Creationist "Science"

Creationism, that is "young Earth creationism" (YEC), is something of an oddity to me, not least for the reason that I hold fairly stringent atheist views. First cobbled together by an 17th century clergyman named James Ussher, it falls within the realm of oddball points of view which I find incomprehensible in the context of our modern age (which also would include the Flat Earth Society, Smokers who refuse to believe in the harm of cigarettes, those who believe in WMD are yet to be found in Iraq, and "Sarah Palin-for-President"). If Jerry Springer has achieved anything, is that the tapestry of society is vast, layered, and sometimes willing to through a jumping high-kick at their wife's mullet-headed lover in front of millions of daytime viewers. But, I digress.

Despite being abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept in the 19th century, YEC continues to enjoy substantial support. According to Citizendium.org, "...despite the fact that creationism has generally been rejected by scientists, it has a strong following within the United States and many Muslim nations. 2 Gallup polls conducted in 1991 and 1997 in the United States found that approximately 45% of the population seemed to believe in young earth creationism..." Other reports are less encouraging. Since it is basically a position indisputably rooted in the literal truth of the Bible, it is by definition inconsitent with the principles of scientific objectivity and therefore a position of faith. Generally, starting from an endstate and then digging up whatever you can to support it and ignoring that which does is generally bad science, but this is precisely what Answers in Genesis , a leading supporter of what is termed creation science, does (as do a number of other creation science organizations, including all of those listed here.)

I recently sent an email to one of these places in order to request that they explain their use of the word science in their title, in light of the above, rather than simply being a position of faith (which makes more sense). In a sermon-like reply, one member of their board rambled about how

"...creation is a “belief system” that fits the facts of the present world,
but that macroevolution is a “belief system” that the facts have failed. I
believe in creation BECAUSE of the evidence. Unfortunately, I see many people,
like Dawkins (who doesn’t even know how life got going), BELIEVING in the whole
macroevolutionary story IN SPITE of the evidence....Once one understands what
the evidence would look like if creation were true, there’s know doubt that the
fossils support creation. I guess that’s why Darwin said the worst part of
his theory was the fossils themselves. I guess that’s also why Darwin was hoping
the evidence from the fossils (for evolution) would be found in the years to
come"

Actually, Darwin used the fossil record to support his theory, but I digress. He also made the point that "...that Darwin’s ONLY earned degree was in theology? He knew what the evidence for creation would be." I replied that nothing had really been answered, and that one could not really insert fairies wherever there were anomalies in data not explained by theories. It prompted the following angry reply:

Creation is based on what we do know in genetics. Creation is based on what we
do understand in information science. Evolution is based on some "super-natural"
chemistry we've never observed. Evolution is based on what we don't know, what
we haven't found. It contradicts everything we HAVE OBSERVED. It is no more than wishful thinking. Listen, you are welcome to BELIEVE in macroevolution is you
want, but please, please don't call that science! Please don't expend your
energy spewing out rubbish that creation isn't scientific and that evolutionism
is. If you don't want to put up the evidence, if you don't want to come and see
the evidence for yourself, if you want to continue wallowing in your own
self-ignorance, then we have NO time for such exchanges. Sorry for the
bluntness, but we get e-mails like yours every day and we grow tired of the
intellectual emptiness inherent such attempts to censor good evidence

I am pleased that they invested so much time on my email, considering they get them each day (some of which, I imagine, were not nearly so polite as my own). However it is clear I've given a sore sport a good wack. Their amateur observations of geology, or genetics, have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal that I am aware of.

I then received another mail from a sort of travelling expert on Creationist "science" (http://www.ianjuby.com/), who had been forwarded my email from creationist #1. He responded with his own two cents in a slightly more levelheaded (if wrongheaded) way.

With due respect, evolution requires violation of well established scientific and natural laws (i.e., the laws of biogenesis, thermodynamics,and all observable science performed with regards to genetics andinformation), and as such evolution is neither scientific, nor natural, but supernatural by very definition of the word.

Actually, it's entirely consistent. To answer his little tidbits: Biogenesis, a theory (I suppose in his meaning) that life can only arise from life, is largely discredited by mainstream science. He may also mean abiogenesis, but this is currently considered a fundamental building block theory for evolution. And, there is nothing to suggest that evolution violates any of the three laws of thermodynamics, as...these are laws and invioable. Assuming that he is referring to the problem of entropy, this is not a problem as the Earth and the organisms that live upon it are not a closed systems where energy is concerned. It points to a fundamental misunderstanding of 1st year physics, which one may construe as wilful ignorance.


