In line with NASA's bullshitty non-annoucement of anything new on Mars, and with the "fiscal cliff" ahead, is every US federal government agency going to have similar PR in days ahead?
Background for that rhetorical question?
When the actual "Arsenicgate" press conference was held, I said NASA had "good" reasons for it's PR fluffery, namely that budget talks were ongoing, and NASA was looking at the possibility of some serious cuts.
In fact, I got into a spat with over-serious science blogger Greg Laden, who both strenuously insisted that the researchers had found something real and significant (wrong, Greg, as they've been refuted on everything from the actual findings the the quality of their work and in between, and are now too lazy to even want to put in the effort to try to replicate their own earlier research) and that NASA wouldn't do something like that (also wrong, as scientists are just as much human beings as anybody else).
Indeed, Laden eventually threatened to "ban me from the Internet," revealing (even before his Freethought Blogs issues) just how over-the-top he is.
But, back to today.
Given that NASA said something incredibly breathless about three weeks ago about a finding by Curiosity, and then, when that went more viral, took more than a week to start walking that back, good skeptics should once again rightfully be suspicious of the agency, in my opinion.
And, while my opening paragraph was halfway snarky, it's not totally so. If the Pentagon suddenly says something rosy about Afghanistan, hold on to your wallets.
December 03, 2012
Clemens, Bonds officially on HOF ballot
 |
| Bonds & Clemens together forever in eternity/Yahoo Sports |
It's official, baseball fans! Big Head (Barry Bonds) and
Batrage (Roger Clemens), along with No Speaka da English (Sammy Sosa) are on
the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. How much better will Bonds and
Clemens do than Mark McGwire?
Should they be in?
My stance, which evolved but has reached its current
position several years ago is a qualified yes.
The qualifications?
Apology and admission of “guilt” from the player concerned.
Admission of “guilt” from Commissioner Bud Selig.
Bonds and Clemens both were HOFers in pre-roiding days.
Sosa? Not so sure. Take away the roids and he’s below 500 HRs, below 1,500
RBIs, below .500 slugging and a couple of other things. Ignore the ESPN fluffery for Sosa.
(Big Mac? Definitely not, and I’m a lifelong Cards fan.)
And, that’s the other point. One has to do some reasonable “readjustment”
of the career numbers of known or highly-suspected roiders (or PEDers of other
drugs like HGH) versus “the field.”
Oh, and while we’re at it? Please, HOF voters, also read
some sabermetrics and do NOT induct Jack Morris.
But do elect Jeff Bagwell. And Craig Biggio. And, I’d be OK
with Tim Raines. But not Edgar Martinez. And, I’m unsure about Curt Schilling.
Heck, for that matter, given how late in his career his own
peak was … maybe Schilling was a roider. He strikes me a bit like the
stereotypical homophobe who’s actually “projecting.”
Update, Dec. 1: Per a survey of some voters, it looks like none of the Big 3 are getting in.
Update, Dec. 4: Mr. Dodger Blue, Tommy Lasorda, says keep them out. Barry Larkin (Dec. 6) agrees with Lasorda.
Update, Dec. 1: Per a survey of some voters, it looks like none of the Big 3 are getting in.
Update, Dec. 4: Mr. Dodger Blue, Tommy Lasorda, says keep them out. Barry Larkin (Dec. 6) agrees with Lasorda.
And, click the "MLB Hall of Fame" tag for more on other candidates on this year's ballot and my thoughts.
December 01, 2012
Why I loathe 'It's a Wonderful Life'
Update, Dec. 1, 2012: I've identified even more why I don't like it. See paragraphs at bottom.
A few years ago, I wrote a fairly long blog post about the Frank Capra/Jimmy Stewart chestnut possibly needing a remake, as well as some things that were wrong about this saccharine bit of of sentimentality, and extensively updated it last year at Christmas time. The post incorporated a couple of other bloggers' takes on issues or problems with the movie, which I didn't fully tackle at the time.
Well, now I am.
