In Loving Memory of My Dear Little Samus

I have always believed that the salvation of mankind lies in our ability to feel compassion. Whether that be compassion for other human beings or for other creatures on this Earth. We share our homes with animals both large and small, and for a short while, I had two such companions. One remains with me to this day, but I fear the other has gone to a better place.

I will always remember the day I brought little Samus home. So small and fragile, he became a member of my family. With his claws dug snugly into my shirt, and eagerly looking around at the new world before him, I introduced him to my home and other cat, Artemis. It was with me that he would live for the next year and a half.

Having two cats, like having little children, was both joyous and frustrating at the same time. I'll admit there were times when I wished the two of them would just sit quietly in their own corners, but mostly I loved both cats as much as I have ever loved any other living being. They were like my own children, and I loved them both.

Samus was always the playful one. He loved to run around, chasing bugs and imaginary friends. I bought a laser pointer one day, and it immediately became his favourite toy. He would chase the little red dot around for hours on end without tiring. Samus slept in my room, because the bed was always warm. One morning I even woke up with him sitting on my head. And although I spent the next hour washing fur out of my mouth and nose, that memory will always remain with me.

Unlike most cats, Samus needed affection like a plant needs water. He soaked it up until he was full and then came back for more. You could never give him enough attention, and it was always difficult to leave him at home for fear he'd spend the whole day crying that no one would hold him or pet him. I used to rub his tummy while he purred loudly. Like a little engine, he was.

And then there came a time when I could no longer care for him. With his growing needs, and my inability to spend the necessary time with him, something had to be done. You have to remember that I never stopped loving Samus. I wanted only what was best for him, and I truly felt that if he were placed in a home where that person could care for him and him alone, he would be better off. He needed more attention and love that I simply could not give. So I began a search for an adoptive home. The requests were many, but most did not follow through or did not seem right. In retrospect, none of them were right for him because I had picked him out of the pet shop. I had chosen him and made him a part of my family. It was never right to put him in someone else's care.

Shortly after I placed the ad, another university student called me and asked if I could meet him and if he could meet Samus. I arranged the meeting and he came by one evening. Samus was reluctant to be held and petted by this new person, as he was with all strangers. Not even my roommate was ever able to hold Samus for long, but he always sat still in my arms. This guy, Scott, seemed to me like a good person. He told me he longed for a cat to care for and that he was almost overflowing with a need to have a cat to love. I believed him.

And so, I put together Samus' belongings, his bed and scratching post, some toys, and a blanket. Scott called a cab and I placed Samus in his arms. He was unhappy to go, away from his kitty brother Artemis, to whom he'd grown very attached, and away from the place he'd learned to call home. That was the last time I ever saw my little Samus.

Last night, I received some shocking and disturbing news. A young man from B.C. has been going around campus and adopting cats. In the past year, he has adopted several kittens; one has been found dead, and the rest seem to have disappeared. My contact and an investigator at the SPCA both believe he has either killed them, left them to fend for themselves on the streets, or sold them to laboratories for research. I am pursuing the matter further but I fear the worst may have befallen my dear little Samus.

I want Samus to be remembered, and I ask that you remember him too. For within our hearts he will always remain, as a treasured and loved member of my family. Artemis remains with me, and together we will remember the little kitten who made us all a family. Samus, I miss you, I love you, and we will never forget.

Oh the humanity!!

So I'm sitting at work, casually browsing the web for news, funny stories, etc when I stumble upon a story that makes me sick to my stomach. "Paris as Mother Teresa?" WTF?! No seriously, WTF?!

It never ceases to amaze me how repeatedly stupid movie executives really are. I can see it now, the director is in the producers' office on the nth floor of their Hollywood skyscraper in downtown L.A. He's pitching his idea for a movie...

"And we could have Paris Hilton play Mother Teresa! She'd be great! Not only is she ridiculously blonde, but she will have no problem being celibate during shoots since she'll be out making porno at night to be distributed on the web!"