Another of his articles on the subject deep geologic pressure supports the proposition that these are amateurs playing out of their depth. Here the author feels that, should the earth - in fact - be millions of years old, then the intense pressure that we measure at depths in rock would, in fact, have dissipated by now. This argues very strongly about what is known about the law of gravity, let alone with what is known about the geologic structure of the Earth. It may be that he has raw data that suggests that gravity dissipates over time, but I am not aware of it being published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal.

By this time, I felt this was getting out of hand and that my name was being circulated through the wider creationist community. Fundamentalists have been known to act rashly when offended, so I sent an apology for offending their belief system, and a resolution to "agree to disagree". This was not enough for the owner of the museum, who sent me the following (Italics and caps attributed to author):

You have the chance to know the truth, but are willing ignorant. How are you going to explain this one to Him. Ross and if I may suggest reading the New Testament. I hear it's beautiful in Ottawa this time of year, That is where you are
from isn't. May God bless you and yours greatly if your willing to learn
the TRUTH! HN. p.s. Yes Ross we can know the truth if we are willing
to look at ALL THE EVIDENCE!

I have yet to see any credible evidence to suggest our ancestors rode a triceratops whilst hunting brontosaurs either, but this presumably fits squarely in the YEC framework. Since I am not certain if there is a veiled threat in the second-last sentence fragment in the above, I decided that discretion is the better part of valour and quietly removed my stick from the proverbial hornet's nest.

For all the efforts that YEC devotees have made to act as if their work is supported by science, their behavior suggests that they are, in fact, members of a church that feels increasingly marginalized in world surrounded by the products of science (i.e. both knowledge, and technology). While I am always aghast at the sort of traction such views have in the US, I think - in the end - reason will prevail and perhaps such views deserve our pity.

Palinological Puzzle

The Republican political machine suffered a bit of shock recently with the resignation of Sarah Palin from her position as Governor of Alaska, well over a year before the 2010 Gubernatorial Election. As a former vice-presidential candidate and a potential hope in the 2012 Presidential election her name has become a byword for catastrophic misjudgement - something demonstrated by the McCain campaign in selecting her, and something she herself demonstrated in a series of television interviews among other things. The public felt early on that an aging President paired with an attractive, but otherwise ill-equipped running mate was just one of that campaign's many problems.

As can be seen in the chart at right, Governor Palin's initial popularity with Alaskans began to decline shortly after assuming office at the start of 2007. Her peformance in the media during the 2008 Presidential campaign entirely failed to excite much in the way of "approval" for her, and a series of very public ethics investigations seem to have set the course for the bottom. Of course, she still had greater than 50% approval at her nadir, so it is clear she has a strong core that must have faith in her despite her many political missteps. One does not need to run a regression model to predict where this trend is likely to go in a single year.

It is too soon to tell if her recent and somewhat perplexing decision will sustain the momentum of her run for complete political oblivion. Certainly, her confused and rambling resignation speech suggests that yes, that is indeed her goal. One gets the impression that her experience in the political realm has left her bitter and resentful, and confused as to why everyone didn't like her.

There has been speculation that this might simply be a ploy to position herself vis-a-vis the 2012 Presidential Election. She herself as indicated that that is likely in the cards, but there has been in the past a Draft Palin campaign that still seems to have legs. Who knows? Perhaps after four years of trying to become an enlightened liberal democracy that makes separation of church and state a matter of policy, that seeks to address global issues in a proactive and constructive way with its international partners, that has begun to address some of the festering inequalities amongst its citizens, American voters will become sick of it and feel ready to regress once more.

Car Shows of the 80s.

The 80s have been back in vogue for some time now, and we may very well be coming to the end of our fascination with that decade. Certainly, when I was a teenager anything reeking of those years was uncool, but now that same item would have cachet, if for the moment (judging by the continuing popularity of 80s-themed nights at bars, it might be a while...)

One odd quirk that continues to fascinates me regarding that dead decade is its weird fascination with novelty cars on crimefighting television shows. It was as if do-gooders on their own had become uninteresting, and required a motorized helping hand. No doubt, the idea had its germ in movies (i.e. in James Bond and the Batmobile) but it is worth taking a review of some of the instances of this bizarre practice that flowered on American television through the 80s.

