Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Gladiator in England
Ridley Scott took a shot at Robin Hood with Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett in the lead roles. Don't know what to think about this.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
FACT:
"Bret McKenzie appeared as an unnamed elf in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". The Lord of the Rings fanbase dubbed the elf Figwit. McKenzie returned for a small speaking role in "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" as the same elf of Rivendell, now named "Elf Escort".[21] He informs Arwen that she 'cannot delay' after she has a brief vision of her future with Aragorn and their son."
Thanks, Wikipedia!
Also, thanks YouTube!
Thanks, Wikipedia!
Also, thanks YouTube!
Friday, December 04, 2009
Christmas Present Idea for JB?
http://www9.printwarcraft.com/homepage.html
Do we make him a level 97 Ice Wizard or level 1 fisherman?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Gathering Storm
I've said my piece before on Robert Jordan; here's a review of mostly praise for Sanderson's first attempt to tie up the series. Sounds promising. Think I can just read that book without having to go back and start over? (I never read 8-11.)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
If things don't work out with flute girl...
... there's always Synth Ninja. Pretty sure he's available.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
This made me chuckle
Two Papers in One!
- "The argument against unions--that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands--is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad. . . . The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would. There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important."--editorial, New York Times, Dec. 29, 2008
- "The New York Times News Service will lay off at least 25 editorial employees next year and will move the editing of the service to a Florida newspaper owned by The New York Times Company. . . . The plan for the news service calls for The Gainesville Sun, whose newsroom is not unionized and has lower salaries, to take over editing and page design."--news story, New York Times, Nov. 13, 2009
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Don't say I didn't warn you
As anyone who has watched their precious supply depots rendered ashes by a swift night attack knows, you simply cannot trust Lord Cao. "I'd rather betray the world than let the world betray me." Indeed, Cao. Indeed.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Same as before...
You signed the contract, so the video game can send you to fight aliens, or suit you up to play QB, or force your likeness to ventriloquize other people's songs. Whine more, No Doubt.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Yeah, that's awesome but...
...Cartman really commits to the song:
Edited to put in a video that actually works.
Edited to put in a video that actually works.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Mega-shark vs. SuperCrazyRoboMega-Shark
I'm a sucker for these kinds of stories--whether in the news, in a paperback, or on Sci-Fi.
Kinda sad...
... when your area is so economically depressed that a university wins business of the year. A state university, no less. Talk about defining business down.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Wallace Stevens
I had not read any Stevens until I read the article you posted, Nick. One of the things I love about the New Criterion is that I always get to read about some decent writers I haven't heard of or I have only a mere recognition. It helps me expand my literary education which would otherwise tend to stagnate because of my laziness.
I briefly perused some Stevens and tried to find the poems mentioned in the article. I can see in the few poems I read how both you and the author came to your conclusions. There was a lot of nonsense in the poems I read. I also enjoyed the line you quoted from the article. The New Criterion finds some decent critics and writers. I especially like Terry Teachout. From Wallace, I did enjoy The Man Whose Pharynx Was Bad and The Snow Man. Especially The Man Whose Pharynx Was Bad. I thought this a very nice stanza:
The time of year has grown indifferent.
Mildew of summer and the deepening snow
Are both alike in the routine i know.
I am too dumbly in my being pent.
Whitman I might revisit some day, but I remember having to wade through quite a bit of sillyness there as well to find anything I liked. It makes me wonder what a writer does with his bad or lesser material. I'd be inclined to toss it or at least not publish it, but I suppose it must be shared for the sake of improving yourself through someone else's criticism. Of couse some writers may not think they have lesser material. When I write I'm inclined to think the opposite and am loath to share.
I briefly perused some Stevens and tried to find the poems mentioned in the article. I can see in the few poems I read how both you and the author came to your conclusions. There was a lot of nonsense in the poems I read. I also enjoyed the line you quoted from the article. The New Criterion finds some decent critics and writers. I especially like Terry Teachout. From Wallace, I did enjoy The Man Whose Pharynx Was Bad and The Snow Man. Especially The Man Whose Pharynx Was Bad. I thought this a very nice stanza:
The time of year has grown indifferent.
Mildew of summer and the deepening snow
Are both alike in the routine i know.
I am too dumbly in my being pent.
Whitman I might revisit some day, but I remember having to wade through quite a bit of sillyness there as well to find anything I liked. It makes me wonder what a writer does with his bad or lesser material. I'd be inclined to toss it or at least not publish it, but I suppose it must be shared for the sake of improving yourself through someone else's criticism. Of couse some writers may not think they have lesser material. When I write I'm inclined to think the opposite and am loath to share.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Re: famous philosophers
The question is almost always a trap, and I think GWB opted out of that by choosing Jesus (i.e. the safe bet). Say you choose Aristotle, and you can see how that might cause problems; same with Plato. You can't really go past the reformation for fear of stepping in the muck of a Protestant-Catholic divide--just about the safest person to pick would be Thomas Aquinas (and there are even ways that choice could be turned against you politically; and no way in hell could you pick Augustine).
But anyone who is asked that question should recognize that there are a few obvious ones that you absolutely do not pick... and Mao is definitely on that list. There is maddening segment of leftist thought that hasn't yet understood the reality of the body count.
But anyone who is asked that question should recognize that there are a few obvious ones that you absolutely do not pick... and Mao is definitely on that list. There is maddening segment of leftist thought that hasn't yet understood the reality of the body count.
Wallace Stevens
Read this great article about him in the New Criterion. I have to confess I've never really got Stevens, and have had a hard time getting into his work. Logan claims that Stevens' rare stretches of magnificent lines "justify the acres of dull philosophizing lacking the odor of a necessary world," but I'm not sure that they do. Such moments come quicker and with more depth in Yeats and Frost, and even when they don't, you can settle for a different sort of greatness by taking the words slowly and allowing your imagine to fill in the landscape behind them. Stevens, not so much.
I think Logan gets Stevens, Whitman, and probably much of modern poetry in general, perfectly with this line:
"The magnificence of Stevens comes at a cost, the same cost we pay for Whitman: logorrhea of an uncharming and embarrassing sort, absurd notions, passages too private with their own pleasure, tone-deafness, lofty ambitions insufficiently grounded, and gouts of gimcrack philosophy."
With Whitman, it's a price I'll gladly pay for the times when that expansiveness happens to capture something great. With Frost and Yeats, I'd say there really is no price at all (maybe with Frost you pay it in enduring the minutiae of a New England winter, but he's such a cantankerous old crank for details you can't help but love him). But for Wallace Stevens, meh... pass.
I think Logan gets Stevens, Whitman, and probably much of modern poetry in general, perfectly with this line:
"The magnificence of Stevens comes at a cost, the same cost we pay for Whitman: logorrhea of an uncharming and embarrassing sort, absurd notions, passages too private with their own pleasure, tone-deafness, lofty ambitions insufficiently grounded, and gouts of gimcrack philosophy."
With Whitman, it's a price I'll gladly pay for the times when that expansiveness happens to capture something great. With Frost and Yeats, I'd say there really is no price at all (maybe with Frost you pay it in enduring the minutiae of a New England winter, but he's such a cantankerous old crank for details you can't help but love him). But for Wallace Stevens, meh... pass.
two of my favorite political philosophers
So maybe it was a little goofy for GWB to name Jesus as his favorite political philosopher, but Anita Dunn, Obama's communications director, has outdone the right-wing slanders about Obama's people being leftists. Apparently Ms. Dunn's favorite political philosophers are Mother Teresa and Mao. One not a political philosopher and the other obviously that wonderful red-book-writing defender of liberty and constitutional government. It would be funny if, you know, these people weren't running two branches of the federal government.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Administration screws our allies
Plans to install missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic have been scrapped. And...and the admistration made it public on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland no less. Is the State Dept. that dumb?
