|
|
Saturday, April 18th, 2009
| |
5:13 pm - in which a new york yankee messes with texas
|
in light of texas governor rick perry's secessionary silliness, i'd like to take the opportunity to point out that the contention that "texas was once an independent republic" is, though not exactly false, a pretty simplistic and highly misleading notion.
the founders of texas were anglo-americans who flooded into the northern part of the mexican state coahuila y tejas over a 14-year span before summarily declaring themselves an independent state and fending off the efforts of a weak mexican government to bring the territory back under mexican control. at one point in the "texas revolution" (another silly and misleading formula), the texas army under houston seemed to be trying to lure the mexican army under santa anna into louisiana, where it could be attacked by the u.s. army.the only reason texas wasn't immediately annexed by the united states was that president andrew jackson rightly thought that doing so would lead to war with mexico, which it later did. the interim government was indeed a republic, but not a terribly effective one. it was only ever recognized by britain, france and the u.s., spent a lot of time warring needlessly with its large native american population, and racked up a huge debt which was assumed by the u.s. upon annexation. (interestingly, sam houston himself was later widely tarred as a "traitor to the republic" for advocating against secession from the u.s. and refusing to swear loyalty to the confederacy.)
none of which is to say that texas wasn't in some real senses an independent state for a little while. for a little over 8 years there it was governed neither by mexico nor by the u.s. and in fact managed to win diplomatic recognition from two major european powers. but it relied heavily on support from the u.s. (political, military and financial) and all the people who fought for and declared and governed texas were americans to begin with.
just sayin.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, April 6th, 2009
| |
10:38 pm - h8terade
|
|
| Sunday, April 5th, 2009
| |
11:11 pm - america, fuck yeah
|
|
| |
9:46 pm - believing what you see
|
today's times has a a surprisingly interesting article on ER and how that outrageously-long-running show did a number of new and very useful things related to weaving health lessons into the overarching narrative of the show.
reminds me of this fascinating, if disgusting, article from the new yorker about how 24 and jack bauer have influenced the techniques deployed by active-duty military interrogators.
sometimes i get a little bit down about the actual utility of my chosen industry, so its nice to be reminded that it actually can be used to influence behavior. someday, if i'm lucky, maybe i'll get to use that influence for good.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
7:32 pm - eat and get gas
|
so, about a year ago, when gasoline prices averaged $3.30 per gallon and oil prices were over $120 per barrel, i wrote that gas and oil prices weren't going anywhere but up. well, today gasoline averages have dropped more than a dollar to just over $2.00 per gallon, and oil is down better than 50% to $52.50 per barrel, so i guess i was wrong about that. (in the same post, i also wrote that i had lost all respect for hillary clinton, and i certainly don't feel that way any longer. so i guess things change.)
regardless of current oil prices, though, it's pretty much inarguable that there is a finite ammount of petroleum in the earth and we're getting closer and closer to running out. it's also true that that aside, burning petroleum is broadly speaking dirty and unhealthy both to individuals and to the planet. so why is the new york state legislature finding it so difficult to find funding for the mta, which provides vastly cleaner, more efficient, cheaper and often faster transit alternatives to driving? personally, i find it preposterous that there are no tolls on the east river bridges, but then i found it preposterous when mayor bloomberg's congestion pricing plan died an ignominious death on the floor of the state assembly.
and i guess that's really the answer to my question: new york has a really terrible state legislature, and a lot of legislation that seems like it ought to be up to a city's municipal government to enact or not needs to be passed through the state legislature. on that note, the daily news has been running a series of articles called state of shame (oh, news tabloids and your puntastic headlines!) exposing just how corrupt and dysfunctional the albany sausage factory really is.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, April 4th, 2009
| |
4:32 pm - the marijuana question
|
|
| Thursday, March 26th, 2009
| |
11:30 pm - seen and heard
|
some random dude riding the (L) train:
"yo, son! latin kings, baby! i'm a o.g. no doubt, y'heard!? latin kings be OWNIN the L train, son!"
