DarrenConley.com

I was thinking today (as I rode the bus to work) about the financial crisis in Dubai. I think what triggered it was someone else on the bus mentioning that they had visited Dubai over the Christmas holidays. That led me to think about how there might be some very good travel deals available for Dubai right now, since it needs the money, which led me to think about how I had actually heard of Dubai’s financial troubles almost a year ago, while everyone else in North America seemed only to hear about it sometime just before Christmas.

All of these thoughts led to another pile of thoughts about information, and how (despite the worldwide connectivity afforded by the internet) the places where we live still dictate how much we know about what’s going on in the rest of the world. I knew about the Dubai situation far earlier than most North Americans because I live close to it, I know people who are working there or who have worked there recently, and because many people in this area tend to go there for vacations or conferences, and come back talking about Dubai news.

What I didn’t understand was why the average North American didn’t learn about Dubai’s financial problems until recently. Most people who are semi-educated about the state of the world today have some idea that Dubai is a place of extravagant architecture, big spending, and hot temperatures. They have seen pictures or heard about the man-made palm-shaped islands that offered huge stretches of beachfront property in Dubai, and they heard rumours that Dubai was building a really really tall building. But it wasn’t until December, when the international news services reported that Dubai was asking its neighbour for some bailout money, that everyone found out that Dubai wasn’t doing so hot (so to speak), even though the real-estate market there fell out in early 2009. It took almost a year for news of Dubai’s situation to make it across the world, and yet information now travels at the speed of light.

It made me think too about how the average Canadian knows quite a lot about what’s going on in American politics, while the average American is completely clueless about what happens in Canada, a country that the USA shares the longest undefended boarder in the world with. I’m sure the reason for this is that most Americans simply don’t care about Canada (and when you think about it, why should they?), but it leads to a situation where the average American might know a lot about the USA and very little about anywhere else, while the average Canadian knows a lot about both Canada and the USA (and probably very little about anywhere else!).

Growing up in Hamilton Ontario, we had the same situation in relation to the rest of Canada. We knew a lot about what was happening in the area along Lake Ontario, between Toronto and Niagara Falls, and very little about what was going on in the rest of Canada. When I moved out to British Columbia for 7 months, I suddenly learned about the rest of Canada, but was still up-to-date with Ontario news. Conversely, people who live in Toronto often know a lot about Toronto, while even neighbouring cities like Hamilton or St. Catharines would be completely off their radar. Toronto is to Ontario what Hamilton is to Canada, which is what the USA is to the rest of the world.

Now, all of these situations assume that if you do live in some popular “happening place”, while you might not know much about what’s happening outside of where you live, you should still know a lot about where you actually are. But this isn’t always the case either. Sometimes living where you are makes it more difficult to find objective information about your own location. For instance, I had several Chinese friends who were completing their Master’s degrees in my program several years ago who had no idea that China had a reputation for human rights violations. Any newspaper or magazine article outlining such situations had not been made public in their home country.

By the same token, since the 9/11 attacks in the USA, many Americans put forward all kinds of theories about why people from the Middle East might want to attack America. Many said that those terrorists hated American freedoms. Others said that the terrorists were jealous of American prosperity. A large number of people thought the attacks were religion-based, and blamed Muslims as a whole. But very few average Americans had any idea that most of the rest of the world (including much of the world outside of the Middle East) hated American foreign policy, and that such policies were being blamed for the treatment of Palestinians in Israel, among other things.

As someone who lives in the Middle East, I can give you 3 good reasons why people in this part of the world might hate the USA. Two are reasons that are well-established, and one is a reason of my own deduction. First, many in the Middle East consider Western (American) morality to be substandard when compared to their own moral standards. The thought of allowing pornography, adultery, and free sex to run rampant without societal restraint is completely perplexing to the Middle Eastern mindset – you might as well shoot your society in the foot and still expect it to run. Second, there is the foreign policy situation which I mentioned above, which views America as the self-declared police force of the world, imposing its own political and economic self-interests on everyone else because of its own unrivaled military strength.

The final reason people in the Middle East (or elsewhere) might hate America, and this is just my own idea here, is that the USA is (arguably) the only global superpower, and if you get your kicks killing people or blowing stuff up (or ordering others to kill and blow stuff up) the USA is the most challenging and globally visible target. Attacking America shows that you have balls, gets you onto the elite list of worldwide criminal organizations, and guarantees that you’ll get big, worldwide publicity. I believe that the number one reason why anyone decides to enter the terrorist profession is because they like doing stuff that terrorists do – killing people, torturing people, raping people, blowing stuff up, getting good drugs, getting recognition for bad-assery rather than intelligence, etc., and if you can do some damage to the USA, you’re gonna have a lot of future job opportunities in terrorist circles.

But getting back to the topic of Information and Location, here’s a question. If living in some places means you’re ignorant of other places (or even of your own place), where is the best place to live where you’ll have maximum access to what’s actually going on in the world, globally speaking? It would have to be someplace that’s not too big and exciting, otherwise you’ll only be concerned with your own news and events (like the USA or Toronto), and it can’t be someplace attached to somewhere big and exciting, or you may only be concerned with yourself and the place you’re attached to (like Hamilton or any country in Europe). That leaves us with living in places that are somewhat isolated, with very little going on locally, and ready access to worldwide news.

