Saturday, January 16, 2010
Addendum V
Do you suppose the person who first came up with the idea of "reality television" had just seen "Highlander" one too many times?
Addendum III
Ha! Get this! WOS just said, ""You're going to start twittering."
Twittering?!?
Uh, it's called "tweeting," Sweetheart.
WOS says, "You're dead!"
Twittering?!?
Uh, it's called "tweeting," Sweetheart.
WOS says, "You're dead!"
Addendum I
Just got a new mini-laptop that allows us to sit on the couch while we blog. Now, whenever we have a random thought, we can just grab Aloysius (the laptop) and fire off said thoughts without having to shlep all the way to the desk!
This is going to do NOTHING for our weight loss regime.
This is going to do NOTHING for our weight loss regime.
It's a Lousy Hijab, But Somebody's Got to Wear It
Sorry.
We've gotten semi-embroiled in a debate of Facebook. A friend posted a link to a story on Yahoo! News about the French government's proposal to ban the burqa, the head-to-toe veil that some Muslim women choose to wear as an expression of their faith.
Essentially, we are opposed to such legislation, while our interlocutor feels that, if a person chooses to live in a Western society, one should adapt to that society's norms; if one wishes to live under the laws of sharia, she should, similarly, remain in a sharia-oriented society.
We agree with our interlocutor in certain respects: We, too, find the compulsory veiling of Muslim women--or of any women--distasteful and primitive. (Well, unless we're talking about really, really, really ugly women, in which case it's fine.) (Sorry.)
OK, seriously, though--we see the point: We oppose the policies of Islamic governments that force women to remain veiled, and that forbid them to drive or to vote or, essentially, to have anything near the same rights as men. But the point we would emphasize is that, in France, nobody--at least, nobody in the government--is forcing these women to don these robes. Thus, to some extent, it is a matter of personal choice--religious choice--and should be respected, as long as it poses no threat to civic order.
The French government claims that it DOES pose a threat to civic order. Indeed, they mask (pun intended) their objection to the veil with a "public-safety" argument, claiming that the covering of the face in a public setting poses a security risk. We might buy this argument if the French government had previously banned ski masks, but we know of no such legislation.
Indeed, we think that such a ban would create security problems, as it lends credence to the fanatical claims of Muslim militants who complain of a Western "war on Islam."
One of the most loathsome components of totalitarian Islamic societies are organizations like Saudi Arabia's Authority for Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice--the "religious police." These are the folks who run around making sure that women are properly veiled and that other affronts to Allah are quickly snuffed. Does France really want to turn its gendarmerie into a secular version of these bullies?
Remember, France, it was your great countryman Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you wear, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it."
We've gotten semi-embroiled in a debate of Facebook. A friend posted a link to a story on Yahoo! News about the French government's proposal to ban the burqa, the head-to-toe veil that some Muslim women choose to wear as an expression of their faith.
Essentially, we are opposed to such legislation, while our interlocutor feels that, if a person chooses to live in a Western society, one should adapt to that society's norms; if one wishes to live under the laws of sharia, she should, similarly, remain in a sharia-oriented society.
We agree with our interlocutor in certain respects: We, too, find the compulsory veiling of Muslim women--or of any women--distasteful and primitive. (Well, unless we're talking about really, really, really ugly women, in which case it's fine.) (Sorry.)
OK, seriously, though--we see the point: We oppose the policies of Islamic governments that force women to remain veiled, and that forbid them to drive or to vote or, essentially, to have anything near the same rights as men. But the point we would emphasize is that, in France, nobody--at least, nobody in the government--is forcing these women to don these robes. Thus, to some extent, it is a matter of personal choice--religious choice--and should be respected, as long as it poses no threat to civic order.
The French government claims that it DOES pose a threat to civic order. Indeed, they mask (pun intended) their objection to the veil with a "public-safety" argument, claiming that the covering of the face in a public setting poses a security risk. We might buy this argument if the French government had previously banned ski masks, but we know of no such legislation.
Indeed, we think that such a ban would create security problems, as it lends credence to the fanatical claims of Muslim militants who complain of a Western "war on Islam."
One of the most loathsome components of totalitarian Islamic societies are organizations like Saudi Arabia's Authority for Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice--the "religious police." These are the folks who run around making sure that women are properly veiled and that other affronts to Allah are quickly snuffed. Does France really want to turn its gendarmerie into a secular version of these bullies?
Remember, France, it was your great countryman Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you wear, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it."
Friday, January 15, 2010
Because No One Demanded It. . .