A-Team movie casting continues apace
So they got their B.A. I really, really don't know about Liam Neeson as Hannibal; I just have a tough time imagining him pulling it off. Mel Gibson seemed to fit the bill much better, but... well, you know what happened to him. Cooper as Face seems just right; he has all the smarminess that made him such a terrible straight lead (i.e., moral center) in The Hangover.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Re: Cobain
I agree with most of what you say, Nick, although I don't know the extent of his influence. I wouldn't be suprised to find that it was far-reaching, but I'm not willing to say that would be a positive if it were true.
I do disagree with your assertion that he was assuming a character just like Freddie or KISS. I have no reason to believe Cobain was dishonest (by that I mean assuming a persona for entertainment or other purposes) in anyway as far as his character as a musician. I think he and his fans thought much of the appeal of his music was it's authenticity and rebuke of pop and glam. But that itself is kind of pretentious. He thought his rockin' was more meaningful, and maybe part of the problem was that so many people bought into it.
Oh... and the shotgun shells commercial idea is one of the funnier things I've heard all week.
I do disagree with your assertion that he was assuming a character just like Freddie or KISS. I have no reason to believe Cobain was dishonest (by that I mean assuming a persona for entertainment or other purposes) in anyway as far as his character as a musician. I think he and his fans thought much of the appeal of his music was it's authenticity and rebuke of pop and glam. But that itself is kind of pretentious. He thought his rockin' was more meaningful, and maybe part of the problem was that so many people bought into it.
Oh... and the shotgun shells commercial idea is one of the funnier things I've heard all week.
Cobain selling out?
Piggy-backing on the Pearl Jam news, folks is going apeshit over the cartoon representation of Kurt Cobain in the new Guitar Hero game. The objections seem to break down as follows:
1) The makers of the game didn't properly buy the rights to use his likeness (they claim they did).
2) How dare you put cartoon Kurt in your crummy game!
3) How dare you put cartoon Kurt in your crummy game, and then force him to sing Billy Joel songs, Journey songs, etc!
I don't really agree with any of the objections. Cobain's image arguably crossed the threshold long ago wherein it enters into a popular lexicon and therefore can be used an all sorts of creative works. I've always been suspicious of Cobain's overinflated influence on 90's music--I don't for a minute buy all the anti-corporate purity that his fans ascribe to him or his music, nor the sanctification of his life, image, and ideals that was peddled incessantly in the wake of his suicide. If your sense of grunge mystique is offended by a cartoon likeness of Kurt singing "Only the Good Die Young" in a video game, then I think you need to get over yourself and Kurt (hint hint, Dave Grohl).
Any musician that takes the stage is assuming a "character," putting on a costume, putting forth an image. Cobain's grungy clothes are just as much a costume as Freddie Mercury's tight red pants or KISS's silver heels and armor.
1) The makers of the game didn't properly buy the rights to use his likeness (they claim they did).
2) How dare you put cartoon Kurt in your crummy game!
3) How dare you put cartoon Kurt in your crummy game, and then force him to sing Billy Joel songs, Journey songs, etc!
I don't really agree with any of the objections. Cobain's image arguably crossed the threshold long ago wherein it enters into a popular lexicon and therefore can be used an all sorts of creative works. I've always been suspicious of Cobain's overinflated influence on 90's music--I don't for a minute buy all the anti-corporate purity that his fans ascribe to him or his music, nor the sanctification of his life, image, and ideals that was peddled incessantly in the wake of his suicide. If your sense of grunge mystique is offended by a cartoon likeness of Kurt singing "Only the Good Die Young" in a video game, then I think you need to get over yourself and Kurt (hint hint, Dave Grohl).
Any musician that takes the stage is assuming a "character," putting on a costume, putting forth an image. Cobain's grungy clothes are just as much a costume as Freddie Mercury's tight red pants or KISS's silver heels and armor.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Pearl Jam defeated...
...but making scads of money. Slate has some interesting commentary on PJ, their new album, and Target's corporate sponsorship. I'm just hoping the new album is better than the last two (not a high bar). Or do I care anymore?...
You can hear the new single here.
You can hear the new single here.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
no idea how to title this
I just wanna know if this makes Bonnie Tyler better or Axle Rose worse. Total Eclipse of the Heart notwithstanding.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
From P. J. O'Rourke's new book
“I take the demise of the American car personally,” the author admits. “I’m looking around furiously for someone or something to blame. Ralph Nader for instance. What fun it would be to jump on him with both feet and send the pink Marxist goo squirting out of his cracked egghead. And let’s definitely do that even though Ralph is seventy-five and insane.”
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Urban Fantasy?
Judging by this review, it's either really cool or not anything we'd like to see in fantasy.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Thursday, September 03, 2009
A Traficant Sample
TIME TO PASS A FLAT TAX
March 20, 2001From the womb to the tomb, Madam Speaker, the Internal Rectal Service is one big enema. Think about it: they tax our income, they tax our savings, they tax our sex, they tax our property sales profits, they even tax our income when we die. Is it any wonder America is taxed off? We happen to be suffering from a disease called Taxes Mortis Americanus. Beam me up. It is time to pass a flat, simple 15 percent sales tax, and fire these nincompoops at the IRS. Think about it. I yield back the socialist, communist income tax scheme of these United States.
March 20, 2001From the womb to the tomb, Madam Speaker, the Internal Rectal Service is one big enema. Think about it: they tax our income, they tax our savings, they tax our sex, they tax our property sales profits, they even tax our income when we die. Is it any wonder America is taxed off? We happen to be suffering from a disease called Taxes Mortis Americanus. Beam me up. It is time to pass a flat, simple 15 percent sales tax, and fire these nincompoops at the IRS. Think about it. I yield back the socialist, communist income tax scheme of these United States.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Out of Afghanistan?
George Will says now. Frederick Kagan and Rich Lowry disagree. And Mark Steyn seems to agree.
Steyn makes the argument that Will does, although not explicitly adopting it, that our nation-building aims were too broad and unachieveable. I thought it was right to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq, and still do, but I thought Pres. Bush's rhetoric and goals were far too grandiose. Like Derb, I'm inclined to think rubble don't make trouble. As horrific as that may sound, are we really going to create a stable government in Afghanistan where there has never been one? This might be a more successful approach in Iraq where there is some culture, education--civilization--but even there our aims should have been/should be narrower (and I think Bush successfully narrowed them a bit before he left office).
Will recognizes that we will have continuing operations in Afghanistan, but he downplays the extent of doing so as Lowry points out. No clear solution, but certainly a lesson we must learn that our grand illusions of liberalizing the world shouldn't be guiding policy. Against our own sentiments we must have a harder heart about our security and war making. This is not to say leveling Afghanistan and leaving is the solution, it is obviously more difficult than that. But our "principles" perhaps get in the way of clear-sightedness in foreign policy.
Steyn makes the argument that Will does, although not explicitly adopting it, that our nation-building aims were too broad and unachieveable. I thought it was right to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq, and still do, but I thought Pres. Bush's rhetoric and goals were far too grandiose. Like Derb, I'm inclined to think rubble don't make trouble. As horrific as that may sound, are we really going to create a stable government in Afghanistan where there has never been one? This might be a more successful approach in Iraq where there is some culture, education--civilization--but even there our aims should have been/should be narrower (and I think Bush successfully narrowed them a bit before he left office).
Will recognizes that we will have continuing operations in Afghanistan, but he downplays the extent of doing so as Lowry points out. No clear solution, but certainly a lesson we must learn that our grand illusions of liberalizing the world shouldn't be guiding policy. Against our own sentiments we must have a harder heart about our security and war making. This is not to say leveling Afghanistan and leaving is the solution, it is obviously more difficult than that. But our "principles" perhaps get in the way of clear-sightedness in foreign policy.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Read this!
