us.  Notice for yourself the next time you’re at a dinner party and a woman seems to dominate the conversation:  a wall comes down between her and her neighbors.  Women as well as men stop listening to her. 

I find this rather strange. In all my many years at work, I would say without a doubt that women talk far more than men in meetings and in general conversation. (I work for an international company so have many colleagues who are American and from across Europe and elsewhere in the world - so it is not just to do with tight-lipped Brit males.) At home, although the man in our house is outnumbered 3:1, I would say that the women speak a disproportionate amount of the time (none of us is a great chatterer, though, our house is more likely to be silent rather than filled with conversation by either gender). Around and about, when I see men and women together, I think women do most of the talking. Films may well skew the speaking parts towards the testosterone-heavy gender, and in the workplace, the top roles (i.e. the person who has the last word) may well be more likely to be taken by those of the male persuasion. But in my experience, women talk more than men, whatever the social situation - and don't get frozen out for doing it. Naturally, if anyone drones on and is boring, people tend to ignore her - or him!

US politics, Female Science Professor-style

From FemaleScienceProfessor*: Watch Your Eyes.

"If this moment really is going to be historic, McCain should listen to his running-mate when she is speaking, he should look her in the eye, and he should treat her with the same respect that he would have given to any of the men he considered choosing as a VP candidate. And then, if elected, to show solidarity with all the women who are paid less than men for the same work, he should pay her 77% of Cheney's salary. [← joke]"

 

*Women professors in the physical sciences: a few. Women professors in the physical sciences at research universities: even fewer. Women full professors in physical sciences at research universities, especially mine: infinitesimal. But we exist.

Blog Doctor, Guido and Peter Hain

From NHS Blog Doctor (aka Dr Crippen), yesterday (24 Jan):

"Most serious British bloggers are tonight acknowledging eighteen months of investigative journalism carried out by Guido Fawkes. You may think that it was the Electoral Commission that brought down Peter Hain. That was but the final straw. The background work was done by Guido...........what Guido Fawkes has done is of national importance. He is the first British blogger to expose and bring down a Cabinet minister. You thought Peter Hain was merely absent minded? Read Guido and you may change your mind. (Full story here)

At 10.30 pm tonight, Guido is appearing on Newsnight. Last time he did that he was savaged by the MSM [mainstream media] journalists. Tonight, Dr Crippen predicts, it will be different."

If you would like to know what happened, please see NHS blog doctor post for update and further links. And you can find out about Dr Crippen's role in exposing fatal flaws in the medical training application system, while you are about it.

A Nobel postscript

I wasn't intending to post about Nobels for literature, economics or peace, but somebody I have heard of, and even read, has won the Nobel prize for literature. That's a good thing -- what's the point of literature if nobody reads it or has heard of who has written it? (I write "good thing" even though the winner isn't J. K. Rowling, but her turn should come).

And, as widely predicted, Al Gore takes the peace prize, but shares it with IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change). Or, as Piers Foster aptly puts it: "one man and his PowerPoint show has as much influence as the decades of dedicated work by so many scientists."

I posted on Peer to Peer about yesterday's ruling that the aforementioned ppt show is broadly correct, so can be shown in UK school science lessons so long as nine deviations from the scientific consensus (aka the aforementioned IPCC) are pointed out to the students. From that post, those interested in the truth amid the nasty world of climate change politics can follow links to find out more -- in particular this one at the Royal Society website.

Nothing to say on economics. (I don't know who won that or even if it has been announced yet.)

How will history judge Blair?

Link: BBC NEWS | Politics | How will history judge Blair?.

I could get quite into this politics thing. I wonder if the world of politics could possibly be as argumentative as that of science? Having written that I didn't think I'd ever be writing about Tony Blair et al. on this blog but finding myself doing it, I received an email the other day (from my husband, using a civilised method of spousal communication), containing the BBC link at the top of this post. There, you can read accounts by three historians of the Blair era. The MP read the articles because he's enjoying reading a book (on Wellington and Napoleon) by Andrew Roberts, one of the three historians.

Roberts starts out: "Before 11 September 2001, Tony Blair was set to go down in history as a second-division prime minister, one of those who stayed in power for a long time but without having any appreciable effect on the story of his times."