So, in my mind, we’re left with several options: Scandinavia (Sweden or Finland or Norway), Australia/New Zealand, or (ahem…) Qatar. Scandinavia is isolated enough, and has little drama within its own boarders. Also, the few people I’ve met from Scandinavia have been excellently well-traveled, and can communicate in English better than some North Americans I know. And if you do any traveling anywhere outside of your home town, you’ll know that people from Australia and New Zealand are always traveling everywhere – soaking up new experiences and exploring the world. Because really, who is more isolated than Australia and New Zealand? And after you’ve spent a few weeks seeing the major sights in those countries, you have no other cross-cultural options but to hop on a plane and visit the rest of the world.

And finally, of course, there’s Qatar. I just note that many of the Qatari locals have done very little traveling outside of the Gulf, and few take a huge interest in cultures outside of their own. But if you’re an ex-pat in Qatar, you’re in the perfect situation to stay globally connected – You’re surrounded with English-speaking expats from everywhere else in the world, Qatar itself is so small and inconspicuous (and boring) that the newspapers are filled with news from the rest of the world, and geographically speaking, Qatar is close to the center of the (non-American) world, so it’s easy to travel from here to most (non-American) countries.

So, what started as some idle thoughts on the bus about Dubai’s financial troubles has brought us through to the motivations of anti-American terrorism, and lead us to the recognition that I am living at the hub of all worldwide knowledge. All-in-all, I’d say that I had a fairly productive bus ride today (mentally speaking).

I’m posting this quickly because I don’t know how much time I have left. You see, it seems as if Q-Tel, the local Qatari internet service provider, has some crazy-butt glitch that is causing it to randomly block my blog when I’m trying to log in and write new posts. I’m frantically trying to let people know before this very page that I’m typing on is no longer accessible.

Now, I know that Q-Tel regularly blocks pornography, racist sites, sites that are critical of Islam, and sites that are critical of the Qatari government, but as far as I can tell, none of those things have appeared on my blog. And, just for the record, the Qatari government is very nice and treats me extremely well. I would very much enjoy staying in your country and getting paid far too much to teach English – really! So please don’t block my blog! Otherwise how can I tell people how great it is here and convince them to come and visit me/move here themselves?!

So, my friends, in case this is the last that you hear from me on this blog for a long time, please stay strong and know that I will be back – so help me I will be back – even if I have to stay on hold with Q-tel customer service for a really, really long time, I will be back.

So until next time, good night, and good luck.

Let me preface this post by saying that Larissa and I had a wonderful time while we were back in Canada for our Christmas vacation. But let me start the actual topic of this post by saying that I’m amazed by how much Qatar now feels like home.

We arrived back in Qatar a little less than 24 hours ago, and walked into our villa to find it largely the exact same way we left it, but with an extra layer of dust on everything. Usually when we leave for an extended vacation, we get our cleaner to come in at least once to make everything nice and shiny for our arrival, but we recently changed cleaners, and he wasn’t sure what we wanted him to do. He’ll be here on Sunday to clean through the place, but in the meantime, we’re trying not to touch the tables too much.

However, in spite of the dust, it felt so nice to walk into familiar surroundings, to see the bilingual Arabic/English signs outside everywhere, and especially to walk outdoors in short sleeves and feel the cool Qatari breeze mixing with the 22 degree celsius winter sunshine. I also was very happy to sleep in my own bed again, where I have to roll two full rotations to get from my side to Larissa’s, and where our semi-expensive cotton sheets caress my body like only Larissa is allowed to.

I just finished walking over to our local grocery store (Lulu Hypermarket) to re-stock our refrigerator, and could not help but thank God for the beautiful weather as I walked over. It was also nice to see the familiar ratio of Indian, Asian, Qatari, and white people (5:3:1:1) as I walked through the store (there are far too many white-folk in Hamilton). As I completed my purchase with my excellent Qatari IBQ credit card (5% cash back on all purchases!) I heard the familiar sound of a text message on my mobile phone, informing me of how much had been debited to my Mastercard account, and how much credit I had left. Ah, the sweet sights and sounds of home!

Since few of our friends have come back from vacation, tonight will probably be a low-key evening of eating food, playing some Wii Mario, unpacking, and maybe watching a movie. We’re anxious to see our favourite people here again and find out about their adventures over the holidays, but we’re also excited about the new people that we’ll meet this semester. There’s a fairly regular turnover of employees each September and January, and while I’m sure that the new batch is the typical mix of average joes, cool folks, and weirdos (6:1:3), we look forward to seeing how all of the new friendships (and dramas) play out.

2010 may be starting quietly, but it promises to be an exciting year (especially with our new son making his appearance in April) – we can’t wait to see how our Middle Eastern home treats us this year!

You know, every now and then I am struck anew with just how amazingly blessed Larissa and I are to be in this place, at this time, in our particular situation.  Consider the following:

1. While the rest of the world is in the middle of an economic recession, we're in one of the only countries in the world that has an economy that's still growing, albeit at a slower rate than it did last year. 
2. While many are worried about losing their jobs, or have lost their jobs already, Larissa and I are well established in very secure 3 year contracts at a school that is still bringing in new teachers every semester (with the programs still expanding next year!)
3. We're earning salaries that are three to four times more money than we'd be earning in a comparable position back in Canada, and (for my part) shouldering a workload that is less than my colleagues that I left behind.
4. Everything we earn is tax free, and there is no sales tax on anything in this country.
5. Our accommodations are large, comfortable, and completely paid for by our company, including utilities.
6. We get free travel to and from Canada once each year, with several months of paid vacation time.
7. While we do not own a car, everything we need is within walking distance of our apartment, and anything that isn't is easily accessible by taxis, which regularly drive down our street every 5 to 10 minutes, and which cost, on average, only $5.00 CAD per ride.  Transportation to and from work is provided, and I can read or sleep each way every day.
8. I have access to all of the latest technology for teaching, and have an office that is triple the size of my old workspace back home.  If there is any piece of new technology or software that I might like to use at work, I tell the college and they buy it.
9. The weather outside is always clear and sunny, although it can be very hot in the summer.  But checking the weather is never a high priority, no matter what time of year.
10. Qatar is considered one of the safest countries in the world, with crime rates far below major cities in North America.  At the same time, I can enjoy most of the major indulgences of home: McDonalds and other American restaurant chains, free TV channels that show American programming, and any DVD or video game that can be found in Canada or the USA.

