First of all, I want to apologize to my readers for the recent lack of posts. I have had no time to work on this lately for a mix of personal and work-related reasons. I work in politics, and this is prime time for us. It’s like working as a tax preparer the week leading up to April 15. You probably will not see posts in earnest as before until after this Tuesday.
This is a blog, not a diary, but I just wanted to say a few things. In today’s world, it’s easy to be overwhelmed. I know because I feel overwhelmed much of the time. We’re less than a week from an election that people on both sides seem to feel is of dire importance. I would say that the tension level of the average person is as high as I’ve seen it. We hear every day about people killing each other somewhere in the world, sometimes in our own cities. No matter if you’re candidate’s ten points up or ten points down, sometimes things can just seem hopeless. I received an e-mail today, in 2008, going on at length about how all of our problems in America are caused by “negroes” and arguing that we should send them back to Africa. It urged me to “pass this on to everyone you know!” And, to top it all off, tomorrow’s Halloween, and everyone I know is so busy preparing for the election on Tuesday that I have no plans. For the first time in my life, I don’t have a Halloween costume this year. So all in all, things seem pretty depressing.
What’s difficult to remember in all this is that we are here, on a planet full of dazzling love and beauty. Today when I walked to the bus stop, it was bitingly cold and the grass had all turned white overnight. The sky in the East was laced with lines of pink, a tone poem of color. And, as I walked, I watched flock after flock of birds fly out of the sunrise and over my head. They were huge, dense masses, with hundreds of birds packed tightly together. I’m not sure what species they were… they were very small, and beat their wings hard. And the last flock was the biggest. It stretched all the way across the sky from north to south. I watched it with my mouth open and my neck craned upward, until a car honked at me and I realized that the light had changed and I could cross the street.
And the greatest thing is, you never know when moments like that are going to come. I’ve found that when things look bleakest, the rays of sunshine stand out even more. Pleasant conversations with total strangers that you think about for hours afterward. An engrossing chapter of a book. A compliment from a friend. I think that there’s something in all this. I’m not a messiah or a great philosopher, and couldn’t tell you what, but we have to hold onto that something through everything else.
And, hey, if you’re a Phillies fan, and I know a few, you don’t need any of this. It can be easy to be jealous of someone else’s happiness, but sometimes it’s also good to get swept up in pure jubilation, whatever the source. A grown man running in from left field, jumping for joy like a little boy at accomplishing the dream of his life. We are here in a world where that happens every day, somewhere.
As a dying Rowena Allister might sternly order, “You… flowers.” “Watchers” fans will get that… I think they’re most of our readership, anyway. Anyway, I’ll see you all soon. Happy Halloween!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Is Voter Fraud "Undermining the Fabric of our Democracy?"
In the last debate, Sen. John McCain's answer appears to have been yes. Republicans are up in arms over what they say is the potential for widespread "voter fraud," most evidenced by the activities of ACORN. The ACORN acronym has been thrown around in this election nearly as much as the name of Bill Ayers, but I doubt most Americans have taken the time to really find out what's going on. In truth, voter fraud is extremely rare in this country these days. What ACORN committed was voter registration fraud, which sounds the same but is extremely different in degree.
When Republicans say "voter fraud," they seem to be referring to some of the old-style techniques commonly thought to have been employed by the old political machines. Tammany Hall, the rulers of 1800s New York, used to take drunks off the street, dress them up nicely, and take them around from polling place to polling place, gradually changing their appearance as they went. This was before photo ID. You'll also often hear that President Kennedy beat Richard Nixon in 1960 because the Daley machine in Chicago counted votes from dead people. This is probably false, though it seems to have permanently entered American political lore (when Republicans accuse Obama of being a "Chicago politician," people are supposed to remember this). The key in both of these scenarios is that they involve people actually voting when they aren't supposed to.
ACORN stands for the American Community Organizations for Reform Now (Yes, Rudy, community organizers). It was founded in 1970 and since then has been an advocate and lobbying group for poor Americans. One of its many objectives is to register as many of the poor as possible to vote. In this particular election, what has come to light is that ACORN tried to accomplish two things at once by paying low-income individuals to register other low-income individuals. Unfortunately, in order to meet their quotas, some of these workers seem to have simply made up names and filled out the forms for those imaginary people. Some of these were extremely obvious frauds, such as "Batman" or "Tony Romo".
Now, this is of course illegal. ACORN immediately admitted that they had no good way of filtering out all of the fakes, since they're not the government, but also refused to simply throw out all the applications. So some fakes probably slipped through the cracks and actually ended up registered. But here's the thing: for this fraud to even start having an effect on the election, the fake people have to actually show up and vote. They have to show ID. Now, you can certainly fake an ID (just ask any 19-year-old college student), but for such a fraud to be widespread and organized, as the Republicans seem to suggest, there would have to be legions of people with valid fake IDs in the same identities that were registered. Since the fake names were blatantly made up by independent workers, this is not going to happen. A conspiracy in this manner would just not be practical.
In other words, in order for Batman being registered to really be a problem, Batman would have to actually show up and try to vote. One incident that happened in Illinois has gotten a lot of play in the media, where registration info was mailed to a dead pet goldfish. Illinois Republicans immediately claimed fraud. Not only would the fish have to actually appear and vote for this to be an issue, it wasn't registered in the first place... it was only sent information on how to register.
So really, Republican claims of fraud in this instance are just that... a fraud. They are an attempt to a) link Barack Obama to something that sounds like corruption, in the absence of actual corruption to link him to, and b) lay the groundwork for a possible challenge to the electoral results if necessary. Now, at the moment Obama seems to have a big lead in the polls, but if that tightens by election day, and I have little doubt that it will, we may see a long, drawn-out fight that Republicans have been preparing for some time now.
When Republicans say "voter fraud," they seem to be referring to some of the old-style techniques commonly thought to have been employed by the old political machines. Tammany Hall, the rulers of 1800s New York, used to take drunks off the street, dress them up nicely, and take them around from polling place to polling place, gradually changing their appearance as they went. This was before photo ID. You'll also often hear that President Kennedy beat Richard Nixon in 1960 because the Daley machine in Chicago counted votes from dead people. This is probably false, though it seems to have permanently entered American political lore (when Republicans accuse Obama of being a "Chicago politician," people are supposed to remember this). The key in both of these scenarios is that they involve people actually voting when they aren't supposed to.
ACORN stands for the American Community Organizations for Reform Now (Yes, Rudy, community organizers). It was founded in 1970 and since then has been an advocate and lobbying group for poor Americans. One of its many objectives is to register as many of the poor as possible to vote. In this particular election, what has come to light is that ACORN tried to accomplish two things at once by paying low-income individuals to register other low-income individuals. Unfortunately, in order to meet their quotas, some of these workers seem to have simply made up names and filled out the forms for those imaginary people. Some of these were extremely obvious frauds, such as "Batman" or "Tony Romo".
Now, this is of course illegal. ACORN immediately admitted that they had no good way of filtering out all of the fakes, since they're not the government, but also refused to simply throw out all the applications. So some fakes probably slipped through the cracks and actually ended up registered. But here's the thing: for this fraud to even start having an effect on the election, the fake people have to actually show up and vote. They have to show ID. Now, you can certainly fake an ID (just ask any 19-year-old college student), but for such a fraud to be widespread and organized, as the Republicans seem to suggest, there would have to be legions of people with valid fake IDs in the same identities that were registered. Since the fake names were blatantly made up by independent workers, this is not going to happen. A conspiracy in this manner would just not be practical.
In other words, in order for Batman being registered to really be a problem, Batman would have to actually show up and try to vote. One incident that happened in Illinois has gotten a lot of play in the media, where registration info was mailed to a dead pet goldfish. Illinois Republicans immediately claimed fraud. Not only would the fish have to actually appear and vote for this to be an issue, it wasn't registered in the first place... it was only sent information on how to register.
So really, Republican claims of fraud in this instance are just that... a fraud. They are an attempt to a) link Barack Obama to something that sounds like corruption, in the absence of actual corruption to link him to, and b) lay the groundwork for a possible challenge to the electoral results if necessary. Now, at the moment Obama seems to have a big lead in the polls, but if that tightens by election day, and I have little doubt that it will, we may see a long, drawn-out fight that Republicans have been preparing for some time now.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Bits: Wildflower Decapitation Edition
Awesome.-A video from a random episode of the old Batman series has been making the rounds of the YouTubes because it appears to offer commentary on the 2008 election... 40 years in advance. There are several parallels that can be seen in this clip alone, which features Batman and the Penguin engaging in a debate prior to an election for Mayor of Gotham City. Of course, this campaign has become such a caricature of itself that it's no wonder it reminds people of a campy 60s TV series.
-Unsettlingly, anecdotal evidence increasingly suggests that early voting sites across the country are being targeted by angry protestors, specifically anti-Obama protestors. This article describes an incident in North Carolina, and features video. So... you're protesting voting? Why not protest Obama by going into the early voting place and voting against him? And I especially like the comment that "Sundays are for church, not for voting"... by the person who's spending her Sunday protesting instead of in church.
-All over the news today... the discovery on the Arizona/Utah border (within Vermillion Cliffs National Monument) of what is being termed a "Dinosaur Dance Floor." How did it get this name? To quote Newswise.com:
“Get out there and try stepping in their footsteps, and you feel like you areThe find apparently includes thousands of dinosaur tracks in a very small area, in some places a dozen per square yard. There are least four different species represented. The scientists are theorizing that the tracks were formed at an oasis in what that time was a huge area of sand dunes, larger than today's Sahara. I have to throw in one more quote here:
playing the game ‘Dance Dance Revolution’ that teenagers dance on,” says
Marjorie Chan, professor and chair of geology and geophysics at the University
of Utah. “This kind of reminded me of that – a dinosaur dance floor – because
there are so many tracks and a variety of different tracks.”
Seiler envisions the dinosaurs were “happy to be at this place, having wanderedAh, yes, poetical scientists.
up and down many a sand dune, exhausted from the heat and the blowing sand,
relieved and happy to come to a place where there was water.”
-Rather interesting news from Switzerland today, a nation always on the cutting edge when it comes to government. A new law bans the humiliation of plants. Recently, the Swiss Parliament asked a special committee of philosophers, lawyers, geneticists, and theologians to determine the meaning of dignity as it pertains to plants. They have issued their report, which says that it is morally wrong to participate in "the decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason", and it appears that parliament is acting on those guidelines. However, one wonders what the actual extent and/or enforceability of such a law would be. More here.
-Free TV On the Internet: Check out this past week's new Family Guy episode, "The Road to Germany". It's already infamous because it has Nazis wearing McCain/Palin buttons, which seems like an unlikely thing to have fixated upon in an episode that revolves around a port-a-potty time machine (which I suppose makes as much sense as a phone box) and a baby dressing up as Hitler.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Breaking Sports News: World Series Is Set
The Tampa Bay Rays, who as recently as last year might have won a poll for lowliest franchise in Major League Baseball, advanced to their first World Series last night after a great tension-filled ALCS Game 7 that ended in a 3-1 Rays victory over the defending champion Boston Red Sox. The Rays set a record for most home runs in a playoff series with sixteen, and excelled in pretty much every aspect of the game. Still, it took everything they had to overcome the vaunted Red Sox, who going into last night had won their last nine ALCS elimination games.
So the World Series will start in, where else, St. Petersburg, Florida on Wednesday night. It will pit the Rays against the Philadelphia Phillies, who breezed through the National League side of the playoffs relatively quietly against some good teams. The Phillies (favorite team of several official Walrus File relatives), have won exactly one world series in their history, in 1980, though they were in the playoffs last year and were among the favorites to open the year. While baseball traditionally doesn't see too much turnover at the top (especially compared to, say, football), there are a few recent series that invite comparison, including 1997's epic clash between the Indians (who hadn't won a championship since 1948) and the Marlins (in their first Series), as well as 2005's sweep by the White Sox (who won their first title since 1917) over the Astros (in their first Series).
FOX is apparently fearful of possible low ratings due to neither of these teams being among the game's traditional elite, but hardcore baseball fans seem to be eagerly anticipating the match-up. The Rays emerged this year with young talent at nearly every position, led by everyone's Rookie of the Year, third baseman Evan Longoria, who homered in four straight games of the ALCS, as well as exciting center fielder B.J. Upton., slugger Carlos Pena, all-star catcher Dioner Navarro, speedy left fielder Carl Crawford, and others. The pitching staff went from being historically bad last year to one of the league's best this year, with starters Scott Kazmir, Scott Shields, and unlikely ALCS MVP Matt Garza, as well as a bullpen that can comfortably go seven men deep and may herald the beginning of the post-closer era in baseball.
The Phillies, meanwhile, are led by a handful of superstars bigger than anybody on the Tampa Bay roster. Ryan Howard, a gentle giant of a first baseman, led the Majors in homers this year. Jimmy Rollins provides as big a spark as anyone in the game in the lead-off spot and is the team's unchallenged leader. He won last season's MVP award after the Phillies' furious comeback caught the collapsing New York Mets for the NL East title on the last day of the season. Their pitching staff is led by ace Cole Hamels, who won the NLCS MVP award and has been unhittable in the playoffs so far, and closer Brad Lidge, who went an unbelievable 41 for 41 in save opportunities this year. It should be an interesting contrast in styles between the two teams, and I doubt we'll see a short series.
In any case, it should be great viewing. If you're only a casual baseball fan who hasn't been paying the closest attention, now is a great chance to see some great games between two teams you may not have heard as much about in a season where the Yankees (who missed the playoffs for the first time since 1993), Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, and even the Milwaukee Brewers dominated the headlines for much of the year. ESPN has wasted no time in comparing this season's Rays club to the 1969 Amazin' Mets, who similarly came out of nowhere to establish their franchise on the national scene with a Championship. Can they seal the deal?
So the World Series will start in, where else, St. Petersburg, Florida on Wednesday night. It will pit the Rays against the Philadelphia Phillies, who breezed through the National League side of the playoffs relatively quietly against some good teams. The Phillies (favorite team of several official Walrus File relatives), have won exactly one world series in their history, in 1980, though they were in the playoffs last year and were among the favorites to open the year. While baseball traditionally doesn't see too much turnover at the top (especially compared to, say, football), there are a few recent series that invite comparison, including 1997's epic clash between the Indians (who hadn't won a championship since 1948) and the Marlins (in their first Series), as well as 2005's sweep by the White Sox (who won their first title since 1917) over the Astros (in their first Series).
FOX is apparently fearful of possible low ratings due to neither of these teams being among the game's traditional elite, but hardcore baseball fans seem to be eagerly anticipating the match-up. The Rays emerged this year with young talent at nearly every position, led by everyone's Rookie of the Year, third baseman Evan Longoria, who homered in four straight games of the ALCS, as well as exciting center fielder B.J. Upton., slugger Carlos Pena, all-star catcher Dioner Navarro, speedy left fielder Carl Crawford, and others. The pitching staff went from being historically bad last year to one of the league's best this year, with starters Scott Kazmir, Scott Shields, and unlikely ALCS MVP Matt Garza, as well as a bullpen that can comfortably go seven men deep and may herald the beginning of the post-closer era in baseball.
The Phillies, meanwhile, are led by a handful of superstars bigger than anybody on the Tampa Bay roster. Ryan Howard, a gentle giant of a first baseman, led the Majors in homers this year. Jimmy Rollins provides as big a spark as anyone in the game in the lead-off spot and is the team's unchallenged leader. He won last season's MVP award after the Phillies' furious comeback caught the collapsing New York Mets for the NL East title on the last day of the season. Their pitching staff is led by ace Cole Hamels, who won the NLCS MVP award and has been unhittable in the playoffs so far, and closer Brad Lidge, who went an unbelievable 41 for 41 in save opportunities this year. It should be an interesting contrast in styles between the two teams, and I doubt we'll see a short series.