There's no end. Every year we are subjected to the idiocy of movie executives. I swear to god they probably sit around in their cushy offices trying to devise ways of making the most idiotic, mind-numbing movies out there. Or better yet, they continuously allow terrible directors to continue directing. Uwe Boll, for example, is the epitome of bad directing. His latest flick, BloodRayne, based on the game of the same name, is a horrendous attempt to translate an action-packed video game to the big screen. You should note that it scored a pitiful 5% on the tomatometer on RottenTomatoes.com. This is on the heels of Uwe Boll's other movie disasters like Alone in the Dark (1% on the tomato-meter) and House of the Dead (6% on the tomato-meter). When critics and audiences alike both hate (and I stress the word "hate") a director's movies, why do producers insist on releasing them anyways? I'm sure that the executives are holding out in the hopes that he might maybe produce something good, but c'mon! When 2 out of 3 bomb, you cut 'em loose! Buh bye! Adios! Sayonnara! In my honest opinion, Uwe Boll should be permanently banned from using a camera of any kind to spare us the pain.

The latest in movie executives' blunders: disallowing advance screenings of films they know critics will hate. Their justification for this is as follows: even though critics will almost certainly bash the movie, audiences will go anyways because these are the types of films that draw people who don't even bother with reviews. That sounds logical, but if that's the case, then what the fuck are you guys doing producing movies that will elicit this kind of response in the first place?! Seriously, movie producers are really a bunch of dumb fucks hoping for a good movie now and then.

What's funny is that they actually expect that. They honestly expect that only a couple in several movies will do well at the box office. Isn't that sad?! It's sad. Very very sad indeed. Hell, some studios even told Pixar that they had to stop producing consistently good movies because it was ruining their "pattern". Pixar, which spawned Finding Nemo (98% on the tomato-meter) and The Incredibles (97% on the tomato-meter), was coming out with excellent movies each and every time. They were fresh, original, and cool.

This is not to say that almost all movies made are trash-worthy. Quite a few are actually engaging. Take this previous Oscar-season as an example. Movies like Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Capote, and Munich all exemplified the essence of true film-making. If there's a message in here, it's that studio executives really need to pay attention to what they're paying for. They really need to start learnin' the difference of what is worth seeing and what is worthless.

Alpha Dogs

Y'know what? Students lie. A LOT. They do, and yes, it's normal. All students want is to be recognized for their efforts (or lack thereof), they want to be patted on the back and told they did a good job. But in the pursuit of said, and often imaginary, happiness they must compete with their friends, colleagues, and schoolmates. You can't be in the top 5 percent of the class if you don't knock out (haha, bio jokes are fun-neee!!) those who would also be at the top of the bell-curve. It just doesn't happen.

So why then do students insist on competing to be the most non-chalant, cocky, arrogant, prick on the block? Because it makes you look cool, that's why. I find that when I get to class the day an assignment's due, one of the first things you'll hear (other than, "Dude, I got so hammered last night!") is, "by the end of the night, I fully didn't care about this assignment!" That, my friend, is a lie. A flat out lie. Don't deny it, just accept the truth of it (ah, the irony of it all).

The truth is, you did care about that assignment, even if it was only worth 10 percent of your grade. You cared because it might save your ass later when you bomb the final exam. You care more than you care to admit. It's a funny thing students do. So why tell it then? Why lie every time an assignment is due? Because it makes you cool. And how does it make you cool? It makes you cool because you can then be the guy (or girl) who did the assignment, is going to score really well on it, and all without tearing out your hair at the last minute (which you probably did anyways).

We compete with each other all the time. And we do it without even realizing it. It's like the boys in the playground who used to say, "Yeah, well my Daddy can do this!" to which the other boy would reply, "Yeah? Well my Daddy can do it better!" And so forth until fact becomes fiction. Now take that conversation and make it about how much work you have to do. It would go something like this:

"Man, I have so much work to do this week! I have an assignment due tomorrow, a midterm next week, and I have to clean the apartment because my roomie's being such a nazi about the mess!"
"Oh yeah? Well I've got 2 assignments due this week, midterms right up until finals, and I have so much work to do on my thesis!"

Ok, so it's a little exaggerated, but you get the picture. Students are always trying to one-up each other. And to what end? Does it make you cooler to seem like you have more work to do? That by having these "battles" you can realize just how much goddamn work you actually have to do? Competition is the basis for these actions. The whole point of a competition is to win. So if you can outlast your friends in terms of work and how busy you are, then you gain rank and status. It's human nature to want to be the top dog, the Alpha Male (and I'm going to focus here on men simply because they're thicker and more likely to rely on gut instincts than to actually think things through...just kidding; all of this applies to women too). Now assuming that this is all true, and that competition is the reason for this type of behaviour, then what is the status gained? The answer is: social importance. To say one is busy and overloaded with work, is to say that one is someone of importance. Think about it. If you have meetings to attend, papers to draw up, and deadlines to meet, then you can assume that person is someone of importance right? To rely so much on one person and to give them so much responsability implies that they are capable and competent people. By singling out these people with so much shit to do, we make them seem important. Now try suggesting that someone who is incapable and unimportant do all these important things. Can you picture that? I bet you can't.