The only major thing that can make life difficult here is censorship.  Censorship can be found in many places in Qatar.  For instance, while any swear word is acceptable, both on TV and in movies, any theatrical run of a film will have all sexual content (including overtly sexual dialogue) and all nudity cut from the film, often leaving out portions of the story which seriously affect your understanding of the plot.  Watchmen has a character (who is completely computer generated) who often displays male genitalia in the film, and any and all scenes where this is visible were butchered in the theatre, often with conversations ending mid-dialogue and jumping to another scene.

Censorship is also found when browsing the internet.  Sexually explicit websites are completely blocked, as well as any website that is critical of the Qatari government, or critical of Islam.  This blocking practice often extends to websites that show streaming video (if the website itself does not censor the video content), which I may want access to in order to see movie trailers or videos to show in the classroom.  Thankfully, you can still watch YouTube in Qatar, although if you were in Turkey or Kuwait, you would not have access to it at all.

On the other side of censorship is the need to self-censor.  If I myself were to put anything on the internet that was critical of Islam, the Qur'an, or the Qatari government, I might not only find my website blocked, but I may find myself deported out of the country.  The same thing goes for portraying my workplace in a bad light, since our college is sponsored by the government.  Beyond that, it's never safe for your job security to be speaking badly about your employer in public.  Not that I would ever do so.  I love CNAQ.  And if any of my superiors from the college are reading this right now, I think you're doing an excellent, excellent job!  

The frustration for me is that I cannot share some of my daily concerns and thoughts with the internet community, and my loyal readers from back home.  For instance, I have a lot of thoughts about my current reading of the Qur'an, but there is no way that I'm going to write about it on my site, because if you look at that list of 10 blessings above, it's not worth the risk of losing all that stuff.  Any thoughts I have can easily be shared in person when I come back to Canada in August, or via more private correspondence.

So while the censorship issues are frustrating at times, it is a small price to pay for the numerous benefits of being in this place, at this time, doing what we're doing.  I'll catch up on the "uncensored" versions of movies when I'm back in Canada, or when they come out here on DVD.  In the meantime, I'm going to continue to follow my policy of doing my job, keeping my criticism to myself, and enjoying the unique benefits that life in Qatar has to offer.

[Update!  I just listened to THIS SERMON by Bruxy at The Meeting House, which falls in line with much of what I've said in the last part of this post!  I promise you that I didn't steal from his sermon!  I wrote this post 10 days earlier!]

I spend a lot of time riding the college shuttle bus to and from work.  I'm on it for at least an hour each day, sometimes an hour and a half.  Sometimes I spend my bus time talking, and sometimes I spend it sleeping, but most often I spend it reading.  And since there are so many classic, influential books which I haven't read, I generally choose to read something that is relevant to society or culture at large.  That, or something that makes me laugh.

The latest notch on my reading belt (reading belt?!) is Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species".  The back of the book boasted that "next to the Bible, no work has been quite as influential, in virtually every aspect of human thought."  Seemed like this book might be an important one to check out.

Like most semi-educated people in the world, I was familiar with Darwin by name, and I knew that he was the dude who was famous for suggesting that life evolved on Earth, instead of being instantly created.  I also had a fairly decent understanding of how evolution is supposed to operate (random mutation, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.)  In fact, I would venture to say that I went into this book with a better understanding of evolution than the average Joe (for example, I understood that evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, but rather that monkeys AND humans evolved from a common ancestor).  What I didn't have was the capacity to say "Yes, I've actually read Darwin's most famous work for myself."

So I started reading The Origin of Species.  I made it through the special introduction by Sir Julian Huxley, I made it through the Historical Sketch section (which was the preface to the original edition), and I made it through the Introduction, so that (27 pages in) I finally made it to the start of Chapter 1.  I turned through each page, anxious to find the section that plainly states something along the lines of "The Common Ancestry of Humans and Apes," or "The Distant Cousinship of Man and Chimpanzee," or even "Proof That Your Grandparents Were Much Much Hairier Than You Are (Possibly)."  And you know what?  I didn't find it.  I couldn't find the controversial section that got the religious world up in arms.  It was rather disappointing.

What did I find?  Allow me to give you a very, very short summary of what each chapter talked about:

Chapter 1: How animals inherit traits from their parents, the difficulty in defining what a "species" is, how animal breeders selectively breed animals to maximize traits that they want.

Chapter 2: More specific info about how species are difficult to classify, and principles about how the size and range of species are related to their variety.

Chapter 3: How ecosystems (a term not used by Darwin) function, and the ways that living things struggle to survive (against their environment and against each other).

Chapter 4: What natural selection is (how it's like breeding done by man, but it's done by nature instead).