In any case, it should be great viewing. If you're only a casual baseball fan who hasn't been paying the closest attention, now is a great chance to see some great games between two teams you may not have heard as much about in a season where the Yankees (who missed the playoffs for the first time since 1993), Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, and even the Milwaukee Brewers dominated the headlines for much of the year. ESPN has wasted no time in comparing this season's Rays club to the 1969 Amazin' Mets, who similarly came out of nowhere to establish their franchise on the national scene with a Championship. Can they seal the deal?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
TechWatch: "Buckypaper"
It has the potential to be 100 times stronger than steel, but ten times later. The AP ran a story today on a new discovery called "buckypaper" that is being developed by researchers at Florida State University. It looks like normal carbon paper, but is actually made of "carbon nanotubes." These are tube-shaped carbon molecules that, when pressed together into a composite, form an incredibly strong bond. And unlike other composite materials, buckypaper conducts electricity extremely well. The aerospace industry in particular views this technology as potentially its saving grace. In the meantime, this may be the first "nanotech" product to go mainstream, as researchers say that they may be making products in a year or so. If you've read any recent science fiction, you're aware of the potential technological revolution this may precede. Nanotechnology is the use of tiny machines to perform tasks, with the creation of ultra-strong materials only one application.
Positives: If we can create a material with the properties and strength of metal but much lighter, the potential uses are myriad to say the least. I mentioned the aerospace industry. If the plane is ten times lighter, think of the fuel savings. Fuel costs are what's really killing that industry right now. The same can probably be said of automobiles, which could not only save fuel but be made much safer. Buckypaper could also be used very soon to create more efficient electrodes for batteries and those newfangled fuel cells, as well as more durable heat shielding for computers. In the long term, the substance could theoretically be used for almost anything.
Negatives: Well, there's a theory going around that it could cause cancer a la asbestos, which would be, y'know, bad. Also, many people are afraid that nanotechnology could cause the end of the world, via the so-called "Gray Goo" theory. This is nothing that could trigger that scenario, but it's a step in the direction. Michael Crichton even wrote a novel about it. In the non-end-of-the-world sector, there are still some kinks to work out, though scientists are confident they'll be able to.
Will It Catch On?: Probably, though it's tough to tell at this point. Definitely not if the cancer business turns out to be true. The fact that this already has heavy backing from Lockheed Martin makes its appearance on the scene more likely.
A note on the name: It's called "buckypaper" because the carbon nanotubes are based on the recently discovered carbon molecule "buckminsterfullerene," which is in-turn named after the scientist, architect, visonary, etc. Buckminster Fuller.
Positives: If we can create a material with the properties and strength of metal but much lighter, the potential uses are myriad to say the least. I mentioned the aerospace industry. If the plane is ten times lighter, think of the fuel savings. Fuel costs are what's really killing that industry right now. The same can probably be said of automobiles, which could not only save fuel but be made much safer. Buckypaper could also be used very soon to create more efficient electrodes for batteries and those newfangled fuel cells, as well as more durable heat shielding for computers. In the long term, the substance could theoretically be used for almost anything.
Negatives: Well, there's a theory going around that it could cause cancer a la asbestos, which would be, y'know, bad. Also, many people are afraid that nanotechnology could cause the end of the world, via the so-called "Gray Goo" theory. This is nothing that could trigger that scenario, but it's a step in the direction. Michael Crichton even wrote a novel about it. In the non-end-of-the-world sector, there are still some kinks to work out, though scientists are confident they'll be able to.
Will It Catch On?: Probably, though it's tough to tell at this point. Definitely not if the cancer business turns out to be true. The fact that this already has heavy backing from Lockheed Martin makes its appearance on the scene more likely.
A note on the name: It's called "buckypaper" because the carbon nanotubes are based on the recently discovered carbon molecule "buckminsterfullerene," which is in-turn named after the scientist, architect, visonary, etc. Buckminster Fuller.
Bits: Epic Fail Edition
-MemeWatch is spreading! I was seriously considering doing an installment of our favorite feature about the sudden mainstream acceptance of the netspeak "Fail." But Slate beat me to the punch, with this great article.
-Former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama this morning on NBC's Meet the Press. If nothing else, this should help Obama win the news cycle and allow him to continue to keep his lead.
-McCain spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer stood by remarks this week that McCain is winning in the "real Virginia." Apparently this means the more southern parts of Virginia that aren't suburbs of Washington D.C. I'm sure this will help them win over voters in Falls Church and Arlington.
-This comes after Gov. Sarah Palin, while campaigning in Greensboro, North Carolina this week, saying she enjoyed coming to "pro-american parts of the country." Of course, Barack Obama's campaign immediately began asking "so, which parts of the country are anti-american?" And the Republicans have run into a problem trying to make talking points out of this stuff. Rep. Michele Bachmann caused a stir when she attempted to defend Palin on MSNBC's Hardball and ended up calling for an investigation into which members of Congress were "unamerican." McCarthy, anybody? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/gop-rep-channels-mccarthy_n_135735.html
-In more positive(?) Sarah Palin news, she appeared last night on Saturday Night Live and didn't really do much. Most thought this would put the spotlight on Tina Fey's Palin impersonation, but it was Fey's sometime partner-in-crime, the very pregnant Amy Poehler, who stole the show during Gov. Palin's appearance on the "Weekend Update" segment. Check this out: http://www.hulu.com/watch/39808/saturday-night-live-update-palin-rap
-Today's Free TV on the Internet: You read my review of the Crusoe pilot, "Rum and Gunpowder." Now watch it for yourself: http://www.hulu.com/watch/39786/crusoe-rum-and-gunpowder
-Former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama this morning on NBC's Meet the Press. If nothing else, this should help Obama win the news cycle and allow him to continue to keep his lead.
-McCain spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer stood by remarks this week that McCain is winning in the "real Virginia." Apparently this means the more southern parts of Virginia that aren't suburbs of Washington D.C. I'm sure this will help them win over voters in Falls Church and Arlington.
-This comes after Gov. Sarah Palin, while campaigning in Greensboro, North Carolina this week, saying she enjoyed coming to "pro-american parts of the country." Of course, Barack Obama's campaign immediately began asking "so, which parts of the country are anti-american?" And the Republicans have run into a problem trying to make talking points out of this stuff. Rep. Michele Bachmann caused a stir when she attempted to defend Palin on MSNBC's Hardball and ended up calling for an investigation into which members of Congress were "unamerican." McCarthy, anybody? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/gop-rep-channels-mccarthy_n_135735.html
-In more positive(?) Sarah Palin news, she appeared last night on Saturday Night Live and didn't really do much. Most thought this would put the spotlight on Tina Fey's Palin impersonation, but it was Fey's sometime partner-in-crime, the very pregnant Amy Poehler, who stole the show during Gov. Palin's appearance on the "Weekend Update" segment. Check this out: http://www.hulu.com/watch/39808/saturday-night-live-update-palin-rap
-Today's Free TV on the Internet: You read my review of the Crusoe pilot, "Rum and Gunpowder." Now watch it for yourself: http://www.hulu.com/watch/39786/crusoe-rum-and-gunpowder
Saturday, October 18, 2008
TV Is Back: My Own Worst Enemy & Crusoe
Oh, NBC, there was a time when you were the most exciting channel on TV. That's still true to a certain extent. You have "30 Rock," and "The Office," which are far and away TV's two best live-action comedies. You have "Heroes," for whatever it's worth (given the current popularity of super heroes, imagine how many people would watch it if it was GOOD), and "Chuck," which is still so much fun, even if no one's really watching. You have "Saturday Night Live," which isn't as biting as "The Daily Show" these days but has its own loopy place (McCain: "Sen. Obama, my invisible friend Simon can't be appointed to the Cabinet. He's a Unicorn. I think you know that.").
But now you've put out an entire new slate of shows, and every single one of them's a dud, without exception. "Knight Rider" is incredibly awful, and I ended up watching most of the last ten minutes of "Kath & Kim" the other night against my will and there wasn't a single laugh in that entire time. This week came the debuts of "My Own Worst Enemy" and "Crusoe".
"My Own Worst Enemy" is, as a concept, about identity. It's billed as a sort of modern-day Jekyll & Hyde story mixed with James Bond. That probably sounds good to you, but the show simply fails to deliver. Its biggest problem is that it's hard to tell its Jekyll from its Hyde. This is a show whose fundamental premise is that two distinct personalities share one body, that of (very) poor-man's Tom Cruise, Christian Slater. One is supposed to be a cool, dark secret agent who can kill people with his feet, and the other is a normal guy who works in an office. But we're not left thinking the two of them are that different, which is fatal.
The first problem is that Slater is horribly miscast. Some actors could have a field day with dual role. Slater is definitely not one of them. As a secret agent he's stoic, and as a regular guy he's... pretty stoic, actually. He's not really capable of anything else. When he figures out he's two different people, he seems mildly perturbed. Then there's the other issue, which is that the normal guy's life is actual a very Hollywood version of a normal guy's life, which makes it almost as glamorous as secret agent guy's. Secret Agent Guy sleeps with hot women, Normal Guy sleeps with his hot wife. Secret Agent Guy drives a cool new sports car. Normal Guy drives... a cool new car given to us by our friends in the product placement department. Secret Agent Guy hangs out in spectacular hotel rooms. Normal Guy hangs out in... a spectacularly large, nice house.
I am normally good with suspension of disbelief. You want me to believe that we're on the rings of Saturn fighting the aliens with laser beams coming from the eyes of the space whale we're riding, I'm good with that. But I need the actions of characters and groups within the story to make sense. The explanation of why our Secret Agency would go through all the trouble of creating Double Personality Action Christian Slater isn't really there here. And without any basis in reality, we're left with nothing but Christian Slater failing to give us two separate people.
On to "Crusoe," which was probably the best of the NBC bunch so far, though that's saying oh so little. The pilot gives us Sam Neill and Sean Bean, but both are in flashbacky guest roles. The star is supposed to be one Philip Winchester, who spends most of the opening episode showing us his chest muscles, which are certainly impressive. He has his sidekick Friday (Tongai Chirisa), who is a lot like Crusoe, in that he seems to be good at everything and also has nice chest muscles. In any case, I was mildly entertained for about 45 minutes. I soon discovered to my horror that the opening episode was actually two hours long. The plot involved pirates who happen to wash up on shore, many of them ending up killed by Crusoe himself (which I think we're supposed to think is funny), except for the hot sword-fighting chick.
These guys come off as the "Pirates of the Caribbean" understudy company, and that's the whole point of the show. I wondered when the schedules came out where the idea for a Robinson Crusoe series could have come from. Surely it wasn't an extremely late attempt to rip off "Lost"? Thankfully, that's not the case. Just as the original "Battlestar Galactica" was a blatant attempt to capitalize on the "Star Wars" phenomenon, "Crusoe" is a blatant attempt to capitalize on "Pirates." I suppose you can't blame them for trying, though it's so blatant we're left thinking about that rather than the what's going on on-screen.
Neither Crusoe nor Friday end up as much of a character. They're just sort of good at everything. Robinson seems to have some ability with ropes and pullies and inventions. He has a contraption that squeezes five lemons at once. Because you need to do that all the time. He has a bridge over pirahna infested water (go to the NBC website to learn how to build your own!) that consists of a very strange wheel mechanism and a complex series of ropes. I was left wondering why he didn't just build a regular rope bridge. As scruffy pirate guy says, "Seems like you've had too much time your hands."
The series is also pretty much robbed of any sense of reality by its crappy production values that reminded me of nothing more than a Halmi miniseries, or maybe "Hercules"/"Xena" type syndicated shows (which, I was not surprised to find, Halmi was also involved with). So what we end up with is a sort of stilted stageplay on a tropical island that plays like kids making up a story based on all the crappy movies they've seen lately while wearing halloween costumes. It's only really worth sitting through if they're your kids, chest muscles not withstanding.
But now you've put out an entire new slate of shows, and every single one of them's a dud, without exception. "Knight Rider" is incredibly awful, and I ended up watching most of the last ten minutes of "Kath & Kim" the other night against my will and there wasn't a single laugh in that entire time. This week came the debuts of "My Own Worst Enemy" and "Crusoe".
"My Own Worst Enemy" is, as a concept, about identity. It's billed as a sort of modern-day Jekyll & Hyde story mixed with James Bond. That probably sounds good to you, but the show simply fails to deliver. Its biggest problem is that it's hard to tell its Jekyll from its Hyde. This is a show whose fundamental premise is that two distinct personalities share one body, that of (very) poor-man's Tom Cruise, Christian Slater. One is supposed to be a cool, dark secret agent who can kill people with his feet, and the other is a normal guy who works in an office. But we're not left thinking the two of them are that different, which is fatal.
The first problem is that Slater is horribly miscast. Some actors could have a field day with dual role. Slater is definitely not one of them. As a secret agent he's stoic, and as a regular guy he's... pretty stoic, actually. He's not really capable of anything else. When he figures out he's two different people, he seems mildly perturbed. Then there's the other issue, which is that the normal guy's life is actual a very Hollywood version of a normal guy's life, which makes it almost as glamorous as secret agent guy's. Secret Agent Guy sleeps with hot women, Normal Guy sleeps with his hot wife. Secret Agent Guy drives a cool new sports car. Normal Guy drives... a cool new car given to us by our friends in the product placement department. Secret Agent Guy hangs out in spectacular hotel rooms. Normal Guy hangs out in... a spectacularly large, nice house.
I am normally good with suspension of disbelief. You want me to believe that we're on the rings of Saturn fighting the aliens with laser beams coming from the eyes of the space whale we're riding, I'm good with that. But I need the actions of characters and groups within the story to make sense. The explanation of why our Secret Agency would go through all the trouble of creating Double Personality Action Christian Slater isn't really there here. And without any basis in reality, we're left with nothing but Christian Slater failing to give us two separate people.
On to "Crusoe," which was probably the best of the NBC bunch so far, though that's saying oh so little. The pilot gives us Sam Neill and Sean Bean, but both are in flashbacky guest roles. The star is supposed to be one Philip Winchester, who spends most of the opening episode showing us his chest muscles, which are certainly impressive. He has his sidekick Friday (Tongai Chirisa), who is a lot like Crusoe, in that he seems to be good at everything and also has nice chest muscles. In any case, I was mildly entertained for about 45 minutes. I soon discovered to my horror that the opening episode was actually two hours long. The plot involved pirates who happen to wash up on shore, many of them ending up killed by Crusoe himself (which I think we're supposed to think is funny), except for the hot sword-fighting chick.
These guys come off as the "Pirates of the Caribbean" understudy company, and that's the whole point of the show. I wondered when the schedules came out where the idea for a Robinson Crusoe series could have come from. Surely it wasn't an extremely late attempt to rip off "Lost"? Thankfully, that's not the case. Just as the original "Battlestar Galactica" was a blatant attempt to capitalize on the "Star Wars" phenomenon, "Crusoe" is a blatant attempt to capitalize on "Pirates." I suppose you can't blame them for trying, though it's so blatant we're left thinking about that rather than the what's going on on-screen.
Neither Crusoe nor Friday end up as much of a character. They're just sort of good at everything. Robinson seems to have some ability with ropes and pullies and inventions. He has a contraption that squeezes five lemons at once. Because you need to do that all the time. He has a bridge over pirahna infested water (go to the NBC website to learn how to build your own!) that consists of a very strange wheel mechanism and a complex series of ropes. I was left wondering why he didn't just build a regular rope bridge. As scruffy pirate guy says, "Seems like you've had too much time your hands."
