So some hackers hacked some scientists’ email accounts and found that science is messy. The scientists can be petty, personal, wounded, angry, and are not always nice people. The science in question is the hot (heh heh) topic of human influence on global warming. Those who done the hacking, or at least done profited from it, claim they’ve found evidence of a global conspiracy. I doubt it. Scientists don’t cooperate enough to pull off a conspiracy of that size.
What seems to have been found is a lot of good science and a little bad science, with plenty of human foibles thrown in. Of course the negative aspects are exaggerated on websites run by climate change skeptics, and minimized by people on the other side of the debate, but it’s really just science in its underwear.
Humans make judgments based on the wrong kinds of information in many circumstances. For example, we sometimes base our judgments of the quality of a group’s arguments on our perception of how consistent the group is in communicating those arguments. That is, we decide how right people are by how consistently they agree. Many groups, aware of this bias, have learned to emphasize consistency and consensus above almost all other virtues. Civil rights groups have implemented this principle for decades. Nancy Pelosi imposed it on the Democrats, after seeing the political benefits of the Republicans’ emphasis on party loyalty. Science has also felt the pressure to unite behind a single message, knowing that the public would find the science itself to be more credible if there were fewer visible disagreements among scientists. Keep the arguments in the family. Don’t air your dirty laundry.
But that’s stupid. People disagree, and their disagreements, per se, have nothing to do with the quality of the ideas they are discussing. In fact, in areas where we don’t actually know for certain what’s going on (e.g., all of science), the disagreements themselves are an important element of the method for approximating the truth more and more closely. Science can never be perfectly certain about anything, but imperfect certainty is not the same as total ignorance; imperfect certainty leads to working suspension bridges, space shuttles that don’t always blow up, cures for diseases, and therapies for mental disorders. Science doesn’t discover Truth, really; it formulates working models. And the models, in most fields, have worked better and better over time.
Sadly, the way many members of the general public see science seems more like religion or theistic monarchy, and that creates problems. Scientists are supposed to be the infallible high priests handing down wisdom from on high. With that setup, any perceived inconsistency is assumed to invalidate the entire enterprise. Always h the baby with the bathwater.
A skeleton is found with weird features: throw out a century of evolutionary research.
Climatologists can’t explain ten years’ tree ring data: throw out half a century’s findings on climate change.
Red wine drinkers in the Mediterranean live longer than other people elsewhere: throw out all we know about the negative effects of alcohol.
Scientists don’t think like this; only certain non-scientists do. Individual findings almost never invalidate an entire body of work (though there are notable exceptions). Science cannot be held to some arbitrary rules of consistency completely divorced from the realities of what science is. Science, although sometimes requiring quite a lot of expertise and knowledge to carry out, is inherently mundane. The steps are humble and unpretentious. You change one thing to see if another changes. You measure two things and see if they are related. You seek the opinions of other people who understand the issues and look for a consensus. Sometimes you find it, sometimes you don’t, but you almost never find unanimity.
Finally, heed the wisdom of Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA climatologist: “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice. Newton may have been an a**, but the theory of gravity still works.”
Lou Dobbs has just quit CNN. I know some Hispanic activism groups will be happy about this, since the move reduces CNN’s perceived hypocrisy in regards to Hispanic and immigration issues, but I’m not as enthusiastic. Don’t get me wrong: I think Dobbs is yet another demagogue entertainer masquerading as a journalist, like Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olbermann (I was going to add Beck and Limbaugh, but I’m not sure they even really masquerade that much; they’re just entertainers, even if many of their fans seem so desperate to validate their own political views that they insist on seeing them as newsmen despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary). However, the news networks, like the political landscape of the country, seem to be getting more and more Balkanized, with less and less true dialogue between individuals who have opposing opinions. Or maybe it’s always been this way, but it’s certainly not getting any better.
Dobbs’ exit, on the one hand, makes CNN just a teensy bit more honest and accurate (by removal of the opposites). On the other hand, diversity of opinion on the network will suffer. I said I’m not enthusiastic, but I also don’t really mind him leaving; I just don’t think it’s as big a deal as some people do.