Chapter 5: How use and disuse of body parts works with natural selection, how some parts vary more than others, how children often show characteristics of parents (or ancestors).

Chapter 6: Addressing difficulties with natural selection (including the absence of transitional varieties).

Chapter 7: Addressing more objections (purpose of structures in transition, different organs developed from the same source, etc.)

Chapter 8: Instincts, how they're passed on (or not) through natural selection, examples of complex instincts in animals.

Chapter 9: Info about crossing plants and animals in making hybrids and how it affects sterility.

Chapter 10:  Problems with the geological record (mostly about how fossils are only properly preserved under specific conditions)

Chapter 11: How succession of plants and animals best explains the geological record and dispersion of species across the planet.

Chapter 12: How plants and animals came to be distributed across the planet (across oceans, mountains and other barriers, etc).

Chapter 13:  More stuff about geographical distribution (fresh water animals, islands vs. mainland, etc).

Chapter 14: How classification of living things only makes sense when done genealogically, how organs change, development of animal embryos giving clues to previous stages in evolution.

Chapter 15: Summary of objections, how far natural selection can be extended, concluding remarks.

That's it.  In no section of this book does Darwin even discuss human beings, although you could infer points about humans when he talks about "mammals", if you like.  He does spend an awful lot of time talking about breeding pigeons and horses, and discussing (in almost embarrassing detail) the reproductive situations of plants. 

Nowhere does he say "God does not exist" or "God did not create life".  The closest he comes to touching on these issues is in the final chapter, in his concluding remarks.  Here are several quotes which the religious community may find worthy of comment:

"The similar framework of bones in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse… and innumerable other such facts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications."

This is one of the only examples (and possibly the only example) where man is actually mentioned in the book.  And it is not saying that man evolved from a monkey or a single-celled lifeform.  It is only saying that similarity in structure implies a common source.  Darwin also says:

"I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one… A [believer in God] has written to me that 'he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.'"

Darwin ends his book by saying "there is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Let me tell you where I stand, having finished reading this book.  It is a belief that has largely been unaffected by Darwin's writing, and if anything has been strengthened by it.  As a child, I believed in the literal Biblical story of creation.  As I started to accumulate facts about the history of the world, I accepted (as a teenager) that a six-day creation, along with a young Earth, was not the only possibility. 

As a Bible college student, I accepted that the Genesis account of creation was quite intentionally written to be understood as poetic allegory, and not as literal fact.  Why?  The biggest reason is the poetic construction of the narrative.  Consider this:

Day 1: God creates light and darkness – Day 4: God creates the sun and moon (for the day and night)

Day 2: God separates the waters above and below (sky and sea) – Day 5: God creates birds in the sky and fish in the sea.

Day 3: God creates plants on the land – Day 6: God creates animals on the land, along with humanity (at the very end).

There are perfect parallels between days 1-3 and days 4-6.  Notice also that animals exist in the sea before they exist on land, and that mankind is the final act of creation.  This is oddly parallel to the order of the evolution of life, according to those who fully subscribe to Darwin's theory.

As a student of linguistics, I spent some time studying human anatomy (especially the anatomy related to language reception and production), and even had the opportunity to explore the anatomy lab at McMaster University and examine actual human bodies.  I learned that humans display many structures in common with animals, and even possess structures which are no longer useful to us, but which are still fully functional in lower animals (Darwin speaks of these "rudimentary organs" in his book).  This led me to accept the possibility that humans were not created exactly as they are today, and may have evolved from lower life forms.

Before I explain my present view, let me ask: Does all of this mean that I do not believe in God or creation?  No.  I absolutely believe in God, for the same reason that I accept much of the tenets of evolution – because there's far too much evidence in favour of this belief.  Do I believe in a literal six-day creation?  Absolutely not, both on the basis of geological evidence, and the evidence of the structure of the Genesis narrative itself.

So how do I reconcile this situation?  Just what do I believe?  I believe that God created the Earth and allowed it to evolve over millions of years to the point where it could sustain life.  Then I believe that God created life, in either one or several forms, and allowed it to evolve into the complex system of inter-connected ecosystems that we see today.  And at some point in the evolution of life, God chose the form (a primate in the past) that was perfectly suited to handle the privilege (and burden) of carrying the human soul, and breathed His spirit into it to grant it consciousness, morality, creativity, and all of the other qualities which separate man from the rest of creation.

Now, allow me to deal with some possible objections to this view.

1. If God is all-powerful and could have made everything in the blink of an eye, or in 6 days, why didn't He?  Why take the long, circuitous route of millions of years of evolution?

There's a lot of things God could have done differently, but He didn't.  Efficiency is largely a human concern, since we're only on this Earth for a limited period of time (less than 100 years, for most of us).  When you're an eternal being, time isn't a concern.  God could have created humans with the ability to be born and mature to adulthood in several months or weeks (like many animals do), but He thought it best that we spend years and years relying on other people, and learning long and difficult lessons.  I believe that it's part of His personality to be patient, and to allow life (in all it's forms) to reach maturity at its own pace, and creating life (and humanity) through evolution is consistent with that personality trait.

2.  Do you really think that life started out as some blob that found a way to survive in a primordial soup and somehow marched onto dry land one day?