The series is also pretty much robbed of any sense of reality by its crappy production values that reminded me of nothing more than a Halmi miniseries, or maybe "Hercules"/"Xena" type syndicated shows (which, I was not surprised to find, Halmi was also involved with). So what we end up with is a sort of stilted stageplay on a tropical island that plays like kids making up a story based on all the crappy movies they've seen lately while wearing halloween costumes. It's only really worth sitting through if they're your kids, chest muscles not withstanding.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Presidential Smackdown III: The Final Battle
The third Presidential Debate just finished at Hofstra University on Long Island. It was the most combative and personal of the debates, and I think certainly the best debate and the one most useful to the voter. Someone with a moderate level of skepticism and/or media literacy could gain from this debate a basic grasp of the contrast between the two candidates on a variety of issues, including energy policy, tax policy, trade policy, health care... the real substantive issues. There was also a long exchange about "negative campaigning," in which the debate moderator, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer, asked them if either of them would make the accusations they'd been making on the trail to each other's faces, something that has bothered me throughout and earned Schieffer my biggest cheer of the night.
The candidate story seemed to be that McCain was either "combative" or "feisty," depending on your point of view, and Obama was mostly playing defense, with a few very clear explanations on issues I hadn't heard from him on that I enjoyed but I'm not sure will go over soundbyte-conscious pundits. McCain's supporters have been asking him to really take it to Obama, and he did. (ACORN is fundamentally undermining American democracy? Really? But that's another post...) However, I think it might be a mistake for McCain to dial up the anger. He's been falling farther and farther behind the more angry he seems. He doesn't wear it well. So he's placed in the bad position of having to attack to make up ground but not coming off well when he attacks. Obama was cool and collected, and McCain was attacking and sometimes not very coherent.
Even MSNBC thinks McCain may have "won on points," and it's entirely possible he had good arguments. You'll notice here I'm talking about his presentation. It got to the point sometimes that I didn't know what he was getting at. He brought up "Joe the Plumber" at least 20 times (CNN was counting), and I'm not sure what he was getting at. We'll see if that resonated with people who, y'know, aren't me. But I want to go back to the presentation, because I think the policy speaks for itself and you can make your own decisions. More than pretty much any other debate I've ever seen, this debate was in split-screen. McCain seemed angry when Obama criticized him. Obama smiled and shook his head when McCain criticized him. That is a big difference.
People will remember the section on "negative campaigning." McCain spent a long time harping on Rep. John Lewis' recent comments, basically demanding an apology from Obama which he didn't get. Obama actually brought up the McCain supporters literally calling for his head, which surprised me, and McCain's response was basically, as far as I could tell, that some of his supporters were veterans. I think McCain didn't do himself favors in this section, despite the extremely vocal demands of his supporters.
So this is the last debate. If you're still undecided... who are you? Are you living under a rock? Or maybe you're like my dad, who spends weeks shopping around for the simplest items. The vote's in 19 days.
The candidate story seemed to be that McCain was either "combative" or "feisty," depending on your point of view, and Obama was mostly playing defense, with a few very clear explanations on issues I hadn't heard from him on that I enjoyed but I'm not sure will go over soundbyte-conscious pundits. McCain's supporters have been asking him to really take it to Obama, and he did. (ACORN is fundamentally undermining American democracy? Really? But that's another post...) However, I think it might be a mistake for McCain to dial up the anger. He's been falling farther and farther behind the more angry he seems. He doesn't wear it well. So he's placed in the bad position of having to attack to make up ground but not coming off well when he attacks. Obama was cool and collected, and McCain was attacking and sometimes not very coherent.
Even MSNBC thinks McCain may have "won on points," and it's entirely possible he had good arguments. You'll notice here I'm talking about his presentation. It got to the point sometimes that I didn't know what he was getting at. He brought up "Joe the Plumber" at least 20 times (CNN was counting), and I'm not sure what he was getting at. We'll see if that resonated with people who, y'know, aren't me. But I want to go back to the presentation, because I think the policy speaks for itself and you can make your own decisions. More than pretty much any other debate I've ever seen, this debate was in split-screen. McCain seemed angry when Obama criticized him. Obama smiled and shook his head when McCain criticized him. That is a big difference.
People will remember the section on "negative campaigning." McCain spent a long time harping on Rep. John Lewis' recent comments, basically demanding an apology from Obama which he didn't get. Obama actually brought up the McCain supporters literally calling for his head, which surprised me, and McCain's response was basically, as far as I could tell, that some of his supporters were veterans. I think McCain didn't do himself favors in this section, despite the extremely vocal demands of his supporters.
So this is the last debate. If you're still undecided... who are you? Are you living under a rock? Or maybe you're like my dad, who spends weeks shopping around for the simplest items. The vote's in 19 days.
You Missed Election Day
...In Canada. Yes, the Canadians held an election yesterday, and it seems that not even they cared. It was the lowest recorded voter turnout in Canadian history, at 59% or so. It was an election without many major issues. Polls put the economy at number one, but the worst of the global crisis has mostly passed over Canada, due to tight regulations already in place for the nation's financial industry. In the end, the Conservative Party gained seats but not enough for a clean majority, with a total of 143 Stephen Harper, extremely popular in Canada, will remain the nation's Prime Minister. The once-mighty Liberal Party lost substantially once again, being reduced to only 76 seats. There are also two other major parties, the separatist Bloc Quebecois, which stayed about the same with 50 seats, and the ultra-liberal New Democrats, who continued to gain strength and now have 38 seats.
The Liberal Party governed for 12 consecutive years (1993-2006), mostly under Jean Chretien, but in recent years have been hit by the so-called "Sponsorship Scandal", revolving around corruption and political favors among party members in Quebec. Also, during the 90s, the Canadian Right was split following the near-total collapse of the "Progressive Conservatives" in 1993, when that party went from the majority to having only 2 seats, and the far-right "Reform Party" emerged but was mainly limited to the western part of the country. The Reform Party was extremely controversial in Canada for its advocacy of positions associated with the modern American Republican party. It was openly Christian, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and also wanted to end the Canadian policy of bilingualism. Following a few unsucessful attempts at reunification, the Reform Party, "Conservative Alliance," and the vestiges of the Progressive Conservatives merged in 2003 under the more-moderate Harper and in 2006 gained a plurality.
This was an election, as stated earlier, that really failed to get going. Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader, was painted, seemingly succesfully, by Conservatives as a weak leader, a sort of Canadian Dan Quayle, and it seems he will soon be replaced. Many criticized Conservative policies, such as a $45 million dollar arts funding cut (can you imagine how low that would be on an American election agenda?), as well as Harper's seeming to take a "wait-and-see" approach to the economy. There was also a business about them trying to bribe a dying independent with life insurance that never really caught on. Other parties, especially the Bloc and NDP, were quick to declare victory at the end of the night because the Conservatives didn't have the majority they wanted, while some criticized the election itself as a wase of money.
Other interesting bits surroundng the Canadian election:
-The Green Party made waves, increasing its national vote totals substantially to around 6%, but failed to win a single seat. By contrast, the Bloc Quebecois had 10% of the national vote, but will have 50 seats. Green Party leader Elizabeth May was seen by many as having had the strongest showing in the debates, but lost to Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay in her own Nova Scotia riding. Many felt the Green Party helped take seats away from the Liberals in this election, in addition to the usual NDP cut.
-One issue that cropped up was a 2003 speech by then-Opposition Leader Harper, in which he called for Canada to send troops to Iraq. It was recently revealed to have been directly plagiarized from a speech by Australian Prime Minister Howard that was delivered only two days earlier. The staffer who supposedly wrote the speech ended up having to resign. It's interesting to point out that, though Harper is in power, he has thought better of sending a Canadian contingent to Iraq, as such as move would certainly be wildly unpopular in Canada.
-Chris Reid, a Conservative candidate in a Toronto district, dropped out of the election after statements on his blog gained media attention. The statements? That he wanted to legalize concealed carrying of handguns. In Canada, that's apparently so far outside the mainstream as to end Reid's political career. Here in Ohio, by the way, "Conceal/Carry" is legal, with a permit. A lack of success in Toronto, where Conservatives hold zero seats out of 22, ended up being a major piece in that party's failure to win a majority.
-Then there's the case of NDP candidate Andrew McKeever from Durham, Ontario. I'll just quote Wikipedia:
-More NDP... Julian West, the party's candidate in Saanich, BC, dropped off the ballot after details surfaced regarding his conduct at an "environmental event" 12 years ago, where he went skinny-dipping and then asked two teenagers to bodypaint him. This may be the first bodypainting scandal I have heard of in world politics.
-Independent candidate David Popsecu, running in Sudbury, was invesitgated for "hate speech" after he responded to a debate question about gay rights with "homosexuals should be executed."
The Liberal Party governed for 12 consecutive years (1993-2006), mostly under Jean Chretien, but in recent years have been hit by the so-called "Sponsorship Scandal", revolving around corruption and political favors among party members in Quebec. Also, during the 90s, the Canadian Right was split following the near-total collapse of the "Progressive Conservatives" in 1993, when that party went from the majority to having only 2 seats, and the far-right "Reform Party" emerged but was mainly limited to the western part of the country. The Reform Party was extremely controversial in Canada for its advocacy of positions associated with the modern American Republican party. It was openly Christian, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and also wanted to end the Canadian policy of bilingualism. Following a few unsucessful attempts at reunification, the Reform Party, "Conservative Alliance," and the vestiges of the Progressive Conservatives merged in 2003 under the more-moderate Harper and in 2006 gained a plurality.
This was an election, as stated earlier, that really failed to get going. Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader, was painted, seemingly succesfully, by Conservatives as a weak leader, a sort of Canadian Dan Quayle, and it seems he will soon be replaced. Many criticized Conservative policies, such as a $45 million dollar arts funding cut (can you imagine how low that would be on an American election agenda?), as well as Harper's seeming to take a "wait-and-see" approach to the economy. There was also a business about them trying to bribe a dying independent with life insurance that never really caught on. Other parties, especially the Bloc and NDP, were quick to declare victory at the end of the night because the Conservatives didn't have the majority they wanted, while some criticized the election itself as a wase of money.
Other interesting bits surroundng the Canadian election:
-The Green Party made waves, increasing its national vote totals substantially to around 6%, but failed to win a single seat. By contrast, the Bloc Quebecois had 10% of the national vote, but will have 50 seats. Green Party leader Elizabeth May was seen by many as having had the strongest showing in the debates, but lost to Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay in her own Nova Scotia riding. Many felt the Green Party helped take seats away from the Liberals in this election, in addition to the usual NDP cut.
-One issue that cropped up was a 2003 speech by then-Opposition Leader Harper, in which he called for Canada to send troops to Iraq. It was recently revealed to have been directly plagiarized from a speech by Australian Prime Minister Howard that was delivered only two days earlier. The staffer who supposedly wrote the speech ended up having to resign. It's interesting to point out that, though Harper is in power, he has thought better of sending a Canadian contingent to Iraq, as such as move would certainly be wildly unpopular in Canada.
-Chris Reid, a Conservative candidate in a Toronto district, dropped out of the election after statements on his blog gained media attention. The statements? That he wanted to legalize concealed carrying of handguns. In Canada, that's apparently so far outside the mainstream as to end Reid's political career. Here in Ohio, by the way, "Conceal/Carry" is legal, with a permit. A lack of success in Toronto, where Conservatives hold zero seats out of 22, ended up being a major piece in that party's failure to win a majority.
-Then there's the case of NDP candidate Andrew McKeever from Durham, Ontario. I'll just quote Wikipedia:
announced on October 3 that he would resign from the election campaign after it
was revealed that he had posted comments on Facebook in which he called one
war activist a “fascist bitch” and threatened to beat up another person. Mr.
McKeever wrote comments peppered with expletives and calling the operators of a
war resister website “Nazis.” McKeever was also quoted as saying “I like the
part in Schindler’s List when the guard starts waxing the prisoners.” McKeever’s
decision to drop out of the race came with just over a week left in the
campaign, meaning his name would remain on the ballot. One week before the
publication of McKeever's resignation, NDP leader Jack Layton defended McKeever
and refused to make him step down.
-More NDP... Julian West, the party's candidate in Saanich, BC, dropped off the ballot after details surfaced regarding his conduct at an "environmental event" 12 years ago, where he went skinny-dipping and then asked two teenagers to bodypaint him. This may be the first bodypainting scandal I have heard of in world politics.
-Independent candidate David Popsecu, running in Sudbury, was invesitgated for "hate speech" after he responded to a debate question about gay rights with "homosexuals should be executed."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Best... Day... Ever
Yes, the Dow Jones average had its largest single-day point gain yesterday, with news of a “new bailout” that involves the government directly investing in various troubled banks. The Bush administration announced the plan yesterday, which involves $250 billion on top of the $700 billion already funneled to financial firms, as well as additional guarantees of bank transactions from the FDIC. Bush himself argued that the move is “essential so that the free market can continue to function,” though grumbling from some conservative allies suggested that the government might essentially be destroying the free market in order to save it. The markets gained back about a third of what they lost last week.
Of course, the untold story if you read US newspapers and websites is that the markets weren’t necessarily reacting to something the US government did… the markets these days are global, and the huge groundswell was already building through the day around the world. It began because European leaders agreed on their own bank protection plan, which the US plan basically copied. The Europeans had no compunctions on what they were doing, calling this a “re-nationalization.” The big winner appeared to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who managed to get the various interested parties to stop yelling at each other long enough to broker a deal.
The European leaders emphasized that “no bank will be allowed to fail,” and vaguely implied criticisms that the expensive US bailout was both late-arriving and ineffective. The French Financial Minister basically said that she would never have let Lehman Brothers fail on her watch. If you take a look at the history of the past couple decades, European nations have a varied history with nationalized banks, ranging from the catastrophe that was France’s governmental involvement with Credit Lyonnais to the unqualified success of the Swedish nationalization of its financial industry. However, this is different from those past experiences because it involves every EU nation rather than individual nations acting on their own. It seems to be what many economists were calling for all along and has certainly had the success in drawing a market reaction that the initial reveal of the so-called “Paulson Plan” did not.
One interesting aspect of this crisis may be the continued emergence of the EU as a modern superpower. Many in the United States still think of ourselves as the world’s only superpower, but that’s certainly not the case in an economic sense, and that may be the most important one. The EU and China have made massive strides in recent years, to the point where the EU economy may be smaller but better managed, and the Chinese economy is large enough for that nation to start running foreign policy based on monetary aide. I asked a week or so ago what the big change that comes out of the current financial crisis will be, and it may end up being American recognition of the EU as a collective power on the world stage.
Of course, the untold story if you read US newspapers and websites is that the markets weren’t necessarily reacting to something the US government did… the markets these days are global, and the huge groundswell was already building through the day around the world. It began because European leaders agreed on their own bank protection plan, which the US plan basically copied. The Europeans had no compunctions on what they were doing, calling this a “re-nationalization.” The big winner appeared to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who managed to get the various interested parties to stop yelling at each other long enough to broker a deal.
The European leaders emphasized that “no bank will be allowed to fail,” and vaguely implied criticisms that the expensive US bailout was both late-arriving and ineffective. The French Financial Minister basically said that she would never have let Lehman Brothers fail on her watch. If you take a look at the history of the past couple decades, European nations have a varied history with nationalized banks, ranging from the catastrophe that was France’s governmental involvement with Credit Lyonnais to the unqualified success of the Swedish nationalization of its financial industry. However, this is different from those past experiences because it involves every EU nation rather than individual nations acting on their own. It seems to be what many economists were calling for all along and has certainly had the success in drawing a market reaction that the initial reveal of the so-called “Paulson Plan” did not.
