-CleanTechnica has posted an article about a "Magnetic Air Car" that purports to be the world's first fuelless car, and hopes to be available by 2010. Apparently, it uses magnets to send compressed air through an enclosed space. "The resulting airflow is then converted to torque." I think there must be more to this than I'm understanding, since I was unaware of air's magnetic properties.
-Sorry Howard Stern, Stephen Colbert is the new "King of All Media." He will be making a guest appearance in the upcoming "Amazing Spider-Man #573." Apparently, in the Marvel Universe, Colbert is a presidential candidate. Can I go live there? The issue's out October 15.
-CNN has managed to come up with what may be the lamest story ever to believably have the headline "Man Punches Shark After 'Death Scream.'"
-Free TV on the Internet: This past week's "Saturday Night Live," with the now-famous Palin/Couric sketch, along with a debate parody and some decent work from Anna Faris, of all people
-The other candidate for "Headline of the Day"... From io9.com: "Space Herpes Is Final Cylon on Battlestar Galactica"
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
TV Is Back: The Office & Chuck
Two of NBC's big shows returned this week, with mixed but mostly positive results. SPOILERS ENSUE
In the past couple years NBC has established it in the eyes of many as the most quality-laden of the big networks, though others can make the claim. "The Office," really the vanguard of NBC's current lineup, isn't television's funniest show. That honor probably goes to "30 Rock," though "South Park" and any number of AdultSwim shows have their good days. However, "The Office" is probably the best comedy on TV, and that's because it doesn't just give us jokes, it gives us a huge cast of great characters, almost all of which we care about.
"The Office" returned with a one-hour premiere called "Weight Loss", which took the novel tack of stretching an episode's story out over eight weeks of summer (defined by a weight loss competition between branches that gets, of course, a little crazy). This was probably the best managed of the one-hour "Office" eps we've seen so far, with every member of the large cast being given something significant to do.
Of course we all are huge fans of the Jim/Pam relationship, which had one of its greatest moments in this episode as Jim asked Pam to marry him. This was pulled off pretty much perfectly, in what might be the best straight romantic moment I've ever seen in a TV comedy. Does anyone seriously want to make the argument that a Ross and Rachel moment was more satisfying than this?
But the show is so diverse, there's plenty more to talk about. Michael and the new HR woman (Amy Ryan, wonderfully willing to make a fool of herself) inching toward what may be a relationship... in an episode where Michael often manages to succeed despite himself, but the one time he thinks he's succeeded he's actually probably failed. Angela and "a fiancee I very much like"... and Dwight's beeper. Kelly and Ryan... and Michael's retention of his weird need to impress Ryan. "That wasn't a tapeworm." "A 1000-year old church within the continental Unites States?" "We were fighting the power and eating whatever we wanted." "wika wika wika woo wika woo" The pay-off of the "Kevin is mentally challenged" bit. Pam trapped in a computer. And so much more. WATCH IT!
"Chuck" was one of those shows most affected by the writers' strike. It did pretty well at its debut, but has been off the air for what, ten months or so? I gave it a glowing review when it first came on the air, but how will that hold up?
Well, it helps to keep in mind that this is one of those shows that isn't anything more than what it is. It's a geeky guy trying to be a spy with the help of a hot chick and, well, Adam Baldwin. It's not on a level that much higher than David Hasselhoff with a cool car, or a green guy with stretchy pants. However, it's very well done, and achieves a high level of charm without seeming to try (which would make it cloying). Zachary Levi's Chuck Bartowski is a highly relatable wish-fufillment fantasy of a dweeby guy who gets the beautiful, butt-kicking girl and, under-pressure, discovers he's secretly competent. On top of this the show is genuinely funny, and that usually ends up being enough.
The premiere was titled "Chuck Versus the First Date" (all the episode titles are "Chuck Versus..." something), and mostly revolved around the NSA's (or is it the CIA... or does it matter) attempts to build a new "Intersect" which would would replace Chuck, either resulting in his "freedom" or Adam Baldwin having to kill him, or both. Michael Clarke Duncan plays the obligatory scary mercenary of the episode, who gets lines like "Do you find me imposing? I was going for imposing." As all this comes to a head, the new Intersect blows up and some ancillary characters die and the status quo is saved. Yay.
Perhaps the single most memorable moment of a strong but probably forgettable episode? "WELCOME TO THUNDERDOME!"
Coming this week? "Pushing Daisies" and "30 Rock".
In the past couple years NBC has established it in the eyes of many as the most quality-laden of the big networks, though others can make the claim. "The Office," really the vanguard of NBC's current lineup, isn't television's funniest show. That honor probably goes to "30 Rock," though "South Park" and any number of AdultSwim shows have their good days. However, "The Office" is probably the best comedy on TV, and that's because it doesn't just give us jokes, it gives us a huge cast of great characters, almost all of which we care about.
"The Office" returned with a one-hour premiere called "Weight Loss", which took the novel tack of stretching an episode's story out over eight weeks of summer (defined by a weight loss competition between branches that gets, of course, a little crazy). This was probably the best managed of the one-hour "Office" eps we've seen so far, with every member of the large cast being given something significant to do.
Of course we all are huge fans of the Jim/Pam relationship, which had one of its greatest moments in this episode as Jim asked Pam to marry him. This was pulled off pretty much perfectly, in what might be the best straight romantic moment I've ever seen in a TV comedy. Does anyone seriously want to make the argument that a Ross and Rachel moment was more satisfying than this?
But the show is so diverse, there's plenty more to talk about. Michael and the new HR woman (Amy Ryan, wonderfully willing to make a fool of herself) inching toward what may be a relationship... in an episode where Michael often manages to succeed despite himself, but the one time he thinks he's succeeded he's actually probably failed. Angela and "a fiancee I very much like"... and Dwight's beeper. Kelly and Ryan... and Michael's retention of his weird need to impress Ryan. "That wasn't a tapeworm." "A 1000-year old church within the continental Unites States?" "We were fighting the power and eating whatever we wanted." "wika wika wika woo wika woo" The pay-off of the "Kevin is mentally challenged" bit. Pam trapped in a computer. And so much more. WATCH IT!
"Chuck" was one of those shows most affected by the writers' strike. It did pretty well at its debut, but has been off the air for what, ten months or so? I gave it a glowing review when it first came on the air, but how will that hold up?