My guess is that, within a year, we will see Dobbs join O’Reilly, Beck, and others on the Fox Kind Of Like News network. What was a somewhat refreshing conservative point of view on CNN will be lost in the roar of conservative righteous indignation constantly pouring from Fox, which will be a shame. On the other hand, Dobbs will also continue spouting his particular mix of lies, half-truths, and misleading statements about immigration and Latinos, and that will get lost in the roar, as well. I hope.
Rukhsana Kauser is my new hero(ine). When the leader of a roaming band of terrorists and some of his thugs barged into her home and started beating her parents, she grabbed a hatchet, surprised the main guy, killed him with his own AK-47, wounded another thug (with the help of her older brother), and sent the rest fleeing. She killed one of the most wanted men in Kashmir, a leader of one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world.
I’ve found this story on the BBC and other international news sites. Since no Americans were killed or heroized, I can’t seem to find it in any American news feeds. However, it is on certain American blogs: gun rights blogs. After the story is summarized or linked, there are comments like “Hell yeah!” or “Tell THAT to the gun control wonks!”
To overused a phrase of the day… wait, what?
How does Ms. Kauser’s story support the cause of personal gun ownership rights in the U.S.? Ms. Kauser did not stop the terrorists with her concealed-carry Smith & Wesson. She did not stop them with her father’s venerated Remington twelve-gauge. The only gun owners were terrorist criminals. The only guns in this story were probably used in numerous horrific crimes before one or two of them were turned on their original owners. I’m a supporter of a “personal ownership” interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but apparently this has not scrambled my grasp of logic to the point where this would make any sense to me.
I suppose maybe the American gun people are arguing that she should have owned a gun, and I could see that point, but then the story ceases being a very good demonstration of either the benefits of gun ownership or the dangers of a lack of such. She defeated the militants without owning a gun, which is not how these pro-gun stories usually turn out. Still, this is perhaps the only argument I could see as supporting U.S. gun ownership. I mean, if we had roaming gangs of terrorists with AK-47s who regularly took over suburban homes by force.
I have a nagging feeling that’s not the real reason this story keeps appearing on gun ownership blogs, though. I wonder if it isn’t just because there’s a potential victim, and then there is gun-related violence done to a Bad Person. Maybe the bloggers and commenters don’t look any farther than that. If this is the case, it says some small little volumes about the mentality of some of our gun-ownership advocates.
Rukhsana Kauser is not a good choice as poster girl for gun ownership advocates. Feminists, on the other hand…
I am becoming ever more cynical. Recently, it seems to me that ingroup/outgroup distinctions, along with ingroup loyalty and outgroup derogation, are stronger for most people than the things those people say they believe. Examples (callously lumping people together and ignoring exceptions for my own evil rhetorical purposes):
If the Democrats really believed their “save the planet” schtick, Democrat public servants would have drastically lower personal resource consumption than the average US citizen.
If Conservatives truly cared about reining in bloated programs and reducing the power of the Federal government, they would have been leading the charge against our military buildup since WWII in general, and against our two most recent wars, more specifically. Or at the very least they would have felt kinda conflicted.
If Conservatives were really opposed to giving social and political power to wealthy entertainers, to those with family, interpersonal, or criminal issues, or to those with and substance abuse problems, people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly would be unknown.
Most obviously, if certain among the Hollywood elite truly cared about justice (social or any other kind), there would be absolutely nobody defending Roman Polanski.
I think these (and many other) disparate ideologies/actions are examples of people supporting their ingroup and slamming the outgroup, rather than doing what their belief system tells them is right. What we do and what we say — maybe even what we think –are deeply at odds. The immediate rewards and punishments we get from our peers continually overwhelm the future rewards we may get from holding fast to the things we believe are true. We could (and do) argue about what we should think; but I sometimes despair of that mattering, because what we think seems to have so little effect on what we actually do.