Perhaps the earliest glimpse of his phenomenon can be found in the the Dukes of Hazzard, which ran from 1979 to 1985. As you may recall, this was a show about a couple of white kids (Bo and Luke) in an all-white southern town who drove a 1969 Dodge Charger with a confederate flag painted on the roof that they named the General Lee. They had been caught smuggling moonshine at the outset of the series and were thus forced to spend the remainder of all of the shows on probation. So, while they continued to outfox the law in the form of Sherriff Roscoe, they would paradoxically solve crimes with the aid of the "General". In every episode this supercar would be used to drive recklessly and jump some form of obstacle, most commonly a gully, in order to escape from pursuers (usually the hapless Roscoe, above).. The boys did not wear white hoods and the car did not have KKK on the side, which in light of everything else about the star of the show, is kind of odd.

The General Lee, while the true soul of DoH, it was simply a garish muscle car that could go quickly, which-if silly - is hardly astonishing. Forutunately for us, Scientists at the Television Premise Research Institute in Hollywood, Ca, worked around the clock while DoH soared in the ratings. Their diligence achieved a major conceptual breakthrough with Knight Rider, a program which endowed a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am with real artificial intelligence, a sense of humor and an immortal soul. Named KITT, this vehicular wunderkind's primary mission would was to solve crimes and sometimes jump gullies (which is the first thing I would task a completely self-aware artificial intelligence, wouldn't you?) with the aid of his rather lifeless costar, David Hasselhoff. KITT also had telekinetic-like powers, could tell bad jokes, and had ejection seats all of which would come in handy in crime fighting. In most cases, the Hoff would always take all the credit, largely because testimony from cars is inadmissable in court. This show began its slow decline during its second season when it introduced a sort of bizzaro KITT named KARR as an evil arch enemy. Rather then creating a really badass evil enemy, based on say - a Mustang, KARR looked exactly the same (it should be noted that the Hoff also had an evil twin arch villain in the series). This was probably symptomatic of a lack of imagination that would go on to sink what was, talking cars aside, simply a rather mediocre detective drama.

Due to the limitations of the real world, and special effects budgets, advanced new development of the novelty car concepts had be addressed through the medium of cartoons. In 1984, a cartoon called Pole Position brought not one, but TWO talking/flying/floating cars with many gadgets to America's aresanal of crimefighting cars. Under the guise of the "Pole Position Stunt Show", a secret government agency sent youthful, unlicensed novely car drivers to stop evil villains from doing bad things. It was put out of its misery at the end of its first season as a result of a pending lawsuit from a video game maker with a product of the same name, as well as predictably low ratings.

An embattled world would see its next vehicular savior appear in the form of Turbo Teen, a cartoon that broadened the scope of what we consider "super powers" to include the ability to turn oneself into a Camaro. Evidently, invulnerability, super strength, telepathy and other unworldly abilities are overkill as all one needs is a full tank of gas. Unfortunately, TT's robbing of virtually every idea that hapless writers of Knight Rider had earlier cobbled together over late-night coke-snorting sessions suggested that a "cease-and-desist" order may have been instrumental in the show's demise after a single season. Okay, maybe a lack of viewership (besides my much younger self) and witless plotlines might have also helped. A good deal of internet chatter nominates the show as the worst cartoon ever, and it's safe to say they are probably correct.

At this point in the narrative, few crimefighting shows lack a signature vehicle that may or may not have special powers. The ridiculous premise of the A-Team would be incomplete without the the A-Team Van. Possibly the same group of writers would also have us believe that a Ferrari is reasonable on a vice cop's salary (though to be fair, Miami Vice also showcased expensive boats). Really, at least Magnum benefited from Higgins largesse. Examples about in the historical record.

But at some point, it must have begin to seem silly in the face of the paradigm shift in pop culture that occurred at the end fo the decade. Television moved on to primetime soap operas and shows about government conspiracies in which characters drove very pedestrian vehicles that rarely said a word.

There was once a time, before we gave a hoot about the climate and our ability to change it, where conspicuous consumption of gasoline was the hallmark of a successful television detective. May those times never return.

Fine print...

Ottawa is a political town. It is impossible too walk to far without seeing some of the detritus of Canada's political life pushed in your face. Usually you see it, you laugh at it, and move on. Sometimes, it's not quite so easy.