(and on in this fashion for some minutes, in response to some other rambunctious young kids spouting gang chat of their own, though i didnt catch their affiliation.)
is gang activity on the rise, or am i just more sensitive to the signs? time out ny has a sensationalistic, but not very informative, report.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, March 25th, 2009
| |
11:21 pm - bsg wrap-up
|
i was a two weeks behind on my battlestar gallactica, but i caught up to the end over the past two evenings, and i have to say, i'm not terribly happy with the finale. the two biggest pieces were thud and blunder space battle on the one hand and farewell to all your favorite characters on the other. way too many loose ends were left untied, and they avoided drawing even the most basic moral lessons from the entire saga. at bottom, it came down to little more than "people sure do like to make robots, huh?" which i, for one, found profoundly disappointing in light of so many of the themes the series toyed with on so very many occaisions.
i bet i coulda written a better finale.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, March 15th, 2009
| |
3:57 pm - There oughta be a law
|
There's been an awful lot of talk about how implicit guarantees of government bailouts encourage what can only be described as plainly stupid business decisions on the part of all the players in this big fat financial mess we're now in. (David Leonhardt has a good column in today's NYT addressing the issue in light of Akerlof and Romer's 1994 paper "Looting.") It seems to me that the possibility of prosecution on criminal charges would act as a pretty good counter-incentive to this behavior.
Now, on some level, the laws may not exist yet and perhaps part of the regulatory overhaul that's coming will be to make new things illegal. There's already a law that covers Bernie Madoff, so it's pretty easy to send him off to prison and liquidate his assets, but there's no law against recklessly imperiling the global financial system everybody just shrugs and, chalks it off to individuals behaving rationally in a system of perverse incentives, and Cassano and Thain and the rest get to keep their billions. But we should be sending people to jail for the kinds of things they've done.
To follow that line of thought, as Josh Marshall and others have written, what a lot of these people have done ammounts to simple fraud. If that's the case, why doesn't DOJ have teams of lawyers working to figure out who they can prosecute for fraud? To paraphrase Jon Stewart, it's pretty absurd that Jim Cramer can go on TV and make pie while it's Martha Stewart who's gone to jail for securities fraud.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| |
11:30 am - pwner alert part 2
|
so, somehow the daily show managed to convince jim cramer, previously featured in segments covering cnbc's wretched financial coverage, to come on for an interview. its always a little sad to see jon stewart shred some guy's credibility, especially considering the yukster host of a fake news comedy show is the only one who ever seems both willing and able to do it. anyhow, the full, unedited and uncensored interview:
part 1
part 2
part 3
|
|
(12 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, March 12th, 2009
| |
11:39 pm - gah, pakistan
|
|
| Wednesday, March 11th, 2009
| |
2:29 pm - pwner alert
|
jon stewart has a history of occaisionally bitch-slapping someone so hard they dont even realize what's been happening. back in 2004 (before youtube even existed!) he went on cnn's crossfire and utterly embarrassed that show's hosts (crossfire was cancelled months later), and he's maintained an ongoing frienmity with bill o'reilly.
over the course of the past week, a one-time segment has erupted into something of an ongoing spat between him and cnbc's jim cramer that is really just sublime.
part 1:
part 2:
part 3:
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, March 8th, 2009
| |
11:24 pm - thought
|
|
why do people say "2001" to mean also sprach zarathustra when kubrick makes much more expansive and creative use of the blue danube?
