Marcus' World

United Nations Librarian Exam

Today I represented Indonesia at the United Nations.  Not officially, or even audibly.  But I was sitting in Indonesia's  seat.

I was at the UN to take an examination; depending on how I do, the result could be  employment as a UN librarian.   Last fall I applied to the UN while I was looking for new jobs.  They run competitive examinations annually (but not always for library positions).    Once I  got the new job  at Sloan-Kettering, I honestly forgot all about  it.  But at the end of January, I received an invitation to compete in the exam.  I have never considered working for an international organization, but if the opportunity presents itself it would certainly be attractive.  Helen has always wanted to live abroad, and this may be how we do it.

If I do sufficiently well on the exam, I'll be invited to an interview sometime this fall.  If that also goes well, I would be eligible for employment at UN libraries throughout the world.  It's far too early to know how this will turn out, but the experience has already proven to be unique.

The UN provides a sample exam online, and for the last month I've been studying for it and seeking advice from colleagues. ( Scott provided very helpful suggestions for one of the essays.)  Today's test was broadly similar to the sample exam.  It ranged from the mundane ("Describe the pros and cons of charging for library services") to the profound ("Name three ways that the World Wide Web has affected the work of librarians.") 

The test was in two parts--A 45 minute general writing sample, which required summarizing a long-winded passage; and a 3 hours and 45 minute exam that focused on librarianship.  It was  hand-written, and I was a prime candidate for carpal tunnel syndrome by the end of the day.

So, what about Indonesia? The test was in the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly, not in some non-descript room.  The pleasant woman giving us instructions at the lectern was standing in the same spot where President Bush embarrasses his nation every September.  We all used the dorky-looking earpieces so that we could hear her more easily.

I chose Indonesia's seat because it is close to the entrance of the chamber, and was unoccupied.  The woman several places down was in India's spot.  I was also close to the Holy See, Palestine, and the African Union.  All in all, a much more memorable experience than I had anticipated.

Five Year Anniversary

Yesterday was our fifth year wedding anniversary.  Helen and I both took the day off, and had a fantastic time.   

We flirted with the idea of acting like tourists and going to the "Good Morning America" studios in the morning.  But when the cold morning arrived, that did not seem like so much fun.  Helen had already made a sign to increase our chances of getting on TV, of five hearts bouncing next to each other.  Now it's hanging up in the apartment.

Instead of going to Times Square, we just relaxed at home during the morning.  That was nice all by itself.  Because Helen travels for work every week, it feels good just to be home together.

When we did leave, we stayed away for a long time.  The first stop was Caffe Grazie for lunch; it's a cozy neighborhood place that I've always noticed on the 86th Street crosstown bus. Then we headed to Union Square for some shopping, including the requisite visit to Whole Foods. 

All of this was prelude to the day's two main attractions.

Over the weekend Helen got the idea that we should get a side-by-side massage at the Oasis Day Spa.  Once I got her a gift certificate from Oasis, and she really enjoyed her experience.  So yesterday afternoon we indulged in a massage as well as time before and afterward in the relaxation room.  It was a very soothing occasion, and left us well-rested for dinner.

And a fabulous dinner it was--At the Gramercy Tavern, one of New York's finest restaurants.  The service was attentive and the food was delectable.  They even gave us banana muffins for breakfast this morning.

Not many days can be like yesterday. A celebratory splurge once a year is very much in order, however.  Our marriage is the most important thing in my life.  I have greatly enjoyed the first five years, and it is comforting to know that many more years await us.

Wikipedia vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica

Last week I learned about a fascinating study published by Nature in December 2005 that compared the Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, in order to gauge the relative accuracy of the two sources.   For a sample of 42 science topics, the study found that the number of serious errors (i.e., misinterpretation of critical concepts) were identical in both sources.  Wikipedia averaged four less-fatal factual errors per article, while the Britannica had three factual errors on average.  Go here to read the full report.

Nature did not come up with this idea; Ed Felten did a brief  "Wikipedia Quality Check"  in September 2004.  I hope that such investigations are extended, with much larger samples, in all major scholarly disciplines.  It is important to understand if the accuracy of the Wikipedia is always comparable to traditional sources, or if it varies depending on the discipline.

One amusing quote from the Nature report:  "Editors at Britannica would not discuss the findings, but say their own studies of Wikipedia have uncovered numerous flaws."  Hmm--I wish I had been a fly on the wall as those studies were designed.