First, it's not just sentimental, it's, as I said above, saccharine about it. And cheesy. "Fiddler on the Roof," arguably, is sentimental, albeit darkly so. "The Sound of Music" is also sentimental, and overall, sunnily so, while accepting (as based on a true story) that Austria was dead (even as it mythologized Austria). But, "It's a Wonderful Life" has no nuance.
Second, in the actual movie, what's to be so sentimental about? Sure, George Bailey has all these friends helping him out. In fact, he's not only recouped the money Uncle Billy lost, but much more. Beyond that, even a George Bailey as soft-hearted as Capra's would have, at a suitable point in the next year, quietly but firmly pushed Uncle Billy on part-time status while looking for a permanent replacement.
Related to that, after the end of World War II, Bedford Falls would have gotten its own housing boom, even its own small Levittown. Most buyers would have taken loans from Bailey, not Potter. George Bailey might have come into decent money. Or, he might even have gotten rich.
Third, Capra HUGELY stacks the deck with his Clarence.
Clarence shows everything that went wrong by George never being born, but he never shows everything that went RIGHT by George never being born. Indeed, he and Capra never even offer that as a possibility, that some people might have been better off had George Bailey never been born.
It's like people who believe in reincarnation, but "somehow" always remember being a king in a past life, but never the person shoveling the shit out of the king's stables, let alone a dung bettle rolling around in that shit.
Maybe if George hadn't been born, Potter would have taken over the building and loan, then had a massive coronary a month later from overwork. In that case, somebody almost as nice as George Bailey might have replaced both him AND Potter.
Per a 1992 bio of Capra, one director has another idea: George should have actually committed suicide. I could buy into that angle, too. Or, per Rich Cohen, if you don't stop the movie at George's suicide, run it past the actual finish, for a Gnosticized George, if you will.
So, I'm tired of crying sappy saccharine tears of this movie, and over how it makes me recognize my own life hasn't turned out so well in some ways. If I ever see it again in the next few years, I hope I get angry instead.
Update, Dec. 1, 2012: I watched bits and pieces of the whole thing, and all of the last half hour. I had to steel myself once or twice, but didn't come close to a real lump in the throat, let alone more.
And, I recognize even more why I don't like the movie ... it's along the "reincarnation" lines, but even blunter.
It's like when pro-life people say, "Would you have aborted 'Baby X' with a bad childhood? Congratulations. You aborted Leonardo, or Beethoven, or whomever." But pro-choice people can respond with similar counterscenarios, and say, "Congratulations. You kept Hitler alive to perpetuate the Holocaust."
It's that kind of deck-stacking that Capra does.
A few years ago, I wrote a fairly long blog post about the Frank Capra/Jimmy Stewart chestnut possibly needing a remake, as well as some things that were wrong about this saccharine bit of of sentimentality, and extensively updated it last year at Christmas time. The post incorporated a couple of other bloggers' takes on issues or problems with the movie, which I didn't fully tackle at the time.
Well, now I am.
First, it's not just sentimental, it's, as I said above, saccharine about it. And cheesy. "Fiddler on the Roof," arguably, is sentimental, albeit darkly so. "The Sound of Music" is also sentimental, and overall, sunnily so, while accepting (as based on a true story) that Austria was dead (even as it mythologized Austria). But, "It's a Wonderful Life" has no nuance.
Second, in the actual movie, what's to be so sentimental about? Sure, George Bailey has all these friends helping him out. In fact, he's not only recouped the money Uncle Billy lost, but much more. Beyond that, even a George Bailey as soft-hearted as Capra's would have, at a suitable point in the next year, quietly but firmly pushed Uncle Billy on part-time status while looking for a permanent replacement.
Related to that, after the end of World War II, Bedford Falls would have gotten its own housing boom, even its own small Levittown. Most buyers would have taken loans from Bailey, not Potter. George Bailey might have come into decent money. Or, he might even have gotten rich.
Third, Capra HUGELY stacks the deck with his Clarence.
Clarence shows everything that went wrong by George never being born, but he never shows everything that went RIGHT by George never being born. Indeed, he and Capra never even offer that as a possibility, that some people might have been better off had George Bailey never been born.