Look at the people walking down the street in their expensive (or rather cheap but expensive-looking) suits. Do they seem important to you? They may at first glance, but think about it a little more. They're probably just regular joes who want to appear important because they think it will get them that big fat bonus at Christmas. Nowadays, we strive to achieve this state of importance through books. We read books about how to be that better business person, how to be the Alpha Dog. How many books out there rely on Alexander the Great's teachings? Or on Sun Tzu's Art of War? Natural born leaders write these books because they know people will snatch them up, creating mass profits for the authors. Take Donald Trump, for example. Business men all over the world look up to him, trying to learn every aspect of his stratagem so that they may become successful billionaires, just like Mr. Trump.

This is not to say that there aren't actually any people out there who are successful, and who are important. It's just that the fake ones outnumber the real ones.

We, as burgeoning members of society, are learning how to hone our skills. We are learning how to become integral parts of the work-force. Most importantly, we are learning how to survive. What is interesting is that to survive in the work-force, you must learn to play the game. That is what we are doing here, that is what we are learning through these back-and-forth interactions with our peers. Competition on the kiddie field is just practice for the big showdown on national television. So the next time you're sitting in class waiting to hand in your latest assignment, don't lie to your friends about how little you cared about the assignment, just tell the goddamned truth.

Music Ain't My Thing

I'm sure you all have friends who have specific aptitudes for certain forms of media. Some are awesome with movies and cinema, while others are great with art. A great many, however, love music. All kinds of music.

As a university student, you find yourself among other students who have varying tastes in music. Some like it hard and raw, others enjoy it soft and silky. Preferences for the under-appreciated and unknown abound, while many are content to be carried along by the mass-produced media. Oftentimes, people will fight -usually without knowing it- to be the one who introduced so-and-so's music to their friends, as though knowing obscure and unsigned bands makes them somehow better than the rest. Where does that leave me? Well, I'll be honest and simply say that my taste in music is an amalgamation of anything and everything.

The thing is, I just don't care that much. I've tried to be original in finding new music to listen to instead of simply taking the hits from radio shows, but that never worked. I was always lapsing back into music that was familiar and comfortable to me. Music reviews in magazines and internet articles just don't tell me anything that I need to know. They really should include sound clips so that you can really know what they're talkin' about.

I also happen to have a lot of international friends, so their tastes in music are often based on music produced in their home countries. One friend of mine insists Jay Chou is worth listenin' to, though I highly disagree (Chinese rap just doesn't do anything for me). Another absolutely loves French music. The diversity in international music is so huge that I can't even begin to know where to start. I do, however, have a bit of liking for mando/canto-pop and J-pop.

A couple of years ago, my old roommate got me into electronica and more synthesized music. Bumpin' along to the likes of Juno Reactor and Thievery Corporation, he somehow knew how to slowly integrate this music into my repertoire (but he failed miserably when it came to NIN). I gained an appreciation for new kinds of music through his influence.

During my time at McGill, I had the opportunity to take The Art of Listening, one of the University's bird courses. There, we were introduced to the history of music, and how to listen to music from each period. This class sparked my interest in Vivaldi, and Bach's fugues. I got a chance to appreciate classical music at its core, breaking it down and taking each sound as something akin to the strokes of a paintbrush on canvas.

What's really funny, though, is that I grew up on Country music. Garth Brooks, Reba McEntire, Shania Twain, Michelle Wright, and Brooks & Dunn. Those were the artists blarin' out car windows and coming from backyards back home in Calgary. I suppose it ain't that surprising, it being that Calgary is the home of the Calgary Stampede, and is often referred to as Cowtown. My parents were big into Country music, and I had cassette tapes with music from each of those artists and more (yes, I had cassette tapes, I'm that old). One I remember very well is Alan Jackson; I can still see the cover now.

So you can see, my musical taste runs the entire length of the gambit. One day you might catch me listenin' to Shania Twain, and another tappin' my foot to Sneaker Pimps. Hell, I study to Vivaldi's Four Seasons from time to time. On a side note, I need music all the time. It's like an addiction. I can't go anywhere without something to listen to. That's not to say that I can't handle silence, I just prefer some form of entertainment in my head while I walk.