So I know I mentioned this to you guys in Michigan, but you should definitely check out Gene Wolfe. I've only read Book of the New Sun, (2 2-part books). I'd like to think that John and Nick will check it out based on our generally shared literary tastes, but Wolfe was recently interviewed by John J. Miller of National Review (in order to lure Bert in as well). Nick, as the writer of the group, might enjoy his critique of the modern short story. Also, he's a crazy, fantastic old man now. The interview is kind of awkward, but the books themselves are the exact opposite. I would be very interested in discussing these books later if anybody actually reads them.
I happened upon Shadow of the Torturer at a Borders in Boston, bought it, and was blown away. I think it might be better than Dune, which coming from me means a lot.
Also, this dude wrote a song about the Book of the New Sun, which sort of sums up the first book:
I happened upon Shadow of the Torturer at a Borders in Boston, bought it, and was blown away. I think it might be better than Dune, which coming from me means a lot.
Also, this dude wrote a song about the Book of the New Sun, which sort of sums up the first book:
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thursday, July 09, 2009
So what's it gonna be boy?
The TO show or Keyshawn giving interior design advice, titled "Keyshawn Johnson: Tackling Design"?
PS, the right answer is on this Saturday.
PS, the right answer is on this Saturday.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
David Eddings, RIP
Don't know how I missed that David Eddings died at the beginning of June.
I had been re-reading his Elenium and Tamuli series... they hold up better than I expected, certainly better than a lot of fantasy books I read as a teenager. He had a style that must've really appealed to young kids--his most engaging characters were the witty, acerbic ones. Eddings' books showed he knew how societies really functioned as a conglomeration of people pursuing their own desires, even if he was almost clinically unwilling to dig very deeply into any of that. His cut-throat thieves are impossibly polished. This is the contradiction that gets frustrating in his work: he readily acknowledges the disturbed, violent underbelly of society but constantly holds it at arms length and paves over the traumas it creates with pages of witty banter.
I'm sad he's gone--the Belgariad was a landmark fantasy series--and now I feel compelled to read his later books.
I had been re-reading his Elenium and Tamuli series... they hold up better than I expected, certainly better than a lot of fantasy books I read as a teenager. He had a style that must've really appealed to young kids--his most engaging characters were the witty, acerbic ones. Eddings' books showed he knew how societies really functioned as a conglomeration of people pursuing their own desires, even if he was almost clinically unwilling to dig very deeply into any of that. His cut-throat thieves are impossibly polished. This is the contradiction that gets frustrating in his work: he readily acknowledges the disturbed, violent underbelly of society but constantly holds it at arms length and paves over the traumas it creates with pages of witty banter.
I'm sad he's gone--the Belgariad was a landmark fantasy series--and now I feel compelled to read his later books.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
For realz this time?
26 new Futurama episodes that may or not be turned into straight to dvd videos?
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Oh, those crazy Jamaicans...
...and their penis-breaking dances...
I'm sure you can find a video on your own, if you're interested.
I'm sure you can find a video on your own, if you're interested.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Literal Interpretation
of Total Eclipse of the Heart. Not sure if you've seen this or not (old!???), but it was pretty amusing.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
What do you do with those hobgoblins?
Mystery Science Theater 3000 lives on, sort of. Might be worth checking out.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Commencement Spkrs
As someone who had to endure Jane Seymour telling me about life's lessons and her upcoming new fashion line, I find this idea really appealing. Ashland's speakers, though, have proven pretty solid considering it's a tiny liberal arts college in the center of Ohio. Blackwell was good; even Archie Griffin at my brother's commencement was solid.
Still, you need some top-class failures to give graduates a needed dose of reality. My suggestions for really failuretastic commencement speakers:
O.J. Simpson
Scott Weiland (supposedly clean... but meh)
Ryan Leaf
Tim Couch
John Edwards
Bernie Madoff
Adam Jones
Still, you need some top-class failures to give graduates a needed dose of reality. My suggestions for really failuretastic commencement speakers:
O.J. Simpson
Scott Weiland (supposedly clean... but meh)
Ryan Leaf
Tim Couch
John Edwards
Bernie Madoff
Adam Jones
Monday, May 18, 2009
Win
A long time ago, I thought sub 4 hrs was possible. The training taught me that it really wasn't, and when I was throwing up in a bathtub full of ice it also whispered to me, "you'll be lucky to finish at all, fatass."
So I'm pretty happy with this.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Skeleton Witch
I went to high school with Skeleton Witch's guitarist. You can see a picture of his gigantic red beard on my facebook page assuming he has a picture of himself for his profile at the moment. His name is Nate Garnett. Other than that I can't say I'd recommend the music.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Rock is not dead
I submit:
The Answer (my newest rock-crush)
They will rock you. Hard.
This is my favorite, but no video.
Priestess (don't let girls talk you into crazy death-metal despite its more awesome band name, i.e., Skeleton Witch)
( Seriously though, click on it. They are awesome.)
And of course The Sword and the now-defunct Wolfmother. I also look forward to Jack White's new band.
The Answer (my newest rock-crush)
They will rock you. Hard.
This is my favorite, but no video.
Priestess (don't let girls talk you into crazy death-metal despite its more awesome band name, i.e., Skeleton Witch)
( Seriously though, click on it. They are awesome.)
And of course The Sword and the now-defunct Wolfmother. I also look forward to Jack White's new band.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Obamas 100 days facebok feed
I'm sure this has been seen since it's in Slate and everyone else here is more likely to read that than I am, but nonetheless, I thought it was pretty funny.
VDH
As the author of such utterly convincing books as "Soul of Battle", sometimes his columns disappoint me. I'd characterize them as "hit or miss" but certainly not partisan. I think sometimes he can say to much about things he doesn't know much about, and comes off looking a bit shallow. Although, he is certainly not as grevious of an offender in that department as, say, Paul Krugman or Gore Vidal, who come off looking like no-nothing nitwits in half of their publications on politics or domestic/foreign policy. When he sticks to putting things in context and relating to their historiocity, he is quite persuasive.
VDH is not ideological as far as I can tell, and I find him an astute judge of motive. Sometimes he treads to lightly, like blaming the current economic crisis on "Wall Street greed". Well, no, that isn't true, but this certainly is:
"What, then, is the soul of battle? A rare thing indeed that arises only when free men march unabashedly toward the heartland of their enemy in hopes of saving the doomed, when their vast armies are aimed at salvation and liberation, not conquest and enslavement. Only then does battle take on a spiritual dimension, one that defines a culture, teaches it what civic militarism is and how it is properly used. Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon, and other great marshals used their tactical and strategic genius to alter history through the brutality of their armies. None led democratic soldiers. They freed no slaves nor liberated the oppressed. They were all aggressors, who created their matchless forces to kill rather than to preserve. As was true of most great captains of history, they fought for years on end, without democratic audit, and sought absolute rule as the prize of their victories. None were great men, and praise of their military prowess is forever tainted by the evil they wrought and the innocent they killed. They and their armies were without a moral sense and purpose, and thus their battles, tactically brilliant though they were, were soulless."
VDH is not ideological as far as I can tell, and I find him an astute judge of motive. Sometimes he treads to lightly, like blaming the current economic crisis on "Wall Street greed". Well, no, that isn't true, but this certainly is:
"What, then, is the soul of battle? A rare thing indeed that arises only when free men march unabashedly toward the heartland of their enemy in hopes of saving the doomed, when their vast armies are aimed at salvation and liberation, not conquest and enslavement. Only then does battle take on a spiritual dimension, one that defines a culture, teaches it what civic militarism is and how it is properly used. Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon, and other great marshals used their tactical and strategic genius to alter history through the brutality of their armies. None led democratic soldiers. They freed no slaves nor liberated the oppressed. They were all aggressors, who created their matchless forces to kill rather than to preserve. As was true of most great captains of history, they fought for years on end, without democratic audit, and sought absolute rule as the prize of their victories. None were great men, and praise of their military prowess is forever tainted by the evil they wrought and the innocent they killed. They and their armies were without a moral sense and purpose, and thus their battles, tactically brilliant though they were, were soulless."