Kate Harding’s piece in Salon.com pulls no punches, and is not something a minor should read, but she is absolutely right on. I couldn’t agree more. From her conclusion:
Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted.
Here’s the situation: The President is going to give an address to the nation’s schoolchildren. Initial reports say he will emphasize the importance of taking their education seriously, staying in school, etc. He’s a controversial President. There is an outcry from the other side of the political continuum. There are fears he will push his political platform through the nation’s children. It sounds like Nazism, or Communism, or some kind of scary -ism.
This happened in 1991. The President was George H.W. Bush. His Department of Education encouraged teachers to broadcast the speech and use it as a teaching opportunity. Bush encouraged students to write him letters, with suggestions on how he could better achieve his goals. The Democrats were upset. The party leader called Bush’s address a “paid political advertisement.” Bush’s supporters said that was ridiculous.
So now we come to the current hullaballoo, suspiciously similar to the above, except the players have all flipped sides. Now the Conservatives are accusing the President of indoctrinating the kids. Some school districts won’t broadcast the speech. Many parents will keep their kids home, rather than risk them hearing it.
Somehow (I am seriously not sure how), this has become confused with the paranoia about “pledging allegiance to Obama.” Here’s my synopsis of both issues, after some internetz researchz: Continue reading →
Last year (maybe at Christmas?) Alex gave me Ann Patchett’s novel Run. Inspired by Alex’s example, I shall blogify it. And my love for Patchett’s fiction, in general. Short version? It’s awesome.
Review of Sue Grafton’s T is for Trespass (SPOILERS AHEAD)
Alternate Titles: A very special Kinsey Millhone Mystery. T is for Tedious. Sue Grafton Discovers the Collective Values and Book-buying Power of the AARP. Ow My Ears and Brain Judy Kaye Please Watch a Detective Movie and Take Notes Before Reading Your Next Audiobook.
Final Grade: C- or maybe a D+. Past Alphabet Mysteries, though inconsistent in quality, were all entertaining, and with just enough offbeat quirks to set them apart from the crowded field of mystery fiction. They were slightly goofy, occasionally unpredictable film-noir detective novels, in which the femme fatale just happens also to be the hard-boiled detective. With this latest installment, however, Grafton has written a plot that could easily be discussed for 30 minutes on The View. That’s right; it’s one long, drawn-out, carefully politically balanced domestic dispute.
I am having… let’s call them “issues”… with your most recent novel, T is for Trespass. For a while, I’ve been listening to your books in audio form. True, I have to suffer through hours upon hours of Judy Kaye’s near-butchering of your work, what with her penchant for breathless melodrama at even the most mundane moments, but I can still see the quality through her vocal rollercoaster. As I lift weights and trudge on the elliptical machine in the morning, I see Kinsey nosing her quirky, semi-antisocial, incorrigibly curious way toward the resolution of yet another mystery.
We all know you’re not Jane Austen or even Connie Willis, but you’re good at what you do. And that is to write solid, entertaining hard-boiled (despite Ms. Kaye’s antics to the contrary) mystery novels about a protagonist who is described by her actions instead of her narrator; whose psychology is revealed more by accident than by introspection. The mysteries are entertaining, and the character is compelling. The rest ranges between excellent and palatable. Overall, good books.
This brings me to my point, which is: WHAT. First of all, I admit that S is for Silence worked well enough, despite your disturbing experimentation with a parallel historical narrative that had nothing to do with Kinsey. And what didn’t work wasn’t terrible. No hard feelings, for Kinsey’s sake. But with this most recent book, what is going on? Alternating chapters probing the psychological depths of a psychopathic nemesis? If that weren’t enough, NO MYSTERY? I mean there is one, more or less, eventually, but it really didn’t show up until CHAPTER TWENTY. Yes, over a week of workouts listening to Kinsey go about her winsome life, chatting up her lovable landlord, serving warrants on deadbeats, witnessing her friends’ uncomfortable relationship disputes, eating inedible Hungarian food at the adorable local pub — basically doing nothing. In your other books, this sort of detail provides a wonderful context, character glimpses, contrast to the action, etc. and I understand that you’re building suspense, and probably some other stuff, but holy freaking cow. Twenty chapters before the mystery rears its deliciously ugly head is too much. And even then, we’re headed for an unintentional mystery, in which Kinsey doesn’t know there is one for quite a while. This is dull. Why? Because following Kinsey following her nose is the best part of every book. I’m going on faith here, because of your last books. Don’t let me down.