It's like people who believe in reincarnation, but "somehow" always remember being a king in a past life, but never the person shoveling the shit out of the king's stables, let alone a dung bettle rolling around in that shit.
Maybe if George hadn't been born, Potter would have taken over the building and loan, then had a massive coronary a month later from overwork. In that case, somebody almost as nice as George Bailey might have replaced both him AND Potter.
Per a 1992 bio of Capra, one director has another idea: George should have actually committed suicide. I could buy into that angle, too. Or, per Rich Cohen, if you don't stop the movie at George's suicide, run it past the actual finish, for a Gnosticized George, if you will.
So, I'm tired of crying sappy saccharine tears of this movie, and over how it makes me recognize my own life hasn't turned out so well in some ways. If I ever see it again in the next few years, I hope I get angry instead.
Update, Dec. 1, 2012: I watched bits and pieces of the whole thing, and all of the last half hour. I had to steel myself once or twice, but didn't come close to a real lump in the throat, let alone more.
And, I recognize even more why I don't like the movie ... it's along the "reincarnation" lines, but even blunter.
It's like when pro-life people say, "Would you have aborted 'Baby X' with a bad childhood? Congratulations. You aborted Leonardo, or Beethoven, or whomever." But pro-choice people can respond with similar counterscenarios, and say, "Congratulations. You kept Hitler alive to perpetuate the Holocaust."
It's that kind of deck-stacking that Capra does.
Does 'It's a Wonderful Life' need a remake?
And, I know that it is such a tear-jerker because it leaves me longing, more than just wistful, for a life that I never experienced that much growing up. (Since I didn't experience it, I can't be nostalgic about it.)
(Update, June 2, 2012: I've now come to the conclusion that behind the saccharine and my own tears, I loathe the ideas and philosophy behind it.)
Anyway, let's think of some alternative ideas for this movie, since it's a tear-jerker precisely because Frank Capra pulls formulaic strings, while actually making it "Bentham’s Panopticon with picket fences," per a link below the fold.
What if Capra had ended the movie 20 minutes early with George Bailey, aka Jimmy Stewart, jumping from the bridge? Or, had run it out another 30 minutes after the tear-jerker ending? Would we see George take a more skeptical look at Bedford Falls? Would he perhaps wonder if a little bit of Potterville actually did lurk beneath the surface?
If you want to get more thought on that line of thought, go here; is IAWL "the most terrifying movie ever"?
Before I saw the Salon story, when I watched it (and, yes, cried again) this year, I thought that the end of what Rich Cohen calls "The Night Journey of George Bailey" had a major-key riff on the melody of the medieval church hymm of the Apocalypse par excellence, the Dies Irae. Cohan makes me wonder more.
The occurrence is just before Bert pulls up and says, "Where have you been, George"?" It just caught my ear. [That said, that's part of why I love Rachmaninoff, and I will hear the Dies Irae wherever it pops up. More on that "aha" here.] Given that Dmitri Tiomkin, who wrote the score, was born in Old Russia 21 years after Rachmaninoff, and studies there under Alexander Glazunov and later, in Berlin, under Ferruccio Busoni, it adds to the possibility. However, the original score was even darker.
Per the link, which talks about George's "resurrection," I think that IS a Dies Irae riff. (More on that thought here.) That said, to riff on some of the ideas in the link ... it would have been interesting if, in the "salvation by friends" scene at the end, the actual Dies Irae had been playing, sotto voce.
Anyway, Cohan says there's a darker meaning underneath the saccharine. I think he overstates his case, but may have something going on here.
So, per Cohan, and my own thoughts, maybe it's time to do a remake? Either cutting it short, or else extending it?
I think you could extend it, by about 15-20 minutes, cut about 4-5 minutes from the original, and do something "interesting." Along Cohan's line, could we make this an "Occupy Main Street" movie for today, taking "Occupy Wall Street" to the local level? Or would we have an "Occupy Shrugs," in which our updated George Bailey is crushed, bribed or otherwise taken out of the picture. Could we "darken" it further? Should we? Or make it more ambiguous in general?