This morning, the local radio personalities were discussing "The Lovely Bones," Peter Jackson's adaptation of the novel by Alice Sebold. Despite Jackson's noteworthy track record, the folks at KFOG seemed underwhelmed by the film. They're not alone, judging from the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes ("It's stuffed full of Peter Jackson's typically dazzling imagery, but The Lovely Bones suffers from abrupt shifts between horrific violence and cloying sentimentality").
Too bad, really. We haven't read the book, but we've heard from enough people who have to know that many enthusiasts will be disappointed by cinematic shortcomings.
At any rate, this got the DJ's talking about movies adapted from books. What are the best film versions of books? Are movies ever superior to their literary forebears? They invited listeners to call in with their insights. A couple of people mentioned the book/movie pairing of "To Kill a Mockingbird" as the prime example of a great movie made from a great book. Some others mentioned "Gone with the Wind," although we've always been dubious about the literary merits of Margaret Mitchell's opus. Since we were unable to get through to share our own picks--the shortwave in the shed wasn't transmitting properly--we hereby provide our own partial, thoroughly subjective, and liable to change list of the best films made from books.
#1: The Silence of the Lambs (1991) adapted from Thomas Harris' 1988 novel. With all due respect to the societal significance of "To Kill a Mockingbird" and the epic grandeur of "Gone with the Wind," can anyone argue that either of those films was superior to "Silence"? The movie is a terrifyingly faithful adaptation of Harris' terrifying book. It swept the Academy Awards, winning Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress and Screenplay, and it belongs on anyone's list of "movies you can watch over and over again and never really get tired of."
#2: The Shawshank Redemption (1994), based on "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" (1982) by Stephen King. Another extremely faithful adaptation: The director, Frank Darabont, benefited from the fact that the original was a novella, which meant he could basically include everything in the film. The film itself featured every prison-movie cliche in the book (sadistic prisoners, corrupt warden, kindly old coots), but all the actors committed fully to the cliches, and the result is unforgettable. The only major diversion from the novel was the casting of African-American Morgan Freeman in the role of "Red" (so called because he's Irish). But, y'know, MORGAN FREEMAN! 'Nuff said.
#3: The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-3). Visually spectacular, this movie probably did more for New Zealand tourism than anything since. . . . well, since anything. Amidst all the current (generally deserved) hoopla over "Avatar," many seem to forget that it was "The Lord of the Rings," with the figure of Gollum, that first took motion-capture filmmaking to its highest level. The only major flaw in the adaptation was the politically-correct decision to introduce a strong, female warrior who had no place in the world created by J.R.R. Tolkien.
4. No Country for Old Men (2007) adapted from Cormac McCarthy's novel (2005). The Coen Brothers had never done an adaptation before (we're not counting "O Brother, Where Art Thou," which was "based on" The Odyssey). But if ever a novel was meant to be turned into a Coen Brothers movie, this was it: Intricate plot, vivid characterizations, gothic violence. All this and the Coen's typically beautiful cinematography (courtesy of Roger Deakins) make this another superb adaptation.
We could go on: "The Princess Bride," "The Godfather," "A Clockwork Orange" (yes, we know Kubrick ended the movie too soon), etc., etc., etc. Feel free to add to the list. Happy viewing.
Too bad, really. We haven't read the book, but we've heard from enough people who have to know that many enthusiasts will be disappointed by cinematic shortcomings.
At any rate, this got the DJ's talking about movies adapted from books. What are the best film versions of books? Are movies ever superior to their literary forebears? They invited listeners to call in with their insights. A couple of people mentioned the book/movie pairing of "To Kill a Mockingbird" as the prime example of a great movie made from a great book. Some others mentioned "Gone with the Wind," although we've always been dubious about the literary merits of Margaret Mitchell's opus. Since we were unable to get through to share our own picks--the shortwave in the shed wasn't transmitting properly--we hereby provide our own partial, thoroughly subjective, and liable to change list of the best films made from books.
#1: The Silence of the Lambs (1991) adapted from Thomas Harris' 1988 novel. With all due respect to the societal significance of "To Kill a Mockingbird" and the epic grandeur of "Gone with the Wind," can anyone argue that either of those films was superior to "Silence"? The movie is a terrifyingly faithful adaptation of Harris' terrifying book. It swept the Academy Awards, winning Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress and Screenplay, and it belongs on anyone's list of "movies you can watch over and over again and never really get tired of."
#2: The Shawshank Redemption (1994), based on "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" (1982) by Stephen King. Another extremely faithful adaptation: The director, Frank Darabont, benefited from the fact that the original was a novella, which meant he could basically include everything in the film. The film itself featured every prison-movie cliche in the book (sadistic prisoners, corrupt warden, kindly old coots), but all the actors committed fully to the cliches, and the result is unforgettable. The only major diversion from the novel was the casting of African-American Morgan Freeman in the role of "Red" (so called because he's Irish). But, y'know, MORGAN FREEMAN! 'Nuff said.