This past week, while undertaking my lunchtime constitutional in stfiling Sahara-heat that is the Ontario summer, I had the following handed to me:

To give some sense of scale: the object in question is roughly 3 inches high by 4 inches long, similar to those that you might see advertising a club show, and first glance the colours suggest a circus, or carnival-type event. On closer viewing, it would appear that it is in fact a political ad, criticizing an as yet (at the time of writing) unreleased tax policy to be proposed by the federal Liberal party of Canada. There are quotes purporting to be a myriad of reviews of the policy, though they are only from something called the "Times and Transcript" (if you've heard of this publication I commend the breadth of your reading) and Sun Media. Indeed, they seem to be reaching the bottom of the review-barrel here. At the bottom there is a link to a website, http://www.willyoubetricked.com/, which is done up in similar colours and has a certain juvenile cleverness.

"Who might have put together this marketing masterpiece?" I asked myself as I skimmed the website. No doubt one of the Liberal competitors...however, there was no immediate "vote for X" indications anywhere. A-ha, a clear rank amateur, I thought - some kind of Madison newbie enjoying beginner's luck. Then I looked back to the card for some evidence and upon closer inspection:

No apologies for quality-further zooming would be pointless. Why? Well, the actual attestation has been smudged so that you can't make it out. Printing error? Doubtful. If you stare at it long enough, you will get an idea of what it is - rather like those 3-d digital drawings that were so popular back in the 90s. I was somewhat taken aback that someone would be ambiguous in establishing their association with this creative masterwork. Seeing as there were so many of these pamphlets littering the downtown, I would have thought that whoever printed them them would want to stand up like a man, given the environmenal sacrifice.

More likely, whoever sponsored this would like to keep their association minimal as it is truly ridiculous. It's so silly as to make any serious dicussion of the issues farcical, . The credibility of the party involved will be eroded, and theirde facto spokepeople will become the talking inkblots on the website. It's a little like George Bush nominating Spongebob Squarepants to be his spokesperson on Iraq (though, this may be an improvement). Certainly, placing them at gas pumps across Ontario will help establish them in our mind's eye.

In any case, as you may have made out by now, this appears to Authorized by an Agent for one of the err...main parties of our venerable democracy. I am pleased to see that they seek to engage the citizenry on the issues in a manner that has all the youth and vigor typical of a college fraternity. Certainly, as an uninformed bumpkin on this controversial issue, I can feel rest assured that before long I will have absorbed enough agitprop to take a stand.

A frictionless, slippery slope,

I am certain that I shock no one when I say that civilization has generally treated the environment with all the care of Vikings at a nunnery. The 20th century, in particular, has seen us taking from the world whatever we feel we need for ourselves, and then viewing the remnant as a convenient wastebasket for what we can't use. One only needs to review the historical record on biodiversity (the passenger pigeon, the dodo, the yangtze river dolphin, the amazon, etc...), air quality, water quality, the ozone layer to get an idea of how well we're doing. To be fair, much of the damage came at a time when we could not conceive of the eventual negative impacts of our action, but we have now reached a stage in our development that we should be applying thorough due diligence as we launch new projects and products. Or, we like to think so.

U.S. Patent # 2,230,654, poly(tetrafluoroethene), has gotten a bit of a bad rap, as of late. Most, would be more familiar with it under its registered trademark name of Teflon, produced by the Du Pont corporation. Invented by accident in the 1930's when a researcher was trying to invent a new kind of CFC refrigerant (I hope the irony here is lost on noone), it has become rather ubiqitous in our culture. Besides covering our cookware to keep our food from sticking when it's being fried, we use it to cover bearings, bushings, computer mice, bullets, most of the Millenium Dome, Gore-Tex, and many others. Generally speaking, it's inertness and low coefficient of friction(the lowest of any known substance) make it an incredibly useful chemical for a range of applications.

That being said, it should be noted that the chemistry of teflon is so complex that many scientists don't quite understand what gives it its special properties. As it has been covered extensively in the news as of late, most people have been made aware that when heated past 500 degrees Celcius (which a typical frying can easily achieve whilst sitting on a burner), Teflon will begin to break down and release chemicals in a gaseous form. In addition to showing up in the blood and tissues of anyone who has ever used a non-stick pan, these chemicals show up in high concentrations in workers from Du Pont's teflon factory, and to a lesser extent in ever man, woman and child in North America. Even polar bears, a species not historically known for frying its catch, have been found to have measureable concentrations in their tissues. The presence of these chemicals in higher concentrations has been linked to increased risk of cancer, hypothyroidism, and in polymer fume fever in very high doses. Amongst our innocent animal colleagues, birds apparently are hypersensitive to teflon-particles - minutes exposures can harm or kill them. This article examines teflon-related health issues in some detail.