Well, it helps to keep in mind that this is one of those shows that isn't anything more than what it is. It's a geeky guy trying to be a spy with the help of a hot chick and, well, Adam Baldwin. It's not on a level that much higher than David Hasselhoff with a cool car, or a green guy with stretchy pants. However, it's very well done, and achieves a high level of charm without seeming to try (which would make it cloying). Zachary Levi's Chuck Bartowski is a highly relatable wish-fufillment fantasy of a dweeby guy who gets the beautiful, butt-kicking girl and, under-pressure, discovers he's secretly competent. On top of this the show is genuinely funny, and that usually ends up being enough.
The premiere was titled "Chuck Versus the First Date" (all the episode titles are "Chuck Versus..." something), and mostly revolved around the NSA's (or is it the CIA... or does it matter) attempts to build a new "Intersect" which would would replace Chuck, either resulting in his "freedom" or Adam Baldwin having to kill him, or both. Michael Clarke Duncan plays the obligatory scary mercenary of the episode, who gets lines like "Do you find me imposing? I was going for imposing." As all this comes to a head, the new Intersect blows up and some ancillary characters die and the status quo is saved. Yay.
Perhaps the single most memorable moment of a strong but probably forgettable episode? "WELCOME TO THUNDERDOME!"
Coming this week? "Pushing Daisies" and "30 Rock".
Breaking News: Bailout Voted Down
In one of the most dramatic floor votes in a long time, the US House of Representatives today rejected the proposed emergency bailout of financial institutions, and not by only one or two votes, either. The final tally was 205 for, 228 against, with Democrats supporting the measure 140-95 and Republicans rejecting it 65-133. This despite the urging of leadership of both parties, as well as the President and most national financial leaders, for passage. On news of the vote, the Dow Jones average fell over 700 points, a one-day record.
Many representatives seem to have felt that the measure, which would use approximately $700 billion to buy "bad debts" from financial firms, was so unpopular in their districts that a "yes" vote would amount to political suicide. Others felt that it represented too large of a government intervention in the free market. Even those who supported the bill were often see as "holding their nose" while voting for it, with House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner calling it a "mud sandwich" while explaining why it was necessary. (what does that even mean?) Democrats immediately blamed the Republican leadership for failing to get their rank and file in line, while Republicans blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi for turning off some of their members with a "partisan speech" just prior to the vote.
It's unclear where we go from here. Wall Street will probably continue its toilet spiral. The measure will probably come back up for a vote at some point this week, but it's unclear what sort of changes they'll have to make to get this past the House.
As I have said here before, I'm not an economist. But I take it as a good sign when individual members of Congress at least attempt to think for themselves and represent their districts rather than just doing what they're told. Were they right in this case? I guess we'll see.
More details here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30bailout.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Many representatives seem to have felt that the measure, which would use approximately $700 billion to buy "bad debts" from financial firms, was so unpopular in their districts that a "yes" vote would amount to political suicide. Others felt that it represented too large of a government intervention in the free market. Even those who supported the bill were often see as "holding their nose" while voting for it, with House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner calling it a "mud sandwich" while explaining why it was necessary. (what does that even mean?) Democrats immediately blamed the Republican leadership for failing to get their rank and file in line, while Republicans blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi for turning off some of their members with a "partisan speech" just prior to the vote.
It's unclear where we go from here. Wall Street will probably continue its toilet spiral. The measure will probably come back up for a vote at some point this week, but it's unclear what sort of changes they'll have to make to get this past the House.
As I have said here before, I'm not an economist. But I take it as a good sign when individual members of Congress at least attempt to think for themselves and represent their districts rather than just doing what they're told. Were they right in this case? I guess we'll see.
More details here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30bailout.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Bits: Theater of the Absurd Edition
-The Machinist today has a great entry on how digitized today's entering college students are, focusing on the Amherst College class of 2012. 99% are on Facebook, 99% have only cell phones, 99% have only laptop computers...
-Michael Grunwald has a great article on Time.com... "Oh, the Drama! McCain in the Theater of the Absurd".
-Watch the Sarah Palin/Katie Couric interview on YouTube. "Saturday Night Live" hardly had to change the words in order make this hysterically awful.
-io9 tells the bizarre story of the recent Season Finale of the Sci-Fi Channel drama "Eureka"... which I recently watched most of without actually realizing it was the series finale. Sci-Fi Channel apparently repeatedly rejected entire plotlines, resulting in the finale basically being improvised by the writers as the episode was filmed... thus lending credence to all those viewers who think "they're just making this up as they go along." "Eureka" is a fun show, but in the end it's inherently "small"... something that, based on my possibly mistaken impressions of what's going on here, may have been Sci-Fi Channel's problem. In other weird news, there's a rumor going around the intertubes that the Sci-Fi Channel wants to change its name to "Beyond." Kay.
-This week's WalrusFile free internet TV pick is the season premiere of "The Office." I'll be trying to come up with a full review of it in the next day or two. In the meantime, discuss amongst yourselves.
-Overlooked News Story of the Day, from the Dayton Daily News: Chemical Irritant Empties Dayton Mosque. An apparent major hate crime not that far from where I live. Sigh.
-Michael Grunwald has a great article on Time.com... "Oh, the Drama! McCain in the Theater of the Absurd".
-Watch the Sarah Palin/Katie Couric interview on YouTube. "Saturday Night Live" hardly had to change the words in order make this hysterically awful.
-io9 tells the bizarre story of the recent Season Finale of the Sci-Fi Channel drama "Eureka"... which I recently watched most of without actually realizing it was the series finale. Sci-Fi Channel apparently repeatedly rejected entire plotlines, resulting in the finale basically being improvised by the writers as the episode was filmed... thus lending credence to all those viewers who think "they're just making this up as they go along." "Eureka" is a fun show, but in the end it's inherently "small"... something that, based on my possibly mistaken impressions of what's going on here, may have been Sci-Fi Channel's problem. In other weird news, there's a rumor going around the intertubes that the Sci-Fi Channel wants to change its name to "Beyond." Kay.
-This week's WalrusFile free internet TV pick is the season premiere of "The Office." I'll be trying to come up with a full review of it in the next day or two. In the meantime, discuss amongst yourselves.
-Overlooked News Story of the Day, from the Dayton Daily News: Chemical Irritant Empties Dayton Mosque. An apparent major hate crime not that far from where I live. Sigh.
Corporations In Space!