One interesting aspect of this crisis may be the continued emergence of the EU as a modern superpower. Many in the United States still think of ourselves as the world’s only superpower, but that’s certainly not the case in an economic sense, and that may be the most important one. The EU and China have made massive strides in recent years, to the point where the EU economy may be smaller but better managed, and the Chinese economy is large enough for that nation to start running foreign policy based on monetary aide. I asked a week or so ago what the big change that comes out of the current financial crisis will be, and it may end up being American recognition of the EU as a collective power on the world stage.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Welcome to the the Sports World, China
This summer, China was very eager to tell the world how modern and advanced it was. They welcomed the world the the 2008 Summer Olympics, spent billions and billions of dollars, and went to extreme lengths to make sure everybody stayed on-message. And China did win more gold medals than any other nation this summer. However, having a well-funded sports system is not the same thing as being a member of the moder, capitalist sports world. A news story today finally convinced me that China is ready.
Wang Hao, a two-time Olympic silver medalist in Table Tennis, was arrested thursday in Shanghai and has been ordered to get counseling. Finally, a Chinese Pacman Jones! Apparently Mr. Wang emerged, drunk, from a karaoke club and decided to urinate on the outside of the building. A security guard attempted to stop him from doing so, and the two came to blows. My favorite part is what Wang reportedly yelled while trying to punch the guard: "I am the famous Wang Hao! I am the World Champion! Who cares if I beat you?" Awesome.
Table Tennis (or "Ping Pong", as we uncultured Americans like to call it), has long been one of the most popular sports in China. Wang is a major star in the country's professional ping pong league. The coach of his club, Bayi, said that he may face additional punishment from the team, though he did not elaborate.
As China becomes more of a world economic leader, and continues to shift to a more modern, capitalist society, incidents like this will become more and more common. Chinese culture is usually described as "collectivist" rather than "individualist"... it has never been a celebrity culture. But that may be changing. This summer, the world got to see just how big athletes like basketball player Yao Ming, runner Liu Xiang, and badminton star Lin Dan are in their homeland. And it turns out that, if you have enough celebrities, some of them will have trouble dealing with fame, collectivism or no.
Another aspect of this that interests me is the punishment. He has to get counseling? Time was Wang would have simply disappeared from the scene after bringing "shame" to his country in this way, but now we don't even know if he'll miss any matches for his pro team. China likes to think of itself, increasingly, as a meritocracy, a country where, if you work hard enough, you can get ahead. This is new, but it's also different from the "American Dream" we like to talk about here. Yes, Wang is being treated differently because he is a celebrity. In China, that's not really something that's questioned. If he's famous, it's because he's better. There's none of this "all men are created equal" business. If you're as good as them, why aren't you where they are, is the question that's asked.
As we saw this summer, China's going through a period of intense change, and incidents like this are a small part of that. Anyway, I think that's about enough analysis for a "guy-pees-on-wall" story.
Wang Hao, a two-time Olympic silver medalist in Table Tennis, was arrested thursday in Shanghai and has been ordered to get counseling. Finally, a Chinese Pacman Jones! Apparently Mr. Wang emerged, drunk, from a karaoke club and decided to urinate on the outside of the building. A security guard attempted to stop him from doing so, and the two came to blows. My favorite part is what Wang reportedly yelled while trying to punch the guard: "I am the famous Wang Hao! I am the World Champion! Who cares if I beat you?" Awesome.
Table Tennis (or "Ping Pong", as we uncultured Americans like to call it), has long been one of the most popular sports in China. Wang is a major star in the country's professional ping pong league. The coach of his club, Bayi, said that he may face additional punishment from the team, though he did not elaborate.
As China becomes more of a world economic leader, and continues to shift to a more modern, capitalist society, incidents like this will become more and more common. Chinese culture is usually described as "collectivist" rather than "individualist"... it has never been a celebrity culture. But that may be changing. This summer, the world got to see just how big athletes like basketball player Yao Ming, runner Liu Xiang, and badminton star Lin Dan are in their homeland. And it turns out that, if you have enough celebrities, some of them will have trouble dealing with fame, collectivism or no.
Another aspect of this that interests me is the punishment. He has to get counseling? Time was Wang would have simply disappeared from the scene after bringing "shame" to his country in this way, but now we don't even know if he'll miss any matches for his pro team. China likes to think of itself, increasingly, as a meritocracy, a country where, if you work hard enough, you can get ahead. This is new, but it's also different from the "American Dream" we like to talk about here. Yes, Wang is being treated differently because he is a celebrity. In China, that's not really something that's questioned. If he's famous, it's because he's better. There's none of this "all men are created equal" business. If you're as good as them, why aren't you where they are, is the question that's asked.
As we saw this summer, China's going through a period of intense change, and incidents like this are a small part of that. Anyway, I think that's about enough analysis for a "guy-pees-on-wall" story.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Can You Sexually Abuse Yourself?
According to the state of Ohio, the answer is now apparently yes. Remember my post about sex offenders and Oprah? I discussed some of the local and state laws where I live in regards to registered sex offenders. Now comes the case of a 15-year-old girl in Licking Valley, Ohio, which is in a county adjacent to my own, and is garnering national attention. I first read about the story on Salon's women's issues blog Broadsheet (get it?), and they heard about the story from ABC.
What happened, apparently, is that the girl took naked pictures of herself and sent them to a bunch of people at her high school. Stupid, certainly. Probably deserving of some sort of punishment from some authority, yes. But does it make the girl a sex offender? Ohio law seems to says it does. The girl has been charged with "illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material" and "possession of criminal tools." (i.e. her cell phone) If she is convicted, she could be kept in juvenile detention until she's 21 and be forced to register as a sex offender (because she was caught distributing child pornography) for the next 20 years. Not only that, but charges may also be filed against the people she sent the photos to, since they were in possession of child pornography... a fifth-degree felony in Ohio. If the law is followed, they may all be forced to register as a sex offender for the next ten years, simply for, essentially, receiving a text message from one of their classmates.
This is not the first time kids sending sexy pictures to each other has made front page news around here. The Columbus Dispatch has regularly featured stories about local schools having trouble controlling the spread of sexually explicit material, usually taken by students of themselves, over cell phones. This is a culture where sexual images are readily available to anyone with an internet connection, but at the same time the age of consent is 18, by which time most teens have been dating for years. This is the first time I've heard of this level of charges being filed, however.
It's debateable when teenagers are truly able to make decisions regarding their own bodies for themselves in an adult manner, and of course it will vary from person to person. Obviously in this case the girl exercised extremely bad judgment, and is probably not ready for any of that. My position is that there's only so much control parents and schools have, in the end, and if the goal is to genuinely help the kids instead of simply control them, then the best solution is widespread sex education and availability of contraceptives. But that is only my opinion.
What this case does make clear is that our laws on this subject haven't kept up with changes in technology and resultant changes in our culture. To say that our culture is more sexualized may or may not be true (sure, girls didn't send naked pics over their phone in Little House on the Prairie days, but they did marry Almanzo from the next town over at age 16), but it is certainly true that more and more parts of ourselves are becoming public, and members of the digital generation need time to learn where to draw that line just as they need time to learn everything else. If my work in the state legislature has taught me anything, it's that when you make an arbitrary rule, it will have consequences you did not foresee... and usually not good ones.
What happened, apparently, is that the girl took naked pictures of herself and sent them to a bunch of people at her high school. Stupid, certainly. Probably deserving of some sort of punishment from some authority, yes. But does it make the girl a sex offender? Ohio law seems to says it does. The girl has been charged with "illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material" and "possession of criminal tools." (i.e. her cell phone) If she is convicted, she could be kept in juvenile detention until she's 21 and be forced to register as a sex offender (because she was caught distributing child pornography) for the next 20 years. Not only that, but charges may also be filed against the people she sent the photos to, since they were in possession of child pornography... a fifth-degree felony in Ohio. If the law is followed, they may all be forced to register as a sex offender for the next ten years, simply for, essentially, receiving a text message from one of their classmates.
This is not the first time kids sending sexy pictures to each other has made front page news around here. The Columbus Dispatch has regularly featured stories about local schools having trouble controlling the spread of sexually explicit material, usually taken by students of themselves, over cell phones. This is a culture where sexual images are readily available to anyone with an internet connection, but at the same time the age of consent is 18, by which time most teens have been dating for years. This is the first time I've heard of this level of charges being filed, however.
It's debateable when teenagers are truly able to make decisions regarding their own bodies for themselves in an adult manner, and of course it will vary from person to person. Obviously in this case the girl exercised extremely bad judgment, and is probably not ready for any of that. My position is that there's only so much control parents and schools have, in the end, and if the goal is to genuinely help the kids instead of simply control them, then the best solution is widespread sex education and availability of contraceptives. But that is only my opinion.
What this case does make clear is that our laws on this subject haven't kept up with changes in technology and resultant changes in our culture. To say that our culture is more sexualized may or may not be true (sure, girls didn't send naked pics over their phone in Little House on the Prairie days, but they did marry Almanzo from the next town over at age 16), but it is certainly true that more and more parts of ourselves are becoming public, and members of the digital generation need time to learn where to draw that line just as they need time to learn everything else. If my work in the state legislature has taught me anything, it's that when you make an arbitrary rule, it will have consequences you did not foresee... and usually not good ones.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Movie Reviews for People Who Go to the Dollar Movies After Work: Swing Vote
I went to the discount theatre today with the vague intention of seeing Brendan Fraser's Journey to the Center of the Earth, but when I got there I decided to go with my gut and saw Swing Vote. This isn't a bad movie, necessarily. It's an okay movie stuck with Kevin Costner as its star, and that just brings down the whole proceeding. Costner has had good movies before, but even in them he was the stoic rock around which the action moved. Here he's just a dumbass, and the movie seems to think we like dumbasses because we're dumbasses, too.
Costner plays Ernest "Bud" Johnson, a drunk and a nobody. He's a single dad to a fifth-grade-or-so daughter who's much smarter than he deserves ("What do you want to be when you grow up?" "I go back and forth between veterinarian and chairman of the Fed."), making me seriously wonder how his sperm produced this bright little girl, especially when we later see her mother is even worse. Bud is the sort of guy who responds to his daughter telling him she registered him to vote through the mail with "That's just great. I could get jury duty now!" He seems to love her, but then forgets about her repeatedly. I hate Bud. Even when Bud is theoretically redeemed at the end, mostly by admitting that he's a dumbass, I still hated him.
Through some arbitrary plot mechanics that the movie knows better than to dwell on, an entire presidential election comes down to Bud's vote. The state of New Mexico is tied, and due to a voting machine malfunction that caused Bud's "vote" to not count (I'm gonna skip over a whole part here made more complicated than it needs to be, involving how Bud didn't really try to vote), he gets to re-vote ten days later. The global news media (Aaron Brown, Chris Matthews, Arianna Huffington, etc. all have extended cameos) descends upon Bud's tiny hometown of Texico, New Mexico, as do both candidates.
This is where the movie finds itself as much as it does. The candidates include the republican President Boone (Kelsey Grammer), and a democrat from Vermont named Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper). Neither of these men is given much of personality, though Greenleaf, probably unintentionally, reminds viewers of John McCain. A lot. Maybe it was just me, I dunno. Anyway, both of them sycophantically try to please Bud in whatever way that they can, which Bud buys hook, line, and sinker but his daughter Molly immediately sees through. We also spend time with the candidate's advisors, with Stanley Tucci as the President's ruthless Rovian operative and Nathan Lane (perhaps the most restrained I've ever seen him) as an idealist democrat who is just so sick of losing it hurts.
The best parts of the movie come when the candidates fall all over each other in an attempt to conform to Bud's every whim, with the Republican coming out in favor of gay marriage and the Democrat denouncing abortion rights based on off-hand remarks. The campaign commercials in which they do so are absolutely hysterical. We also see each of the candidates questioning, in his own way, whether any of this is right, and how far he's willing to go. Though a bit earnest, all of that works. There's also a fairly worthless side plot involving a pretty hispanic reporter and her boss (George Lopez, who is totally pointless but at least doesn't have time to ruin the movie), but it's also fairly inoffensive.
Where the movie runs into trouble is in the relationship between Bud and his daughter, and the fact that it's front and center more than we really want it to be. Normally, I appreciate character development, but it just doesn't work. There's also a truly bizarre shaky-cam drama detour at the top of the third act that definitely didn't need to be there... it's as if the film-makers think it's the key incident in the film, but the audience just wants it to go away. In the end, Bud gives a long, vaguely poetic speech on national television that is Costner's best moment in the movie by far, but it doesn't feel earned and I was left wondering if we were supposed to think his daughter wrote it for him.
This is a movie with some thought behind it, that manages to comment on our system without seeming like a polemic for one side or the other. However, it runs into trouble trying to make those ideas into a movie. We're left with a comedy with many funny moments, but also moments like that when the Secretary of State and Attorney General of New Mexico show up at Bud's trailer to tell him about the situation. He assumes they're social services and pleads with them not to take his daughter away. I was left not sure whether this scene was supposed to be funny or not. And that's why this is definitely a dollar movie.
Costner plays Ernest "Bud" Johnson, a drunk and a nobody. He's a single dad to a fifth-grade-or-so daughter who's much smarter than he deserves ("What do you want to be when you grow up?" "I go back and forth between veterinarian and chairman of the Fed."), making me seriously wonder how his sperm produced this bright little girl, especially when we later see her mother is even worse. Bud is the sort of guy who responds to his daughter telling him she registered him to vote through the mail with "That's just great. I could get jury duty now!" He seems to love her, but then forgets about her repeatedly. I hate Bud. Even when Bud is theoretically redeemed at the end, mostly by admitting that he's a dumbass, I still hated him.
Through some arbitrary plot mechanics that the movie knows better than to dwell on, an entire presidential election comes down to Bud's vote. The state of New Mexico is tied, and due to a voting machine malfunction that caused Bud's "vote" to not count (I'm gonna skip over a whole part here made more complicated than it needs to be, involving how Bud didn't really try to vote), he gets to re-vote ten days later. The global news media (Aaron Brown, Chris Matthews, Arianna Huffington, etc. all have extended cameos) descends upon Bud's tiny hometown of Texico, New Mexico, as do both candidates.
This is where the movie finds itself as much as it does. The candidates include the republican President Boone (Kelsey Grammer), and a democrat from Vermont named Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper). Neither of these men is given much of personality, though Greenleaf, probably unintentionally, reminds viewers of John McCain. A lot. Maybe it was just me, I dunno. Anyway, both of them sycophantically try to please Bud in whatever way that they can, which Bud buys hook, line, and sinker but his daughter Molly immediately sees through. We also spend time with the candidate's advisors, with Stanley Tucci as the President's ruthless Rovian operative and Nathan Lane (perhaps the most restrained I've ever seen him) as an idealist democrat who is just so sick of losing it hurts.
The best parts of the movie come when the candidates fall all over each other in an attempt to conform to Bud's every whim, with the Republican coming out in favor of gay marriage and the Democrat denouncing abortion rights based on off-hand remarks. The campaign commercials in which they do so are absolutely hysterical. We also see each of the candidates questioning, in his own way, whether any of this is right, and how far he's willing to go. Though a bit earnest, all of that works. There's also a fairly worthless side plot involving a pretty hispanic reporter and her boss (George Lopez, who is totally pointless but at least doesn't have time to ruin the movie), but it's also fairly inoffensive.
Where the movie runs into trouble is in the relationship between Bud and his daughter, and the fact that it's front and center more than we really want it to be. Normally, I appreciate character development, but it just doesn't work. There's also a truly bizarre shaky-cam drama detour at the top of the third act that definitely didn't need to be there... it's as if the film-makers think it's the key incident in the film, but the audience just wants it to go away. In the end, Bud gives a long, vaguely poetic speech on national television that is Costner's best moment in the movie by far, but it doesn't feel earned and I was left wondering if we were supposed to think his daughter wrote it for him.
This is a movie with some thought behind it, that manages to comment on our system without seeming like a polemic for one side or the other. However, it runs into trouble trying to make those ideas into a movie. We're left with a comedy with many funny moments, but also moments like that when the Secretary of State and Attorney General of New Mexico show up at Bud's trailer to tell him about the situation. He assumes they're social services and pleads with them not to take his daughter away. I was left not sure whether this scene was supposed to be funny or not. And that's why this is definitely a dollar movie.