Du Pont itself, along with seven other companies who manufacture the product, has itself gradually come around to this point of view, helped on its way by a class-action lawsuit. As I write, it is speedily working to remove all the harmful chemicals from its manufacturing process by....err...2015. However, the intended replacement appears to break and produce petroflourocarbons (PFCs) which have their own, rather nasty, health and environmental effects.

This has become an unsettling refrain that plays frequently through the course of twentieth-century history. DDT pesticides, CFC refrigerants, Bisphenol A - so many products that were found to have great utility that were later found to have unintended, and unfortunate, side-effects as we over- and misuse it and then flush it into the environment.

Anyway, I'm losing focus. The above was really meant as a bit of a preamble...

I was forced to shake my head in frustration recently, while shopping at a Canadian Tire store here in Ottawa. Whilst standing at the checkout, my gaze happened to fall upon the odds and ends of the cashout sale racks, which included the usual collection of batteries, excel gum, stuffed-animal keychains, and this. Yes indeed, it's Motomaster Premium windshield washer fluid with Teflon®! Not only does it melt and remove dirt, ice, grime and grease - it also reduces windshield friction for a cleaner wipe. And if that isn't enough to make you buy, be aware that it reduces chatter (whatever that is) and works perfectly to -45C, making it perfect for those Canadian winters. Truly, a windshield washer fluid for the new millenium.

Of course, little mention is made of what the impact of all that teflon is if it fails to land on your windshield. Issues with the host fluid aside, it strikes me as one of the easiest ways to send teflon into the groundwater table, and subsequently into potable water and the human food chain. I dread to think what the future outcome of hundreds of thousands motorists doing their darndest to make their windshields frictionless with this stuff. It's as if we've chosen to fire a bullet vertically into the air, blissfully refusing to think about the possibility of it ever coming down.

I can't in good faith argue for a complete ban on Teflon - its special properties and uses would make that an unreasonable proposition. My point is intended to address its abuse, over- and misuse.

On the other hand...as Tevya would say....our bodies are already loaded with the results of so many of our shortsighted inventions, what's one more?

Flat Smokers Society

O tobacco! Your glorious pedigree of shamans, kings, cranks, explorers, chiefs and heroes who drew upon your heavenly smoke has been thrown into the spitoon of history by the cold weight of scientific evidence.

It didn't take that long after its introduction, either. In 1604 diatribe, King James himself wrote that smoking was, "...a custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmfull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." And aside from that unnecessary reference to hell, the good King more or less hit it on the head. But the effects wouldn't really make themselves into a serious epidemic before the mass production of cigarettes in the Victorial era, and really before World War I. Whiling away the ennui in the trenches between engagements, soldiers were customarily provided cigarettes as part of their ration. At the outset of "All Quiet on the Western Front", the protagonist, Paul, explains how he has managed to beg, borrow and steal 80 cigarettes from his fellow soldiers - roughly what it would take to get him through the day.


Anyway, before long we had something similar to what appears in the chart at right. Lung cancer, previously a rare condition, began to grow in incidence in the population on a twenty year lag with the growth in cigarette consumption. Statistical analysis aside, the chart is a rather stark representation of the negative health impacts of smoking. Of course, if you have a few free hours, the whole spectrum of known tobacco-related ailments can be perused at this wiki. To date, there have been thousands on thousands of studies linking this behavior to cancer and other diseases. In economic terms, various studies have estimated lost productivity and health costs to be somewhere between $7 and $40 per pack.

What I'm saying here shouldn't come as a surprised to anyone. The first government-sponsored anti-smoking campaigns in North America began as early as 1964 at the Surgeon-General's behest, and have since become almost ubiqitous. As long as I've been able to watch television, or string latin characters together to form words, I and the rest of the North American population has been bombarded with anti-smoking public service messages. Celebrities from all walks of life were drafted to save the children including an unlikely pair of Star Wars adventurers. One might question the believability of tobacco's presence in a galaxy far, far away or even the lack of studies of nicotine's impact on 'droids, but to a North American child growing up in the eighties, the message would have been clear and powerful.

All this rests in addition to restrictions on the locations available to smokers to indulge, the tombstone warnings now mandatory on every pack saying that horrible consequences are inevitable should you smoke it to its inevitable conclusion, and the gradual end of the formerly uber-prevalant tobacco advertising. The end result has been that as of 2004, half of all North American adults who have ever smoked have successfully quit, and the incidence of smoking in the population as a whole had dropped by about 10 percent between 1970 and 1995 (as an aside, its use continues to grow substantially in the developing world - so much so, that the World Health Organization considers it the single biggest cause of premature death worldwide). Philip Morris has made the case that this will only lead to increased costs to social services as increasing numbers of non-smokers live longer (non-peer reviewed study), but I shan't get into that discussion now.