I’ll finish this one, but when U is for … hits the shelves, I’ll be reading the reviews carefully before I invest.
Maybe I’m really just cranky because a third of the chapters are stolen by someone who isn’t Kinsey and is nowhere near as interesting. But isn’t that enough? I submit that it is.
Grrr. Arrgh. I signed back up with Time-Warner Cable for internet and VOIP phone this past year becauase AT&T (literally the only other game in town for me) was so horrendously bad with the customer service, and charged the same price for a lower internet speed. But TWC has its own problems, as evidenced by the past four days:
Thursday – No internet, no phone. Tried all the tricks I know, with the modem resetting and the hey hey hey. Called TWC. Was told there was an outage in my area, but no word on what it was or when it would be fixed.
Friday – Still no service. Called again. Same answer.
Saturday – Still no service. Called again. Same answer.
Sunday – Still no service, but able to at least leech some WiFi from a neighbor (thank you, unwitting benefactor of internets!). Did the online chat with a CSR at TWC’s homepage for the Rio Grande Valley. He had me reset the modem, etc. I did so, as I’ve done a dozen times since Thursday. No dice. He tells me he can’t do anything else, and I have to call the customer “service” number (my sarcastic quotes just slipped right in there. Huh). Not having any phone service, this is not feasible.
Monday (now) – Still no service. On the phone with CSR again. This guy tells me there is NO service outage, and my equipment must be faulty, because they’re getting no response from my modem. Soonest appointment for a technician: Thursday afternoon.
I have not heard my wife’s voice in a week. All work and no Alex makes Darrin something something.
Flickr has a weakness: it allows photographers to title their own photos. This is often a bad thing. Let me demonstrate:
Exhibit 1: a lovely photo. Simply great. It’s got a wonderful balance of color, some excellent use of depth of field, and really nice composition. Title: “Enchantment.” Now I’m forced to experience intrusive images from bad fantasy novels when I see the picture. Not even good fantasy; bad fantasy.
Here’s another one. Not as stunning as the first, but still, interesting point of view, nice visual lines, etc. And then a title that wrenches my mind toward bad 1990s Lifetime Network movies: “Follow Your Own Path.” Plus, in the description the artist says s/he “literally kissed the sun” in that spot. No, you did not. Back to my original point, the title is not good.
This one I really like, too. Great plant shot. While you’re enjoying the juicy green, look at the title. LOOK AT IT! Now wash your eyes out at the hazmat station for a minimum of five minutes. Follow workplace standards for contamination with caustic substances.
It goes on and on. Titles like “Freedom,” “Faerie-House,” “True Enigma” (these are invariably self-portraits), “Indescribably Luscious,” “Ultimate Escape,” etc. etc. etc. (got tired of sifting through the bad titles). And I’m not even talking about the pictures people take of their pets and children. No, these are good pictures, art-wise (IMHO), that have horrendous titles. I breathe sighs of relief when I see titles like “Jan 27, 2008″ or “IMG_2452″ or the ever-appropriate “untitled.”
People should maybe think of hiring someone else to do their titles. Also, Flickr should let me browse title-optional. Yes, I crave no-title browsing. Because this hurts my brain.
The photo and my comments are unrelated, today. The comments are about the Swedish movie Let the Right One In. Holy creepy awesome, Batman. I have been sick to death of the stupidity, self-importance, and adolescent inanity of most vampire movies, but now I concur with the comment on the poster: BEST. VAMPIRE MOVIE. EVER. There’s absolutely no reveling in power while pretending to be humanitarian. There’s no “tee hee I know so much more than you mere mortals.” There’s no vicarious power-tripping at all, really. There’s no moralizing with the lips while contrived plot devices make a bloodfest inevitable. By dodging the pitfalls of teenage mentality that infest most vampire movies like vermin, this film acquires the power to be simply a good film.