Wikipedia represents grass-roots encyclopedia development; anyone can log on and fire away about any topic they wish.  Britannica maintains the established approach of developing reference sources, namely contracting with experts to write about various topics.  Nature reports that Wikipedia's founders have moved past their impassioned claims about Wikipedia's inherent superiority to a more mature understanding that it also has flaws.  They have taken steps to make sure that controversial articles cannot be edited endlessly, which should prevent political foes from sitting at their keyboards and erasing each other work.  They are also--horror of horrors!--seeking out experts for some topics.  Less than 10% of the scientists surveyed by Nature write Wikipedia articles, even though over 70% of them have heard of it.

Wikipedia has moved through an initial "messianic" phase into a more realistic "coming down to Earth" phase.  Their model is both promising and beset with potential problems.  Although Wikipedia is maturing, Britannica's pseudo-studies show that the old guard has not yet appreciated that a new era in encyclopedia development has arrived.

Lawrence Summers Resigns from Harvard

Today Lawrence Summers resigned as President of Harvard.  He made too many enemies last year when he said that innate gender differences might explain why less women study math and science.

This is a comment begging thoughtful analysis, and it is certainly worthy of refutation.  (Helen is better at math and science than me.)  But everyone conveniently forgot the context of the original remark: A conference in which Summers was invited to make provocative statements. The safer course for him would have been to offer up politically correct platitudes that do not mean anything.

Today Harvard's left wing is exulting, and thoughtful people of all persuasions (including liberals) are aghast.  It's another triumph of pre-packaged thinking over actual thought.  Those "independent" thinkers in Cambridge have learned well from the man in the White House.

The Case for Impeachment: A Harper's Magazine Event

New York is teeming with opportunities for left-wing gripe sessions.  It's one reason the rents are so high.

The latest example is a forum entitled "Is There a Case for Impeachment?," which will be sponsored by Harper's magazine on March 2.  A call to impeach President Bush is the centerpiece of the March 2006 issue.

I certainly think President Bush should be impeached; the NSA wiretap program is a brazen violation of the Constitution that he swore to uphold.

But even though I support the cause, I am relieved that I have other plans that night.  Otherwise, I would probably attend and come away annoyed, just like I always do for similar events.  All the panelists support impeachment; it will not be an original dialogue, but rather a pre-packaged rally designed to whip everyone into a futile  impeachment frenzy.

Everyone knows that the odds of an impeachment are extraordinarily slim.  Sometimes I think you have to fight anyway, as witnessed by my support of the doomed filibuster of the Alito nomination a few weeks ago.  But here I am not inclined to join the bandwagon, for reasons that are hard to articulate. The Harper's gathering just strikes me as a lame opportunity to vent and bellow, and nothing more.  No quail will be shot, and hopefully not any people  either. But lots of ammunition will be wasted.

Rumsfeld Bobs and Weaves

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was in Manhattan yesterday, to deliver a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations about how the US needs a new media strategy to combat its negative global image.  If that means planting stories in the Iraqi media, it's fine by Rumsfeld.

While he was here, Rumsfeld sat for an interview with Charlie Rose. (The interview is available for 99 cents on Google Video.) The interview started pleasantly enough, until Charlie had the temerity to ask tough questions.  Then Rumsfeld--without doubt one of the smartest members of the Bush administration--exhibited imperial disdain.  Someone forgot to remind him that this was a real interview, and not the pre-packaged set pieces produced over on Fox.

Rumsfeld quickly focused on the catechisms of the conservative media religion: that the media is in love with itself, and only focused on the negative in Iraq. (I guess all that boastful coverage of the initial war campaign, the subsequent elections, and Hussein's capture did not penetrate the Pentagon.)  When Rose protested that journalists are also risking their lives and don't want to weave through the suicide bombers on the way to a hospital opening, Rumsfeld avoided the point.  Rose said, quoting David Halberstam, that Rumsfeld was "shooting the messenger." Rumsfeld deflected the point to something that is indisputably true--That most soldiers  serving in Iraq feel that the media coverage is negative and incomplete.

For the first time ever, soldiers are blogging from Iraq; this is a very important new source of understanding about what is happening.  But I think it is fair to say that soldiers risking their lives for their country want to focus on the positive.  Journalists are not lying when they weave a larger story of suicide bombings and difficult daily living conditions.  When this narrative becomes more positive, journalists shift with it.  At these moments, the Bush team has no compunction at all about using the media to achieve its ends. 

Beware seemingly heartfelt pleas for "balance" in war coverage.  They are actually disgraceful attempts to shape a toothless, jingoistic press.

Guess We Aren't So Hot on this Democracy Thing After All

Today we learned that the United States and Israel are discussing ways to profoundly destabilize the new Hamas government in the Palestinian territories, in hopes of forcing a new election that will remove them from power.  At that point, the more palatable Fatah party would return to  power, hopefully chastened by the humiliation of losing to a terrorist group like Hamas, which is pledged to the destruction of Israel.  The US-Israeli move is not surprising. As always, the question is how to fight terror in such a way that does not simply breed more terror.  I have no confidence that the US will find the answer this time, but hope that I am wrong.