By the end of his article, he concludes: "Prime ministers are not judged by posterity on issues to do with transport, health, education, or even - most of them - on economic indicators. They are judged by the One Big Thing that happens during their premierships. That is why Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement, Anthony Eden's Suez Crisis, Edward Heath's Three-Day Week, and John Major's ERM debacle have left them branded as failures. Equally, Winston Churchill's Blitz orations, Margaret Thatcher's saving of British capitalism and Tony Blair's vigorous prosecution of the War against Terror will leave them noted by history as highly successful prime ministers. "

Several nice sides to Tony

I never thought I would write anything about Tony Blair (et al.) on this blog, but I have just read the most wonderful post about him on Material Witness. As Typepad ate my comment over there, I will provide a link to the Material Witness post here. It is a lovely story and shows several sides, charming ones, to a leading politician -- the likes of some of which I have read nowhere else.

Tony Blair, Nicole Kidman and the unfavourable comparison.

I'm smiling.

Hillary Clinton in the Economist

Link: The candidates: Hillary Clinton | Her latest incarnation: presidential front-runner | Economist.com.

I'm not getting into politics on Petrona -- politics is one of those subjects where the heat of the opinion is inversely related to the knowledge of the person expressing it, but I do like the description of Hillary C. in the standfirst of this Economist piece:

"Unloved; but also disciplined, well-organised and experienced."

I recognise that Hillary is widely unolved in the USA, but I've always rather liked her -- in a mild kind of way, I hasten to add.

Has the web helped our public awareness?

From a post on Content Matters: Despite Web and Cable, Americans Remain Oblivious to Public Affairs...."or so say the findings of a new study by the Pew Research Center.The study, entitled "What Americans Know: 1989-2007" assesses public knowledge of leaders and news events, as compared to 1989.  We might have assumed that the advent of 24-hour news combined with the abundance of websites and blogs would have resulted in a more educated public, but that's not the case. According to the Pew study, our knowledge of public affairs today is roughly the same as it was eighteen years ago."

From the Pew study: "More than nine-in-ten Americans (93%) could identify Arnold Schwarzenegger as the California governor or a former action-movie star -- both responses were counted as correct in the scoring. An equally large proportion of the public identified Hillary Clinton as a U.S. senator, a former first lady, a Democratic leader, or a candidate for president. Clear majorities can also correctly identify Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (65%) and Sen. Barack Obama (61%). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is recognized by about half of the public (49%). Other prominent national figures and world leaders are not as well known. When asked to name the president of Russia, just 36% recalled Vladimir Putin."

I imagine that similar results would be obtained if a sample of the British public were asked to identify political figures in the UK and mainland Europe. Most of them would probably get Schwarzenegger, though.

MySpace or YouTube for president?

Via Online Media Daily:

Getting a jump on the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, News Corp.'s MySpace plans to host a general presidential vote on Jan. 1 and 2 of next year. The move is the latest attempt by MySpace and its rivals to engage users in what is certain to be a fiery election where online components will play a significant role.

You can also view the video channels created by the various presidential hopefuls on YouTube at the YouChoose 08 page created earlier this year: a "centralized hub" featuring campaign videos, speeches, informal chats, behind-the-scenes footage, as well as community features such as video responses, text comments and ratings.

If we had universal online voting, would anyone ever go out of the door at election time?

Interviews with a feminist

Am I a feminist blogger? I have been interviewed by "e" of A Blog without a Bicycle ("riding the cyberwave of feminism"), for part of  her MA project on feminist self-presentation in blogging.

The first interview can be read here,  and the second one, here.

It was interesting, and somewhat rejuvenating, being asked questions about feminism. It took me back to my late teens and early twenties, when the issue of "women's rights" did seem very pressing, and was the stimulus for many a late-night heated conversation (usually a group, and quite often degenerating into complaints about how someone's boyfriend didn't do the washing up).

In those days, I am shocked to recall, the UK did not have an anti-discrimination act or an equal pay act. I read The Female Eunuch, The Woman's Room, and many others of that ilk with a passion and a fury. (Of course, it was a lot worse for previous generations of women -- but to me as a late teenager, the fact of my being considered "less" by virtue of being female came as a shock, having only sisters and being educated at all-female establishments.) I remember the pages of the newspapers being full of ads for "Girl Fridays". I could not join the "Oxford and Cambridge" club even quite recently -- they have been forced to admit women graduates on equal terms now, since EU legislation a mere few years ago, but that is what it took to make this outfit accept that a woman graduate has as much right to the same facilities as it would extend to a male one. (Naturally, I have not the least intention of joining this organisation, as I know what they really think, despite the four-colour flyers they now send proclaiming their new-found "liberalism" and soliciting membership. Just call me Grauchina Marx.)

But I wonder why feminism seemed more important to me all those years ago, compared with now? Is political activism a young person's thing; or has life really changed for the better? Or is it that "having it all" -- earning a living, being a parent, maintaining the home environment, etc -- has worn me out after 16 + 11 = 27 person-years of it?