Thursday, April 30, 2009
5 hrs of stupid
This was maybe not the best idea I've ever had. Think of me on Sunday. I'm scared.
This is probably a pretty fair prediction of what I can expect:
This is probably a pretty fair prediction of what I can expect:
Birdman!
Behold:
This guy would've been a bad-guy jock in any 80's movie. But now he's just awesome. I highly recommend watching Denver Nuggets games to see the Birdman do his thing.
Edit: I think this establishes both his awesomeness and 80's villain-ness.
WTF on Hanson
Sometimes conservatives ask "What happened to Andrew Sullivan?" which is a fair question, but I also think it's fair to ask what the heck happened to Victor Hanson? The interesting classicist was somewhere replaced with a bland nose-picking partisan. I submit this column with its sophomoric Jekyll-Hyde conceit as evidence; it attempts to cast even the decisions that Hanson himself agrees with (such as keeping Gate as SecDef) as an indication of drastically divided Obama, a "scary" prospect.
I'd be willing to debate this, but I think there is plenty is evidence NR has become a ridiculous joke.
I'd be willing to debate this, but I think there is plenty is evidence NR has become a ridiculous joke.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
JB and Pike
I am guessing this to be a more accurate visualization (assuming JB would actually be able to get that close to a fish). I admire the gusto though, JB.
JB and Pike
JB, you'd wet yourself like an excited puppy if you hooked a half-pound bluegill (and then it would get away). Lets set some reasonable goals like not dropping pieces of another guy's reel over the side of the boat. Or not uncannily resembling a little girl on her first fishing trip.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Rollin' downhill like a snowball headed for hell
Nationalization is coming...er...i mean more nationalization is coming. Stupid car companies and stupid government. It's sad when the right choice is bankruptcy, but that's how this should be handled.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Sciency Science
I'm pretty sure that on the scale of belief I'm closer to Mac... Donald than Douthat, but damn she's riding her science high-horse pretty hard in this discussion. In fact, she refuses to seriously engage the relationship between religion and politics by using science as a retreat. As someone who's tied his (future) livelihood to the humanities, her attitude is really distressing. Invoking "scientific proof!" shuts down the discussion.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Best Shot EVER!
Bert we are doing these next time you are up (or I am down).* They sound disgustingly fabulous!
*Visiting or gay sexing....whichever.
*Visiting or gay sexing....whichever.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Nerdrage! cont'd
A little more on Martin. It's easy to forget after a while, but it's obvious that he put in a ton of effort at establishing a specific historical milieu. All those little details, I imagine, took countless hours of careful research.
Second, I think he's just a better writer than most people who write in SF/F. He's not as lyrical as, say, Mark Helprin in Winter's Tale, but he's also much better Robert Jordan or even David Gemmell from sentence to sentence. Small example: I picked up Wheel of Time Book 8 (just to temporarily escape some reading for class) and right there in chapter 1 Jordan describes a character as walking around "unconcernedly." It's a small thing, but really noticeable after coming from Martin, who doesn't share Jordan's lazy over-reliance on adjectives and adverbs.
Some speculation: Pretty sure Sandor Clegane is dead. Some other mercenaries may steal his dog-helm and call themselves the Hound, but it seems pretty definitive in Book 4. And, to his credit, Martin's dead characters tend to stay dead (with one or two notable exceptions). I'm not convinced that Daenarys is going to be the unifying force once she gets to the main continent (if she ever does) ... I thought the army of the Unsullied was the most ridiculous fantasy thing I've read in a while, and I can only assume that Martin was mocking Plato's Republic (or maybe other fantasy writers). Honestly, they carry cute puppies around that they later have to kill to enter into the brotherhood of warriors? Way over the top. After the Dothraki, the Daenarys sections have been pretty weak, because the locales, like Dorne, just don't resonate very well.
One thing I really liked about Book 4 was how the absence of Tywin Lannister felt very palpable. The guy was such a dick, but in many ways he was the one holding the kingdom, such as it is, together, doing the dickish things that needed to be done to keep his family in power. While there's an immediate sense of relief in Book 4 that this malevolent force is gone, the vaccuum that he leaves (and the inability of his two children to fill it properly) gives way to an uncertainty and dread that's all over Book 4.
You're right about the skpping ahead--there's so many really young characters (like, under 10 years old) that need to come into their own to bring this story to a good end: Bran, Arya, maybe the youngest Lannisters Myrcella and Tommen (if he can survive his mother's regency), the King-Beyond-the-Wall's infant son, and Robert's various bastard children (there's like 20 of these, right? But only 2 seem important).
Second, I think he's just a better writer than most people who write in SF/F. He's not as lyrical as, say, Mark Helprin in Winter's Tale, but he's also much better Robert Jordan or even David Gemmell from sentence to sentence. Small example: I picked up Wheel of Time Book 8 (just to temporarily escape some reading for class) and right there in chapter 1 Jordan describes a character as walking around "unconcernedly." It's a small thing, but really noticeable after coming from Martin, who doesn't share Jordan's lazy over-reliance on adjectives and adverbs.
Some speculation: Pretty sure Sandor Clegane is dead. Some other mercenaries may steal his dog-helm and call themselves the Hound, but it seems pretty definitive in Book 4. And, to his credit, Martin's dead characters tend to stay dead (with one or two notable exceptions). I'm not convinced that Daenarys is going to be the unifying force once she gets to the main continent (if she ever does) ... I thought the army of the Unsullied was the most ridiculous fantasy thing I've read in a while, and I can only assume that Martin was mocking Plato's Republic (or maybe other fantasy writers). Honestly, they carry cute puppies around that they later have to kill to enter into the brotherhood of warriors? Way over the top. After the Dothraki, the Daenarys sections have been pretty weak, because the locales, like Dorne, just don't resonate very well.
One thing I really liked about Book 4 was how the absence of Tywin Lannister felt very palpable. The guy was such a dick, but in many ways he was the one holding the kingdom, such as it is, together, doing the dickish things that needed to be done to keep his family in power. While there's an immediate sense of relief in Book 4 that this malevolent force is gone, the vaccuum that he leaves (and the inability of his two children to fill it properly) gives way to an uncertainty and dread that's all over Book 4.
You're right about the skpping ahead--there's so many really young characters (like, under 10 years old) that need to come into their own to bring this story to a good end: Bran, Arya, maybe the youngest Lannisters Myrcella and Tommen (if he can survive his mother's regency), the King-Beyond-the-Wall's infant son, and Robert's various bastard children (there's like 20 of these, right? But only 2 seem important).
Monday, April 13, 2009
More nerd talk from the nerdery
First, regarding Jordan and Sanderson: I in no way blame Sanderson for this. I am not a Sanderson fan, nor have I even read a single one of his books. In fact, he's said some pretty stupid things on his blog about WoT (really, 11 is you favorite? That's flat-out retarded). John and I more or less agreed, way back in the day when Jordan was still writing the series, that there was no way he could conclude with a single book. John said he would write a 2000 page finale; I said he'd just wrap up what he wanted to and ignore the rest in a fit of cynicism. The point is, this entire debacle is Jordan's making. Sanderson wants to do the story (such as it is) justice and please fans by wrapping things up as well he can. He's stuck mopping up Jordan's masturbatory mess.
As for Martin....I started them last summer and devoured them. I even tried other Martin works (not really worth it IMO). Anyway, your (Nick's) points:
1. If you keep in mind this is really just half of Dance with Dragons, it makes more sense that the story arc is....less than good. I'm not going to try to defend it, I'll just say I enjoyed it.
2. I agree about Dorne. Isn't it supposed to be his version of Wales, like north of the wall is some crazy mix of Ireland/Scotland? That was my general feeling. But the fact is that these characters feel kind of thrown in at random. Why are they here? And why the rotating POV rather than just one person? I suspect the Dorne plot will help catalyze Daenerys' return...but more on that later.