In other breaking space news, SpaceX's privately developed rocket became the first of its kind to make it into space, following up on SpaceShipOne's suborbital flight in 2004. The launch of the rocket was shown live from Kwajalain Atoll in the Pacific. They attached a camera to the side of the vehicle, following it all the way up into space!
You can ride a rocket into space with the spectacular footage that can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ
It's a little early to tell, but so far this has gotten even less American media coverage than the Chinese spacewalk, failing to even make the front page at CNN.com. This is unfortunate, because, if space travel is to have any role in the future of humanity (which, in my opinion, it must), then that travel will be done by private companies, not governments. Space needs to be profitable before it can become a part of normal life.
To that end, the stated goal of SpaceX is to make space travel ten times cheaper and more reliable. There is still a long way to go, as the company's first three attempts with its Falcon rocket failed for various reasons before reaching orbit. This particular launch, however, ended on a very high note, the company learning from its past mistakes and improving on its technology. SpaceX was founded by Elon Musk, who make his fortune as co-founder of PayPal. The company says it has vehicles in development for both manned space travel and boosting heavy-duty payloads into orbit... for a fee, of course.
Who knows, maybe someday within our lifetimes, you or I, regular people, really will stand on the moon. And I find it much more likely that I'll be riding a ship with the SpaceX corporate logo on the side than one with the USA flag.
You can ride a rocket into space with the spectacular footage that can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ
It's a little early to tell, but so far this has gotten even less American media coverage than the Chinese spacewalk, failing to even make the front page at CNN.com. This is unfortunate, because, if space travel is to have any role in the future of humanity (which, in my opinion, it must), then that travel will be done by private companies, not governments. Space needs to be profitable before it can become a part of normal life.
To that end, the stated goal of SpaceX is to make space travel ten times cheaper and more reliable. There is still a long way to go, as the company's first three attempts with its Falcon rocket failed for various reasons before reaching orbit. This particular launch, however, ended on a very high note, the company learning from its past mistakes and improving on its technology. SpaceX was founded by Elon Musk, who make his fortune as co-founder of PayPal. The company says it has vehicles in development for both manned space travel and boosting heavy-duty payloads into orbit... for a fee, of course.
Who knows, maybe someday within our lifetimes, you or I, regular people, really will stand on the moon. And I find it much more likely that I'll be riding a ship with the SpaceX corporate logo on the side than one with the USA flag.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Chinese Dudes In Space
The People's Republic of China has become the third nation to have its astronauts (or as the Chinese call them, "taikonauts") complete a spacewalk, after the United States and Soviet Union. Zhai Zhigang, a member of the "Shenzhou 7" mission, spent about twenty minutes yesterday floating outside his spacecraft. Zhai waved the Chinese flag in space for the first time and retrieved a small amount of "hardened lubricant" from the exterior of the spacecraft. This was only the third manned spaceflight for the world's most populous nation, but it's pushing its program hard with an eye on achieving specatacular results that will make the world take notice.
The Chinese government claims that it is working towards putting a man on the moon, something the Americans and Russians don't seem to think is worth the money at the moment. The scientific community appears to be somewhat split on how close the Chinese actually are to achieving this. The spacewalk went off without a hitch, and the Chinese are also pointing to the reliability of their new, independently-designed spacesuit (i.e. it's not a knock-off of the American version), which Zhai used for the first time on this mission. The Chinese also appear to be heading towards their own national "SkyLab"-type space station.
One interesting aspect of this is that the spacewalk was carried live on Chinese television. This shows great confidence on the part of the control-freak Chinese government that things would go well. Even if they had the capability, Soviet Russia would never have considered such a thing, because of the possible propaganda disaster of a catastrophic failure. China's government is learning at least a little of the value of openness, perhaps influenced by the recent Summer Olympics.
I was surprised by the lack of coverage this event received in the United States. Admittedly, it came on a heavy news weekend here, dominated by the Presidential debate and the economic crisis. However, if one wanted to find coverage of this story in any sort of depth, one basically had to seek out science-focused websites. Was there more coverage elsewhere in the world?
The Chinese government claims that it is working towards putting a man on the moon, something the Americans and Russians don't seem to think is worth the money at the moment. The scientific community appears to be somewhat split on how close the Chinese actually are to achieving this. The spacewalk went off without a hitch, and the Chinese are also pointing to the reliability of their new, independently-designed spacesuit (i.e. it's not a knock-off of the American version), which Zhai used for the first time on this mission. The Chinese also appear to be heading towards their own national "SkyLab"-type space station.
One interesting aspect of this is that the spacewalk was carried live on Chinese television. This shows great confidence on the part of the control-freak Chinese government that things would go well. Even if they had the capability, Soviet Russia would never have considered such a thing, because of the possible propaganda disaster of a catastrophic failure. China's government is learning at least a little of the value of openness, perhaps influenced by the recent Summer Olympics.
I was surprised by the lack of coverage this event received in the United States. Admittedly, it came on a heavy news weekend here, dominated by the Presidential debate and the economic crisis. However, if one wanted to find coverage of this story in any sort of depth, one basically had to seek out science-focused websites. Was there more coverage elsewhere in the world?
Breaking News: We Have a Deal
In an update on some of our previous discussions here, the US Congress seems to have negotiated a deal for a Wall St. bailout that at least a majority can live with.
CNNMoney discusses the provisions of the deal here: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/economy/Sunday_talks_bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes
Basically, the deal is based on the original $700 billion package proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson. The Democratic add-ons (the most discussed of which have been additional Congressional oversight of the money and caps on CEO pay for those companies receiving the money) seem to be included, as well. The Republican "revolt" in the House was placated at least somewhat with a provision involving mortgage insurance (which was pretty much that group's alternate plan), but Paulson has (not in so many words, but these people never say anything in so many words) that he doesn't think that will help and doesn't want to use that option.
In the end, we have a somewhat more sensible version of the plan we started with a week or so ago. This is the plan sparking public public protests around the country, roundly accused of favoring "Wall St. over Main St." Polls this week have showed that Americans are pretty much split... one third favor the plan, one third are opposed, and one third are undecided. No one will ever accuse me of being an economist, but I personally do not yet understand how this will actually solve the root problem. I hope it will, though, since otherwise this is an awful waste.
CNNMoney discusses the provisions of the deal here: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/economy/Sunday_talks_bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes
Basically, the deal is based on the original $700 billion package proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson. The Democratic add-ons (the most discussed of which have been additional Congressional oversight of the money and caps on CEO pay for those companies receiving the money) seem to be included, as well. The Republican "revolt" in the House was placated at least somewhat with a provision involving mortgage insurance (which was pretty much that group's alternate plan), but Paulson has (not in so many words, but these people never say anything in so many words) that he doesn't think that will help and doesn't want to use that option.