Power to the people

Link: info NeoGnostic: Two new sites.

Chris at info NeoGnostic, who doesn't seem to have posted for a while (although that could just be Bloglines) writes about the Open Rights Group. He adds: "They also have a blog, which pointed me to website I never expected to visit, let alone recommend(!) - 10 Downing Street. It has a new petition site that mySociety has built for it, which allows anyone to set up a petition and collect signatures."

Two petitions that Chris found there are one to scrap the proposed introduction of identity cards; and another to allow an exception to copyright law to give individuals the right to create a private copy for their own personal use. But there are 238 petitions there, so plenty to vote for or against.

Why is it important to vote?

On my usual travels round the blogosphere tonight, I must have read twenty or thirty exhortations to vote in today's US election. Many such posts state that it doesn't matter who you vote for, just so long as you vote. Why is this?

When I was too young to vote, I was very keen to do so. We had debates and mock elections at school, and were pretty opinionated and (naively, maybe) informed about which party we supported and what they all stood for. For many years, every time there was a general or local election, I voted (not always for the same party). I used postal votes when necessary, and always made sure to get to the polling station if I was based at home at the time. But in recent years, I have stopped. I still vote in general elections, true, but without any enthusiasm for the menu of candidates I am offered. In local elections, I do not vote any more. I have lived in this town for 15 years and have seen all parties either in control or in coalition form -- none of them is the slightest bit different in the event. I have become a cynic -- engendered by their horrible nasty election leaflets that come through the door blaming everyone but themselves for every wrong in the world and making unrealistic, blanket promises they have no intention of fulfilling.

On the national level, too, politicians are employing an ever-increasing number of unelected special advisers, press officers, PA people, minders, gurus, hairdressers, fortune-tellers and assorted hangers-on. We have seen our main political parties jettison any pretence of conviction politics in favour of appealing to a narrow set of swing voters who can tip some constituency if they are satisfied on a single issue. We've seen spin, media management, honours given to newspaper editors while the editors are still in-post, focus groups, opinion polls, etc.

I am not mentioning greed, corruption, hypocrisy and delusions of grandeur, because politicians have always been like that -- it was always par for the course. If they were unlucky enough to get caught (eg Profumo) they resigned. Now they just cling on shamelessly for as long as they can persuade their political agents and parties not to sack them --- and if they are sacked or if they quit, it is because of votes, not principles. Everything seems to be acceptable.

Politicians in power are tinkering at the edges, sacrificing their election manifestos and failing to represent the interests of the people who voted for them. The media is pathetic, preferring to focus on trivia, gossip and hysteria than in providing decent investigative journalism.

So tell me again, why is it so important to use your vote? Not voting isn't opening the door to fascism or communism or any other horror. It is a small, inoffensive way to indicate one's inability to make a positive choice from the depressing options on offer.

Let me know where my argument is flawed.

Meaning of life

Two articles on the unfashionable but essential characteristic of taking responsibility for one's actions.

First, from a post on "The Life and Times of Rennie D", by Father Mark Long, on the Adam and Eve story:

"It is tempting to assign the consequential curse and humanity’s exclusion from Eden to Adam and Eve’s disobedience in seeking wisdom (a gift God did not yet believe them ready to receive). However, having gained wisdom, they are cursed and excluded for failing to accept responsibility for their choice and subsequent action. Rather than a punishment dictated by God, this is a consequence brought about by humanity’s unwillingness to accept responsibility.
Much of humanity’s suffering is due not to wrong choice, but to our failure to accept responsibility for those choices ... there are neither rewards or punishments, only consequences!"

Second, from today's Times, in which Richard Morrison writes with insight and truth on one of his regular themes, the disjunct in society on either side of the class divide. Today's peg is a report on the breakdown of family life, specifically disaffection among teenagers, and how the "media class" just doesn't get it. Please read the whole article. Here's the nub, but it is even stronger if you've read what comes before:

"All this can be summed up in three words: abdication of responsibility. That applies not only to parents who don’t nurture their children, but also to the influential and powerful middle class that doesn’t want to accept responsibility for sorting out the gross social squalor afflicting those lower down the pile. Such selfishness is so short-sighted. Donne said that no man is an island. Equally, no sink estate is an island. The seeds of bitterness being sown there will tear apart our country if we don’t wake up. The future is not measurably bright; it’s potentially appalling."

Electronic voting machines

"Is it too late to start selling bumper stickers that say “I think I voted”?"

The Dilbert Blog: Electronic Voting Machines.