3. I agree entirely. Similar to the Dorne problem.
4. Arya is my favorite character, after Sandor Clegane (don't count him out just yet). It seems pretty clear to me that she is in training to become someone very powerful with an important role in fighting the Others. As for the Sansa chapters, I agree that they add to the political intrigues, etc. I just hate reading them. Sansa is an unreliable POV and annoying.
My major problem is that at some point, Martin is going to have skip ahead several years (5?) Daenerys needs to learn to be a good ruler so she can unite Westeros against the Others. The dragons need to grow (large enough so She and others can ride them into battle). Bran needs to learn the magic of the Forest People ( he will be another dragon rider as well). Arya needs to finish her training (will she be one of the generals in the battle against the Others?).
I think Bakker is doing a slightly better job with a similar overall story: The first trilogy covers training and identification of the threat, the second Kelhus will use his training to lead Men against the Consulate something like 20 years later. I haven't read the new book yet but I am immensely excited.
As for Martin....I started them last summer and devoured them. I even tried other Martin works (not really worth it IMO). Anyway, your (Nick's) points:
1. If you keep in mind this is really just half of Dance with Dragons, it makes more sense that the story arc is....less than good. I'm not going to try to defend it, I'll just say I enjoyed it.
2. I agree about Dorne. Isn't it supposed to be his version of Wales, like north of the wall is some crazy mix of Ireland/Scotland? That was my general feeling. But the fact is that these characters feel kind of thrown in at random. Why are they here? And why the rotating POV rather than just one person? I suspect the Dorne plot will help catalyze Daenerys' return...but more on that later.
3. I agree entirely. Similar to the Dorne problem.
4. Arya is my favorite character, after Sandor Clegane (don't count him out just yet). It seems pretty clear to me that she is in training to become someone very powerful with an important role in fighting the Others. As for the Sansa chapters, I agree that they add to the political intrigues, etc. I just hate reading them. Sansa is an unreliable POV and annoying.
My major problem is that at some point, Martin is going to have skip ahead several years (5?) Daenerys needs to learn to be a good ruler so she can unite Westeros against the Others. The dragons need to grow (large enough so She and others can ride them into battle). Bran needs to learn the magic of the Forest People ( he will be another dragon rider as well). Arya needs to finish her training (will she be one of the generals in the battle against the Others?).
I think Bakker is doing a slightly better job with a similar overall story: The first trilogy covers training and identification of the threat, the second Kelhus will use his training to lead Men against the Consulate something like 20 years later. I haven't read the new book yet but I am immensely excited.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Song of Ice and Fire
I don't want to play the hater, because it might seem like I do too much of that, and I really do like these books, but I have to be honest: Book 4 was disappointing. Specifically, here are the things I didn't like [SOME SPOILERS]:
1. It has no real ending. It just sort of... stops. The natural endpoint, it seems to me, would have been Cersei's death (this isn't a spoiler, because she doesn't die) or trial, but we don't even get that far. And the fact that Martin dribbled crumbs about a giant unstoppable undead Gregor Clegane in the castle basement and then NEVER BROUGHT HIM OUT TO PLAY (which he easily could have in the context of serving as Cersei's champion) made me really upset. It reminded me the Poochie episode where Milhouse just wants them to get to the fireworks factory. I kept asking "When?", and then we never got there.
2. The Dorne stuff doesn't fit. I mean, it's not poorly written, and if it had been introduced in Book 1 or 2 I suppose I would care more, but there's already too much on the plate for me to give a hoot what's going on in Dorne. Not to mention, Westeros was introduced to us as an analogue for 14th century England, and somehow there's this vast desert kingdom in the south? The one character who was interesting enough to bring the Dorne stuff to life didn't make it out of Book 3, and then he was only around for 3 or 4 chapters.
3. Too many PoVs of people I don't really care about. One chapter of Arys Oakheart. Why? And, I like Aeron Damphair because he's a badass sea priest, but do we really need PoV chapters from Asha and Victarion in addition to Damphair to get a sense of what's going on with the ironborn?
4. We've been following Arya a long time now--does anyone have any idea how her story might fit back into the main narrative? If it will at all? In the earlier books it was interesting to see how she criss-crossed a bunch of other plot lines and gave us a different vantage point, but I suppose I'm beginning to lose confidence that Martin can make all that we've been through with Arya meaningful. (You could argue the same for Sansa, but her storyline still seems attached to the main political machinations of the kingdom.)
For a while towards the end I thought my misgivings about Book 4 would be put to rest--Book 4 was shaping up to be the story of Cersei and Jaime, and how Cersei had finally gotten to rule and things were falling apart and going to hell all over the place. The book gestured towards an ending but never gave us one. Martin's little apology letter in my paperback version (promising Book 5 within a year, i.e. 2006) is emblematic of all the problems in modern fantasy that I've already ranted against at length.
"A Feast for Crows" implies that Book 4 was basically the leftovers, or crumbs, of the main story... and that's pretty much what we got. Is it a one-off in that sense, or will the next few books be full of leftovers and crumbs as well?
1. It has no real ending. It just sort of... stops. The natural endpoint, it seems to me, would have been Cersei's death (this isn't a spoiler, because she doesn't die) or trial, but we don't even get that far. And the fact that Martin dribbled crumbs about a giant unstoppable undead Gregor Clegane in the castle basement and then NEVER BROUGHT HIM OUT TO PLAY (which he easily could have in the context of serving as Cersei's champion) made me really upset. It reminded me the Poochie episode where Milhouse just wants them to get to the fireworks factory. I kept asking "When?", and then we never got there.
2. The Dorne stuff doesn't fit. I mean, it's not poorly written, and if it had been introduced in Book 1 or 2 I suppose I would care more, but there's already too much on the plate for me to give a hoot what's going on in Dorne. Not to mention, Westeros was introduced to us as an analogue for 14th century England, and somehow there's this vast desert kingdom in the south? The one character who was interesting enough to bring the Dorne stuff to life didn't make it out of Book 3, and then he was only around for 3 or 4 chapters.
3. Too many PoVs of people I don't really care about. One chapter of Arys Oakheart. Why? And, I like Aeron Damphair because he's a badass sea priest, but do we really need PoV chapters from Asha and Victarion in addition to Damphair to get a sense of what's going on with the ironborn?
4. We've been following Arya a long time now--does anyone have any idea how her story might fit back into the main narrative? If it will at all? In the earlier books it was interesting to see how she criss-crossed a bunch of other plot lines and gave us a different vantage point, but I suppose I'm beginning to lose confidence that Martin can make all that we've been through with Arya meaningful. (You could argue the same for Sansa, but her storyline still seems attached to the main political machinations of the kingdom.)
For a while towards the end I thought my misgivings about Book 4 would be put to rest--Book 4 was shaping up to be the story of Cersei and Jaime, and how Cersei had finally gotten to rule and things were falling apart and going to hell all over the place. The book gestured towards an ending but never gave us one. Martin's little apology letter in my paperback version (promising Book 5 within a year, i.e. 2006) is emblematic of all the problems in modern fantasy that I've already ranted against at length.
"A Feast for Crows" implies that Book 4 was basically the leftovers, or crumbs, of the main story... and that's pretty much what we got. Is it a one-off in that sense, or will the next few books be full of leftovers and crumbs as well?
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Even from the grave, Robert Jordan manages to spit in your eye
This. And then, if you're up for it, this.
Essentially, after all the editor back and forth and publishing BS, Sanderson settles on making the last book of Wheel of Time a series of its own.
It's almost too perfect. Beyond parody. Really, what the eff is the point of a "book" anymore, when it can be endlessly fractured, sundered, split and expanded ad naseum.