#3: The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-3). Visually spectacular, this movie probably did more for New Zealand tourism than anything since. . . . well, since anything. Amidst all the current (generally deserved) hoopla over "Avatar," many seem to forget that it was "The Lord of the Rings," with the figure of Gollum, that first took motion-capture filmmaking to its highest level. The only major flaw in the adaptation was the politically-correct decision to introduce a strong, female warrior who had no place in the world created by J.R.R. Tolkien.
4. No Country for Old Men (2007) adapted from Cormac McCarthy's novel (2005). The Coen Brothers had never done an adaptation before (we're not counting "O Brother, Where Art Thou," which was "based on" The Odyssey). But if ever a novel was meant to be turned into a Coen Brothers movie, this was it: Intricate plot, vivid characterizations, gothic violence. All this and the Coen's typically beautiful cinematography (courtesy of Roger Deakins) make this another superb adaptation.
We could go on: "The Princess Bride," "The Godfather," "A Clockwork Orange" (yes, we know Kubrick ended the movie too soon), etc., etc., etc. Feel free to add to the list. Happy viewing.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Just Don't Change Your Name to Faizal
From the "So, this is it. We're all going to die" file:
Angelic-looking Mikey Hicks, 8, of New Jersey (who, if the picture is to be believed is, for good measure, a Boy Scout), has difficulty boarding planes. The reason? Fear of flying. Not Mikey's fear, understand; the fear of the powers-that-be that Mikey will blow the plane out of the sky, perhaps with an IED disguised as a merit badge sewn onto his shirt.
Mikey, you see, shares a name with someone on the federal government's "selectee list," which calls for him--or at any rate, his namesake--to receive extra scrutiny before he boards a plane.
In the wake of the attempted Christmas bombing, it's hard to fault the Transportation Security Administration for overzealous scrutiny of those sharing a name with a person of interest. Indeed, fun as it is to mock these folks for potentially strip-searching a toddler, we actually are somewhat pleased to think that airport security personnel are demonstrating alertness.
The article, however, goes on to discuss the lengths to which people have gone to avoid the inconvenience that arises if they share a name with someone who attracts governmental interest. Some people go so far as to 'shudder' change their names!
Inconvenient, to be sure, but what's terrifying is the thought that a "cunning" terrorist could thwart the most sophisticated efforts of the anti-terrorist establishment by means of a simple name change.
And they don't even have to go as far as that: "Some travelers purposely misspell their own names when buying tickets, apparently enough to fool the system."
Enjoy your flight, Mr. Bin Looden.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Loneliness of the Late Adopter
Technology-oriented companies prize the early adopter. You know, the guy who must have all the latest gadgets the moment they're invented if not sooner. He bought his high-def television in 1972 and his CD player during the Truman administration.
We understand the impulse--the need for the shiny: It's the same thing that drives lemurs to snatch sunglasses. But early adopters accept a certain amount of risk. For every VHS, there's a Betamax; for every CD an 8-track.
We suppose it's this latter concern that drives us to be a late adopter. We like the shiny as much as the next ADHD-infected child of Generation X. But our incurable parsimony is at odds with our acquisitive impulse.
In other words, we're too cheap to buy things 'til the bugs get worked out and the prices drop--or until we feel we have no choice.
Such was the case with our decision to buy an iPod. We were obstinate. We liked CDs (talk about shiny!). We felt there was something fundamentally wrong--almost unsavory-about downloading music. Even though we would be more than happy to pay for the songs, the whole thing still smacked of piracy. But the other day, walking through our local big-box electronics emporium, we couldn't help but notice the ever-shrinking size of the CD section. The writing was on the wall: the future is all online. So, somewhat reluctantly, hesitantly (and frankly embarrasedly), we purchased our first iPod.
And you know what?
We freakin' love it!
The thing is, nobody cares! Nobody wants to hear from the late adopters. The rest of the world has been happily downloading for a decade. Best Buy has long ago given way to iTunes. Nobody is impressed by our chihuahua-like yipping about the fact that we can listen to a song on the radio, like it, and then immediately download it for a buck or so and have it forever--without having to go to a store and/or purchase a whole CD!
See? You're not impressed, either.
We L.A.'s don't really expect everyone to share our enthusiasm. All we ask is that you spare us a sympathetic nod and perhaps a gentle pat on the hand before you rush snickering out of our sight.
