Here we go. Same drill as always--post in here to discuss the book, once you've either finished it or don't care if you're spoiled. If you're trying to stay clean, stay out.
I get my copy in a few hours. See you later in the weekend.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
The New Wheels
Well, the 1996 Chevrolet Lumina finally gave up the ghost. Probably just a dead battery in the heat, but given all the other crap wrong with it, not even that was worth fixing. I do have to say Chevy does make a good, long-lasting car. But, it's time for Stevis to do his part to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve U.S. security by incrementally disentangling the nation from foreign oil supplies.
That's right. I'm now one of those jerks with a Prius passing you at the pump:




You have to look at me in the last photo, because Julie refused to pose seductively on the hood.
Just picked it up Saturday; signed the papers Thursday. Wanted the Barcelona Red Metallic but had to settle for the Magnetic Gray, since I didn't want to go two weeks without a car.
My softball buddies commented that it was a uniquely bumper-sticker free Prius. Many, of course, will be adorned with the pro-environment and liberal messages of their owners. I figure on not using my car to speak for me, though I may add some goofy ones. I say the same thing about that as I did to Julie in agreeing with her about not getting the "Clean Special Fuels" vanity plate that Virgina offers: It's a Prius. By its very shape, it announces "I am a self-righteous jackass who tuts and looks down his nose at your SUV."
Still figuring out all the bells and whistles, but of course the energy monitor on the touch screen is addictive, and not terribly conducive to maintaining situational awareness. Though I remain completely geeked about the regenerative breaking. I'd shudder to see the spike in accident rates for the first month of owning a Prius. Still have to figure out how to turn off the backup beep, too. (hint, hint).
That's right. I'm now one of those jerks with a Prius passing you at the pump:
You have to look at me in the last photo, because Julie refused to pose seductively on the hood.
Just picked it up Saturday; signed the papers Thursday. Wanted the Barcelona Red Metallic but had to settle for the Magnetic Gray, since I didn't want to go two weeks without a car.
My softball buddies commented that it was a uniquely bumper-sticker free Prius. Many, of course, will be adorned with the pro-environment and liberal messages of their owners. I figure on not using my car to speak for me, though I may add some goofy ones. I say the same thing about that as I did to Julie in agreeing with her about not getting the "Clean Special Fuels" vanity plate that Virgina offers: It's a Prius. By its very shape, it announces "I am a self-righteous jackass who tuts and looks down his nose at your SUV."
Still figuring out all the bells and whistles, but of course the energy monitor on the touch screen is addictive, and not terribly conducive to maintaining situational awareness. Though I remain completely geeked about the regenerative breaking. I'd shudder to see the spike in accident rates for the first month of owning a Prius. Still have to figure out how to turn off the backup beep, too. (hint, hint).
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Peak Helium
Hell with oil & gas, we're about to run out of balloon fuel! Helium shortages are here due to decreased U.S. reserves (helium is usually found in natural gas reserves, as a byproduct of underground radioactive decays) and problems getting plants online overseas. Liquid helium is used to cool things close to absolute zero, and with huge increases in demand from the medical industry (it's used to cool magnets needed for MRI scanners), NASA using a tremendous amount to purge lines in the Space Shuttle systems, and the needs of low-temperature research, quotas are being put on users and budgets are de facto shrinking because an increasing percentage must be used for the helium.
The irony is that helium is the second most abundant element in the universe, formed both during the early universe and in stars.We can't easily liquefy the helium in the sun, however.
So lay off the balloons. Science needs the light elements more!
The irony is that helium is the second most abundant element in the universe, formed both during the early universe and in stars.We can't easily liquefy the helium in the sun, however.
So lay off the balloons. Science needs the light elements more!
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Typhoon Gonu
It takes a hurricane to get me out of my posting doldrums...caused by wedding planning and a lot of Little League umpiring. Anyway, Tropical Cyclone Gonu is about to slam Oman, before veering into Iran. Neither of these places ever sees any hurricanes, let alone a Cat 5...althgouh it's weakened to a Cat 1 at the brush-by of, or landfall in, Oman. Oman in particular is a land built on dry riverbeds (perfect for conducting storm surges, one presumes) and could be in serious trouble.
Follow along, if you're a junkie like me, at Jeff Marsters' blog (guest-blogged while he's on vacation) and Margie Keiper's as well.
Follow along, if you're a junkie like me, at Jeff Marsters' blog (guest-blogged while he's on vacation) and Margie Keiper's as well.
Monday, April 09, 2007
The Makers of Equal™ are Whiny Losers
Merisant, makers of Equal brand aspartame, are suing the makers of Splenda™ (McNeil Nutrutionals) claiming that their "starts from sugar" claims are false.
Now what Merisant is doing here, to this lay person's eye, is filing false advertising claims. I'm sorry, that's a consumer protection issue, isn't it? How is that the competitor's concern? I suppose the false advertising hurts Equal's market share, but they could just as easily have a better product. After all, Splenda is not covering up a known danger or poisonous behavior of their product. It looks to me like they're just trying to sue as an alternative business model, as SCO and Diebold have tried.