Somewhere along the line these guys got way too interested producing "books" and forgot that they were supposed to be storytellers. I say eff them. In the nicest, most respectful way possible.
Essentially, after all the editor back and forth and publishing BS, Sanderson settles on making the last book of Wheel of Time a series of its own.
It's almost too perfect. Beyond parody. Really, what the eff is the point of a "book" anymore, when it can be endlessly fractured, sundered, split and expanded ad naseum.
Somewhere along the line these guys got way too interested producing "books" and forgot that they were supposed to be storytellers. I say eff them. In the nicest, most respectful way possible.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Newark, OH
Pronounced Ne'rk if you were wondering. DUI for operating a barstool is lame. Harshin' my vicarious buzz.
The Bar Stool Guy
has shit all figured out. Why's the man gotta be bringin him down and harshin his buzz? At least they didn't impound his barstool-mobile. That woulda been total dick.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
But, Rand was right about...
... the perversely backwards system of incentives that can result when government becomes too intimately intertwined with business. The novel is a great way to communicate that to people, and to encourage a deep suspicion of the efficacy of government programs, a point that seems too often get lost today.
Anyway, this op-ed by a quitting AIG exec reminded me of the Rand discussion and I think, if it is possible to recuperate her ideas, it would be in an episode like this. As this exec makes clear, the money is important but its not just the money--he's not going to stick around working long days while he gets trashed in every media outlet, in Congress, and from his boss above. I'm not sure how much a I believe him when he claims he had no responsibility, but I sure do believe him when he says that the populist backlash, centered around the bonus discussion, is going to push anyone with a modicum of sense, talent, or responsibility out of AIG.
Anyway, this op-ed by a quitting AIG exec reminded me of the Rand discussion and I think, if it is possible to recuperate her ideas, it would be in an episode like this. As this exec makes clear, the money is important but its not just the money--he's not going to stick around working long days while he gets trashed in every media outlet, in Congress, and from his boss above. I'm not sure how much a I believe him when he claims he had no responsibility, but I sure do believe him when he says that the populist backlash, centered around the bonus discussion, is going to push anyone with a modicum of sense, talent, or responsibility out of AIG.
Monday, March 23, 2009
I have to go now, my planet needs me.
Starbuck pulled a Poochie. Nevertheless, I'm really sad that Battlestar Galactica is over. On the whole it was a really good show, and 7/10ths of the time it was a fantastic show.
I'm looking for a new show to fill the big hole left by BSG. I thought the first three episodes of Kings was really good, but apparently it tanked in the ratings, so it may not be around long. Watch it before it gets cancelled. Your king needs you!
P.S. Your king is your penis. Probably.
I'm looking for a new show to fill the big hole left by BSG. I thought the first three episodes of Kings was really good, but apparently it tanked in the ratings, so it may not be around long. Watch it before it gets cancelled. Your king needs you!
P.S. Your king is your penis. Probably.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Two (or maybe more) points on Atlas Shrugged
First, Whittaker Chambers is absolutely right to call her protagonists "operatic caricatures." This leads (and I forget whether it is Chambers or someone else who makes this point) into some disturbing but illustrative parallels between Atlas Shrugged and Nietzsche's thought, which many Rand-fans disavow or won't take seriously.
Secondly, I don't think you can really bracket the sexual ethics of Atlas Shrugged and set them aside. For Rand, sex is a mirror game where its highest form is realized by engaging in it (usually violently and with lots of scratching and blood, btw) with the most virtuous (read, most profitable) person around you can find. On the flip side, without economic virtue mirrored in both partners, sex becomes a shameful act of self-loathing. Either way, there's a consumptive violence here (either in the act of attempting to achieve that virtue, through sex with many partners, as Dagny does, or through economic acquisition, as Reardon does) that Rand acknowledges only on the side of the looters. When the good guys do it, that violence morphs into pleasure. Maybe some Freudian thinker could untangle this mess, but at the very least its a dishonest parallel.
Look, on the whole I think Rand is right about some things, and the book is pretty good; but I don't really think we need take it as seriously as Rand insists it should be taken. Hers is a totalizing world-view that brooks no compromise (which is why it is just as vulnerable to conservative critiques as it is to liberal ones ), and her over-sized characters are a symptom of that. I mean, Watchmen puts forth a sort of politics, too (which, ultimately might be a more realistic one that Rand's), but you don't see people arguing for the full-scale totalizing implementation of that politics.
But that's the box that Rand puts her followers into. It's all or nothing. You're in or you're out. You're a producer or a looter. The minute you enter the real world and attempt to effect policy change you've left Rand's paradigm and belong to the category of looters, because you will by necessity end up compromising your position as you enter the messy realm of policy, even if you are ultimately trying to curtail the scope and power of government.
Rand is, ultimately, either utopian or revolutionary, neither of which are conservative positions. Which is why she was so fully excommunicated from conservative order, I'm guessing. The tone of Atlas Shrugged makes it nearly impossible to rehabilitate or co-opt any of her individual positions piecemeal, which is exactly how she wanted it. Her work and thought dwells on the periphery because she chose that position. Now that most conservative politicians and policy-makers dwell there too (though not especially by choice), any sort of alliance is going to be problematic for conservative electoral politics.
[Edit: I just glanced at that NRO piece, and it looks like my points are the same as John Bean's. I didn't look at it first, honest!]
[Edit the second: Bert, you characterized that NRO piece as if it was saying that Rand is relevant in the age of Obama. The majority of those writers seem to be saying that Rand was barely ever relevant, and that she definitely is not now. Their tone is dismissive and haughty--I mean, I was at least fairer than that. Though offering a fair and honest analysis is a pretty low bar that NRO nevertheless rarely manages to clear these days. Ok, no more edits. And, super-zing, NRO!]
Secondly, I don't think you can really bracket the sexual ethics of Atlas Shrugged and set them aside. For Rand, sex is a mirror game where its highest form is realized by engaging in it (usually violently and with lots of scratching and blood, btw) with the most virtuous (read, most profitable) person around you can find. On the flip side, without economic virtue mirrored in both partners, sex becomes a shameful act of self-loathing. Either way, there's a consumptive violence here (either in the act of attempting to achieve that virtue, through sex with many partners, as Dagny does, or through economic acquisition, as Reardon does) that Rand acknowledges only on the side of the looters. When the good guys do it, that violence morphs into pleasure. Maybe some Freudian thinker could untangle this mess, but at the very least its a dishonest parallel.
Look, on the whole I think Rand is right about some things, and the book is pretty good; but I don't really think we need take it as seriously as Rand insists it should be taken. Hers is a totalizing world-view that brooks no compromise (which is why it is just as vulnerable to conservative critiques as it is to liberal ones ), and her over-sized characters are a symptom of that. I mean, Watchmen puts forth a sort of politics, too (which, ultimately might be a more realistic one that Rand's), but you don't see people arguing for the full-scale totalizing implementation of that politics.
But that's the box that Rand puts her followers into. It's all or nothing. You're in or you're out. You're a producer or a looter. The minute you enter the real world and attempt to effect policy change you've left Rand's paradigm and belong to the category of looters, because you will by necessity end up compromising your position as you enter the messy realm of policy, even if you are ultimately trying to curtail the scope and power of government.
Rand is, ultimately, either utopian or revolutionary, neither of which are conservative positions. Which is why she was so fully excommunicated from conservative order, I'm guessing. The tone of Atlas Shrugged makes it nearly impossible to rehabilitate or co-opt any of her individual positions piecemeal, which is exactly how she wanted it. Her work and thought dwells on the periphery because she chose that position. Now that most conservative politicians and policy-makers dwell there too (though not especially by choice), any sort of alliance is going to be problematic for conservative electoral politics.
[Edit: I just glanced at that NRO piece, and it looks like my points are the same as John Bean's. I didn't look at it first, honest!]