Now, if you'll excuse us, we have to run out. We hear them microwave ovens is fan-tastic!
We understand the impulse--the need for the shiny: It's the same thing that drives lemurs to snatch sunglasses. But early adopters accept a certain amount of risk. For every VHS, there's a Betamax; for every CD an 8-track.
We suppose it's this latter concern that drives us to be a late adopter. We like the shiny as much as the next ADHD-infected child of Generation X. But our incurable parsimony is at odds with our acquisitive impulse.
In other words, we're too cheap to buy things 'til the bugs get worked out and the prices drop--or until we feel we have no choice.
Such was the case with our decision to buy an iPod. We were obstinate. We liked CDs (talk about shiny!). We felt there was something fundamentally wrong--almost unsavory-about downloading music. Even though we would be more than happy to pay for the songs, the whole thing still smacked of piracy. But the other day, walking through our local big-box electronics emporium, we couldn't help but notice the ever-shrinking size of the CD section. The writing was on the wall: the future is all online. So, somewhat reluctantly, hesitantly (and frankly embarrasedly), we purchased our first iPod.
And you know what?
We freakin' love it!
The thing is, nobody cares! Nobody wants to hear from the late adopters. The rest of the world has been happily downloading for a decade. Best Buy has long ago given way to iTunes. Nobody is impressed by our chihuahua-like yipping about the fact that we can listen to a song on the radio, like it, and then immediately download it for a buck or so and have it forever--without having to go to a store and/or purchase a whole CD!
See? You're not impressed, either.
We L.A.'s don't really expect everyone to share our enthusiasm. All we ask is that you spare us a sympathetic nod and perhaps a gentle pat on the hand before you rush snickering out of our sight.
Now, if you'll excuse us, we have to run out. We hear them microwave ovens is fan-tastic!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Grammatically Correct Sentences Transmitted Over the Internet (A Brief Post)
Have you seen the recent TV ads for CVS? The spots for the pharmacy chain feature a mother and (grown) daughter bantering about how CVS makes a point of filling prescriptions by the time they promise to fill them!
Has it really come to this? Have our expectations diminished to the point where we are meant to be impressed by the fact that a corporation does what it says it is going to do?
Imagine the ad campaigns to come:
--Toyota cars provide you with a means of getting from one place to another!
--Continental Airlines: We generally don't crash!
--Lysol Room Freshener conceals the smells you leave behind in the bathroom!
Sorry.
Actually, it might be refreshing: "McDonald's: We're not good for you, but we're fast and cheap."
Has it really come to this? Have our expectations diminished to the point where we are meant to be impressed by the fact that a corporation does what it says it is going to do?
Imagine the ad campaigns to come:
--Toyota cars provide you with a means of getting from one place to another!
--Continental Airlines: We generally don't crash!
--Lysol Room Freshener conceals the smells you leave behind in the bathroom!
Sorry.
Actually, it might be refreshing: "McDonald's: We're not good for you, but we're fast and cheap."
Monday, January 11, 2010
Once Again, The Solipsist Must Serve as the Voice of Reason
"One [airman] never takes his eyes off the monitor, calling out possible threats to his partners, who immediately pass alerts to the field via computer chat rooms and snap screenshots of the most valuable images.
"'It's mostly through the chat rooms--that's how we're fighting these days,' said Col. Daniel R. Johnson, who runs the intelligence centers" ("Military Is Awash in Data from Drones")
From: DroneStud82:
Dudes! U are totally close to Taliban!
From: DesertPUNK998:
No way!
DroneStud82: Way!
DesertPUNK998: OMG!
DroneStud82: OMG, Dudes! IED ahed!
DesertPUNK998: IED! WTF!
DroneStud82: LMFAO! :-)
Etc., etc.
*************************************************
In other news, Richard Heene, the father of "Balloon Boy," turned himself in today to begin serving a 30-day jail sentence. You will recall (much as you might wish to forget) that Heene and his wife, Mayumi, falsely reported that their 6-year-old son had floated off in a balloon that Heene had cobbled together in the family's backyard. After panicked rescuers found the empty balloon, we learned that it was all a publicity stunt: The Heenes were hoping to get people interested in a reality television show about this wacky family of misfits.
30 days? Give him the chair!
No, but, semi-seriously, let's think about this. In an earlier post (which we can't locate at the moment), we rambled on about the purposes of incarceration. One can assume that jailing an individual serves one or more of the following purposes: punishment, rehabilitation, and/or public safety.
Now, we can assume that public safety was not the primary motivation for jailing Richard Heene: Considering the potential danger caused by his jailing--namely that an important news story will slip between the cracks while this non-event continues to take up space in the public consciousness--one could argue that public safety would be better served by letting him go.