Why is this movie so awesome? It’s real. The vampires (the two we see) are real, gritty, sometimes-hard-to-watch humans. The painstakingly slow scenes as Eli’s middle-aged partner drags the body of a man he’s killed to satisfy Eli’s hunger, step by grunting step through the snow on a child’s sled. The horrible scenes of bullying and violence as Oskar tries in vain to assert himself with his peers. The painfully tender scenes of the romance (or whatever it is) between Oskar and Eli, two twelve-year-olds (though Eli has “been twelve for a long time”). It was eviscerating to watch at times, but I could not take my eyes away. To call this movie “horror” is to insult the movie and create unrealistic expectations for the genre.
Newsweek has what I think is a point-on article by David Frum, a conservative with some impressive credentials, titled “Why Rush is Wrong.” The piece details the political suicide Rush Limbaugh is inciting within the GOP in exchange for his personal financial gain. I resonated strongly with this article, and I think I would enjoy having a conversation with Mr. Frum. I think we’d agree on quite a lot.
Frum laments Limbaugh’s cultlike power and damage it has done to what used to be the conservative party in the US. He describes the carnage resulting from the GOP’s recent two-decade binges. He implicitly defies all Limbaugh seems to stand for by doing this without any of Limbaugh’s invective, exaggeration, or fear-mongering (for something a little less measured, see Frank Schaeffer’s piece in HuffPo). Here are my favorite bits:
You don’t have to accept Al Gore’s predictions of imminent gloom to accept that it cannot be healthy to pump gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere … as a party of property owners we should be taking [conservation] values more seriously.
Above all, we need to take governing seriously again. Voters have long associated Democrats with corrupt urban machines, Republicans with personal integrity and fiscal responsibility… After Iraq, Katrina and Harriet Miers, Democrats [dominated polls] on the competence and ethics questions. And that was before we put Sarah Palin on our national ticket.
Every day, Rush Limbaugh reassures millions of core Republican voters that no change is needed: if people don’t appreciate what we are saying, then say it louder… Certainly this is a good approach for Rush himself. He claims 20 million listeners per week, and that suffices to make him a very wealthy man. And if another 100 million people cannot stand him, what does he care? …if we allow ourselves to be overidentified with somebody who earns his fortune by giving offense, [voters] will vote against us.
To stem this onrush of disastrous improvisations [e.g., increases in Medicaid, SCHIP, and federal debt], conservatives need every resource of mind and heart, every good argument, every creative alternative and every bit of compassionate sympathy for the distress that is pushing Americans in the wrong direction. Instead we are accepting the leadership of a man with an ego-driven agenda of his own, who looms largest when his causes fare worst.
Should conservatives be trying to provoke or persuade? … To enflame or govern? And finally (and above all): to profit—or to serve?
That is music to my formerly-Republican ears. Sadly, some core Republicans seem to value loyalty over reason. They especially hate having the party’s dirty laundry aired to outsiders. I can hope the GOP responds to advice like that given in this article, but many Republicans will consider the act of giving such advice in public to be treason. I expect Mr. David Frum’s political life will get worse before it gets bettter.
Love it or hate it, I think you must admit the Obama Presidency is a clear break from the Bush Presidency. Of course, I think many (though certainly not all) of these changes are for our long-term good, but that’s just me. Obama’s White House doesn’t just show us what a different President looks like; it shows us some interesting things about other organizations, too.
A discussion of a recent White House press conference (on one of my favorite political blogs) was thought-provoking. It seems the reporters kept grilling the White House spokesman about Obama’s intention to actually implement the tax plan he campaigned on. As it turns out, it’s in the budget, nearly word-for-word as he explained it during his campaign, and that is apparently shocking for some people. The White House guy kept telling the reporters (who kept repeating the question in some aggressive ways) the basics:
95% of American families will see a tax cut. As mentioned 100+ times in 2008
Those making above $250,000 per year will see a tax increase. As mentioned 100+ times in 2008.