MemeWatch: Republican Rage
Nearly every news outlet (except, of course, for FoxNews, which seems to be pre-occupied with the fact that Sarah Palin's face is too wrinkly on the latest cover of Newsweek) has run a story in the past few days about the rising level of anger at McCain campaign rallies. The McCain campaign has always had him asking things like "Who is the real Barack Obama?" but lately when the Senators pulls out that line he's been met with angry screams of "traitor," "terrorist," and even "kill him!" When he takes questions from the audience, as he often does, they have mostly turned into supporter after supporter begging him to "take it to" Obama. With Obama pulling away in the polls, the raw nerves of the Republican base are exposed, and they're showing up on primetime network news.
So, is all this overblown? And where is it coming from? Well, the answer to the first question is both "yes" and "no." Helpful, huh? The McCain campaign has no control over the fact that they're going to attract some crazies (just as Obama has no control over the far left's support). This is a situation that some on the right thought would never occur again, that they had built a permanent majority, so there's a level of anger. And it's true that Obama's a true liberal, something that hasn't been successful on the national stage since JFK, (I would argue that we've had several true conservatives) so that has led to the usual (in my opinion outdated) charges of "socialism." And that's fair game. If they want to talk about how "liberal," Obama is, as they did with Gore and Kerry, that's fine. And this is, of course, nothing new. Republicans did their best to imply that John Kerry was French because he liked windsurfing. I can't make something like that up.
The problem is two-fold. The tone with Kerry and Gore was more mocking (chants of "flip-flop, flip-flop"), but now it seems more like an angry mob, who if pointed in the right direction would be ready with a rope and tree branch. That may sound extreme, but I didn't make it up. It's being implied and outright stated across the left two thirds of the media spectrum, from Chris Matthews to David Gergen. And because Obama is Black, it adds a racial tinge to some of this stuff. The other issue is that people weren't seeing McCain and/or Palin doing anything about it. When you hear one of your supporters yell "kill him," about your opponent, something needs to be done about that. McCain started to do that a little yesterday, assuring a woman in his crowd that there was no need to be scared of the idea of Obama as president (after she said "I hear he's an arab."), but it should have been reflexive, and it obviously wasn't.
There is the perception that at least some of this has come from the official mouthpieces of the McCain campaign, which is interesting because it's a new twist (Bush denied all links to "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth"). They're running official ads about Bill Ayers, the Chicago politician, and Palin actually said in Florida this week that Obama "thinks this country is so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists." McCain's campaign has openly said that they're going negative in response to falling poll numbers. So it's a difference of source from previous years.
Here's a question that may or may not be relevant... will it work? I doubt it, and I'm normally a believer in the power of negative advertising. The Bill Ayers business doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny, and all it takes is a one sentence explanation ("So... you're blaming me for something that an acquaintance I hadn't met yet did when I was eight?") to make the Republicans look like they're making something out of nothing (which, of course, they are). Perhaps more importantly, the economy is such an overwhelming issue at this point that it's hard to take anything else seriously. And, as someone said on MSNBC's Hardball yesterday, "Most Americans today think the Weather Underground was a rock band fronted by Lou Reed."
I don't mean this as a partisan screed. McCain has tried to calm things down a little in the past few days, though it's mostly resulted in him appearing to be at odds with his base. Lately he's spending a lot of time looking surprised at how bad things have gotten. And this meme only hurts his campaign, no matter what they did to cause it. In any case, don't take my word for it. Here are articles from the past day or so from CNN, Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/obama-called-traitor-agai_n_133613.html), Talking Points Memo (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/bomb_obama.php), New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin) Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_42;_ylt=Ak4Do42TCidwdG1eix_J5IJh24cA), and Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/10/11/current_mccainsdishonest/).
Enjoy.
So, is all this overblown? And where is it coming from? Well, the answer to the first question is both "yes" and "no." Helpful, huh? The McCain campaign has no control over the fact that they're going to attract some crazies (just as Obama has no control over the far left's support). This is a situation that some on the right thought would never occur again, that they had built a permanent majority, so there's a level of anger. And it's true that Obama's a true liberal, something that hasn't been successful on the national stage since JFK, (I would argue that we've had several true conservatives) so that has led to the usual (in my opinion outdated) charges of "socialism." And that's fair game. If they want to talk about how "liberal," Obama is, as they did with Gore and Kerry, that's fine. And this is, of course, nothing new. Republicans did their best to imply that John Kerry was French because he liked windsurfing. I can't make something like that up.
The problem is two-fold. The tone with Kerry and Gore was more mocking (chants of "flip-flop, flip-flop"), but now it seems more like an angry mob, who if pointed in the right direction would be ready with a rope and tree branch. That may sound extreme, but I didn't make it up. It's being implied and outright stated across the left two thirds of the media spectrum, from Chris Matthews to David Gergen. And because Obama is Black, it adds a racial tinge to some of this stuff. The other issue is that people weren't seeing McCain and/or Palin doing anything about it. When you hear one of your supporters yell "kill him," about your opponent, something needs to be done about that. McCain started to do that a little yesterday, assuring a woman in his crowd that there was no need to be scared of the idea of Obama as president (after she said "I hear he's an arab."), but it should have been reflexive, and it obviously wasn't.
There is the perception that at least some of this has come from the official mouthpieces of the McCain campaign, which is interesting because it's a new twist (Bush denied all links to "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth"). They're running official ads about Bill Ayers, the Chicago politician, and Palin actually said in Florida this week that Obama "thinks this country is so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists." McCain's campaign has openly said that they're going negative in response to falling poll numbers. So it's a difference of source from previous years.
Here's a question that may or may not be relevant... will it work? I doubt it, and I'm normally a believer in the power of negative advertising. The Bill Ayers business doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny, and all it takes is a one sentence explanation ("So... you're blaming me for something that an acquaintance I hadn't met yet did when I was eight?") to make the Republicans look like they're making something out of nothing (which, of course, they are). Perhaps more importantly, the economy is such an overwhelming issue at this point that it's hard to take anything else seriously. And, as someone said on MSNBC's Hardball yesterday, "Most Americans today think the Weather Underground was a rock band fronted by Lou Reed."
I don't mean this as a partisan screed. McCain has tried to calm things down a little in the past few days, though it's mostly resulted in him appearing to be at odds with his base. Lately he's spending a lot of time looking surprised at how bad things have gotten. And this meme only hurts his campaign, no matter what they did to cause it. In any case, don't take my word for it. Here are articles from the past day or so from CNN, Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/obama-called-traitor-agai_n_133613.html), Talking Points Memo (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/bomb_obama.php), New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin) Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_42;_ylt=Ak4Do42TCidwdG1eix_J5IJh24cA), and Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/10/11/current_mccainsdishonest/).
Enjoy.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Bits: Shark Jesus Edition
Pic courtesy of the-amazing.com-According to NewScientist, Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar is offering $7.5 trillion dollars to anyone who can produce an intermediate-form fossil proving evolution. Um, haven't we already found those? I mean, the creationists have an argument ready against them, but we've already found, you know, fishes with legs. No sources have said where he would get that much money. Oktar recently sold 10,000 copies of a book denying evolution, and successfully campaigned to have Richard Dawkins' website banned in Turkey.
-San Francisco TV station KTVU reports that they're going to put a net under the Golden Gate bridge to prevent suicides. I'm trying to picture the thought process here... "You mean I can't jump off the Golden Gate? I'll have to use a less famous bridge, or maybe take a lot of pills? I dunno, maybe I'll just go on living then..."
-Shark Jesus! Scientists at an aquarium in Richmond, Virginia have reported that a female blacktip shark conceived without any male input... a virgin birth. The fetus was discovered during a necropsy on the mother shark after it had died of "complications." It contains no genetic material from a male. This is apparently not the first time this has happened, as there is much discussion in the linked article about "parthenogenesis," which apparently does not mean what Willow Rosenberg led me to believe it meant.
-In other news, the world economy continues its drain spiral. The Finance ministers from the G7 nations are meeting in Washington DC. Will they come up with a solution? Is the devil on the doorstep wearing galoshes?
-Alternative artist Banksy has opened an art installation in New York City that is a sort of insane magic pet store. I cannot make this stuff up. Make sure to watch the video with the dancing chicken nuggets, and the college-age girl wondering "Are they real?"
-Surprise! Not only does Life on Mars not suck, it got decent ratings last night. But not quite as decent as CBS' anti-science procedural (and yet another foreign remake) Eleventh Hour. "It's like that scary Fringe show, but safe and boring for old people!" I think that's actually their advertising campaign.
-Free TV on the Internet: Wednesday's episode of Bones, in my opinion the best procedural on TV, was about a murder in a tight-knit religious community on Chesapeake Bay. This brings out inherent conflicts among the characters, with Brennan getting lines like "You are all united by your shared superstition" and "Do these people believe in DNA?" Oh, yeah, it's called "The He in the She." Watch it here.
Meet the New Nobility
The Nobel prizes, perhaps the greatest honors given out by mankind, have been announced, and there are some surprises and some interesting stories. Here’s who’s getting them this year:
Physics: Yoichiro Nambu (b. Tokyo, currently at the Fermi Institute in Chicago), for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics. Also, Makoto Kobayashi & Toshihide Maskawa (KEK in Kyoto), for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature. The Irish news service RTE reported that “They laid the theoretical foundations for modern understanding of how the laws of physics differ for matter and anti-matter.”
Medicine: The prize went to three researchers crediting with discovering important viruses, this allowing for their effective treatment. The honorees are Harald zur Hausen (German Cancer Research Centre, Heidelberg) for his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer, and Francoise Barre-Sinoussi & Luc Montaignier (Institut Pasteur, Paris) for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus. Definitely deserved all around.
Chemistry: Three Americans: Osamu Shimomura (born in Japan), Martin Chalfie, & Roger Tsien, received the prize for the discovery and development of the green fluorescent protein, GFP. Remember those pictures of the glowing cats? Yeah, that was these guys. I want a glowing cat. It was reportedly discovered in jellyfish, then researchers discovered they could use it as a study marker.
Literature: I personally think the literature branch is completely out of touch with reality. I’m not usually nationalist, but the head of the committee said the other day that there’s “nothing of value” coming out of America right now. Uh-huh. The prize this year went to a French writer I’ve never heard of, Jean Marie Le-Clezio, "author of new departures, poetic adventure and sensual ecstasy, explorer of a humanity beyond and below the reigning civilization."
Peace: Probably the most prestigious prize goes this year to the former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari. He has apparently been a peace moderator everywhere from Kosovo to Indonesia’s Aceh Province, though I had never heard of his laudable efforts before now. Most Americans have only heard of the current Finnish president, a woman who Conan O’Brien supported because he thought she looked like him. Um…
The Economics prize will be announced Monday. Of course, the Nobel prizes were started by Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite. He decided that his invention was too violent and decided to do something positive with his fortune in his will. In addition to the prestige, winners get oodles of cash. The prizes are awarded in Stockholm, except for Peace, which is awarded separately in Oslo, for whatever reason.
Physics: Yoichiro Nambu (b. Tokyo, currently at the Fermi Institute in Chicago), for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics. Also, Makoto Kobayashi & Toshihide Maskawa (KEK in Kyoto), for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature. The Irish news service RTE reported that “They laid the theoretical foundations for modern understanding of how the laws of physics differ for matter and anti-matter.”
Medicine: The prize went to three researchers crediting with discovering important viruses, this allowing for their effective treatment. The honorees are Harald zur Hausen (German Cancer Research Centre, Heidelberg) for his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer, and Francoise Barre-Sinoussi & Luc Montaignier (Institut Pasteur, Paris) for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus. Definitely deserved all around.
Chemistry: Three Americans: Osamu Shimomura (born in Japan), Martin Chalfie, & Roger Tsien, received the prize for the discovery and development of the green fluorescent protein, GFP. Remember those pictures of the glowing cats? Yeah, that was these guys. I want a glowing cat. It was reportedly discovered in jellyfish, then researchers discovered they could use it as a study marker.
Literature: I personally think the literature branch is completely out of touch with reality. I’m not usually nationalist, but the head of the committee said the other day that there’s “nothing of value” coming out of America right now. Uh-huh. The prize this year went to a French writer I’ve never heard of, Jean Marie Le-Clezio, "author of new departures, poetic adventure and sensual ecstasy, explorer of a humanity beyond and below the reigning civilization."
Peace: Probably the most prestigious prize goes this year to the former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari. He has apparently been a peace moderator everywhere from Kosovo to Indonesia’s Aceh Province, though I had never heard of his laudable efforts before now. Most Americans have only heard of the current Finnish president, a woman who Conan O’Brien supported because he thought she looked like him. Um…
The Economics prize will be announced Monday. Of course, the Nobel prizes were started by Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite. He decided that his invention was too violent and decided to do something positive with his fortune in his will. In addition to the prestige, winners get oodles of cash. The prizes are awarded in Stockholm, except for Peace, which is awarded separately in Oslo, for whatever reason.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
TV Is Back: Pushing Daisies & Life on Mars
There's actually a good new show this season! And another, probably even better show that was already here but you're not watching!
First off, you should be watching Pushing Daisies. But you're not. The show's ratings have dipped lower than Knight Rider's, and that's a problem, considering Knight Rider is pulling down a 2.2. In previous years (or maybe just on Fox), that's been enough for instantaneous cancellation. Sure, its quirks have quirks, which is usually death on network TV. But it's just so whip smart. There isn't a single throwaway moment. It has genuine emotion beneath the cutesy/Tim Burton sheen. It's laugh-out-loud funny, all the time. And it's the only show on TV where they'll do a scene where they pull a clown car out of a lake, and have the characters watch as they pull the dead bodies of clown after clown after clown out... One of the show's nicer touches is the omniscient narrator, who uses a tone like he's reading a Dr. Suess book to describe the murder mysteries. It's like eating incredibly well-written birthday cake every wednesday, and there's never been anything really very remotely like it.
Earlier tonight, ABC debuted its new series, Life on Mars. It's named for the Bowie song, which puts in an appearance in the pilot. It's a remake of a BBC series, which I've never seen. There's a couple reasons normal US channels don't just show foreign series when they bring them over, other than that they're stupid. One, they're shot using different technology. British series look fundamentally different, technology that reminds Americans of low-rent home video, though that's mostly because of the conversion. Also, British TV works on a different business model. The original Life on Mars series is already over. I'd be surprised if they had much more than 20 episodes total. When networks in the US score a hit, they expect it to run for a hundred-some episodes. I'm not sure why those models evolved differently, but it's certainly the case.
The show itself? If you haven't been living in a commercial-free cave, you already know it's about a detective (a decent Jason O'Mara) who gets hit by a car in 2008 and wakes up in 1973, where's he's still a detective somehow, and Harvey Keitel, Michael Imperioli, and Gretchen Mol are working in the precinct. So the cast is very good (though his 2008 girlfriend Lisa Bonet is unbelievably horrible... fortunately she's not on-screen much). I was extremely surprised that they're basically not leaving any mystery at all... they're basically saying he's in a hospital, unconscious and making all this up. Maybe others will have a different reading, but it felt like it was pretty unambiguous. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
In the meantime, though, we have a show with a handful of interesting characters and some interesting things to say. Yes, we have big collars and big hair, but this isn't quite a 1973 we've seen before. It's not just the little things; this show gets how our very philosophy has changed in fundamental ways, and it explores that without smacking us in the face with it. And it has a scene where the hero seriously considers shooting a little kid, and we still like him afterwards. It has many flaws, don't get me wrong. O'Mara's cop acts way too crazy for this crowd to react with the relative apathy that they do. It's credulity-straining. I also have trouble buying Keitel's supervisor guy, but maybe that's because I've spent my entire life long after 1973.