In the end, we have a somewhat more sensible version of the plan we started with a week or so ago. This is the plan sparking public public protests around the country, roundly accused of favoring "Wall St. over Main St." Polls this week have showed that Americans are pretty much split... one third favor the plan, one third are opposed, and one third are undecided. No one will ever accuse me of being an economist, but I personally do not yet understand how this will actually solve the root problem. I hope it will, though, since otherwise this is an awful waste.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Someone Took "Advance Wars" Too Seriously
The big news from the gaming world this week wasn't the release of the latest big game. It was the real-life murder of one Matthew Pyke, a student at Nottingham Trent University in England. Pyke, age 20, was heavily involved with the community surrounding Nintendo's Advance Wars, a turn-based war tactics game for the video game company's hand-held Advance platform. Pyke ran a strategy website for the game with his girlfriend, as well as writing Advance Wars fanfiction and regularly posting to forums devoted to the game. Authorities are now saying they believe that the murder may have been because of a grudge that started in the virtual world and seeped into the real world.
According to a report from The Times of London, detectives are investigating whether this was some sort of revenge killing for events that happened while playing the game online. Among the strange events among investigation is a post by a german citizen on the Facebook page of Pyke's girlfriend, in which the poster, David Heiss, vaguely implied he was responsible for Pyke's death. A man matching the description of the Heiss was reportedly arrested by Nottinghamshire Police.
Obviously there are a lot of details about this that are still to come out, and we will try to bring you a follow-up. Many media outlets will immediately point to video gamers being somehow disconnected from reality. But, in my opinion, this is the sort of unfortunate incident that has the potential to happen in any competition that people start caring about out of proportion to its actual importance. Is this really so different from that Colombian soccer player who was tragically murdered after allowing an own goal to the USA during the '94 World Cup? Or from Tonya Harding's boyfriend hiring someone to attack Nancy Kerrigan? As video games and online interaction become important to more people, we'll see more of this sort of tragedy, not less.
In any case, my thoughts go out to Pyke's loved ones who are going through this difficult time.
According to a report from The Times of London, detectives are investigating whether this was some sort of revenge killing for events that happened while playing the game online. Among the strange events among investigation is a post by a german citizen on the Facebook page of Pyke's girlfriend, in which the poster, David Heiss, vaguely implied he was responsible for Pyke's death. A man matching the description of the Heiss was reportedly arrested by Nottinghamshire Police.
Obviously there are a lot of details about this that are still to come out, and we will try to bring you a follow-up. Many media outlets will immediately point to video gamers being somehow disconnected from reality. But, in my opinion, this is the sort of unfortunate incident that has the potential to happen in any competition that people start caring about out of proportion to its actual importance. Is this really so different from that Colombian soccer player who was tragically murdered after allowing an own goal to the USA during the '94 World Cup? Or from Tonya Harding's boyfriend hiring someone to attack Nancy Kerrigan? As video games and online interaction become important to more people, we'll see more of this sort of tragedy, not less.
In any case, my thoughts go out to Pyke's loved ones who are going through this difficult time.
TechWatch: Gesture-Driven TV
Toshiba has unveiled an experimental TV that allows viewers to control it just by gesturing with their hands. A sensor above the screen picks up your movements, even in different lighting conditions. You can control a cursor by using your hand or use different gestures for "play" and "stop." You can even hold up picture cards to switch the display's language or contents.
Positives: This may be the first advance in TV technology I can think of that will actually result in me getting MORE exercise. Other than WiiFit, of course, but that can't be used while watching the game. It's also great for people, like me, whose remotes often resemble Dr. Orpheus' from "The Venture Brothers" (in that they've "vanished from the material realm").
Negatives: Those using this system will really have to watch what gestures they make, and I'm sure this will lead to a lot of accidentally fast-forwarded DVDs. Also, what if you have multiple people watching? Currently if I want to claim the remote all I need to do is lie on top of it. I can't do that here!
Will it catch on?: Ehh....
Read more here: http://www.physorg.com/news141570427.html
Positives: This may be the first advance in TV technology I can think of that will actually result in me getting MORE exercise. Other than WiiFit, of course, but that can't be used while watching the game. It's also great for people, like me, whose remotes often resemble Dr. Orpheus' from "The Venture Brothers" (in that they've "vanished from the material realm").
Negatives: Those using this system will really have to watch what gestures they make, and I'm sure this will lead to a lot of accidentally fast-forwarded DVDs. Also, what if you have multiple people watching? Currently if I want to claim the remote all I need to do is lie on top of it. I can't do that here!
Will it catch on?: Ehh....
Read more here: http://www.physorg.com/news141570427.html
Friday, September 26, 2008
Presidential Smackdown I
As I've said, I certainly don't want to make this blog exclusively political in nature, but it seemed necessary to at least post something about the first presidential debate, which too place earlier tonight in Oxford, Mississippi. I think that both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama did their jobs well. They each framed their points the way they wanted to and neither came off as excessively unreasonable. I enjoyed this particular format because it allowed for real debate, a back-and-forth between the candidates, which moderator Jim Lehrer did a good job of encouraging. If debates are simply a series of questions posed to the individual candidates, then we get the same answers we get every day in stump speeches. But if they're talking to each other, than we often get genuinely new insights into the way these people think.
A few examples: Obama framed McCain's tax policy as "tax breaks for the wealthy." McCain argued that "reducing the business tax" would encourage businesses to flourish here in the US. I'm not sure I agree with McCain, but this was the first time I had actually heard him defend his position on this issue in a coherent way. He at least sounded like someone I could reason with. Alternatively, McCain challenged Obama on one of his pet issues, earmarks. Obama explained coherently why he believes that this is not the sole solution to our budgetary issues. He made McCain come across as a little crazy on the subject. McCain did his best to do the same to Obama on the issue of Iraq withdrawal, but American support for that action is so across-the-board that I don't know if he could succeed.