Nobody — not even rich people — will have tax rates any higher than they were during the 90s, with the Clinton Presidency. As mentioned 100+ times in 2008.
For the record, there was strong economic growth during recent Democrat Presidencies (especially Clinton’s), though causes might be debated. Here’s a chart showing that, during Democratic presidencies, those with lower incomes benefit the most, economically. During Republican presidencies, the greatest beneficiaries are the minority who are the richest. Surprisingly, Democrats are (so far) better for everyone’s bottom line. Gotta think about that one. Hm. Here’s another chart, showing that the federal deficit (or surplus) has followed the same pattern since 1980. This one goes back 50 years (note: y-axis is reversed). Pretty convincing stuff.
So, after a contentious press conference, with reporters grilling the WH spokesman, bringing up terms like “class warfare” and “income redistribution” in connection to this “new” (not really) tax plan, one (presumably print) reporter apparently observed,
“Did you notice all the questions about taxes came from reporters making over $250,000 a year, especially the TV guys?”
In some domains, I fully believe there is a liberal bias in much of the mainstream US media. However, I think bias must be more like granite than obsidian. Different biases are strewn throughout an industry, or even an individual, packed together into hard little lumps. How else to explain some media outlets’ nearly rapturous praise of then-Senator Obama, back in 2007, while these same companies buckled to Bush Administration demands on how they should (and should not) cover his two very unpopular wars, his massive increase in deficit spending, and a dozen other potential scandals that were never fully reported?
Maybe part of the answer is that journalists, idealists or not, respond to nice, big, personal income tax cuts.
So the other day (last week, actually) I was doing some elliptical at the gym. The only machines available were in the “big plasma TV” corner. Fox news was on. I tried not to watch it, but there it was. Now, I’m no fan of the mainstream media in general, though usually I can chalk their journalistic failures up to maxims like “if it bleeds, it leads” and “don’t scare the demographic.” But Fox? We need new pithy sayings to describe just how thin the veil has become between their protestations of journalistic integrity and the reality clearly visible beneath.
The newscasters talked a bit about the bailout, and the Republicans in the House refusing to vote for it. Now, I’m no fan of the current plan either, but I think most people would agree that phrases like “They held the line,” and “They stood strong” indicate a lapse of objectivity. When discussing Rush Limbaugh’s apparent power with the GOP leadership, as well as Obama’s criticism of Republican leaders who seem to model their rhetoric on Rush’s, the talking heads were saying things like, “doesn’t the President have more important things to do than discuss radio talk show hosts? Isn’t there an economic crisis going on?” and accusing him of wasting the nation’s time.
There was more of this. It made me shake my head in wonder. Okay, maybe there’s never true objectivity or neutrality in journalism, but since Fox keeps claiming (loudly) that it has no agenda and no political leanings, can’t they at least try to look like something other than self-esteem coaches for the conservative base? Sheesh.
I’ve heard Fox compared to CNN or ABC News, as if it’s just across the political spectrum from those networks; but it’s something else, entirely. It’s more like the conservative answer to the Huffington Post. No wonder I surf news online instead of watching TV. The TV news experiences are pretty punishing, and at least most of the news blogs admit their biases up front.
1: A conversation I overheard in a quiet 6:55 a.m. university locker room. Two fairly soft-spoken college kids were having a conversation while they got dressed to work out.
GUY 1: As I was driving over here, I pulled up beside this mustang.
GUY 2: Yeah?
GUY 1: Yeah. When the light changed, I just smoked him.
GUY 2: Heh.
GUY 1: Something about mustangs just makes you…
GUY 2: Angry?
GUY 1: Angry.