Similarly, we think it unlikely that Heene is in serious need of rehabilitation. We assume he is sufficiently chastened by this experience to refrain from ever again claiming that his son is trapped in a runaway balloon. Indeed, it's a well-known fact that the national recidivism rate for phony-balloon-crisismongering is under 1.2%.
So, we are left to conclude that the sole purpose of jailing Heene is punishment: Presumably, he will serve as an example to any other would-be hoaxers--especially if we get really lucky and he gets raped, beaten, and/or killed in jail!
All right, we assume he's in a minimum security prison, and he'll probably be fine. But at what cost? Look, according to ask.com, a "rule-of-thumb" estimate is that it costs about $25,000 a year to keep someone in jail. This means that, in addition to wasting people's time and money by perpetrating the hoax in the first place, Heene will now cost Colorado taxpayers approximately $2,000-$2,200 more.
Wouldn't a simple $5,000 fine better serve everybody's purposes? (We'll take a 10% commission for this suggestion.)
"'It's mostly through the chat rooms--that's how we're fighting these days,' said Col. Daniel R. Johnson, who runs the intelligence centers" ("Military Is Awash in Data from Drones")
From: DroneStud82:
Dudes! U are totally close to Taliban!
From: DesertPUNK998:
No way!
DroneStud82: Way!
DesertPUNK998: OMG!
DroneStud82: OMG, Dudes! IED ahed!
DesertPUNK998: IED! WTF!
DroneStud82: LMFAO! :-)
Etc., etc.
*************************************************
In other news, Richard Heene, the father of "Balloon Boy," turned himself in today to begin serving a 30-day jail sentence. You will recall (much as you might wish to forget) that Heene and his wife, Mayumi, falsely reported that their 6-year-old son had floated off in a balloon that Heene had cobbled together in the family's backyard. After panicked rescuers found the empty balloon, we learned that it was all a publicity stunt: The Heenes were hoping to get people interested in a reality television show about this wacky family of misfits.
30 days? Give him the chair!
No, but, semi-seriously, let's think about this. In an earlier post (which we can't locate at the moment), we rambled on about the purposes of incarceration. One can assume that jailing an individual serves one or more of the following purposes: punishment, rehabilitation, and/or public safety.
Now, we can assume that public safety was not the primary motivation for jailing Richard Heene: Considering the potential danger caused by his jailing--namely that an important news story will slip between the cracks while this non-event continues to take up space in the public consciousness--one could argue that public safety would be better served by letting him go.
Similarly, we think it unlikely that Heene is in serious need of rehabilitation. We assume he is sufficiently chastened by this experience to refrain from ever again claiming that his son is trapped in a runaway balloon. Indeed, it's a well-known fact that the national recidivism rate for phony-balloon-crisismongering is under 1.2%.
So, we are left to conclude that the sole purpose of jailing Heene is punishment: Presumably, he will serve as an example to any other would-be hoaxers--especially if we get really lucky and he gets raped, beaten, and/or killed in jail!
All right, we assume he's in a minimum security prison, and he'll probably be fine. But at what cost? Look, according to ask.com, a "rule-of-thumb" estimate is that it costs about $25,000 a year to keep someone in jail. This means that, in addition to wasting people's time and money by perpetrating the hoax in the first place, Heene will now cost Colorado taxpayers approximately $2,000-$2,200 more.
Wouldn't a simple $5,000 fine better serve everybody's purposes? (We'll take a 10% commission for this suggestion.)
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Great Moments in Racism
"Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, apologized on Saturday for once predicting that Barack Obama could become the country's first black president because he was 'light-skinned' and had 'no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one'" ("Reid Apologizes for Remarks on Obama's Color and Dialect").
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook man." (Sen. Joseph Biden on then-Sen. Barack Obama CNN.com). Biden apologized.
"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. . . . Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future" (from the announcement of Barack Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize). Sweden's King Carl XVI Gustaf apologized profusely and sent President Obama a fruit basket.
The Solipsist would also like to apologize for on several occasions calling President Obama "cool," as this was obviously a subconscious reference to the president's skin-color. We will try to refrain from such racist demagoguery in the future.
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook man." (Sen. Joseph Biden on then-Sen. Barack Obama CNN.com). Biden apologized.
"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. . . . Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future" (from the announcement of Barack Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize). Sweden's King Carl XVI Gustaf apologized profusely and sent President Obama a fruit basket.
The Solipsist would also like to apologize for on several occasions calling President Obama "cool," as this was obviously a subconscious reference to the president's skin-color. We will try to refrain from such racist demagoguery in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)