Not exactly.  I believe that life MUST have started out with God creating it, because it is a fundamental scientific law that life cannot arise from something that is non-living.  I also believe that the conditions for life on this planet are so specific, and the structure of life so complex, that without God designing the DNA structure or finding the perfect environmental balance (temperature, atmosphere composition, gravity level, energy/food sources, etc.) that life could never have survived on its own without guidance or direction.  The very fact that there ARE universal laws, and the complete and absolute hostility of any environment outside of the Earth for the sustaining of life are both good reasons to believe that God had a huge hand in the creation of life on earth.

3. Why couldn't it be that everything else evolved, but that man was still specially created by God?

I think this question comes from the need to feel that we are specially separated from the rest of creation, and we are, but not because we did not evolve.  There is too much evidence showing that we share (often redundant) anatomical structures with animals.  We are separated from creation in that God chose us to be like Him – with a soul.  Just as God chose Abraham out of the rest of humanity to build a nation out of, and to reveal Himself in a greater way to; just as God chose Mary out of every other young, morally upright woman living in that specific time to be the mother of Jesus; and just as God chose to let humanity evolve to the point where we have the capacity to wipe out all life on the planet, presumably to let us see how we can handle the responsibility.

4. If you really believe that life evolved, why do you need God in the picture at all? 

Because, like I said, there is too much evidence that He exists.  The more that scientific research unravels the complexities of the universe (trying to take a "simple" look at Quantum mechanics, the structure of ecosystems, or the organization of the genetic code will demonstrate its complexity very quickly) reveals ordered structure, the existence of immutable laws, and complex inter-relations of lifeforms and systems that only God could conceive of, let alone create.  Not to mention the uniqueness of the human soul.  I have a friend (a pastor with a biology degree) who once told me "I could prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is true.  What it doesn't explain is the existence of the human soul."  We possess souls because God gifted the human race with something that was only His.  The complexity and diversity of the universe shows His complexity and diversity.  The age of the planet and nature of the development of life shows His patience.  

5. Isn't this just a compromise of your Christian beliefs?  Isn't this a "slippery slope" that leads to believing that the Bible isn't really true?

Absolutely not.  This is accepting the facts as they are offered and growing in an understanding of what is true.  If God, Christianity, or any other idea about the nature of reality is not true, it's not worth believing in.  I believe in God, Christ, and the workings of evolution because I believe there is overwhelming evidence of their truth.  I don't accept them as true and then try to twist the evidence (or lack thereof) to fit my views.  Anyone who asks you to close your eyes to the world, ignore obvious facts, or subject yourself to voluntary ignorance does not have truth (or your best interests) in mind.  The quest for truth is the ultimate goal of science, and should be a goal of any person of integrity.  Christianity (and every other religion or belief) will show itself true (or false) in the face of discovered facts.  What shows itself true should be embraced – what shows itself false must be discarded.  This is completely in line with Christian beliefs and principles (see 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22).

Wow, this is turning into a far longer post than I intended.  I wanted to dispel some misconceptions about Darwin's book, and I ended up trying to establish the truth of the nature of the universe.  Of course, the lines of thought raised in this post could lead to literally years of discussion, but in the interest of length (and reader attention) I'm going to wrap things up here.

In conclusion, check out "The Origin of Species" for yourself.  Just be prepared to find plenty of (arguably) boring scientific explanation and details about plant anatomy, and very VERY little in the way of controversial, sensational conjecture.  Oh, and in case any of you are wondering, my current bus-reading book is an English translation of the Qur'an.  Let's see if that leads to any controversial blog posts!

I am not a tennis player.  It's not that I don't like the sport, or that I don't have the opportunity to play tennis – I just have never gotten around to it.  The closest I've come is the occasional game of ping-pong, or playing it on my Wii when I'm REALLY bored.  

What I have done lately is participate in a boot camp program 3 times per week at the campus where I teach.  It's usually about 25 teachers and other staff members who commit to an hour of hardcore working-out on Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday nights from 4:30 to 5:30pm.  There are three instructors who are well equipped to whip us into shape (one is a certified trainer, one is a phys-ed teacher, and one is a very experienced athlete).  The camp lasted for about 3 months, and recently ended in mid-April.

Sometime in the first week of April, after a particularly strenuous boot camp, I noticed that I had some soreness in my right elbow.  Of course I wrote this off as the normal muscle soreness that one sometimes experiences after pushing their body a little too hard.  But as the days (and weeks) wore on, the soreness persisted, and actually started to grow worse, despite boot camp being finished.

So this past Saturday I decided to pay a visit to a local (and well-reputed) health clinic to have my arm checked out.  It took the doctor about 15 seconds to determine that I had Tennis Elbow.  Somehow I had developed a tennis-related injury without the benefit of having enjoyed the process of learning and playing tennis. 

My first thought was "well, at least it's not something too serious like cancer or arthritis or degenerative flesh-eating disease."  My second thought was "shouldn't I be getting sports-related injuries after having played actual sports?  Does this mean that I won't be able to work out any more?"  And my third thought, later in the day, was "perhaps this is a good opportunity to develop ambidexterity."

I've always wanted to be ambidextrous.  It's not that I think that it would give me any specific advantage in life or employment – it's more for the sake of symmetry, and possibly impressing people at parties.  It irks me a little that I should have one arm or hand (I'm right-handed) that is strong and skilled enough to write and accomplish most of life's tasks, while having a second arm, seemingly equal in shape and health, that is far less skilled.  I've tried to write with my left hand several times – my writing looks like that of a monkey on painkillers scribbling on a pad while playing bumper-cars.