2: X-Files: I Want To Believe
Let’s cut to the chase. This movie was disappointing. I chalk it up to the directors losing their focus. Instead of making a movie about the unknown, about a desperate quest for truth, about paranoia and a struggle for individual freedom… they made a movie about squeezing bucks from an aging X-Files audience. You see the difference? The eye of the tiger, man. They does not has it. Maybe my guesses about the reasons are off, but the movie was a big letdown, in any case. Entertaining enough to watch, but not twice. Also, I got bored in the middle and did some filing. There were moments when the shameless manipulation of Scully & Mulder’s relationship almost burst into smouldering lukewarmity, but it was so contrived that it hurt my head.
3. Mirror Mask
Now this movie was awesome. Just perfectly delightful. Sure, some of the acting (especially Valentine) was clunky at times, but not too clunky, and the overall impact was very strong with me. It feels sort of like what Tim Burton might have grown into, if he hadn’t gotten stuck in kiddie-goth, 20 years ago. It’s a lovely young adult movie, but there’s enough visual delight to keep adults (or me, anyway) fascinated. Plus, the plot avoids the hackneyed after-school-special riffs that must be constantly tempting creators of these kinds of movies. Well, it’s lovely. You should see it.
I’m not usually one to revel in the public discomfort or stupidity of others, but the following video is completely precious. It’s like watching a Will Ferrell sketch:
I watched the debate, thought McCain looked a little better, etc., but was struck forcefully and repeatedly (though not in the groin or kidneys) by the thought that none of this provided any new information or changed my understanding of the candidates in any meaningful way. It was just talking points with some soap-style drama. Maybe I’ll stop watching those things.
Anyway, here’s some Stuff I’ve found interesting recently (besides this fun animated gif, obviously):
This interesting discussion of why “energy independence” is not necessarily a good thing for the U.S. (and we all know it may not be feasible, anyway)
Historically, Republicans seem to be pretty bad for U.S. investors (unless you’re a massive corporation), and Democratic administrations are much better for the market. And the economy overall. Or, as Slate.com puts it in reviewing similar research, “Democrats are better at virtually every economic task that is important to Republicans.” (note: I had a link to a scholarly study by a team of economists with roughly the same conclusion, but I can’t find it). This kind of thing is still surprising to me, because I grew up hearing how economically foolish Democrats were. I guess it’s likely that Dems spend more on non-military items when in power, but I have yet to see any numbers suggesting the GOP is actually better for the economic health of the country as a whole.
More evidence that politics (and the press) for most people in this country are governed by a pack mentality over any other consideration. First, William F. Buckley’s son is leaving the National Review after endorsing Obama. The NR is hardcore conservative, and that’s much more important than keeping a talented journalist onboard. Oh yeah, and then there’s that thing about Kathleen Parker receiving 12,000 emails (some of them death threats) after she suggested Sarah Palin wasn’t “ready” to be the VP nominee. How dare she suggest anything that questions the party line. Crazy lady.
Some liberal friends of mine seem flabbergasted that anyone can seriously side with conservative issues. I’m interested in showing some of the thoughts of the people on the other side of the aisle. Now that the GOP may have convinced the Secret Service to prevent journalists from talking to people at Palin events), take a look at a short Al Jazeera piece on a Palin rally. Kinda freaky.
So… Hell. Handbasket. I could go on and on about the quasi-fascist crap that’s been pulled in this election and steadfastly ignored by the mainstream media. Freaking scary.
I have Netflix, and this is both good and bad. A few days ago, I watched Kenneth Branagh’s As You Like It, and I’m pretty glad I didn’t pay full rental price. Despite what you’re about to read, it wasn’t horrible. But by the second hour, I really wished I had rented something else. Of course, I kept watching it, but that’s more a testament to my indolence than to any qualities the movie might have had. And “might have” is an important phrase, here.
Maybe I’m getting old and finicky (OK, I am getting that way), but it was just… you know… it was like Shakespeare done by the Muzak corporation. No, I take that back. That’s too vicious, and it wasn’t quite so bad; but that’s the kind of bad it was. The acting was fine. No gaffes, no serious problems. A little histrionic (especially Rosalind), but no noticeable difficulties. Half an hour into the movie, I put my finger on what was bothering me: almost all the lines were being delivered with the precise, predictable nuance and interpretation that mediocre actors wish they could master, but amazing actors have moved far beyond. Kind of like some textbook, How to Act Shakespeare.