But, those of us who haven't lived inside a tree for the last thirty years know all this, so you are no doubt wondering where Oatmeal is going with all this stuff?

Well, if Jerry Springer has proven nothing else, it's that the outer fringes of Western society are awash with bizarre people and notions (though in some ways that can be said of Western society - save that for another post). It should therefore come across as no surprise to anyone that there is a fairly active cadre of conspiracy theorists who feel that anti-smoking activism is nothing less than pure, Soviet-era propaganda. That is, in the most pure definition, it presents mostly truthful information, omitting certain aspects so that the observer comes to specific conclusions such as, that tobacco is unhealthy.

Now in a sense that can be said to be true of all public messaging intended to increase or decrease the incidence of certain types of behavior (such as drunk driving, for example). Many of these presentations can be said to lack the clear nuances that one might see in a peer reviewed paper. But frankly, a picture of a lung rotten with cancer sends a far more effective message than a pie chart with mortality statistics. They are ends to a social goal whose rewards to society have already been well established.

The movement to restore the respectability of smoking and scrape away the taint left behind by thousands of science based studies has numerous berths on the ether, my favorite being Smoking Aloud. If you spend too much time reading their main page, you may find yourself kicking yourself for not indulging in the health benefits of smoking all this time. While they invest all kinds of room on their website criticizing years of research, while their latest post reads like the front page of the National Enquirer, rather reminding one of that time Bigfoot was seen jamming with Elvis. The Libertarian arguments found on the page regarding personal choice have no place in a society where health care is publicly funded, but that is another topic for further discussion.

The Flat Earth Society was composed of individuals stricken with similar issues. Writing at the end of the 19th century, Samuel Rowbotham produced a thesis turning the physical world on its head. Starting as a project to insulate his literalist biblical belief system from reality, Sammy devised a model for reality which did away with the arrogant "Globo-centric" world that everyone thought had been comfortably established by that time. Instead, humanity existed on a giant platter while the known universe, a mere 3,000 miles away, spun about its environs like a garnish (perhaps this is in the bible, I'm not sure). Having spent time creatively devising explanations that somehow explained and supported it with rather dubious "scientific" experiments. He and his followers even managed to debate it successfully against more traditional researchers who had the combined weight of hundreds of years of data from astronomical observations and circumnavigations on their side.

Rowbowtham's movement continues to this day, in no less freakish a form, defying reason to strike it down. Sadly, it doesn't, but it does make a point with regards to humanity's desire to lie to itself. Cognitive dissonance is a state in which reality argues with one's assumptions causing anxiety unless the argument is somehow resolved. It is a tool, really, that has helped human society evolve and jump forward, by helping our intelligence integrate radical new ideas, like evolution, the Copernican universe, or the negative health impact of a formerly-beloved habit. At other times, though something goes awry, and we need to grasp at straws rather than move forward.

Caribou on the scene.

Ottawa is just big enough that we get a share of musical talent dropping in on their way to Toronto from Montreal, or vice versa. While the big Dinosaur-rcok names are all over the news lately (I note the Police, Rush, etc...), I think it's worth noting some of lesser-knowns coming through town. This past long weekend, we bureaucrats were the lucky recipients of shows from electro-pop talent Chromeo (to which tickets were impossible obtain) and also ambient-rocker Caribou.

Why Caribou, you might ask? Isn't that a subarctic-dwelling dear that call to each other using a series of grunts and snorts? "Hmmmm...that doesn't sound like anything I might like to listen to", you might say, "I much prefer a nice recording of bird sounds". Well, as a matter of fact, this is the musical project of one Daniel Victor Snaith, a supremely creative individual with a Ph.d in Maths from London's Imperial College, who just happens to be have a blind spot for band names. A previous endeavour was called "Manitoba".

I've only recently been turned on to the music of Caribou, whose musical style resembles something akin to early Syd-Barret-era Floyd, a comparison aided by a psychedelic backdrop and spacey ambience of his live show at the Babylon nightclub. Though this may be unfair, as it pigeonholes what is really varied, catchy and engaging music. Currently, Snaith and his band are in support of their latest album, playing a show every single evening of their lives since the start of September 2007, with short breaks for transcontinental flights. Do catch this aural phenomenon, ideally before they collapse from exhaustion.