Incidentally, Life on Mars is the first show I've seen to use the World Trade Center in the way that they do here. It threw me, but not in a bad way. We've had the WTC airbrushed out of films for a while now. It's nice to see it actually highlighted without some obvious heavy symbolism (a la the last shot of Munich). Anyway, it's worth watching, especially compared to some of, say, NBC's new slate.
p.s. It's not just Knight Rider... I saw the last scene of the Kath & Kim premiere tonight, and the sheer tone deafness of the writing was startling. I try not to judge the whole by parts, but I have trouble believing there's anything worthwhile there. And does anyone think Crusoe looks palatable. Somebody needs to come back from one of the 17 different apocalyptic alternate futures on Heroes and prevent these abominations from ever being born.
First off, you should be watching Pushing Daisies. But you're not. The show's ratings have dipped lower than Knight Rider's, and that's a problem, considering Knight Rider is pulling down a 2.2. In previous years (or maybe just on Fox), that's been enough for instantaneous cancellation. Sure, its quirks have quirks, which is usually death on network TV. But it's just so whip smart. There isn't a single throwaway moment. It has genuine emotion beneath the cutesy/Tim Burton sheen. It's laugh-out-loud funny, all the time. And it's the only show on TV where they'll do a scene where they pull a clown car out of a lake, and have the characters watch as they pull the dead bodies of clown after clown after clown out... One of the show's nicer touches is the omniscient narrator, who uses a tone like he's reading a Dr. Suess book to describe the murder mysteries. It's like eating incredibly well-written birthday cake every wednesday, and there's never been anything really very remotely like it.
Earlier tonight, ABC debuted its new series, Life on Mars. It's named for the Bowie song, which puts in an appearance in the pilot. It's a remake of a BBC series, which I've never seen. There's a couple reasons normal US channels don't just show foreign series when they bring them over, other than that they're stupid. One, they're shot using different technology. British series look fundamentally different, technology that reminds Americans of low-rent home video, though that's mostly because of the conversion. Also, British TV works on a different business model. The original Life on Mars series is already over. I'd be surprised if they had much more than 20 episodes total. When networks in the US score a hit, they expect it to run for a hundred-some episodes. I'm not sure why those models evolved differently, but it's certainly the case.
The show itself? If you haven't been living in a commercial-free cave, you already know it's about a detective (a decent Jason O'Mara) who gets hit by a car in 2008 and wakes up in 1973, where's he's still a detective somehow, and Harvey Keitel, Michael Imperioli, and Gretchen Mol are working in the precinct. So the cast is very good (though his 2008 girlfriend Lisa Bonet is unbelievably horrible... fortunately she's not on-screen much). I was extremely surprised that they're basically not leaving any mystery at all... they're basically saying he's in a hospital, unconscious and making all this up. Maybe others will have a different reading, but it felt like it was pretty unambiguous. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
In the meantime, though, we have a show with a handful of interesting characters and some interesting things to say. Yes, we have big collars and big hair, but this isn't quite a 1973 we've seen before. It's not just the little things; this show gets how our very philosophy has changed in fundamental ways, and it explores that without smacking us in the face with it. And it has a scene where the hero seriously considers shooting a little kid, and we still like him afterwards. It has many flaws, don't get me wrong. O'Mara's cop acts way too crazy for this crowd to react with the relative apathy that they do. It's credulity-straining. I also have trouble buying Keitel's supervisor guy, but maybe that's because I've spent my entire life long after 1973.
Incidentally, Life on Mars is the first show I've seen to use the World Trade Center in the way that they do here. It threw me, but not in a bad way. We've had the WTC airbrushed out of films for a while now. It's nice to see it actually highlighted without some obvious heavy symbolism (a la the last shot of Munich). Anyway, it's worth watching, especially compared to some of, say, NBC's new slate.
p.s. It's not just Knight Rider... I saw the last scene of the Kath & Kim premiere tonight, and the sheer tone deafness of the writing was startling. I try not to judge the whole by parts, but I have trouble believing there's anything worthwhile there. And does anyone think Crusoe looks palatable. Somebody needs to come back from one of the 17 different apocalyptic alternate futures on Heroes and prevent these abominations from ever being born.
TV Is Back: South Park and The Sarah Silverman Program
As Tuned In's James Poniewozik exclaimed yesterday, "South Park is back, just when we needed it." And it brought its friends!
I love South Park. It has an enduring ability to savage the worst parts of our society while still actually being funny, not to mention that it's ability to deal with current events is matched only by SNL, since the episodes are sometimes produced in as little as a week. There are off episodes, of course, but no other current shows has as many "great moments per capita" as South Park.
If you were looking for one of those classics last night, you were mostly sadly mistaken. The episode involved Cartman pulling Butters into his "American Liberation Front" to save us from Chinese domination (he has nightmares about the Beijing Opening Ceremonies), which quickly ascends into a hostage crisis farce where Butters keeps shooting people in the crotch. This is the good part of the episode. Unfortunately, it also includes a stupid plot involving the boys having been traumatized by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas "raping" Indiana Jones in the latest movie, which plays on the cliches of a Lifetime-style weepie. The biggest problem for me with this isn't the way they deal Spielberg and Lucas (incredibly, ludicrously disrespectful, but half the point of these guys is they don't respect anybody... and was it any worse than what they did to Mel Gibson? Well, maybe...), but the fact that it just isn't funny. In a show like this, that's the ultimate sin. There were flashes of brilliance, though, mostly involving Cartman, and I'm confident the show will return to form next week. It's stayed at the height of its powers longer than any other show in my memory.
The Sarah Silverman Program is a showcase for the "no holds barred" comedienne who gets her unique touch from making jokes about racism and bodily functions with a wink and a smile. This works on the internet and in cut-up form, but in half-hour form it has only been really funny in fits and starts. This season premiere was probably the best episode I've seen. One of the large, slovenly, geeky gay guys across the hall (Brian Posehn), introduces Sarah to pot... and she discovers that as long as she's high, she's a genius, but she can't remember her incredible insights while she's sober. So she develops a system where she leaves her sober self voicemail messages urging her to follow her instructions. This also leads to a farcical hostage crisis (two in one night!). On a normal sitcom, Sarah would eventually go the well one too many times and learn, at the very least, that pot isn't for her. But there's no comeuppance, and high-Sarah changes people's lives and takes down a corporation with little to no repercussions. I'll probably never say this again, but it was actually better than South Park.
I love South Park. It has an enduring ability to savage the worst parts of our society while still actually being funny, not to mention that it's ability to deal with current events is matched only by SNL, since the episodes are sometimes produced in as little as a week. There are off episodes, of course, but no other current shows has as many "great moments per capita" as South Park.
If you were looking for one of those classics last night, you were mostly sadly mistaken. The episode involved Cartman pulling Butters into his "American Liberation Front" to save us from Chinese domination (he has nightmares about the Beijing Opening Ceremonies), which quickly ascends into a hostage crisis farce where Butters keeps shooting people in the crotch. This is the good part of the episode. Unfortunately, it also includes a stupid plot involving the boys having been traumatized by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas "raping" Indiana Jones in the latest movie, which plays on the cliches of a Lifetime-style weepie. The biggest problem for me with this isn't the way they deal Spielberg and Lucas (incredibly, ludicrously disrespectful, but half the point of these guys is they don't respect anybody... and was it any worse than what they did to Mel Gibson? Well, maybe...), but the fact that it just isn't funny. In a show like this, that's the ultimate sin. There were flashes of brilliance, though, mostly involving Cartman, and I'm confident the show will return to form next week. It's stayed at the height of its powers longer than any other show in my memory.
The Sarah Silverman Program is a showcase for the "no holds barred" comedienne who gets her unique touch from making jokes about racism and bodily functions with a wink and a smile. This works on the internet and in cut-up form, but in half-hour form it has only been really funny in fits and starts. This season premiere was probably the best episode I've seen. One of the large, slovenly, geeky gay guys across the hall (Brian Posehn), introduces Sarah to pot... and she discovers that as long as she's high, she's a genius, but she can't remember her incredible insights while she's sober. So she develops a system where she leaves her sober self voicemail messages urging her to follow her instructions. This also leads to a farcical hostage crisis (two in one night!). On a normal sitcom, Sarah would eventually go the well one too many times and learn, at the very least, that pot isn't for her. But there's no comeuppance, and high-Sarah changes people's lives and takes down a corporation with little to no repercussions. I'll probably never say this again, but it was actually better than South Park.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Bits: Sheep Tasering Edition
I'm going for fun stuff today... it's too serious around here!
-I had bus drivers who wish they thought of this. Apparently a bus driver in Florida stopped their school bus on the train tracks and told the kids that unless they started behaving they would just leave them there to get run over. Hey, it falls under my definition of "fun stuff," okay?
-Controversy has developed in Australia after police tasered a sheep that was blocking traffic. I have trouble believing the sheep was enough of a threat to warrant such treatment (Hey, police officers around the world, you're not supposed to taser somebody unless they're getting violent. 'Cause I think everybody must have been out sick that day), but you have to admit, the whole thing's hysterical. I only wish there was video.
-British supermarket chain Asda, owned by none other than Walmart (shocker!) is now selling beer for cheaper than water. The article seems to imply that this means that beer is too cheap... I would read it as water being way too expensive. I'll try not to go on my rant here about the stupidity of bottled water. I remember a comedian I saw on television once, who did a bit about bottled water: "I don't want the water that comes out of the tap for free. I want to forage for water, like my ancestors did."
-The admittedly biased Huffington Post has an article about how Gov. Sarah Palin said that women who don't vote for another woman are going to hell. Because you know they totally are. Cooties hell. Or Wisteria Lane, maybe.
-I'm sorry, South Park's season premiere is on now. Cartman: "What is wrong with you, Butters? Defeating the Chinese won't mean anything if we do it by going around shooting people in the dick! Goddammit!"
-Today's Free TV on the Internet: I confess I haven't been paying that much attention, but word on the web has it that Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles has put together several of its best episodes in a row, which unfortunately have also been its lowest rated. (io9 has started throwing around comparisons to Drive. Never a good sign for ratings. Watch this week's episode now!
MemeWatch: The Second Great Depression
Wherever we are in the world, the economy is obviously in rough shape. In America, polls of likely voters have 60% saying the economy is the most important issue when it comes to deciding who to vote for. In the 1992 election (where the private motto of Bill Clinton's victorious campaign was famously "It's the economy, stupid"), that number never rose above the low forties. With all that attention, the media is sitting up and taking notice. Everyone suddenly wants to hear what previously-boring people like Ben Bernanke and Warren Buffett think of the crisis. And the one question that always seems to be asked is: "Are we on the verge of another Great Depression?"
As I've talked about in previous posts, no matter how bad the current crisis gets, it will be very different from what we call the "Great Depression." Banks failed left and right, and since this was pre-FDIC, the money in those banks effectively ceased to exist. A third of America's wealth disappeared essentially overnight, which led to hardships not just here but across what was at that time a fledgling global economy. It's estimated that about 25% of the country was out of work. And the thing is, though there are specific benchmarks for a "recession," there aren't for a "Depression." It's simply defined as a "very severe recession."
I have very little feel for how it was viewed elsewhere, but the Depression is still seen as an extremely important period of American history. Many of our greatest literary classics date from this time. It changed the face of the country, permanently putting a fork in the rural society in favor of the urban and leading to a sustained phase of western migration. It was the depression, not motion pictures, that really made Los Angeles what it is today. Old institutions collapsed and new ones sprung up. Medicare, Social Security, and the SEC were all direct results of the Depression. The legacy of the Depression was the defining issue in this country, in one way or another, for decades (in my opinion this was followed by the Vietnam-era cultural split, of which this election may serve as the death knell).
So you see that the question of whether that time is back isn't picked out of thin air. Mostly those in power have been reticent to say we're heading towards "another Great Depression." More common is the idea that what we're experiencing is the worst crisis since the Great Depression, which is probably safer. That language has been used (independently, but the whole idea of memes is that it's not really independently) by both President Bush and Sen. Obama, Bush in a prime-time televised address to the nation. But what does that mean?
For the everyday citizen, the best way to look at this (since, as I said, we're not about to lose our savings like they did in 1929) is in terms of unemployment, and how hard it is to get a loan. We're not close to that 25% figure yet, but it's not as far away as we might believe. The official unemployment rate here in Ohio is currently 7.4%. But that doesn't mean that 93% of the population has a job. The unemployment rate only takes into account those who are physically able and currently looking for work. It also doesn't take into account the "underemployed." A year ago, I was making minimum wage working 8 hours a week. I would not have been considered unemployed, though you obviously can't make a living long term doing that. So estimates indicate that the "real" unemployment in this state is much closer to 15%. It's also becoming extremely difficult to get a loan. One example: auto sales (where most customers need loans) are down as much as 75% in the Cleveland area.
So here's the thing: the question isn't out of line, but I'm not sure it's helpful to our understanding of this issue. This is Earth 2.0, and conditions are so different from 1929 that it's comparing apples and oranges. Could you end up reasonably saying this is "as bad as" the Great Depression? Maybe, though it would just be your opinion. But one way I think the two may compare is in their far-reaching effects. What will be the Social Security-like structural change in our country that comes out of this crisis? That will be how its legacy is measured in the end.
As I've talked about in previous posts, no matter how bad the current crisis gets, it will be very different from what we call the "Great Depression." Banks failed left and right, and since this was pre-FDIC, the money in those banks effectively ceased to exist. A third of America's wealth disappeared essentially overnight, which led to hardships not just here but across what was at that time a fledgling global economy. It's estimated that about 25% of the country was out of work. And the thing is, though there are specific benchmarks for a "recession," there aren't for a "Depression." It's simply defined as a "very severe recession."
I have very little feel for how it was viewed elsewhere, but the Depression is still seen as an extremely important period of American history. Many of our greatest literary classics date from this time. It changed the face of the country, permanently putting a fork in the rural society in favor of the urban and leading to a sustained phase of western migration. It was the depression, not motion pictures, that really made Los Angeles what it is today. Old institutions collapsed and new ones sprung up. Medicare, Social Security, and the SEC were all direct results of the Depression. The legacy of the Depression was the defining issue in this country, in one way or another, for decades (in my opinion this was followed by the Vietnam-era cultural split, of which this election may serve as the death knell).
So you see that the question of whether that time is back isn't picked out of thin air. Mostly those in power have been reticent to say we're heading towards "another Great Depression." More common is the idea that what we're experiencing is the worst crisis since the Great Depression, which is probably safer. That language has been used (independently, but the whole idea of memes is that it's not really independently) by both President Bush and Sen. Obama, Bush in a prime-time televised address to the nation. But what does that mean?
For the everyday citizen, the best way to look at this (since, as I said, we're not about to lose our savings like they did in 1929) is in terms of unemployment, and how hard it is to get a loan. We're not close to that 25% figure yet, but it's not as far away as we might believe. The official unemployment rate here in Ohio is currently 7.4%. But that doesn't mean that 93% of the population has a job. The unemployment rate only takes into account those who are physically able and currently looking for work. It also doesn't take into account the "underemployed." A year ago, I was making minimum wage working 8 hours a week. I would not have been considered unemployed, though you obviously can't make a living long term doing that. So estimates indicate that the "real" unemployment in this state is much closer to 15%. It's also becoming extremely difficult to get a loan. One example: auto sales (where most customers need loans) are down as much as 75% in the Cleveland area.