[Edit the second: Bert, you characterized that NRO piece as if it was saying that Rand is relevant in the age of Obama. The majority of those writers seem to be saying that Rand was barely ever relevant, and that she definitely is not now. Their tone is dismissive and haughty--I mean, I was at least fairer than that. Though offering a fair and honest analysis is a pretty low bar that NRO nevertheless rarely manages to clear these days. Ok, no more edits. And, super-zing, NRO!]
25-DVD gift update
They actually were North American format.
Money quote:
"But don't forget, folks: Somewhere in Texas a village has been reunited with its idiot, and we now have the whip-smartest administration of David Brooks's lifetime."
Beating up on David Brooks just doesn't get old.
Money quote:
"But don't forget, folks: Somewhere in Texas a village has been reunited with its idiot, and we now have the whip-smartest administration of David Brooks's lifetime."
Beating up on David Brooks just doesn't get old.
Rand is always relevant
While I think Whittaker Chambers got it right, Rand is very relevant in the age of Obama as NRO discusses. Some critical some sympathetic, most maligning her novels' literary value.
I liked this though: "Still relevant in the Age of Obama? With all due respect to Whittaker Chambers, if we didn’t already have her, we’d have to invent her, double-quick."
I enjoyed the two novels I read, but I'll leave the lit crit to our resident scholar, er...whatshisname...lanky kong...blittzo...some such corduroy-patched-elbows-wearing english professor dood.
I liked this though: "Still relevant in the Age of Obama? With all due respect to Whittaker Chambers, if we didn’t already have her, we’d have to invent her, double-quick."
I enjoyed the two novels I read, but I'll leave the lit crit to our resident scholar, er...whatshisname...lanky kong...blittzo...some such corduroy-patched-elbows-wearing english professor dood.
McCain
I thought McCain would have been a poor president especially tempermentally. However, I thought Obama would be worse especially on policy and judges--worse enough to make voting worth while.
McCain would have been bad on economics but certainly more fiscally responsible and hesitant about massively increasing gov't debt. He also could have surrounded himself with better economic advisers than Obama and probably would have although the Paulson and the Bush Treasury was bad at the end. I'm sure he'd have signed some stupid things to look as though he were "doing something" to help.
I'm fairly certain, however, that McCain would have expended some political capital to fight the Democrats' stimulus package. I think he would've been way better on that. McCain voted against the stimulus, and I think he would not have thrown away nearly a trillion dollars, and would have put any stimulus to better use if only marginally. Then again he could've caved to an opposition Congress on something slightly less egregious, but I have my doubts. There was or at least could have been enough public opinion against outrageous spending especially with an administration making the argument.
I am hesitant to say it, because I'm not anti-Fed like you, Slaps. But the Federal Reserve has been part of the problem by putting so much emphasis on banks getting cash to lend. And McCain might not have fought the Fed. I understand that the availability of credit is important in our economy, but seeing as how much of our current situation came about because of easy credit, the government's policy should be for tightening credit a bit or a least letting the tightening that the market reaction to the crisis would have brought about happpen. Obama even said our economy can't be too reliant on consumer (over)spending with the necessary (unspoken) corrollary that consumers were carrying too much debt. Obama's policy has been, however, to try and spend spend spend and encourage consumer spending and taking on more debt! Re-inflate the bubble rather than letting it burst and understanding that the plunge in the market was to some extent a reflection that stocks/property/etc. were overvalued. The policy should be to allow the market to adjust to more accurate valuation and not pretend like the government can or should try and ensure the DOW never loses value.
McCain would have been bad on economics but certainly more fiscally responsible and hesitant about massively increasing gov't debt. He also could have surrounded himself with better economic advisers than Obama and probably would have although the Paulson and the Bush Treasury was bad at the end. I'm sure he'd have signed some stupid things to look as though he were "doing something" to help.
I'm fairly certain, however, that McCain would have expended some political capital to fight the Democrats' stimulus package. I think he would've been way better on that. McCain voted against the stimulus, and I think he would not have thrown away nearly a trillion dollars, and would have put any stimulus to better use if only marginally. Then again he could've caved to an opposition Congress on something slightly less egregious, but I have my doubts. There was or at least could have been enough public opinion against outrageous spending especially with an administration making the argument.
I am hesitant to say it, because I'm not anti-Fed like you, Slaps. But the Federal Reserve has been part of the problem by putting so much emphasis on banks getting cash to lend. And McCain might not have fought the Fed. I understand that the availability of credit is important in our economy, but seeing as how much of our current situation came about because of easy credit, the government's policy should be for tightening credit a bit or a least letting the tightening that the market reaction to the crisis would have brought about happpen. Obama even said our economy can't be too reliant on consumer (over)spending with the necessary (unspoken) corrollary that consumers were carrying too much debt. Obama's policy has been, however, to try and spend spend spend and encourage consumer spending and taking on more debt! Re-inflate the bubble rather than letting it burst and understanding that the plunge in the market was to some extent a reflection that stocks/property/etc. were overvalued. The policy should be to allow the market to adjust to more accurate valuation and not pretend like the government can or should try and ensure the DOW never loses value.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Some quick responses
1. This is mainly directed at Bert, but anyone else is welcome to chime in. About all this financial business, do you really think McCain would have done anything different? He was talking about paying for all the bunk mortgages during the campaign. That's not really a rhetorical question, either. Do you really think he wouldn't have forced a shitty "emergency" bill through Congress? All this goes back to my point that voting doesn't matter when you wind up with the same result.
2. Bob Barr was in Borat, so it only seems fair that Ron Paul is in Cohen's new movie. I'll probably go see it, with my friend Mister hip flask full of whiskey.
3. About that survey of virginal girls....Poor sample selection is my guess. I mean, it's only coming from Wellesley, not really an objective set of students. Anyway, everybody knows that the trampiest girls are in the liberal arts and education!
4. We can discuss George R.R. Martin when you're done with book 4 Nick. Don't want to ruin anything for you.
2. Bob Barr was in Borat, so it only seems fair that Ron Paul is in Cohen's new movie. I'll probably go see it, with my friend Mister hip flask full of whiskey.
3. About that survey of virginal girls....Poor sample selection is my guess. I mean, it's only coming from Wellesley, not really an objective set of students. Anyway, everybody knows that the trampiest girls are in the liberal arts and education!
4. We can discuss George R.R. Martin when you're done with book 4 Nick. Don't want to ruin anything for you.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Bad news Slaps
But also good....this means it wasn't totally our lack of smooth, we just picked the wrong majors.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Pith
From Taranto at WSJ yesterday:
The problem, as we argued last week, is that the president seems more interested in ensuring that everyone has unionized, carbon-neutral health insurance than in dealing with the crisis now affecting the economy.
We're Writing In Al Gore
"Hansbrough, Curry Among Wooden Candidates"--headline, Associated Press, March 13
The problem, as we argued last week, is that the president seems more interested in ensuring that everyone has unionized, carbon-neutral health insurance than in dealing with the crisis now affecting the economy.
We're Writing In Al Gore
"Hansbrough, Curry Among Wooden Candidates"--headline, Associated Press, March 13
Interesting
Changes/Cuts coming at Defense? I'm inclined to agree with the Derb that you can never have enough nukes (or other powerful military tools). Rumsfeld tried some of this and failed miserably. Interesting that Gates would go the same direction after the success of the surge and more boots on the ground. Let's hope missile defense isn't on the chopping block at least.
Gibbs v. Cheney
When the WaPo is giving Cheney a fair shake you know the administration must be screwing up pretty badly. The President needs to reign in Gibbs and stop with this nonsense about Rush Limbaugh. It makes him look petty, small, and unserious. All of it is a distraction, as Cheney pointed out, so as to avoid having to defend a massive expansion of federal government intervention into healthcare, the economy, energy production, etc.