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
1:29 am - i watch the watchmen
|
went this afternoon to see the much-anticipated watchmen. i have to say i was most surprised by the number of families bringing young children to see this movie. i guess a lot of people just don't realize what they're getting into before they go out to the movies and probably assumed this'd be just another superhero movie. oh well. in case you were considering bringing your young children to see it: batman this aint.
my biggest complaint has to be pacing and duration. despite flirting with three hours in length (trt 2:45) there just wasn't enough time to get through everything important. most of the characters are under-exposed, as was the over-arching story line more generally. this movie probably would have been much better as a six-to-ten episode miniseries. the casting was serviceable but not particularly inspired, and as a result much of the acting was little better than workmanlike. i was particularly unhappy with matthew goode as adrien veidt, who came off as spindly, conniving and obnoxiously accented. think dr. evil crossed with knox harrington. the direction was clearly focused on the visual treatment, and as a result the visual treatment was largely spectacular, but the behavior of the people was often barely believable. also, there was a laughably ridiculous sex scene, set to leonard cohen's hallelujah. gimme a fuckin break.
on the upside, the opening title sequence was pretty great, and probably my favorite use of bob dylan in a decade. also, as i've already mentioned, the visual treatment was on the whole extremely sucessful. there were several engaging and well-executed hand-to-hand combat scenes, and a good use of philip glass. also, the ending and denouement were fantastic and, as far as i'm concerned, better, more elegant and more believable than the ending of the book, which weighs pretty heavily in my high-ish marks for this movie.
phoebe connelly has some interesting observations on dr. manhattan's wang.
all in all, i give it a b- or a b. anybody who's interested in this sort of thing should really read the book, which is fucking fantastic and widely available these days. i'm not sure i would have been able to forgive the film's shortcomings had i not had in mind the blueprint it was working from.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009
| |
2:20 am - stanless steel
|
|
saw a great documentary this evening that my coworker was the senior sound editor on. called strongman, it played at slamdance and has a slot at the upcoming southbysouthwest. really fascinating documentary counterpoint to this year's other surprise hit the wrestler. both are fantastic, fantastically depressing, and set predominantly in new jersey.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Monday, March 2nd, 2009
| |
1:17 am - "blizzard"
|
|
| Saturday, February 28th, 2009
| |
9:14 pm - guns!
|
early this morning i got in a car with some friends and hit the road for the sunset hill shooting range in tannersville, pa. had a little spare time early to wander through an odd lots store and a fireworks warehouse (fireworks have the best names, you guys. my personal favorite: "uncle sam's answer") before heading over to the range to squeeze off a few rounds. i fired two pistols, a 9mm beretta and a M1911-A1, and two rifles, an AR-15 and an AK-47. i shoulda shot the sniper rifle too, but i didn't have enough time.
i didn't really get to handle the guns much beyond the firing, though. i'd like to get a chance to load the clips and be taught exactly how all of it works. they were real careful in keeping the weapons out of our hands until they were ready to be fired, which i suppose is probably a good thing, but although i certainly enjoyed the trip and i'm happy to have the experience of firing a few different guns, i still don't have the knowledge of their workings that i'd like.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Friday, February 20th, 2009
| |
12:32 am - writing and coherent thought
|
i've spent several hours over the past few days writing up text documents to describe things that, professionally, i kind of take for granted. i havent done much writing since my undergraduate days, and i'm finding myself somewhat out of practice. trying to distill the important pieces of information and convey them in a way that is linear and makes sense both linearly and on the whole is a tricky thing.
its feeling like a useful exercise. check in on me in a week or so to see how i feel about it then.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, February 18th, 2009
| |
8:59 pm - live and learn
|
i just got home from teaching a college class.
oh, yeah, if you guys could all call me "professor" from now on, that'd be cool.
|
|
(9 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, February 17th, 2009
| |
8:04 pm - start panicking
|
if you aren't terrified of recent events in pakistan, you should be.
a few weeks ago, the times published this story about rising taliban control of a centrally located pakistani province, and today we get news that the pakistani government has officially recognized sharia law in not only that province, but six others nearby. just to recap: the taliban is repeating the gameplan it first deployed in afghanistan. they move into a region where the centralized government is both weak and corrupt and take control of it piece by piece through a mix of brutal enforcement on the one hand and local weariness to the chaos that preceded them on the other.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|