McCain consistently tried to frame the foriegn policy issue in terms of experience, a subject he returned to over and over. This is what he needs to do to Obama on that issue. Obama, alternatively, needs to present this election as one of the past versus the future, which as I have explained I think it very much is. I was most struck in that respect, unexpectedly, by the exchange concerning policy towards Russia. Obama chastised Russia for some of its recent actions, but warned against "returning to a Cold War mindset." McCain led off his opening statement on the question by saying, "I have looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters: K-G-B." Obama succeeded at very clearly making that a debate about past thinking versus moving forward into the future
A few examples: Obama framed McCain's tax policy as "tax breaks for the wealthy." McCain argued that "reducing the business tax" would encourage businesses to flourish here in the US. I'm not sure I agree with McCain, but this was the first time I had actually heard him defend his position on this issue in a coherent way. He at least sounded like someone I could reason with. Alternatively, McCain challenged Obama on one of his pet issues, earmarks. Obama explained coherently why he believes that this is not the sole solution to our budgetary issues. He made McCain come across as a little crazy on the subject. McCain did his best to do the same to Obama on the issue of Iraq withdrawal, but American support for that action is so across-the-board that I don't know if he could succeed.
McCain consistently tried to frame the foriegn policy issue in terms of experience, a subject he returned to over and over. This is what he needs to do to Obama on that issue. Obama, alternatively, needs to present this election as one of the past versus the future, which as I have explained I think it very much is. I was most struck in that respect, unexpectedly, by the exchange concerning policy towards Russia. Obama chastised Russia for some of its recent actions, but warned against "returning to a Cold War mindset." McCain led off his opening statement on the question by saying, "I have looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters: K-G-B." Obama succeeded at very clearly making that a debate about past thinking versus moving forward into the future
Viet Cong is One Thing, Letterman Is Another
An unexpected consequence of John McCain's campaign suspension (is it back on now? Sorta kinda? Was it ever really off?) was this video hitting number one on You Tube:
It won't embed right... here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
McCain cancelled his scheduled Wednesday night appearance on David Letterman's talk show. The two have in the past been good friends, and McCain for all intents and purposes announced his candidacy several months ago on Letterman's show. Letterman was at first, he says, understanding, but then became angrier when it was discovered that rather than "rushing to the airport," McCain was just down the street in New York doing an interview with Katie Couric... on Letterman's own network. Eventually Keith Olbermann showed up as a replacement, and more hilarity ensued.
What's most interesting about this to me is that the video that hit number one isn't the official version CBS released, which is under a minute and a half. It's the version I link to above, which is nearly ten minutes. That's right, the people on YouTube apparently have better attention spans than the mainstream networks give them credit for. Huh.
It won't embed right... here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
McCain cancelled his scheduled Wednesday night appearance on David Letterman's talk show. The two have in the past been good friends, and McCain for all intents and purposes announced his candidacy several months ago on Letterman's show. Letterman was at first, he says, understanding, but then became angrier when it was discovered that rather than "rushing to the airport," McCain was just down the street in New York doing an interview with Katie Couric... on Letterman's own network. Eventually Keith Olbermann showed up as a replacement, and more hilarity ensued.
What's most interesting about this to me is that the video that hit number one isn't the official version CBS released, which is under a minute and a half. It's the version I link to above, which is nearly ten minutes. That's right, the people on YouTube apparently have better attention spans than the mainstream networks give them credit for. Huh.
That Economic Summit? It "devolved into a shouting match"
Yahoo!News has become the closest thing the internet has to a New York Times, or at least what the Times used to be. How weird is that? They're actually better than, say, USA Today, at any rate.
So, to keep y'all updated on the current situation, I give you this, which is one of the more entertaining straight news articles you'll ever read: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown
I thought political meetings only went like this on West Wing.
Update: Yahoo's doing that thing they do where they're updating on the same topic, so it's important but slightly less entertaining. I encourage you to seek out accounts of the meetings last night. It's pretty awesome.
Update 2: Best (and most understandable) explanation of aforementioned crisis I have yet seen: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/economy/bailout_impact/index.htm?cnn=yes
So, to keep y'all updated on the current situation, I give you this, which is one of the more entertaining straight news articles you'll ever read: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown
I thought political meetings only went like this on West Wing.
Update: Yahoo's doing that thing they do where they're updating on the same topic, so it's important but slightly less entertaining. I encourage you to seek out accounts of the meetings last night. It's pretty awesome.
Update 2: Best (and most understandable) explanation of aforementioned crisis I have yet seen: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/economy/bailout_impact/index.htm?cnn=yes
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The US Financial Crisis: It's Only Money
I wanted to write a thoughtful post about the current US “Financial Crisis.” It’s all the news wants to talk about these days. I found I didn’t quite have the understanding I wanted, and so I tried to do some research. This just made me feel like an idiot. You want to know the real reason no one in charge of anything did anything to stop what’s going on right now? It’s because those in the industry have filled the air with so much double talk and nonsensical weirdness that it’s impossible even for someone like me (who, not to brag, is a member of MENSA, and thus am not used to being completely befuddled by technical jibber-jabber) to make any sense of it.
The gist? All this appears to come from the “subprime mortgage market.” People took on way more debt than they could ever pay off in order to own their own home, because we’re supposed to have “an ownership society.” I think that may originally be Bush’s phrase. These people of course defaulted on their loans quite a bit of the time. Why they were given the credit in the first place, no one seems to be able to explain. Many of these homes were foreclosed. Other mortgages were picked up by finance firms, who through some strange bit of chicanery seemed to think they were worth something. No one can explain this part to me, either. Part of the reason they could do this was government deregulation that the Republicans have been pushing for years.
Now these firms are failing. Big insurance firms like AIG are failing too. The upshot is we’re theoretically on the verge of a spiral where it will become harder and harder to get credit, people will lose their homes, the stock market will plunge, and those whose retirements are based in the stock market will lose their money…
So the White House has decided that the solution is to use $700 Billion (along with a strange package of demands involving lack of oversight that, again, don’t make sense) that we don’t actually have to buy the “bad debt” that the financial firms apparently thought was worth something as a “bail out.” The obvious problem with this, besides the price tag, is the fact that all it does is perpetuate the status quo, which is how we got here…
I don’t want to give this topic more space than I think it deserves, because honestly I think it’s being overblown. A few times recently people have looked at me strange when I used the phrase “It’s only money.” I have trouble getting worked up over financial matters. In any case, this isn’t why I made this blog. But it feels like Bush wants to railroad us into something, like Iraq all over again, that makes no sense. I feel like I’m using that phrase a lot. At the very least, I need somebody to sit down and explain this to me, slowly, in words that have set definitions, before I agree to it. Congressmen say their offices are getting deluged with calls, and those calls are 90 to 1 against.