In order to facilitate the healing of my right elbow, I've started to do most of my lifting or carrying with my left arm, but I started thinking – what other things could I do with my left arm or hand in order to increase its strength and dexterity?  I didn't get very far in my thinking before I could foresee some potential problems.

First, there's using a mouse on the computer.  I've always used my right hand for this, and while I've tried to use my left, it often renders the task I'm trying to accomplish impossible.  Suddenly, your index finger is being used for right-clicking and spinning the mouse wheel, while the middle finger is being used for the typical left-click.  Try it yourself – doesn't the mouse suddenly feel like you're wielding a tool of unnatural disutility?  This led me to wonder if they make left-hand mouses, or if left-handed people use their right hands for clicking, or use software to switch the buttons, or what.  Any lefties out there who want to let me know?

Another issue that came up is toilet paper use.  I noticed this morning during my wiping session that I automatically (and quite skillfully, if I do say so myself) use my right hand for dragging the toilet tissue across my butt.  But could I even attempt this with my left hand?  This would mean not only leaning to the other side, which would feel strange, but also taking the risk that my lack of left-handed dexterity could lead to a misjudgment in wiping pressure or vector alignment, and cause my fecal matter to end up where it shouldn't be (like on my hand, or smeared inconveniently on a larger area of my anus) rather than being skillfully removed as it usually is each morning.  I don't know if ambidexterity is worth the risk of a poo-related mishap at the start of my day.

After my morning poo, I typically eat my breakfast consisting of a couple bowls of Frosties, and being a right-handed individual, I hold my spoon in my right hand as I bring each delicious vitamin-and-sugar coated flake of dried corn-mash from the bowl to my mouth.  But what if I tried my left hand?  Would I be able to truly enjoy my breakfast if I attempted to navigate my cereal bowl with a less-skilled hand at the helm?  Would my breakfast table end up a mess of spilled milk and carelessly dropped cereal matter?  And breakfast is the easiest meal to eat, generally speaking.  What about supper?  I already eat most of my meals semi-naked to avoid staining my clothes with Larissa's wonderful cooking.  Eating supper with my left hand could lead to epic disaster.  I would probably make less of a mess if I just tipped my plate onto the floor at the start of the meal.  Is the skillful use of both hands worth both the required cleanup and the disappointment at having watched such delicious meals be wasted in a hand-training exercise?

Thus far, I have not seen fit to take the risks needed to accommodate the development of ambidexterity.  However, I'm not completely giving up.  If I'm using the computer for something that is not very important (and let's be honest here, computers are used 85% of the time for goofing off), or if I have a dump that feels relatively residue-free, or if I'm eating a meal that has been poorly prepared while wearing clothes that I don't really care about, I'll try out the left hand and see what happens.  After all, if life can see fit to give me tennis elbow without having actually played tennis, perhaps it can cut me some slack in learning to be ambidextrous.

In Greek mythology, there is a character called Cassandra who was able to foresee the future, but was cursed such that nobody she told her prophecies to would believe her.  While I myself do not have the ability to see the future, I often feel like I am cursed with a similar fate.

You see, I have this great drive to show people things that I think are cool or funny or entertaining (I like to call it my "show and tell complex").  I love to be the person who introduces someone else to that new TV show or book or movie that just happens to blow their mind or make them laugh uncontrollably.  Perhaps this is some carry-over from my childhood insecurities – that if someone thinks that what I'm showing them is cool, they will in turn think that I'm cool by association.  But here's where the Cassandra factor kicks in:  I think I may be cursed to have nobody think the things I'm showing them are cool, simply because of my act of showing them.

For instance, for years I tried to encourage a friend of mine to read the Narnia series, because I thought they were great, and I was sure he'd like them too.  After rejecting my encouragement in this endeavor many times, my friend finally did read these books and enjoy them, but only after someone else told him that he should read them.

Similar situations have occurred with many other things that I've been interested in in the past.  The video game Rez, the TV show Babylon 5, the music of Evanescence, etc. etc.  It's extremely frustrating to think that, if people were to come across these things on their own, without my intervention, they would probably like them as much as me.  But because I had to "hype it up" for them or introduce it to them in a different context (that is, a context which includes me), people often shrug their shoulders and say "meh, whatever".  

The latest such incident happened earlier today when I showed a YouTube video to Larissa that I thought was pretty funny.  I didn't find the entire thing absolutely hilarious, but I have to admit that when I watched the part with the dog (see the embedded video below) I laughed out loud, even on second and third viewings.  Check out the video and see what you think:

You know, it occurs to me as I write this that whatever your reaction, it's a win-win situation for me.  If you think that the video is stupid, my point about my show and tell curse is further proven, and if you think it's cool, then we can be better friends through our shared humour connection.

[editor's note: I couldn't decide on the best way to end this post, so you get to choose your own ending!  Please regard only one of the options below as canon, as per your own preference]

A. Unintentional win-win situation!  Hurray!

B. On an unrelated note, bananas sometimes give me heartburn.

C. This same curse often happens with people, which is why I've stopped making introductions.

D. If you're someone who happens to be cursed with this same situation, then please do not tell people to read my blog.  I don't want you making people think that my writing is uncool.

Mobile phones (or "cell phones", as we more often say in North America) are ubiquitous here in Qatar.  Every street has several mobile phone vendors, and every person has at least one (and sometimes more than one) mobile phone on their person at any given time.  Why have more than one?  Some Qataris run several businesses, and have a separate phone for each.  Some people also buy several cheap phones to reserve easy-to-remember phone numbers which they want to hold onto and sell to interested parties for a profit. 