What I'm tryin' to say is this, I don't have that natural knack for finding music that stands out above the rest. I'm much too content drifting along the river that is Popular Music.

Epigenetic Basis for Behaviour

On Thursday, we had a very interesting lecture in my Biol-516 class (Genetics of Mammalian Development) on the epigenetics of behaviour. For those of you not in the know, I'll do a little background first (for the Bio students, however, this will be severely dumbed down so you can probably skip this entry).

Epigenetic refers to something that affects a cell without directly affecting its DNA. An epigenetic change may affect the expression of the genome, ie: the phenotype (what you see as a result of the genes). The epigenetic basis for behaviour therefore refers to the nongenetic effects on the phenotype that is behaviour.

The professor who presented this material was doing work on rats and was interested in the pharmacological aspects of the research. His work consisted of studying rats who exhibited a behaviour called "licking," where a mother rat would lick its progeny and thus affect the behaviour of those offspring. The mothers were divided into two categories: high lickers (HL) and low lickers (LL). The HL mothers produced progeny who would also become HL. The LL mothers would produce progeny who would become LL. At first glance, this looks to be an inherited trait, a parent displays a phenotype and its progeny display a similar phenotype. To test this, the researchers then cross-fostered the progeny. Offspring from HL mothers were given to LL mothers, and vice-versa. At this point, HL mother offspring now with LL mothers became LL. The opposite also held true (LL offspring with HL mothers became HL). It would seem then that this is no longer a heritable trait, but rather one influenced by the behaviour (phenotype) of the parent.

On preliminary inspection, this is not unbelievable. Orphaned siblings raised by different foster parents will often adopt the behaviours of those parents. A closer look at the cellular process behind the licking phenotypes revealed the molecular basis. Licking by the mothers seemed to stimulate an endocrine (hormonal) response. Serotonin is released, initiating its pathway to a protein which I will, for simplicity, call the "licking protein". When manipulated with the use of a drug, the researchers were able to control the behaviour of the progeny, independent of the actions of the mother. In short, behaviour modification through the use of drugs.

You may be wondering why I'm presenting this information to you. The reason for it is this, if there is a "licking protein" (and thus, a "licking gene" as all proteins are the result of genes) could there not perhaps also be an "aggression gene"? And if so, could we control it? What if we were able to delete these genes without adversely affecting the rest of the genome? Would we then have a solution for all the murderers, rapists, and abusive people out there? I suppose it's possible. Years ago, it was inconceivable that cloning might actually be possible, and look now it's become a science project that has captured the attention of the world.

What we need to be thinking about is the ethical basis for such work. Who would benefit from the results? How might the government use this information? What are the legal aspects of this work? Unlike Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs (ie: "Golden Rice"), these procedures could have serious repercussions to the Human Rights Movement. And yet, this is valuable information for those looking to cure themselves of behaviours which might otherwise condemn them to life in prison, or worse. Parents might then be able to screen the DNA of their children for genetic defects, things like overexpression of possible aggression genes. Rather than spend a lifetime popping pills to suppress such urges, why not simply attack the problem at its source? Nip it in the bud, as my friends might say.

Despite the negative consequences of such work, I support the further investigation of our DNA and genomes. Curiosity drives so many of us, academic or otherwise, why suppress the need to know more? Why, without curiosity or a will to go that extra step, we would never be as technologically advanced as we are. Our current level of science permits us to manipulate the world around us. It has given us the ability to cure diseases once thought to be incurable. We can study the evolution of the Universe. Hell, we can even draw pictures with atoms by moving them around one at a time! (Ok, so that last one is not so useful, but it's still amazing.) Some would argue that it's not our place to "play God", manipulating life and matter around us. But until we find evidence for God, why should He have control over our actions? As was proven by the Evolution vs Creationism trials, religion has no place in science. If you're going to use religion as a defense, then do it with issues like sins and the like. Don't bring it into the lab because it will get you no where. But I digress...

My ultimate goal here is to stimulate discussion of the ethics behind this kind of work. Through dialogue, we may yet find a direction for this research and, hopefully along the way, create some guidelines that don't restrict what I would call Human Nature.

And Now...The Counterpoint

Ok, so maybe I was a little harsh in my previous remarks on the qualities of this "distinct society" as someone so eloquently put it. Since such sweeping generalizations are full of holes, I'm going to outline some of the more positive aspects of this province.