Now I’m going to sound seriously unpleasable and really really crotchety, but here it is: the lack of problems in the film was symptomatic of The Problem with it. It didn’t take any chances. It didn’t explore anything new, except in the most superficial way. Yes, everyone was falling over their own tongues, trying to squeeze out every last bit of meaning and emotion from that Shakespearean dialogue we all love (see previous paragraph), but that got old after a while, you know? It… something… was at 100% from start to finish, but it didn’t make it a great film. It was stuffed to the gills with rich, lush visuals; every Portentous or Deep or Moving Moment was backed by a perfectly smooth, perfectly rendered, perfectly mixed symphonic parallel (note: never a counterpoint, or even a harmony, really; mustn’t confuse the audience)… everything in this entire movie was rich, lush, sculpted, and polished, to its artistic detriment. I had the same reaction to Chocolat, by the way. The films share a feeling of putting huge amounts of effort into pleasing one’s central demographic — and the results are certainly a kind of pleasing — but little or no effort is made to say anything other than, “don’t you love this?” Of course you do. You’re the demographic. The creative consultants might have been a focus group of university-educated Northern California suburban soccer moms and Silicon Valley dads. The end result of this kind of process is that it’s appealing in the same way the professionally-manufactured plastic desserts are appealing when presented by your attentive Chili’s server.
One might argue that Branagh did take a chance by setting the play in feudal Japan, when the White People were hanging around acting like Japanese People. If one argued this, then one would be smoking something potent. First of all, attaching Western art to All Things Beautiful and Nipponese is about as daring as telling Republican jokes on Comedy Central. And it was supposedly set in Japan, but that meant that all Japanese people depicted were either (a) White people (lots of them), or (b) a couple of horrid stereotypes that make Gedde Watanabe’s character in Sixteen Candles look like JFK’s interracial dream. Okay, so maybe racism is daring, in a way.
And there was a lion. What. Yes. I said a lion. In postfeudal Japan. Not in a zoo; in a forest, attacking leading men for dramatic import. Moving on.
Rosalind was on some kind of amphetamines. Orlando and his brother were the ethnic minorities wallowing in their conflicted-then-superbondy Family-ness. the Exiled Duke Senior (Brian Blessed?) was an unstoppable tsunami of love and fatherly kindness… actually, he looked a little too blissed out sometimes; maybe he was on drugs, too; but definitely not the same ones as Rosalind. Everyone else (with noted exceptions) was some version of kind-of-annoying-to-watch. Even Kevin Kline — who can usually do no wrong with me — did wrong by saturating every moment of screen time with a Jungian archetype of Unhappy Yet Wise Person. As with the rest of the movie, it seems every actor was receiving strong admonitions between takes to be their characters, only more so.
It felt like a constant process of digging, mining every visual image and sentence, not for meaning or true beauty, but for prettiness and what we all think we know Shakespeare meant. Must confirm the audience’s view, at all costs.
The bright spots: Despite the super-brotheriness, Orlando and Oliver weren’t too bad. They seemed a little more fresh, perhaps, than the others, and I found the brother-reunion stuff moving. Duke Frederick (I think played by Brian Blessed also?) wasn’t too bad. He was interesting, to some extent (in strange contrast to the other Duke). The portrayal at least dodged the character’s implied stereotypes a few times. But Alfred Molina’s Touchstone (the fool) was the only role I truly enjoyed throughout the movie. It was a breath of fresh air. Molina can still do no wrong.
When, oh when will I learn my lesson, Kenneth Branagchkhlwght? Your Hamlet still haunts me like memories of food poisoning. This one, though not as bad as Hammy, will be like the memory of an annoying party, where nobody says anything offensive, and everyone’s dressed really nicely, and I go home with a sense of having wasted my night.