Besides these factors, in a country where people regularly go out into the middle of the desert for recreation, away from any identifiable landmarks or geographical features, it makes sense to have at least one mobile phone (preferably with GPS capability) which can be used to call your friends for help in case you run out of gas, get a flat tire, or find yourself paralyzed by a scorpion sting. 

When Larissa and I first arrived in Qatar, Larissa was given a mobile phone as soon as she set foot on campus.  It was a prepaid service that the college had set up (as it does for all its employees) and she had about $30 or $40 worth of talk-time already deposited in her account.  Since I was not an employee, I was not given a phone, but it was not long until I caved and bought one for myself, despite my not wanting to own one in Canada.  It wasn't so much that I was afraid of getting lost in the desert – I was more afraid of losing Larissa in a mall or grocery store, and having to spend 20 minutes making a systematic search down every aisle before finding her browsing for new handbags or continuing the unending search for "really comfortable shoes".  

Having a phone each has come in very handy, since she can now go to "frozen goods" while I take care of the long decision process that is cereal-buying.  [Aside: They are all out of 750g Frosties at our grocery store right now, and since I refuse to buy boxes that are smaller than that, I have to spend a good deal of time weighing the various factors of taste, price, and nutrition against each other until I can settle on a viable alternative.]  Since there is a decent mobile signal anywhere in Doha (even in my bathroom – it's been verified through use), I can call Larissa after I've grabbed my box of Honey Nut Shredded Wheat and meet her in one of the several junk-food aisles, so I can get permission to buy some white chocolate with coconut (truly the pinnacle of Aryan chocolate evolution).

After becoming employed at the college myself, I also was given a free prepaid mobile phone, making me one of those crazy people who now has two mobiles.  Since the phone which I purchased myself is slightly better than the one the college gave to me (colour vs. monochrome screen, nicer color phone body, more shiny, though otherwise identical), I switched out the SIM cards for each phone, and stuck with the college phone number.  This new number appears in the college computer system under my contact information, so I thought it best to use it.  My old phone, along with the still active service, is being saved for use by anyone who decides to come over and visit us (like my parents this April, for instance). 

Since all of the phones given to college employees are the Nokia 1200, I hear a lot of the "Nokia Tune" ring tone every day.  In fact, I heard this ring tone just minutes ago as I was writing about cereal shopping.  I started doing some thinking about this particular ring tone – thinking along the lines of "Who created that tune?  Why do so many people use it?  How many variations of it are out there?  Is it part of a longer song?" 

For those of you who are now completely lost, let me attempt to draw you into what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about that ring tone that goes "Do-do doo doo, do-do doo doo, do-do doo doo, dooooo", in decending notes.  If you can read music, it looks like this when written on a staff:

You can also see a YouTube video of someone playing it on piano below:

Now that we all know what I'm talking about, allow me to continue.

It turns out that this song is actually a song called Gran Vals, written by Francisco Tárrega in 1902.  Back in the early 1990s, Nokia bought this song, grabbed an excerpt from it, and started throwing it onto all of their phones, so that today it is the most widely recognizable ring tone in the world.  

Isn't it crazy to imagine, over 100 years ago as Frank was sitting down and fiddling around with some new diddies on his guitar, that 13 notes from one of his songs would survive into the new millenium and become one of the most recognized tunes, in every country, on the entire planet?!  Makes you wonder what sorts of things you might be working on today that are going to become part of the worldwide experience of future generations!  [Aside: I have always dreamed of writing a tune that would supplant the Happy Birthday song one day.  This story gives me hope that my dream may one day come true.]

In looking up information about this tune, I came across a few other cool videos that you might want to check out:

There is this really keen sounding Fugue, based on the Nokia ringtone.

Check out how this small orchestra reminds people to shut off their phones at concerts.

Here is the original Gran Vals composition, played by a dude on YouTube.

You may be wondering if I myself use this song as the ringtone on my mobile phone(s).  The answer is no – I use one called Swimming, because it sounds cooler, and because I don't want my ringtone to sound like everyone else's.  Ironically, this is the ring tone that everyone else with this phone decides to change it to.  At least people seem to like my taste in mobile phone music.

[Editor's note: This post had been almost completed in its entirety when, due to a moment of profound stupidity, I decided to experiment with a particular button combination (whilst trying to remember how to restore a closed tab in Firefox) and succeeded in closing my browser altogether, eradicating the entire post in the process.  What you will now read below is my best reconstruction of what I had spent the previous half-hour formulating in temple-clenching mental effort, tinged with the detritus of the raw fury which can only be experienced by pressing CTRL-W before taking the time to press CTRL-A and CTRL-C in anticipation of potential disaster.  Enjoy.]