Monday, March 16, 2009
lolcats on a lonely monday night
I bet if you were half drunk from an evening alone with a bottle of wine (not that I know from experience) lolcats hilariousness is increased tenfold.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Take it easy, Rothfuss
This blog post from Patrick Rothfuss made me feel a little better about my life. Not because he's seemingly lamenting the changes in his life due to successfully publishing a pretty good novel, but because it sorta makes a compelling case for just writing for yourself--write what you like, read it, share it with friends, write more. Publishing, as tough as it is, opens the door to a darker, different world.
It was linked from a post on George R.R. Martin's blog. I'm on Book 4 there, and I feel like I have a lot to talk about with other people (read: John and Slaps) who have read the series. In a nutshell: I think the series does some amazing things for fantasy while still somewhat falling prey to the perils of overserialization and indulgence. But unlike Robert Jordan, I don't think I'll be putting this one down.
It was linked from a post on George R.R. Martin's blog. I'm on Book 4 there, and I feel like I have a lot to talk about with other people (read: John and Slaps) who have read the series. In a nutshell: I think the series does some amazing things for fantasy while still somewhat falling prey to the perils of overserialization and indulgence. But unlike Robert Jordan, I don't think I'll be putting this one down.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Porkulous
From Best of the Web at the WSJOnline yesterday:
Your Tax Dollars at Work
"More than one out of every five dollars of the $126 million Massachusetts is receiving in earmarks from a $410 billion federal spending package is going to help preserve the legacy of the Kennedys," the Associated Press reports from Boston:
The bill includes $5.8 million for the planning and design of a building to house a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate. The funding may also help support an endowment for the institute.
The bill also includes $22 million to expand facilities at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum and $5 million more for a new gateway to the Boston Harbor Islands on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, a park system in downtown Boston named after Kennedy's mother and built on land opened up by the Big Dig highway project.
We suppose if you can't make history, you might as well buy it with other people's money.
Your Tax Dollars at Work
"More than one out of every five dollars of the $126 million Massachusetts is receiving in earmarks from a $410 billion federal spending package is going to help preserve the legacy of the Kennedys," the Associated Press reports from Boston:
The bill includes $5.8 million for the planning and design of a building to house a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate. The funding may also help support an endowment for the institute.
The bill also includes $22 million to expand facilities at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum and $5 million more for a new gateway to the Boston Harbor Islands on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, a park system in downtown Boston named after Kennedy's mother and built on land opened up by the Big Dig highway project.
We suppose if you can't make history, you might as well buy it with other people's money.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Friday, March 06, 2009
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Obama is a genius
I figured out that the President is a sly fox. You thought he was just spending us into debt and ruining the economy. However, he is really just trying to solve the illegal immigration problem by making our country less attractive to immigrants.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Joaquin Phoenix on Letterman
Joaquin must've been pretty effing high. Letterman got a few good laughs from it.
Slate has a little fun with Cheney
Slate imagines some quotes from Cheney's memoir. Most of this is the same ol' bash Cheney crap but it's kind of funny. My favorite:
I knew from her glassy-eyed grin that Lynne was well into her fourth tequila and valium. "Guesh what," she said. "Your pretty little daughter has gone and got himself a girlfriend."
I knew from her glassy-eyed grin that Lynne was well into her fourth tequila and valium. "Guesh what," she said. "Your pretty little daughter has gone and got himself a girlfriend."
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
And the winner for unsupported subheadlines goes to...
...this article for Lincoln's Laws of War: How he built the code that Bush attempted to destroy. The story actually contains nothing about how Bush destroyed the Laws of War except the implication that he authorized torture. The description of Lincoln's experience with the laws of war is much like the situation Bush found us to be in. And they way Bush approached the problems of war seems very similar to how Lincoln approached it as well. Needless to say Bush is evil. Don't forget it. There seem to be a lot of stories going around with needless reminders of this state of mind. It is rather pathetic and humorous in so far as Obama has not made much of a break with Bush's policies in this area as of yet and he seems to be affirming what the Bush administration did.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Grammys
Didn't watch but was glad to see Robert Plant and Alison Krauss won 5. What I've heard of their album is pretty good.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Fine, everyone does steroids. I give up.
Somewhere on this blog I wrote that I long for the day when Alex Rodriguez takes the home run title away from Barry Bonds because, despite the fact that their both big jerks, at least it would be less fraudulent if Rodriguez has the title.
Well, eff me. Baseball is so stat-driven, this cannot be allowed to continue. I now advocate for a massive purge of all quasi-suspected suspicious performance-enhancing drug users from baseball and the record books by an impartial robotic commissioner-overlord, who can also travel through time.
Well, eff me. Baseball is so stat-driven, this cannot be allowed to continue. I now advocate for a massive purge of all quasi-suspected suspicious performance-enhancing drug users from baseball and the record books by an impartial robotic commissioner-overlord, who can also travel through time.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Bad news for Nick?
Shrinking numbers of positions and increasing numbers of applicants for tenure-track jobs in the humanities. Although, not as bad in the sciences a lot of what is said probably hold true here, too.
And the Miami Vice movie? Not too good. I'd stick to the original.
So do I have to pay taxes? Harvard doesn't take out withholding, so in light of recent events it seems totally cool if I just skip out on that.
And the Miami Vice movie? Not too good. I'd stick to the original.
So do I have to pay taxes? Harvard doesn't take out withholding, so in light of recent events it seems totally cool if I just skip out on that.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Best Headline and Subhead Yesterday
From James Taranto:
Marion Barry for Drug Czar
Democrats love taxes. Paying them, not so much.
Marion Barry for Drug Czar
Democrats love taxes. Paying them, not so much.
Miami Vice
Didn't Michael Mann produce the TV show? Had some good writers and directors on that show. Did anyone see the movie? I want to watch it but I hate Colin Farrell.
And yes, it's pretty cool.
And yes, it's pretty cool.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
hatin on billy
I agree with Nick, although I do hate Springstein - or however he spells it - and deservedly so making me sit through his wife's guitar playing tomfoolery when Stevie van Zandt's standing right there on stage - come on Bruce - seriously?!?!?! WTF?????? Lick my hairy balls Bruce. your wife will never be anywhere near as good as Stevie. You dick. That's like Robert Hazard pretending he's legit. Get her off the stage and let the talent play. Come on.
Also, Billy Joel is okay by me. And I like Allentown and the Nor'easter Alexa or whatever it's called.
Also, Billy Joel is okay by me. And I like Allentown and the Nor'easter Alexa or whatever it's called.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
re: hating on bj
That's a really venomous piece. I think the dude is one of those 70's intellectual hippies who over-identified with Bob Dylan, and as a consequence focused his ire on the sellout (in his mind) anti-Dylans of his age: Billy Joel. It's like how Springsteen fans hate Bon Jovi and vice versa, or the same with Metallica and Megadeth. Maybe one day I'll be adept enough at douchebaggery to write pop culture put-downs for Slate. Watch out, Alan Thicke, I'm coming for you!
Monday, January 26, 2009
The weirdest cover album since Pat Boone
Also, red cummerbunds. I can't really endorse the music, but the chorus of 'we don't need another hero' rocks me pretty hard.
Edit: It gets weirder. They've got a speed metal version of Don't Stop Believing and something that they call but isn't necessarily Take on Me.
Edit: It gets weirder. They've got a speed metal version of Don't Stop Believing and something that they call but isn't necessarily Take on Me.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
For realz
So, nobody told me Slaps up and raned for the Florida House of Representatives. Born in 1959! Who knew. Although, this would explain the claim of gay sex in the 1980s.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Deeeelish!
Ever wondered what 2 lbs of sausage wrapped in 2 lbs of bacon looks like? Wonder no more....
Bert when are we making this?
Bert when are we making this?
What a fine, fat boy you are!
I was running at the gym and they had The View on a TV in front of me with the sound off. Ann Coulter was on the panel, and because of her movements and mannerisms, all I could think of was this scene. The part I'm talking about is at about 1:20.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)