The last word about the election is at the link. Here's a sample:

"I think about the history of ATMs when I hear all the nervous Nellies wetting their pants over electronic voting machines. I believe those worries are totally misplaced. Now don’t get me wrong – there’s a 100% chance that the voting machines will get hacked and all future elections will be rigged.  But that doesn’t mean we’ll get a worse government. It probably means that the choice of the next American president will be taken out of the hands of deep-pocket, autofellating, corporate shitbags and put it into the hands of some teenager in Finland. How is that not an improvement?"

Feminism at work and in the newspapers

Philobiblon: Time to boycott the anti-female Observer

Natalie Bennett at Philobiblon earlier in the week drew attention to a daft article in Prospect about females in the workplace. She has summarised the article so one does not have to read it ;-), and succinctly dispatched its main arguments. I wish everyone in the world thought as clearly as Natalie on this topic.

Since that posting, the Observer has picked up on the Prospect piece and published their own daft article on the topic, again as pointed out at Philobiblion. There is a lot of incoherent comment on the Observer's blog about the article, but Natalie has it right on the nail.

My general opinon of Sunday papers (in the UK) is that they are a waste of time: they don't have any news to report that can't wait until Monday (or read online if you are a news junkie), and the Saturday papers contain supplements for everything one could possibly want to read about and plenty more that one would not. There are plenty of good blogs publishing roundups and highlights of weekend papers.

I have, as noted, long since given up on the Sunday Times, so it is good to have it confirmed that not only am I not missing anything by not reading the Observer, but I am gaining something by my abstinence.

Incidentally, in the link at the top of this posting, Philobiblon also links to a (Sunday) Times piece on online shopping. This is what I mean about not having to read the Sunday papers -- with people like Natalie Bennett and Sarah Weinman around, no need ;-) . The online shopping piece is quite readable, though did not tell a veteran like me anything I didn't know. Useful for people considering whether to dip an electronic toe into this cyberwater, though.

State education

I don't want to turn into an advert for the Times-- there is a lot about it that I don't like -- but it is the newspaper I scan on my daily journey to work. The reason -- it may be rubbish but it is a mish-mash rather than pushing a particular political agenda. I often don't read many, or some days even any, articles in it -- just scan the headlines. But occasionally there is a real goodie. It only has to be once a week or so to keep me happy. (As my main fun on my journey is to do the crossword, the killer su doku, the fiendish su doku and the polygon (make as many words from a number of letters arranged in a polygon, always including the central letter) by the time I hit Kings Cross Thameslink.)

However, today being a particularly tense day, Richard Morrison's feature was an excellent analysis of why. Entitled "State v sacrifice", it explains the state educational system -- complete with excellent graphic of a tree of possible pathways from birth to 18. Here's the first couple of paragraphs:

"So you’ve done the easy bit. Conceived the child. Given birth, or stood heroically near by while your partner pushed and perspired. Probed the peculiar pleasures of Pampers. Survived those joyous months of piercing screams in the night (and the baby was noisy, too).

Congratulations! You are now staring into the mouth of the world’s longest, darkest and scariest tunnel. Yes, the British educational system. It will take you 20 years to guide your child safely through it, at which point you will probably be a twitching shadow of your former self. And/or completely broke. Just look at the state of parents who received their children’s “11-plus” exam result this week. Some of them are psychological wrecks. And they are only halfway through the tunnel. "

If anyone wants to know what negotiating the system is like, and how it feels, read this article. I was struck by one of the text-boxes, entitled "20 good non-selective comprehensive schools around Britain". In about 2 years' time it will probably be impossible to get your child into any of these now that Mr Morrison has given them away*, as frenzied Times readers up sticks and move next door, whatever the cost of local housing. That's how bad it is --- unless you can afford private, or unless you have the admirably sanguine attitude of Mr Morrison (which I am afraid I don't).

But don't get me wrong, Mr Morrison is great. He's the best thing about the Times at the moment and has been for some time, since my last most-admired columnist, John Diamond, died.

* Poetic licence. All UK schools are published on various internet sites ranked in every which way, and anxious parents regularly search and scour these listings.

newspapers

Exiled Tibetans protest Google censorship in China

Boing Boing: Exiled Tibetans in Dharamsala protest Google censorship in China

There are some good pictures here of anti-Google demos in response to the famed China censorship.
The people in the photo have no problem in spelling Google forwards, at least. And some of the posters are quite witty (I like the "Goolag").
It does make me wonder whether they created the posters themselves or whether they had help to make them?

But a bigger question is: if you are Chinese (or a Tibetan exile), what would you rather have, censored Google (and Yahoo! et al., this issue is by no means limited to Google), or no Google at all?

Like most questions, there is no easy answer. I know what I'd prefer but I am not saying I am right.

[search]