Anyway, more thoughts on a remake, including suggested actors and directors, below the fold:
November 29, 2012
The fall colors of Texas
 |
| A beautiful red oak in Rosebud, Texas, with my judicial and skilled, if I may say, use of Photoshop. |
Without going into all the details, the lighting was from the right back, in other words, partially backlit, which is what you want.
Photoshop work, without giving away details, involved some dodging, some burning, some of the highlights/shadow command, moderate application of, and proper settings for, Photoshop's HDR toning, then my usual combo of Gaussian blur and unsharp mask.
I'd guesstimate this weekend is just about peak color in central Texas. So, if you have time free on or around the weekend, make a thermos of coffee or tea, get in the car, drive at a leisurely pace to and through some favorite spots, and enjoy.
For some more photos from in and around Rosebud, go here.
US top oil producer by 2020? Hold on
First, even though Al Jazeera as well
as a Scientific American blogger is touting the idea, we may not pass Saudi
Arabian in total oil production by 2020.
Finally, let’s not forget that King Hubbert, in talking about Peak Oil, made allowances for unconventional oil. Whether they were perfect or not remains to be seen, of course.
That’s in large part because of this piece which Al Jazeera has and SciAm doesn’t. Much of what is being banked on
for a US oil “surge” is “unconventional oil” and Michael Klare, a respected writer on “Peak Oil” issues,
lays out the details of why we shouldn’t gush such optimism.
That includes the shale oil of places
like Bakken in North Dakota and Eagle Ford in south Texas. It takes water to do
the fracking to get that. It will take even more water to get the putative
reserves of oil shale in Utah and Colorado — converting shaly rocks to a
crude-level oil precursor.
That doesn’t count the dangers and
rigors of Arctic oil exploration or deep sea work elsewhere, nor the water
consumption in Canada with its tar sands.
Beyond that, per those original two
links? With natural gas, we know fracking causes wells to produce quickly and
at high volume. However, they also fall off quickly.
What if the same is true in oil, and US
production of unconventional oil shows a sharp, short-lived bell curve
superimposed on the continuing decline in “conventional” reserves?
Also, note that the hype about the US
becoming self-sufficient apparently isn’t driven by the EIA, the Energy
Information Agency, or the IEA, the International Energy Agency, nearly as much
as it is by AEI — conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute.
The Oil Drum explains.
Update, Nov. 16:
More fluffing hype about US hydrocarbon
reserves from The Guardian. First, an LNG auto still isn’t commercially viable,
so US natural gas reserves do little to make OPEC worry.
Second, as far as oil reserves? The
Bakken in North Dakota is “nice,” but best estimates still put it behind Alaska’s
North Slope. The Eagle Ford in Texas is probably about the same.
Now that’s shale oil, i.e., oil in
shale rock formations. Oil shale, converting even “poorer” rock formations to
kerogen and then to oil? More energy expensive yet, as well as more water
expensive, and a long ways from the market.
So, while US oil reserves are “interesting,”
and the environmental effects of getting them problematic, at best, Bakken and
Eagle Ford do NOT have OPEC quaking in its collective boots.
Better reporting, please. And, it’s
weird how The Guardian can combine great reporting on “green” issues with
breathless stuff like this.
Finally, let’s not forget that King Hubbert, in talking about Peak Oil, made allowances for unconventional oil. Whether they were perfect or not remains to be seen, of course.
At least the SciAm writer mentions how,
if this is even partially true, it could affect global warming adversely.
Update, Nov.
29:
Alternet has
much more about the reality behind the U.S. oil surge.
First, the IEA
says Russian and Saudi production are both likely to decline.
Second, it —
unreasonably, in my point of view, given ongoing violence, and continued deterioration
of current wells, etc. — assumes Iraq will more than double its production by
2025. Well, I’ve got another invasion of Baghdad to sell you if you believe
Iraq will be producing 8 million barrels a day by 2035.
Third, the IEA
expects the world’s global warming to hit 4C by the end of the century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)