Residing in Montreal has several advantages. The first of which is that it is the fashion capital of the country. Here, you can find virtually any fashion being showcased around the world and at, for the most part, half the cost! Need jeans with that old faded look? Or the latest in Uggz boots (please don't mistake this for an endorsement for these hideous examples of footwear, I still despise them)? How about those trendy skirts you saw on the runways over in Milan? You can find all of it right here in Montreal.

For those of you with a sweet tooth, you need only find a Cabane a Sucre. These small cabins serve all manner of foods doused in maple syrup. Like ham? Get some dripping in maple syrup. Hell, you can even buy maple syrup candy if you like! It'll rot your teeth like no one's business, but hey you'll be ridin' that sugar high for hours! But sugar ain't the only thing worth eating here. Smoked meat is also a major commodity in Quebec. Your three stops for smoked meat in Montreal are Reubens, Dunns, and Schwartz's. And don't forget to get some strawberry cheesecake at Reubens! It's to die for.

All across Montreal, you will find restaurants to suit every taste, be that italian, greek, chinese, indian, middle-eastern, or polish (among others). Simply search the restaurant guides online and you will be sure to find what you're looking for. Some of my favourite restaurants around town are: Zen-Ya (sushi), Gibby's (steak), Chez Cora's (breakfast/crepes), L'Academie (dinner), Guido & Angelina's (italian), Arahova (greek), and Keung Kee (chinese).

Let's not forget the myriad of bars, pubs, and clubs in Montreal. Major streets in downtown are home to many of the most frequented bars and clubs in the city! Travel down Crescent street for many of the cities themed-events (F1 weekend, Bavaria Beer festivals, St Paddy's Day), or Saint-Laurent for clubs (Tokyo, Pistol, Buena Note), bars (Sophia, Buddha Bar), and cheap pizza (Madonna's 99cent Pizza)! If the hetero scene doesn't suit you, take a stroll down Saint-Catherine's to The Village, Montreal's gay & lesbian neighbourhood. Here you will find popular clubs like Unity II and Sky Bar. There are also smaller bars where you can sit and enjoy a beer among friends no matter their orientation.

On a side note, the people of Montreal are very very liberal when it comes to things like sexual orientation. Drag queens, gays, and lesbians call this city home in a country where the definition of marriage is believed to be something that ought to be defined by those on whom it really has no effect. Being gay is not only accepted, it is also something to be desired in close friends, something I like to call the "Will & Grace" effect (or Justin & Daphne if you watch QaF).

How many of you have been to Las Vegas? And of those, who had the money to pay to see one of the infamous Cirque du Soleil shows? They're pricey, no doubt about it. But if you live here, you can see a new show almost every year since the Cirque du Soleil headquarters are located right here. Le Grand Chapiteau can be found out in the Old Port of Montreal, a bastion of acrobatics and extreme originality. Tickets go for about $75 a pop, but it's well worth it. If you really want to live it up however, pick up some VIP Tapis Rouge tickets, placing you in the front rows and allowing you to drink as much as you want before the show and during intermission.

Montreal is also home to the world-reknown McGill University, one of the leading research universities in all of Canada. Consistently ranking among the top universities of North American, it is considered the equivalent of Harvard University to the south (you can even get t-shirts with "Harvard: USA's McGill" printed across them). Located right in the heart of the city, McGill University has spawned some of the best research work to date, and some very notable professors and scientists too. For example, Ernest Rutherford did much of his key work here at McGill (he was a physicist, for those of you who aren't Science Majors). The buildings reflect the age and history of the constantly evolving campus. New and old buildings are often juxtaposed in an effort to give students and staff alike access to the most up-to-date facilities all the while allowing them access to some of the oldest records on campus.

Most notable among Montreal's highlights are the many churches placed in and around downtown. One of the most famous of these is Jean Baptist's Oratoire, located high atop the famed Mountain. Seen from most of downtown, it is a testament to the faith and strength of belief of the people of Montreal. However it is not the only church, you can find them on many streets, sometimes crowding businesses out of the much needed space. Another major church worth checking out is Notre Dame, situated in the Old Port. This is the church where, like her or not, Celine Dion was married. Its immense size and majesty will blow you away.

The list goes on and on. Montreal is truly a multi-faceted city where you can find virtually anything and where the culture will sweep you off your feet. The only thing I can say is that you ought to come and visit to see for yourself what Montreal is really all about.