I can tell you one thing. The way to “prevent a financial panic” is not to go on television and tell us the sky is falling, the way the President did last night. One more thing that makes no sense.
The gist? All this appears to come from the “subprime mortgage market.” People took on way more debt than they could ever pay off in order to own their own home, because we’re supposed to have “an ownership society.” I think that may originally be Bush’s phrase. These people of course defaulted on their loans quite a bit of the time. Why they were given the credit in the first place, no one seems to be able to explain. Many of these homes were foreclosed. Other mortgages were picked up by finance firms, who through some strange bit of chicanery seemed to think they were worth something. No one can explain this part to me, either. Part of the reason they could do this was government deregulation that the Republicans have been pushing for years.
Now these firms are failing. Big insurance firms like AIG are failing too. The upshot is we’re theoretically on the verge of a spiral where it will become harder and harder to get credit, people will lose their homes, the stock market will plunge, and those whose retirements are based in the stock market will lose their money…
So the White House has decided that the solution is to use $700 Billion (along with a strange package of demands involving lack of oversight that, again, don’t make sense) that we don’t actually have to buy the “bad debt” that the financial firms apparently thought was worth something as a “bail out.” The obvious problem with this, besides the price tag, is the fact that all it does is perpetuate the status quo, which is how we got here…
I don’t want to give this topic more space than I think it deserves, because honestly I think it’s being overblown. A few times recently people have looked at me strange when I used the phrase “It’s only money.” I have trouble getting worked up over financial matters. In any case, this isn’t why I made this blog. But it feels like Bush wants to railroad us into something, like Iraq all over again, that makes no sense. I feel like I’m using that phrase a lot. At the very least, I need somebody to sit down and explain this to me, slowly, in words that have set definitions, before I agree to it. Congressmen say their offices are getting deluged with calls, and those calls are 90 to 1 against.
I can tell you one thing. The way to “prevent a financial panic” is not to go on television and tell us the sky is falling, the way the President did last night. One more thing that makes no sense.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
John McCain Throws a Hail Mary
So, we find out John McCain is desperate. I didn't make this blog to be a political polemic, that wasn't really the point. But really, this is pretty much unheard of. Today he announced that he is suspending his campaign for President until the economic crisis is resolved. He wants to cancel the Presidential debate on Friday unless the proposed "bailout plan" (which I was originally planning on posting about) is passed, an eventuality that's looking increasingly unlikely (despite the White House's claims that it would be "unthinkable") since Congress has developed an inconvenient ability the past few days to think for itself. Obama's response?: "I think that one of the president's jobs will be to focus on more than one thing at once."
I don't really have a sense of what public reaction to this is going to be. The Debate Commission (theoretically unbiased, though notorious for excluding even vaguely-viable third-party candidates) says Friday's debate in Oxford, Mississippi (and why there, exactly?) will go on as scheduled. The McCain camp says it will not show up. President Bush went on TV a few minutes ago to say our "entire economy is at risk" because of this Wall Street business (the causes of that, as I mentioned, are probably another post). The proposed bailout (which both campaigns said tonight in a joint statement is "flawed") involves the Treasury Department and the only quasi-governmental Federal Reserve 700 Billion taxpayer dollars to such companies as AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc. in order to keep them remotely solvent. Some members of Congress (seemingly on both sides of the aisle) have balked at this for a variety of reasons, ranging from free-marketers who say government intervention in the economy is how we got into this mess (who are sort of right... if you look at it in a skewed way) to populists who believe that this would only "reward bad behavior" for overpaid CEOs, who would suffer no punishment for their gross mismanagement. And most prominently, $700 Billion is quite simply money we don't have when we're already grossly in debt.
I will try and post further updates on this situation as it develops. I personally believe this is McCain trying to manufacture what's known as an "October surprise" out of thin air, or thick air, anyway. The latest polls, for what they are, show Obama with a big lead in some key states and surprisingly pretty much tied in a few others that Republicans win most of the time, not to mention a lead nationally that is nearing double digit percentage points. In a third millenium election, that's a massive blowout. And the polls don't even take into account much of one of Obama's most solid voting blocks, voters under 26, because they only poll those with landlines. (i.e. if you only have a cell phone, presidential polls act like you don't exist).
McCain knows this. He's trying to change the game. I don't know if it'll work or not. It's probably worth a shot on his part, at any rate. Bush & Co. are trying the same fear-mongering tactics they used in the run-up to Iraq. Again, I'm not sure if it'll work... and the only reason I can even see for them to want to is because they're in deep with the Wall Street CEOs... but surely they're not that corrupt, are they? Oh, wait...
p.s. Not all our readers are (hopefully) American, so I thought I should explain the title... a Hail Mary's a play in American Football (the most complex strategy-based sport in the world, for my money, which is why I love it). More on THAT here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary_pass
I don't really have a sense of what public reaction to this is going to be. The Debate Commission (theoretically unbiased, though notorious for excluding even vaguely-viable third-party candidates) says Friday's debate in Oxford, Mississippi (and why there, exactly?) will go on as scheduled. The McCain camp says it will not show up. President Bush went on TV a few minutes ago to say our "entire economy is at risk" because of this Wall Street business (the causes of that, as I mentioned, are probably another post). The proposed bailout (which both campaigns said tonight in a joint statement is "flawed") involves the Treasury Department and the only quasi-governmental Federal Reserve 700 Billion taxpayer dollars to such companies as AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc. in order to keep them remotely solvent. Some members of Congress (seemingly on both sides of the aisle) have balked at this for a variety of reasons, ranging from free-marketers who say government intervention in the economy is how we got into this mess (who are sort of right... if you look at it in a skewed way) to populists who believe that this would only "reward bad behavior" for overpaid CEOs, who would suffer no punishment for their gross mismanagement. And most prominently, $700 Billion is quite simply money we don't have when we're already grossly in debt.
I will try and post further updates on this situation as it develops. I personally believe this is McCain trying to manufacture what's known as an "October surprise" out of thin air, or thick air, anyway. The latest polls, for what they are, show Obama with a big lead in some key states and surprisingly pretty much tied in a few others that Republicans win most of the time, not to mention a lead nationally that is nearing double digit percentage points. In a third millenium election, that's a massive blowout. And the polls don't even take into account much of one of Obama's most solid voting blocks, voters under 26, because they only poll those with landlines. (i.e. if you only have a cell phone, presidential polls act like you don't exist).