Hamas is morally repugnant, but also a democratically elected government.  And there's the rub.  In the President's fantasy world--or at least, his rhetorical fantasy world--you simply hold a democratic election and all terror melts away. The very real possibility that people will choose terror doesn't pierce this bubble.

But let's be charitable. Perhaps that's just the public face of the administration, and behind the scenes everyone knows that life is more complicated.  I find it very telling that one argument for destabilizing Hamas is that their victory was not that impressive, which means that they do not have a clear mandate.  From the Times story:

"Hamas won 44 percent of the popular vote but 56 percent of the seats, while Fatah won 42 percent of the popular vote but only 34 percent of the seats. The reason? "Fatah ran a lousy campaign," Mr. Shikaki said, and Mr. Abbas "did not force enough Fatah independents to pull out."

If only 76 "independent" Fatah candidates had not run, Mr. Shikaki said, Fatah would have won 33 seats and Hamas 33. In the districts, Hamas won an average of only 39 percent of the vote while winning 68 percent of the seats, Mr. Shikaki said."

Let's think back to the US elections in 2000. However you feel about the debacle in Florida (I say it was stolen), Al Gore indisputably earned more votes than George W. Bush nationwide. In 2004 the president did best John Kerry in total votes, but at a margin of 51%-49%.  These were far from commanding mandates, and yet that is how Bush has governed.  We will probably always be a polarized country, but the administration's "take no prisoners" approach has only made things worse.  It's quite hypocritical for us to now say that Hamas should respect the implications of close victories, when the administration has showed no such respect itself.

Cheney, Get Your Gun

Besides being a great boon to TV comedians, I don't see much lasting effect of the Vice President's accidental shooting of 78 year old lawyer Harry Whittington this weekend.  Many Democrats are trying to spin it into something malevolent, but I think that's absurd.

I love the fact that Cheney initially neglected to pay a $7 fee to hunt "upland game birds."  But the most amusing thing, to me at least, is the outrage of the national media that the story broke in the Corpus Christi Caller rather than in their fine publications.   You can almost hear the disdain in the Times story this morning: "That's podunk, Dick! We are the Important Media."  Usually I'm quick to defend the Times, but the reaction this time betrays their essential arrogance.   Since the administration has its own brand of imperial arrogance, a little media pride can go a long way on important stories.  But this time the Times should let sleeping quail lie.

Long Time Love

These days I am content to ramble away on my blog, and sometimes forget that Helen has faithfully maintained our web page for much longer than I've had this gig.  This month marks our fifth year of marriage, and the web site has been around for four of those years.

On a recent perusal of the site, I realized again how many interesting touches it has.  There is a nice selection of photos, from around New York and around the world.  The pictorial record of our wedding ceremony is also here.  Another feature is a news page that encourages viewers to get the news from many sources; despite this admonishment, I always default to the New York Times.

Below is Helen's entry in the "Life as Haiku" contest of the Washington Post, which was published less than two weeks before we moved from Washington.  Our web site links to it, of course.

The web site is like an old friend; it's too easy to take for granted, but hard to imagine life without it.  If our site ever does fade into the sunset, our relationship will endure.  That is something to be thankful for during Valentine's week, and every other week of the year.

The Blizzard of 2006

New York City had the most snow ever this weekend, at least in recorded history.  26.9 inches fell in Central Park, breaking the old record of 26.4 inches.   

Last night the storm got off to a slow start, and it was fun to watch how excited the local news personalities were about the impending storm.  By this morning at 7 AM , almost 12 inches had already fallen.  It kept coming all day long, and did not let off until around 4 PM.

Helen was extremely busy with a new work assignment this weekend, but really wanted to go sledding.  Finally, around 3:30 she carved out some time to blow up the inflatable sled.  By 4:30, we were on the sledding hill at Carl Schurz Park, just a few blocks from home.

Many kids were there with their parents, and we acted like big kids ourselves. It was a chaotic scene, because the little ones trudged up the hill after each sled ride, rather than going around the side.  Helen exclaimed that such disorder would never be allowed in China, or even in Chicago's Warren Park, where we used to have a great time sledding.  Chalk it up to New York incivility.  Because nobody ever got hurt from the collisions and near collisions, it became amusing to watch the scene unfold.  My amusement did not stop me from becoming paranoid about hurting a little kid every time we went down the hill.

These two pictures document our day.  One is the mighty mound of snow that has settled on top of our balcony table.  The other is Helen on our mighty sled.