After having received several comments lately questioning my lack of regular posting, I thought that I'd take some time to re-consider my relationship with this site, and my reasons for not giving it the attention that it deserves.  In this process, I found myself re-reading many of my posts that are now at least 3 years old, and doing so lead to several interesting revelations, which I thought I'd share:

1. I used to spend an awful lot of my time attempting to craft posts which would be entertaining, as well as insightful.  In doing this, I think that I largely succeeded.  However, what is strange to me is that I seem to have completely forgotten having come up with most of the insights and witty comments that appear in those earlier posts.  The upside to this situation is that I am able to be entertained by my own writing.  The downside is that I now suspect that I may be suffering from some sort of degenerative mental condition.  But both factors balance each other out, I suppose.
2. Many of the photos that I had hotlinked to are now non-functional.  I suppose that this serves me right for hotlinking in the first place.  There was a certain point in the development of my blog where I made the decision to stop hotlinking and to host all of the pictures myself (or at least to use a reliable off-site hosting service, such as Flickr), but the task remains to go back and update the non-functioning graphics.
3. Similar to the previous point, there are many links which are now dead, or which are pointing to places that I would rather not link to.  Especially perplexing is that my friend Julie's blog, which I regularly read for her honest and self-revealing insights, is now the site of some lawyer's blog.  I'll have to take some time during one of my more boredom-infested days to update all of the links, and if you're reading this Julie, perhaps you can tell me if there is some newer repository of your insights available to be used as a potential link target.
4. Most of the comments that were posted before this blog was migrated over to its current address do not exist on this site, and can only be viewed at its previous address.  Only time will tell how long this previous address will stay functional before the host decides to shut it down for lack of activity.  Hopefully I can find some way to import the comments from the old site to the current location.

When it comes to my lack of regular posting, I think that there are two main things to keep in mind:

First, one would think that, now that I am gainfully employed and am regularly meeting new people with fresh insights and ideas, I should have more material to write about.  However, I find that most of what I want to say I am unable to share.  How can I risk writing about office antics, ranting about college bureaucracy, or sharing a classroom mishap when doing so may jeopardize my ability to retain my position in the most lucratively paid EFL program on the planet?  I write that last sentence without hyperbole.

The other consideration is that much of my internet time is now spent on Facebook.  And between keeping up with status updates, commenting on posted photographs, sending brief notes to distant friends, and cyber-stalking people from highschool, personal blogging (whether for "keeping in touch", or just for entertainment) often seems a little redundant.  In fact, I'll bet that 80% of the people who are reading this post are actually doing so on Facebook, since my RSS feed automatically takes my blog posts and imports them into Facebook as "notes" or "posted items" or something.

That's not to say that I'm giving up on this site altogether.  I've just started re-reading Things My Girlfriend And I Have Argued About, and every time I do so it gives my creative organs the defibrillator-like jolt needed to excrete blog posts that are high in entertainment value.  Incidently, the reason that I'm re-reading this book in the first place is because I received a Facebook message from my friend Shawna asking for book suggestions, and in recommending TMGAIHAA to her I found myself picking it up off the shelf for a "reminder sampling", which has now turned into a full-fledged re-reading.

So while Facebook may own 85% of the property in my total internet landscape, and while I have subjected my choice of blogging content to the harsh mistress that is self-imposed censorship for the purpose of continuing to receive a paycheck that makes me double-check that the numbers are indeed correct (and not some flagrant accounting error in my favour on the part of the college) every payday, I will do my best to make this webpage something worth coming back to.  If nothing else, I can use it to entertain myself when my memory completely fails, and every day is lived like that guy in Momento (but with less killing and tatoos).

If any of you, my loyal readers, have taken the time to read Ecclesiastes (in a reputable English translation) you know that a popular phrase of that book is that "there is nothing new under the sun".  And while that may have been true for 99% of human history, I would like to humbly submit that in the modern age, we do indeed experience new things that have never been seen before.  One such thing that I would like to share some thoughts with you about is: seedless fruit.

As I was finishing my lunch today (which consisted of a plate of rice, some curry beef, some cream of chicken soup, two pieces of bread, and the item which inspired this post) I peeled my orange and discovered, to my delight, that it was seed-free.  It was a seedless orange.  This orange had no hope for contributing to the reproductive process of further orange growth.  It was a genetic dead-end of an orange.  And it saved me the trouble of having to awkwardly spit the seeds out of my mouth in front of my co-workers.

Seinfeld does a very funny routine about seedless fruit which I will not repeat here, but I will admit that it came to mind as I went through the process of removing my orange peel and pulling off any tiny bits of that white-ish stuff that connects the peel to the flesh of the fruit itself.  I then started thinking about how, in all of human history, I am of the first generation that has lived to enjoy the experience of eating an orange without the detriment of having to spit out seeds (or worse, accidentally swallow one and start choking).  This thought astounds me.

I am not a great figure of history (yet), and still I am one of the privileged few who do not have to spit seeds out when eating their fruit.  Every great personage of the past – Martin Luther, Albert Einstein, Gandhi, Queen Victoria, Joan of Arc, Genghis Khan, St. Augustine, Julius Caesar, not to mention Jesus and everyone he met – had to spit out the seeds when they ate a piece of fruit.  From the highest king to the lowest slave, seed-spitting was an activity common to all.  But not for me.  No sir – I, and those of the modern age, have left the seed-spitting past behind us, and have moved forward into a whole new, genetically altered future.

I have become so accustomed to the joys of seedless fruit that if I find a seed hidden in what I had expected to be a fully seedless produce item, I actually get upset.  I don't throw a tantrum or anything, but I feel as if I had somehow been cheated out of a larger piece of happiness that could have been mine, had I not found that seed in my fruit.  And yet, in this one act of expelling a fruit seed from my mouth, I join in the community of seed-spitters, both great and small, that stretches back from this era of history to the dawn of mankind (and fruitkind) itself.

My point is this: Seedless fruit – If you should find a misplaced seed in there somewhere, think of the billions of great leaders who have gone before you who lowered themselves to the act of expelling such seeds from their mouths, and appreciate your unique blessing in being offered the opportunity to partake in something that truly is something new under the sun.  I bet you'll never look at a seedless orange the same way again.