McCain knows this. He's trying to change the game. I don't know if it'll work or not. It's probably worth a shot on his part, at any rate. Bush & Co. are trying the same fear-mongering tactics they used in the run-up to Iraq. Again, I'm not sure if it'll work... and the only reason I can even see for them to want to is because they're in deep with the Wall Street CEOs... but surely they're not that corrupt, are they? Oh, wait...
p.s. Not all our readers are (hopefully) American, so I thought I should explain the title... a Hail Mary's a play in American Football (the most complex strategy-based sport in the world, for my money, which is why I love it). More on THAT here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary_pass
MemeWatch: Oprah vs. the multitudinous male genitalia
You know something’s become an internet sensation when techno remixes of it start appearing on YouTube. This past week, Oprah Winfrey, talk show host/media mogul/philanthropist/actress/messiah, became the subject of the latest big internet meme, perhaps most popularly titled “Oprah vs. the 9000 Penises.” On an episode of her incredibly popular talk show, Winfrey had come once again to the subject of sexual predators. She announced that she had become aware of a sort of secret society of said predators, and that one of them had sent her a letter stating “We have 9000 penises, and all of them are raping your children.” These words coming out of the mouth of “the world’s most influential woman” were rated hilarious enough to skyrocket up to the top of Digg, and recordings of the segment became, for a few minutes anyway, among the most sought after videos on YouTube. So… where did this one come from?
Winfrey has dedicated a good portion of her imposing influence to the fight against sexual predators. This is completely understandable. She has stated that she was sexually molested herself as a child. When she was 14, she became pregnant, though the baby died shortly after its birth. Unlike almost all victims of such abuse, she is now in a position where she can hope to make a positive difference. She has a section of her website dedicated to tracking down fugitive sex offenders, and at least two arrests have been directly credited to her site. Winfrey’s ability to overcome her history of abuse can be credited as part of her border-crossing appeal… the show is apparently now the number one program in, of all places, Saudi Arabia.
This personal battle has even tinged her takes on other subjects. Winfrey has long been a prominent supporter of gay rights. In the 1990s, she produced an episode of her show on the subject of gay marriage. When an audience member stood up to say that she was tired of homosexuals publicly flaunting their sex lives, Oprah (as she is nearly always simply known) replied “You know what I’m tired of? Heterosexual males raping and sodomizing young girls. That’s what I’m tired of!”
On the other hand, the threat of sexual predation on American children is almost certainly blown way out of proportion, and Winfrey is at least partially responsible for this. The Wikipedia page for “Mass Hysteria” even cites the modern attitude towards such criminals as a possible example. It is probably in reality more comparable to the medieval trend of witch hunts. This is the only crime (except for suspicion of terrorism, but that’s another post) where all those convicted must register their whereabouts with the authorities for the rest of their lives. Legislators have of course continued to pass bills on this subject, which are applied not just to new offenders but to those already registered. Several court cases are currently underway to determine whether these laws count as ex post facto (and are thus illegal). (My take is that they obviously are. The real question in these cases is whether we care.)
Many states enact even more stringent laws. In the Columbus area, where I live, some of the more affluent communities have passed regulations keeping sex offenders from entering into zones within one mile of schools, or playgrounds, or swimming pools… these suburbs, not being that big area-wise, have basically barred those who committed this crime in the past from legally entering their city limits. It’s perhaps worth pointing out that similar laws are not even in effect for convicted murderers.
My take on Winfrey is that she’s talented, shrewd, and well-meaning, but not as discerning (or, strangely, savvy enough in the sort of media studies I spent a lot of time on in college) as is necessary for someone in her position. A prime past example of this is her mid-nineties spat with the Texas beef industry when she declared that she was no longer eating hamburgers due to fears of mad cow disease. She then proceeded to take her show down to Texas and do an expose on the subject. A single cow testing positive for the disease was eventually found in the state… about a decade later. She was sued for defamation by the industry, who claimed she cost them millions of dollars. More recently she has taken to evangelizing on her show for a self-help program called “The Secret,” which takes the “power of positive thinking” and makes the next bizarre metaphysical step.
In this case, the concept of some sort of secret organization of sexual predators seems ridiculous on its face, and not just because we’re presented with this respected woman saying “9000 penises.” These are, speaking in general terms, solitary, depraved creatures, acting on urges that even they often seem to know are morally wrong. How would something like this even get started? What would be the purpose of it? It just fails to make sense to me, and in my opinion it should have made sense to Oprah before she blurted it bluntly out in front of millions of viewers.
So, was that way too much analysis for an internet meme about penises? Whaddaya think?
Winfrey has dedicated a good portion of her imposing influence to the fight against sexual predators. This is completely understandable. She has stated that she was sexually molested herself as a child. When she was 14, she became pregnant, though the baby died shortly after its birth. Unlike almost all victims of such abuse, she is now in a position where she can hope to make a positive difference. She has a section of her website dedicated to tracking down fugitive sex offenders, and at least two arrests have been directly credited to her site. Winfrey’s ability to overcome her history of abuse can be credited as part of her border-crossing appeal… the show is apparently now the number one program in, of all places, Saudi Arabia.
This personal battle has even tinged her takes on other subjects. Winfrey has long been a prominent supporter of gay rights. In the 1990s, she produced an episode of her show on the subject of gay marriage. When an audience member stood up to say that she was tired of homosexuals publicly flaunting their sex lives, Oprah (as she is nearly always simply known) replied “You know what I’m tired of? Heterosexual males raping and sodomizing young girls. That’s what I’m tired of!”
On the other hand, the threat of sexual predation on American children is almost certainly blown way out of proportion, and Winfrey is at least partially responsible for this. The Wikipedia page for “Mass Hysteria” even cites the modern attitude towards such criminals as a possible example. It is probably in reality more comparable to the medieval trend of witch hunts. This is the only crime (except for suspicion of terrorism, but that’s another post) where all those convicted must register their whereabouts with the authorities for the rest of their lives. Legislators have of course continued to pass bills on this subject, which are applied not just to new offenders but to those already registered. Several court cases are currently underway to determine whether these laws count as ex post facto (and are thus illegal). (My take is that they obviously are. The real question in these cases is whether we care.)