So here's the thing: the question isn't out of line, but I'm not sure it's helpful to our understanding of this issue. This is Earth 2.0, and conditions are so different from 1929 that it's comparing apples and oranges. Could you end up reasonably saying this is "as bad as" the Great Depression? Maybe, though it would just be your opinion. But one way I think the two may compare is in their far-reaching effects. What will be the Social Security-like structural change in our country that comes out of this crisis? That will be how its legacy is measured in the end.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Presidential Smackdown II: Return of the Awkward Q & A
Some initial reactions on my part to the second Presidential debate, which just finished in Nashville, Tennessee. It wasn't real spectacular in any respect. After the two nationwide campaigns threatened to reach levels of animosity unprecedented in a mass media-era election this week, the debate was relatively free of that, on the surface, anyway. They clearly don't like each other, which is interesting on one level, I suppose. What we got, actually, was something approaching an actual, substantive debate.
These candidates have big differences on a lot of issues (which, after the looong primaries, is a bit refreshing), and they, for the most part, did their best to elucidate them. But there wasn't much new for those of us who've been paying attention, with the possible exception of McCain's poorly explained proposal about the government buying mortgages. Overall, things were just very stilted. Part of that was the format and rules, part of it was Brokaw's somewhat weird follow-up questions (which came off more as what one particular old guy was interested in than what the country wanted to hear) and part of it was the candidate's determination to stay relentlessly on-message. So, though we ask for substantive debates, we got one here and it was pretty boring.
The general media consensus is probably going to be that it was basically a tie, and a tie goes to Obama because he's ahead. I can't really dispute that in any way. I find it hypocritical that they can yell at each other day-in-day-out, and then show up and smile at each other. It's one of the things that drives me nuts about my day job, probably the biggest thing, because that's the fundamental disonnect in politics, and it bothers the crap out of me.
I feel like I'm not saying much, but neither did the candidates.
These candidates have big differences on a lot of issues (which, after the looong primaries, is a bit refreshing), and they, for the most part, did their best to elucidate them. But there wasn't much new for those of us who've been paying attention, with the possible exception of McCain's poorly explained proposal about the government buying mortgages. Overall, things were just very stilted. Part of that was the format and rules, part of it was Brokaw's somewhat weird follow-up questions (which came off more as what one particular old guy was interested in than what the country wanted to hear) and part of it was the candidate's determination to stay relentlessly on-message. So, though we ask for substantive debates, we got one here and it was pretty boring.
The general media consensus is probably going to be that it was basically a tie, and a tie goes to Obama because he's ahead. I can't really dispute that in any way. I find it hypocritical that they can yell at each other day-in-day-out, and then show up and smile at each other. It's one of the things that drives me nuts about my day job, probably the biggest thing, because that's the fundamental disonnect in politics, and it bothers the crap out of me.
I feel like I'm not saying much, but neither did the candidates.
TechWatch: Flexible Video Screen
Scientists at Sony Corp., working with the Max Planck Institute in Germany, have apparently invented a paper-thin, flexible video screen (i.e. you can crumple it up and uncrumple it and then watch TV on it). The screen is less than a millimeter thick, and is made up of organic molecules that produce an image by "transmitting light in all directions at once." Researchers told The Journal of Physics that there are virtually no size limitations to the technology, could be produced on the cheap in comparison to today's LCD screens, and has an extremely low energy requirement. Of course, my mind immediately went to the video paper stuff seen in, well, lots and lots of Sci-Fi, from "Firefly" to Minority Report. Here it is!
Positives: The applications are insane. Yes, we can have flexible laptops that fit into our pocket. But it doesn't stop there! How about video T-shirts? You know you want one. Or blankets that double as TV screens?
Negatives: Well, based on the pics that were released to the media, the technology looks very early-stage to me, so don't start lining up for one now. Also, How does it uncrumple without still being wrinkled? You'd have a wrinkly screen!
Will it Catch On?: Oh, totally. I want my video newspaper from Minority Report, and I want it now.
Positives: The applications are insane. Yes, we can have flexible laptops that fit into our pocket. But it doesn't stop there! How about video T-shirts? You know you want one. Or blankets that double as TV screens?
Negatives: Well, based on the pics that were released to the media, the technology looks very early-stage to me, so don't start lining up for one now. Also, How does it uncrumple without still being wrinkled? You'd have a wrinkly screen!
Will it Catch On?: Oh, totally. I want my video newspaper from Minority Report, and I want it now.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Bits: Everything Sucks Edition
-The bailout approved by Congress last week appears to have done little in the short term to stop the current worldwide financial spiral, though expecting it to have done so may have been unreasonable. Stock markets around the world went sharply downhill Monday. In the US, the Dow Jones dropped below 10000 for the first time in years. In Iceland, the currency was down 7% and the economy appears to be on the verge of collapse. The Frankfurt markets hit the skids after the German government had to perform its own bailout of real estate firms. Russian stock indexes lost over 15% of their value. And so on.
-Here you can find an easy step-by-step process to construct your own "Egg of Time." "Look into its time vortex, and see all that was, and all that will be." Yes.
-Time has a list of words the dictionary is trying to get rid of to make room for 2,000 new words. I am a word geek, and had not heard of any of these.
-New polls from various sources have shown Sen. Barack Obama up in pretty much every swing state, including Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and New Mexico. However, it's still a month until the election, and we have discussed the accuracy of polls on here before.
-Meanwhile, Cracked.com has come up with a list of 5 presidential elections that were dumber than this one (somehow). It's actually a really good read. I particularly like the caption under the pic of John Quincy Adams: "I'll kill your wife. I don't even care."
-In response to what it says is widespread piracy, Warner Bros. is trying a new tack in Korea... it's going to start releasing its movies online before they hit DVD. How that will help, I'm not totally sure, but it makes sense in other ways.
-The Tampa Bay Rays are in baseball's final four. Hell has told us that it will take more than this for it to freeze over. Hell is just stubborn that way. In other sports news, the Ferocious Walruses fantasy football team remains undefeated. Because I know you've been hanging on every play.
Machinima: Like Fan Fiction, but in Reverse
A few days ago I mentioned in a "Bits" post an online project that is animating Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Season 8 comic book series using machinima. I'm sure at least a few people didn't know what I meant by that, and so I decided to expand on what machinima is a little bit. It's an interesting subject that I'm sure my Communications Theory professor would have been fascinated by.
Basically, Machinima is animation accomplished with the use of video games. The name is a merging of the words "machine" and "animation." Rather than expensively rendering their stories, creators tell them with the tools that they have. Some have compared it to a digital version of puppetry. In other words, creators take the pieces of a computer game and rearrange them to tell their own story. You might think this would just result in a recording of someone playing a video game, but that's definitely not the case. Complex editing tools are often used, and some games now released come with their own built-in machinima capabilities.
Machinima began as a very small niche with the gaming community, but has become more and more mainstream in the years since. It has adapted to new games as they are released. Wikipedia credits the 1996 piece "Diary of a Camper" as the first Machinima to gain a wide audience. It was created using the game Quake. In 2006, the South Park episode "Make Love, Not Warcraft" featured extended Machinima sections and was credited with bringing the form to a wider audience. Today there is a national Machinima Film Festival and even an Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences.
I (along with plenty of others) was first exposed to Machinima via the popular, and even critically acclaimed (the Director of Lincoln Center supposedly called it "as sophisticated as Samuel Beckett"), webseries, "Red vs. Blue". Created using Halo 2, the game of choice for, well, everybody circa my freshman year of college, the series ran 5 seasons and 100 episodes, from 2003 to 2007, and has since spawned a spin-off. The series is about two sets of soldiers fighting for control of a valley (and each other's "flag"), a standard Halo scenario. The series began as a simple, sitcom-type parody, mostly of video games, but soon evolved into a more general science-fiction comedy that even occasionally took itself seriously. And in its scenario of two sets of soldiers (who often find they have pretty much everything in common) set down for an interminable period of time to fight over a piece of ground nobody wants for reasons neither of them understand, the series manages to send up echoes of everything from Kafka to M*A*S*H. The series almost immediately became a huge online hit and is now available on DVD.
Now, as for the title of this post. Reverse probably isn't the best way of putting it, but let me explain what I mean. In fan fiction, writers use their own materials (i.e., usually prose writing, but there are fan films, as well) to tell more stories about their favorite show, movie, game, book, etc. Machinima creators use the materials of a game to create their own, original story, usually relating only tangentially, if at all, to the actual subject matter of the game. Both are perfectly valid forms of expression, but I find the contrasts interesting. In both cases, they are putting the materials provided by the creators of media to a use that wasn't originally intended by their creators. And the internet has proved the magic bullet that has exponentially accelerated both the spread and cultural acceptance of both forms.
Basically, Machinima is animation accomplished with the use of video games. The name is a merging of the words "machine" and "animation." Rather than expensively rendering their stories, creators tell them with the tools that they have. Some have compared it to a digital version of puppetry. In other words, creators take the pieces of a computer game and rearrange them to tell their own story. You might think this would just result in a recording of someone playing a video game, but that's definitely not the case. Complex editing tools are often used, and some games now released come with their own built-in machinima capabilities.
Machinima began as a very small niche with the gaming community, but has become more and more mainstream in the years since. It has adapted to new games as they are released. Wikipedia credits the 1996 piece "Diary of a Camper" as the first Machinima to gain a wide audience. It was created using the game Quake. In 2006, the South Park episode "Make Love, Not Warcraft" featured extended Machinima sections and was credited with bringing the form to a wider audience. Today there is a national Machinima Film Festival and even an Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences.
I (along with plenty of others) was first exposed to Machinima via the popular, and even critically acclaimed (the Director of Lincoln Center supposedly called it "as sophisticated as Samuel Beckett"), webseries, "Red vs. Blue". Created using Halo 2, the game of choice for, well, everybody circa my freshman year of college, the series ran 5 seasons and 100 episodes, from 2003 to 2007, and has since spawned a spin-off. The series is about two sets of soldiers fighting for control of a valley (and each other's "flag"), a standard Halo scenario. The series began as a simple, sitcom-type parody, mostly of video games, but soon evolved into a more general science-fiction comedy that even occasionally took itself seriously. And in its scenario of two sets of soldiers (who often find they have pretty much everything in common) set down for an interminable period of time to fight over a piece of ground nobody wants for reasons neither of them understand, the series manages to send up echoes of everything from Kafka to M*A*S*H. The series almost immediately became a huge online hit and is now available on DVD.
Now, as for the title of this post. Reverse probably isn't the best way of putting it, but let me explain what I mean. In fan fiction, writers use their own materials (i.e., usually prose writing, but there are fan films, as well) to tell more stories about their favorite show, movie, game, book, etc. Machinima creators use the materials of a game to create their own, original story, usually relating only tangentially, if at all, to the actual subject matter of the game. Both are perfectly valid forms of expression, but I find the contrasts interesting. In both cases, they are putting the materials provided by the creators of media to a use that wasn't originally intended by their creators. And the internet has proved the magic bullet that has exponentially accelerated both the spread and cultural acceptance of both forms.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Movie Reviews for People Who Go to the Dollar Movies After Work: Babylon A.D.
Our movie reviews here at the WalrusFile are going to be a little bit different. It’s so expensive to go to a first-run movie these days that I know that there are a lot of people like me who decide to wait, either to rent the DVD or order it from Netflix or, like I usually do, go see the movies once they arrive at the discount theater down the street. But there’s a lot of choices, so we’ll try and weed out the duds.
Babylon A.D. is the most completely nonsensical movie I’ve seen in a long time. I don’t mean it’s weird, though it is, or that it’s brainless, though it’s usually that too. I mean it literally makes no sense. I could use words to describe the plot to you, but they would be meaningless. We are given a series of vaguely interesting pieces here, but there is little to no explanation of how they fit together. That said, there are redeeming qualities here. The movie is entertaining. We’re given a halfway interesting vision of a sort of coherent future (well, visually coherent, anyway). And Vin Diesel is always good for a laugh.
We are shown a brutal mercenary. A girl with the brain of a computer (which somehow means she’s psychic) who may be carrying a “viral bomb.” A nun who knows kung fu. An insane cage fighter (“He is a lost soul”). A crazy scarred boss guy (Gerard Depardieu!) in a tank limousine. Televisions that “you can’t turn off, but you can change the channel.” A vaguely creepy religion. Biker gangs with heat-seeking missiles. Drone aircraft set to blow up refugees. A virgin pregnancy (with multiracial twins!). Computer systems that read your memories by temporarily killing you. Moving robotic walls. “Double Clone” Siberian Tigers. Bombs going off with zero explanation (more than one!). Sexual tension out of absolutely nowhere. And, most especially, Vin Diesel doing a back flip over a missile with a snowmobile. I’m forgetting a lot here.
The basic story is that Vin Diesel (whose character, I think, is named “Toorop”) has to transport this girl named Aurora who has supposedly spent her entire life at a convent in Kyrgyzstan to New York, along with a nun played by Taiwanese actress Michelle Yeoh. This is a fairly standard Sci-Fi plot, actually. But the explanations of the hows and whys that we’re given are what make this all extra trippy. It’s set in a sort of “this goes on” future, chaotic and overpopulated, overrun with refugees, with video screens and advertisements on every available surface. Global warming is mentioned but we don’t really see the effects. The special effects are convincing, especially the gleaming ultra-city of New York. There’s a nice joke when they’re flying on an airliner and we pull back to see “Coke Zero” written on the side in huge letters. At least I think it’s a joke. It could be extremely ham-fisted product placement. And no, the title has no relation that I can see to anything in the movie… except, I suppose, that it does theoretically take place after the birth of Christ.
This movie’s pedigree is, somewhat randomly, mostly French. It has a French director, Mathieu Kassovitz, a French actress playing Aurora (meaning her dialogue often slips into incomprehensibility), and it’s based on a French Sci-Fi novel called Babylon Babies. In a few places it’s reminiscent of that far superior, far more joyous French Sci-Fi classic in English, The Fifth Element. A few places. But in place of garish color everywhere we have black and metal gray, and in place of plucky Bruce Willis we have Vin Diesel, who is not asked to show a single emotion for the entire film. And that’s why this is definitely a dollar movie.
Babylon A.D. is the most completely nonsensical movie I’ve seen in a long time. I don’t mean it’s weird, though it is, or that it’s brainless, though it’s usually that too. I mean it literally makes no sense. I could use words to describe the plot to you, but they would be meaningless. We are given a series of vaguely interesting pieces here, but there is little to no explanation of how they fit together. That said, there are redeeming qualities here. The movie is entertaining. We’re given a halfway interesting vision of a sort of coherent future (well, visually coherent, anyway). And Vin Diesel is always good for a laugh.
We are shown a brutal mercenary. A girl with the brain of a computer (which somehow means she’s psychic) who may be carrying a “viral bomb.” A nun who knows kung fu. An insane cage fighter (“He is a lost soul”). A crazy scarred boss guy (Gerard Depardieu!) in a tank limousine. Televisions that “you can’t turn off, but you can change the channel.” A vaguely creepy religion. Biker gangs with heat-seeking missiles. Drone aircraft set to blow up refugees. A virgin pregnancy (with multiracial twins!). Computer systems that read your memories by temporarily killing you. Moving robotic walls. “Double Clone” Siberian Tigers. Bombs going off with zero explanation (more than one!). Sexual tension out of absolutely nowhere. And, most especially, Vin Diesel doing a back flip over a missile with a snowmobile. I’m forgetting a lot here.
The basic story is that Vin Diesel (whose character, I think, is named “Toorop”) has to transport this girl named Aurora who has supposedly spent her entire life at a convent in Kyrgyzstan to New York, along with a nun played by Taiwanese actress Michelle Yeoh. This is a fairly standard Sci-Fi plot, actually. But the explanations of the hows and whys that we’re given are what make this all extra trippy. It’s set in a sort of “this goes on” future, chaotic and overpopulated, overrun with refugees, with video screens and advertisements on every available surface. Global warming is mentioned but we don’t really see the effects. The special effects are convincing, especially the gleaming ultra-city of New York. There’s a nice joke when they’re flying on an airliner and we pull back to see “Coke Zero” written on the side in huge letters. At least I think it’s a joke. It could be extremely ham-fisted product placement. And no, the title has no relation that I can see to anything in the movie… except, I suppose, that it does theoretically take place after the birth of Christ.
This movie’s pedigree is, somewhat randomly, mostly French. It has a French director, Mathieu Kassovitz, a French actress playing Aurora (meaning her dialogue often slips into incomprehensibility), and it’s based on a French Sci-Fi novel called Babylon Babies. In a few places it’s reminiscent of that far superior, far more joyous French Sci-Fi classic in English, The Fifth Element. A few places. But in place of garish color everywhere we have black and metal gray, and in place of plucky Bruce Willis we have Vin Diesel, who is not asked to show a single emotion for the entire film. And that’s why this is definitely a dollar movie.
Friday, October 3, 2008
TV Is Back: Sanctuary
Sci-Fi Channel(as it still called for the moment) debuted the latest addition to its Friday night lineup tonight, "Sanctuary." It is an early example of a webseries making the jump to mainstream TV, and, with a full-season order already from a cable network, it may have a better shot of making it than such past jumpers as NBC's "Quarterlife," which lasted exactly one episode. The web roots are still apparent in this TV version, most prominently in the use of greenscreen techniques. Rather than building many of the sets, the actors play them against a greenscreen. This isn't as intrusive as you'd think, since the CGI is done well, and shows up most often in bizarre shots and angles that could only have been achieved with the use of a computer.
The series' pedigree stems largely from the "Stargate" franchise that has long been one of the corner stones of Sci-Fi Channel, as both of its executive producers, star Amanda Tapping, and cast members Ryan Robbins and Christopher Heyerdahl have their roots there. While the premise is very different, the feel of the series is actually similar. Both "Stargate" and "Sanctuary," ironically, are at their best when not being themselves, that is, when the characters are just hanging out talking rather than actually doing anything related to the plot. Those are the moments when we believe in the proceedings.
The idea of the series is that Tapping, rocking an English accent and long, brunette hair, runs, you guessed it, a sanctuary for monsters ("We prefer to call them abnormals"), dead ends or flukes or evolution and mutation that are persecuted by a fearful society. They also make it their mission to contain those that are a danger to the world. She has a hot blonde daughter (sans accent) whose job is to kick ass, as well as a resident nervous techie and a taciturn australopithecine/bigfoot/whatever. We enter their world in the premiere episode through the eyes of a young "forensic psychologist," (portrayed believably by Robin Dunne) who is supposed to be good at figuring out behavior but actually seems closer to the protagonists of "Psych" and "The Mentalist." We're shown the inner workings of his mind through a silly CGI gimmick that reminded me of that used in "The Da Vinci Code."
The premiere episode, "Sanctuary For All," suffers heavily from being one hour worth of story spread out over two hours. If we hadn't seen any of the ads (though I suppose we wouldn't be watching if we hadn't), we wouldn't have a clue what was going on until about 40 minutes in. The rest flows better, though as a coherent plot it works only in fits and starts, and we're occasionally asked to buy things that are a little sketchy. Then we get a denouement with a lengthy Jack the Ripper flashback. They really couldn't think of a more original backstory for their villain? (as one character asks, "Really? We care about this?")
I always root for web entertainment to make the successful transition to the old media mainstream, as it represents a democratization of the media in general. I wish "Sanctuary" all the best. It has a refreshing positive attitude that often gets lost in the formulaic hunger for villains on shows like this. However, it has yet to show any signs of being any more than the vaguely fun trifle the "Stargate" franchise has always been. That will probably get me to catch the occasional episode, but it won't make this appointment viewing.
The series' pedigree stems largely from the "Stargate" franchise that has long been one of the corner stones of Sci-Fi Channel, as both of its executive producers, star Amanda Tapping, and cast members Ryan Robbins and Christopher Heyerdahl have their roots there. While the premise is very different, the feel of the series is actually similar. Both "Stargate" and "Sanctuary," ironically, are at their best when not being themselves, that is, when the characters are just hanging out talking rather than actually doing anything related to the plot. Those are the moments when we believe in the proceedings.
The idea of the series is that Tapping, rocking an English accent and long, brunette hair, runs, you guessed it, a sanctuary for monsters ("We prefer to call them abnormals"), dead ends or flukes or evolution and mutation that are persecuted by a fearful society. They also make it their mission to contain those that are a danger to the world. She has a hot blonde daughter (sans accent) whose job is to kick ass, as well as a resident nervous techie and a taciturn australopithecine/bigfoot/whatever. We enter their world in the premiere episode through the eyes of a young "forensic psychologist," (portrayed believably by Robin Dunne) who is supposed to be good at figuring out behavior but actually seems closer to the protagonists of "Psych" and "The Mentalist." We're shown the inner workings of his mind through a silly CGI gimmick that reminded me of that used in "The Da Vinci Code."
The premiere episode, "Sanctuary For All," suffers heavily from being one hour worth of story spread out over two hours. If we hadn't seen any of the ads (though I suppose we wouldn't be watching if we hadn't), we wouldn't have a clue what was going on until about 40 minutes in. The rest flows better, though as a coherent plot it works only in fits and starts, and we're occasionally asked to buy things that are a little sketchy. Then we get a denouement with a lengthy Jack the Ripper flashback. They really couldn't think of a more original backstory for their villain? (as one character asks, "Really? We care about this?")
I always root for web entertainment to make the successful transition to the old media mainstream, as it represents a democratization of the media in general. I wish "Sanctuary" all the best. It has a refreshing positive attitude that often gets lost in the formulaic hunger for villains on shows like this. However, it has yet to show any signs of being any more than the vaguely fun trifle the "Stargate" franchise has always been. That will probably get me to catch the occasional episode, but it won't make this appointment viewing.
Sarah Palin winks at America
Video evidence of perhaps the most talked about aspect of the Vice Presidential debate the day after... Sarah Palin's bizarre winking. I guess I missed it, but America sure didn't.
http://www.spike.com/video/sarah-palin-wink/3042408
I've been having trouble embedding videos. I can't get more than a small portion of the "embed" link from YouTube to cut and paste. And it said the html for the Spike.com video was incorrect. Is there something I'm missing?
http://www.spike.com/video/sarah-palin-wink/3042408
I've been having trouble embedding videos. I can't get more than a small portion of the "embed" link from YouTube to cut and paste. And it said the html for the Spike.com video was incorrect. Is there something I'm missing?
Breaking News: Bailout Passes on Second Try
The US House of Representatives passed the "bailout" of our nation's financial institutions earlier today, by a comfortable margin of 261-171. The bill gained substantial support among both Republicans and Democrats. I guess Republicans weren't as insulted by the package of "sweeteners" as I would have been in their shoes.
The bill was then rushed to the desk of President Bush, who signed it this afternoon. The largest group that switched its votes from no to yes were probably members of the Congressional Black Caucus (all Democrats), who were reassured by recent pledges from Sen. Barack Obama that, if elected, he would support legislation that would assist homeowners who are currently facing foreclosure. Republican Sen. John McCain was also credited with helping to secure votes on his side of the aisle, especially among the delegation from his home state of Arizona.
The vote was far from unanimous, however, and opponents voiced dire concerns. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) told us to "Pray for our Republic," while a better known Ohio Rep., Dennis Kucinich, delivered an impassioned speech highlighting the case of a 90 year old Akron resident who shot herself yesterday after authorities attempted to enforce the foreclosure of her home.
It is too early to tell what the final effect of the legislation will be, but here's hoping our government did the right thing here. It'd sure be more convenient than them being wrong. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he would move swiftly to begin the distribution of the funds.
The bill was then rushed to the desk of President Bush, who signed it this afternoon. The largest group that switched its votes from no to yes were probably members of the Congressional Black Caucus (all Democrats), who were reassured by recent pledges from Sen. Barack Obama that, if elected, he would support legislation that would assist homeowners who are currently facing foreclosure. Republican Sen. John McCain was also credited with helping to secure votes on his side of the aisle, especially among the delegation from his home state of Arizona.
The vote was far from unanimous, however, and opponents voiced dire concerns. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) told us to "Pray for our Republic," while a better known Ohio Rep., Dennis Kucinich, delivered an impassioned speech highlighting the case of a 90 year old Akron resident who shot herself yesterday after authorities attempted to enforce the foreclosure of her home.
It is too early to tell what the final effect of the legislation will be, but here's hoping our government did the right thing here. It'd sure be more convenient than them being wrong. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he would move swiftly to begin the distribution of the funds.
Here's One Use For Craigslist I Never Thought Of
A bizarre story came out of Washington state the other day. A man robbed an armored truck outside a Bank of America branch and then escaped... because of Craigslist. Apparently he used an ad on the popular classifieds site to "hire" a dozen or so unsuspecting drivers to act as decoys during the police pursuit. He then floated away down the Skykomish River via innertube (because it seemed like the thing to do, I guess) and has yet to be apprehended.
The robber, wearing a surgical-type respirator mask, walked up to an armored truck guard as he was transferring money from his truck to the Bank of America in Monroe, WA. He pepper sprayed the guard in the face and took the bag of money the man was carrying. He then ran with the bag about 100 yards to a nearby creek that leads into the river. But police weren't chasing him, they were chasing the decoys.
The ad he placed on Craigslist promised $28.50 an hour for workers for a road maintenance project. Those who responded were told to wear certain colored clothing (the same as the robber was wearing) and a respirator mask, and meet near the bank. But of course, there was no one there to meet them, except for confused police.
Police have no leads on the suspect, but have taken what might be his innertube "as evidence." The local PD has brought in the FBI in attempt to trace the Craigslist ad, but those attempts have as yet been unsuccessful.
I must confess, when I first hear about crimes I'm often left thinking that I could have done it better, or in a way that wouldn't have gotten myself caught. Not that I would, mind you... Anyway, refreshingly, that's not what I'm left with here. Usually people with strong planning skill such as this do not end up trying to rob armored trucks! One wonders what the real story is behind all this.
Too bad he had to pepper spray a guy in the face, though. One would think there would be a Craigslist-style way around that.
The robber, wearing a surgical-type respirator mask, walked up to an armored truck guard as he was transferring money from his truck to the Bank of America in Monroe, WA. He pepper sprayed the guard in the face and took the bag of money the man was carrying. He then ran with the bag about 100 yards to a nearby creek that leads into the river. But police weren't chasing him, they were chasing the decoys.
The ad he placed on Craigslist promised $28.50 an hour for workers for a road maintenance project. Those who responded were told to wear certain colored clothing (the same as the robber was wearing) and a respirator mask, and meet near the bank. But of course, there was no one there to meet them, except for confused police.
Police have no leads on the suspect, but have taken what might be his innertube "as evidence." The local PD has brought in the FBI in attempt to trace the Craigslist ad, but those attempts have as yet been unsuccessful.
I must confess, when I first hear about crimes I'm often left thinking that I could have done it better, or in a way that wouldn't have gotten myself caught. Not that I would, mind you... Anyway, refreshingly, that's not what I'm left with here. Usually people with strong planning skill such as this do not end up trying to rob armored trucks! One wonders what the real story is behind all this.
Too bad he had to pepper spray a guy in the face, though. One would think there would be a Craigslist-style way around that.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Vice Presidential Smackdown: Vice Harder
Some quick thoughts on the Vice Presidential debate that just finished. I personally was bothered by Sarah Palin, but I don't think a lot of Americans will be. This is where I have a fundamental difference with a lot of my countrymen and women. I don't think it's too much to ask the Vice President to put gs on the end of words when they go there, or to use words the way they were actually meant to be used. And yet afterwards on CNN the commentators, on either side, universally praised how "folksy" Palin was. Just because people seem to like it doesn't mean it's actually a good thing. Is she going to be in the room with Putin, as the current cliche goes, saying "I'm hopin' and wishin' we can find some positive impacts for our folks back home"?
Okay, rant over. I'm going to try not to do that too often. In terms of actual analysis, I think that Biden did a fairly good job of calling Palin on any outright lies she made without seeming petty (he didn't call her on calling Gen. McKiernan "General McClellan," for example). Palin tried her darndest to do the same, but I don't think she made many of her points with the same specificity. She also said a few things that may come back to bite her. She said she agreed with Vice President Cheney on the subject of expanding the powers of the Vice Presidency. She said she is not convinced humans are responsible for global warming. These are positions that I'm not sure are in tune with what people are looking for.
I think it was a decent strategy on Palin's part to try to link Obama and Biden to "looking backward" when Biden tried to link McCain to the failed policies of the Bush administration. It worked rhetorically to shape the debate the way she wanted it. Biden, however, did not let that effect his own strategy, which was to do just that. In my opinion, "looking backward" or not, every time McCain/Palin talks about changing something from the status quo, Obama/Biden should come back with "Republicans have had the Presidency 20 of the last 28 years. Republicans have controlled the Congress 10 of the last 12 years. Why hasn't any of this happened before now?"
It was sometimes frustrating how much Biden insisted on sticking to the "3rd Bush term" idea, at the expense of offering more coherent versions of his own ideas. It may come off as overly negative. However, I don't think that will be an issue in the long run in a campaign where Democrats seem to often say good things about John McCain but Republicans resolutely refuse to say anything positive about Barack Obama. The "attack dog" role is a traditional one for a Vice President candidate, so the Presidential candidate doesn't have to get their hands dirty.
The usual question after these things is "well, who won?" That is of course completely subjective. I think Gov. Palin gave Sen. Biden the openings he needed to really ram home any advantage he may have had, and I'm not sure he followed through on those. I think he may have performed better overall, but I recognize that many reasonable people may disagree. Many people thought Palin's performance here would hurt the McCain campaign, and I don't think it really did. However, McCain's been steadily losing ground lately in several key states, and I doubt Palin did anything here that would change that.
In other news... wow, the Cubs are in trouble. You'd think I would have seen that coming, but I definitely didn't.
Okay, rant over. I'm going to try not to do that too often. In terms of actual analysis, I think that Biden did a fairly good job of calling Palin on any outright lies she made without seeming petty (he didn't call her on calling Gen. McKiernan "General McClellan," for example). Palin tried her darndest to do the same, but I don't think she made many of her points with the same specificity. She also said a few things that may come back to bite her. She said she agreed with Vice President Cheney on the subject of expanding the powers of the Vice Presidency. She said she is not convinced humans are responsible for global warming. These are positions that I'm not sure are in tune with what people are looking for.
I think it was a decent strategy on Palin's part to try to link Obama and Biden to "looking backward" when Biden tried to link McCain to the failed policies of the Bush administration. It worked rhetorically to shape the debate the way she wanted it. Biden, however, did not let that effect his own strategy, which was to do just that. In my opinion, "looking backward" or not, every time McCain/Palin talks about changing something from the status quo, Obama/Biden should come back with "Republicans have had the Presidency 20 of the last 28 years. Republicans have controlled the Congress 10 of the last 12 years. Why hasn't any of this happened before now?"
It was sometimes frustrating how much Biden insisted on sticking to the "3rd Bush term" idea, at the expense of offering more coherent versions of his own ideas. It may come off as overly negative. However, I don't think that will be an issue in the long run in a campaign where Democrats seem to often say good things about John McCain but Republicans resolutely refuse to say anything positive about Barack Obama. The "attack dog" role is a traditional one for a Vice President candidate, so the Presidential candidate doesn't have to get their hands dirty.
The usual question after these things is "well, who won?" That is of course completely subjective. I think Gov. Palin gave Sen. Biden the openings he needed to really ram home any advantage he may have had, and I'm not sure he followed through on those. I think he may have performed better overall, but I recognize that many reasonable people may disagree. Many people thought Palin's performance here would hurt the McCain campaign, and I don't think it really did. However, McCain's been steadily losing ground lately in several key states, and I doubt Palin did anything here that would change that.
In other news... wow, the Cubs are in trouble. You'd think I would have seen that coming, but I definitely didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