Many states enact even more stringent laws. In the Columbus area, where I live, some of the more affluent communities have passed regulations keeping sex offenders from entering into zones within one mile of schools, or playgrounds, or swimming pools… these suburbs, not being that big area-wise, have basically barred those who committed this crime in the past from legally entering their city limits. It’s perhaps worth pointing out that similar laws are not even in effect for convicted murderers.
My take on Winfrey is that she’s talented, shrewd, and well-meaning, but not as discerning (or, strangely, savvy enough in the sort of media studies I spent a lot of time on in college) as is necessary for someone in her position. A prime past example of this is her mid-nineties spat with the Texas beef industry when she declared that she was no longer eating hamburgers due to fears of mad cow disease. She then proceeded to take her show down to Texas and do an expose on the subject. A single cow testing positive for the disease was eventually found in the state… about a decade later. She was sued for defamation by the industry, who claimed she cost them millions of dollars. More recently she has taken to evangelizing on her show for a self-help program called “The Secret,” which takes the “power of positive thinking” and makes the next bizarre metaphysical step.
In this case, the concept of some sort of secret organization of sexual predators seems ridiculous on its face, and not just because we’re presented with this respected woman saying “9000 penises.” These are, speaking in general terms, solitary, depraved creatures, acting on urges that even they often seem to know are morally wrong. How would something like this even get started? What would be the purpose of it? It just fails to make sense to me, and in my opinion it should have made sense to Oprah before she blurted it bluntly out in front of millions of viewers.
So, was that way too much analysis for an internet meme about penises? Whaddaya think?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
"Mad Men" Review: The Alternate Universe That Was 1960 America
For some time now, I've been a proponent of television's qualitative ascendancy over mainstream film... if you know where to look. That's why it's a little embarassing that I haven't gotten around to "Mad Men" until now. A Golden Globe and an Emmy later, it appears I've missed a caravel-sized boat (of course, "Everybody Loves Raymond" won plenty of Emmys, and I feel quite proud of having been absent from that particular cruise). Of course, one has to remember that the series began life as the first ever original series on AMC, a channel I had previously mostly thought of as an inferior substitute for Turner Classic Movies, so there was little to initially catch my attention. In any case, after the unfortunately stultifying Emmys last night and weeks of urging from sources I trust, I set out to download the series' award-winning pilot, "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes."
"Mad Men" is a hard show to review. Its drama, at least in this pilot, is nearly entirely internal. We are presented with a series of characters that feel like real people, and who are placed very well-realized, well-defined world, that of New York, Madison Avenue to be exact, circa 1960. And oh, what a world! For someone like myself, a proud member of the digital generation, this feels less like a historical drama than one of those alternate universes where adventurers ride around in dirigibles. It's a culture that looks remarkably like our own, with car-filled streets and executives clad in expensive suits sitting behind desks... but it feels completely alien.
In the great recent HBO series "Rome," set in the famed formative years of the Roman Empire, the historical touches feel very authentic, but the sense we were left with was that people of all eras are essentially the same, and have essentially the same concerns. Ancient Rome is made to feel as modern as possible without sacrificing believability. In "Mad Men," we are instead repeatedly have the point driven home that life in 1960 was incredibly different than it is today.
This is a place where absolutely everyone smokes, all the time, everywhere. It's amazing they didn't all die of lung cancer by the time they were 35. This is a world where feminism is barely a shadow on the horizon, where men routinely call women "honey," where one woman says to another, without irony, that the men who designed a typewriter "made it so simple a woman could use it." A doctor prescribes birth control pills as barely an afterthought in the middle of lecturing a girl not to be a "strumpet." Businessmen are expected to drink alcohol while at work, and what looks like a closet conceals a team of busy female switchboard operators.
The milieu nearly overwhelms the story, but it never quite does. We are led with a sure hand into these people's lives, and halfway through the opening episode I was suffienciently at ease to sit back and enjoy this story, to listen to these people talk. They all come across, by modern standards, of above-average intelligence, coming from a time when conversation was still among the chief forms of recreation. Their speech isn't flowery, but after a while one starts to hear a sort of subtle poetry in it. Jon Hamm, doing a fine job as ad exec Don Draper, gets a final speech that may be the emotional center of the episode, about how the traditional notion of romantic love was "invented by people like me, to sell nylons."
There isn't a sour note in this first episode, and its Emmy for writing was well-deserved. I can tell you that this is a show worth seeking out on its obscure cable network, and that this will not be the last episode I'll be watching.
"Mad Men" is a hard show to review. Its drama, at least in this pilot, is nearly entirely internal. We are presented with a series of characters that feel like real people, and who are placed very well-realized, well-defined world, that of New York, Madison Avenue to be exact, circa 1960. And oh, what a world! For someone like myself, a proud member of the digital generation, this feels less like a historical drama than one of those alternate universes where adventurers ride around in dirigibles. It's a culture that looks remarkably like our own, with car-filled streets and executives clad in expensive suits sitting behind desks... but it feels completely alien.
In the great recent HBO series "Rome," set in the famed formative years of the Roman Empire, the historical touches feel very authentic, but the sense we were left with was that people of all eras are essentially the same, and have essentially the same concerns. Ancient Rome is made to feel as modern as possible without sacrificing believability. In "Mad Men," we are instead repeatedly have the point driven home that life in 1960 was incredibly different than it is today.
This is a place where absolutely everyone smokes, all the time, everywhere. It's amazing they didn't all die of lung cancer by the time they were 35. This is a world where feminism is barely a shadow on the horizon, where men routinely call women "honey," where one woman says to another, without irony, that the men who designed a typewriter "made it so simple a woman could use it." A doctor prescribes birth control pills as barely an afterthought in the middle of lecturing a girl not to be a "strumpet." Businessmen are expected to drink alcohol while at work, and what looks like a closet conceals a team of busy female switchboard operators.
The milieu nearly overwhelms the story, but it never quite does. We are led with a sure hand into these people's lives, and halfway through the opening episode I was suffienciently at ease to sit back and enjoy this story, to listen to these people talk. They all come across, by modern standards, of above-average intelligence, coming from a time when conversation was still among the chief forms of recreation. Their speech isn't flowery, but after a while one starts to hear a sort of subtle poetry in it. Jon Hamm, doing a fine job as ad exec Don Draper, gets a final speech that may be the emotional center of the episode, about how the traditional notion of romantic love was "invented by people like me, to sell nylons."
There isn't a sour note in this first episode, and its Emmy for writing was well-deserved. I can tell you that this is a show worth seeking out on its obscure cable network, and that this will not be the last episode I'll be watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