Of course, as a result of researching this post, I learned that there's a sweetening herb named after me.
Now what Merisant is doing here, to this lay person's eye, is filing false advertising claims. I'm sorry, that's a consumer protection issue, isn't it? How is that the competitor's concern? I suppose the false advertising hurts Equal's market share, but they could just as easily have a better product. After all, Splenda is not covering up a known danger or poisonous behavior of their product. It looks to me like they're just trying to sue as an alternative business model, as SCO and Diebold have tried.
Of course, as a result of researching this post, I learned that there's a sweetening herb named after me.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
An Amateur Watches The General
A 1927 Blog-a-thon Contributory Post
Julie and I watched The General this weekend. This is the first silent film I’ve ever seen in its entirety. I decided, as I am not versed in film technique not the history of the era, to approach it with a modern eye. Not a jaundiced, cynical one, however, as I had heard good things and expected to be entertained. I am writing with an eye to others with this unfamiliarity; so expect some recapping in here with my thoughts.
For those who haven’t seen the film, Johnny Gray (Buster Keaton) is a train engineer in an unspecified Southern location—though it must be near Chattanooga—when Ft. Sumter is fired upon. As the woman he is a-courtin’ has a father and brother who enlist, she insists he does as well—though when he tries, they refuse him--he is too valuable as a train engineer to the logistical effort. Naturally, his woman snubs him and doesn’t want to speak to him “until he is wearing a uniform.” Some time later, his train—which unbeknownst to him, carries his beloved as a passenger—is hijacked by a Union special ops squad, which intends to destroy the supplies therein and the supply line to the front. Gray grabs a separate engine to pursue, and hijinks ensue.
My first though was to wonder why our heroes were Confederates. Was it not as hard to sympathize with the Southern cause in those days? Nothing really awful is ever portrayed—it could have been any two warring sides, and the attempts by both the Union and later Gray to damage the rail lines to hold up supplies are certainly within standards of war. The only black persons I saw were unloading passengers just before the hijacking. But as I think back to the pro-South portrayal in Birth of a Nation--which I’ve also on read about—I’m curious about the turn-of-the-century view of the Civil War. Or, as I should say residing in Virginia, the War between the States.
My next impression, as a modern viewer, was that the best analog to what Keaton was doing might be a Jackie Chan film. This isn’t a comedy so much as an action adventure film that doesn’t take itself seriously—the comedy comes from the haplessness of our hero, and the times he and the Union soldiers are victims of physical gags. Specifically, what made me think of Chan films was the elaborate use of objects from the background environment. At one point, Gray leaves the line from a water tank, soaking his pursuers; in another, he gets a fun sight gag out of attempting to steal fence rails twice as long as he is tall for locomotive fuels. It strikes me as amazingly kinetic film for the times—although, as I said, I haven’t seen a lot of the silent comedies. The dual train chases give extended energy to the audience, like a beat that causes you to drive a little faster. While the set pieces are funny, they are also amazing in a way that makes you grin rather than chortle. I felt more like it was a fun ride that make me smile, than a side-spliter in which the plot steered me to the next laugh.
I was also struck by the brilliance of Keaton’s portrayal of Gray’s innocent bewilderment at events around him. Several times, he attempts to deal with a problem or obstruction, only to solve it (or for it to resolve itself) while his back is turned. For example, his engine starts to move without him, or a car blocking his way switches to a side track without him seeing. His confused look really sells his predicament to the audience.
The last thing that I wanted to mention was the clever way pieces of the film meshed into each other—very little was extraneous or unrelated to anything else. Not to give away (any more) of the best bits, but the uniform line I quoted above is not left without a callback, and several important discoveries or successes for Gray are set up by previous serendipitous failures or difficulties. There’s an economy to this film that encourages you to take it all in along the way.
OK, if you haven’t seen this, I can’t recommend it strongly enough. The disc Julie received from Netflix also had two other shorter pieces from Keaton on it (The Playhouse and Cops), both of which were brilliant as well. Seemed to be a 1995 copyright, if you’re casting about at your favorite rental or purchase place.
Julie and I watched The General this weekend. This is the first silent film I’ve ever seen in its entirety. I decided, as I am not versed in film technique not the history of the era, to approach it with a modern eye. Not a jaundiced, cynical one, however, as I had heard good things and expected to be entertained. I am writing with an eye to others with this unfamiliarity; so expect some recapping in here with my thoughts.
For those who haven’t seen the film, Johnny Gray (Buster Keaton) is a train engineer in an unspecified Southern location—though it must be near Chattanooga—when Ft. Sumter is fired upon. As the woman he is a-courtin’ has a father and brother who enlist, she insists he does as well—though when he tries, they refuse him--he is too valuable as a train engineer to the logistical effort. Naturally, his woman snubs him and doesn’t want to speak to him “until he is wearing a uniform.” Some time later, his train—which unbeknownst to him, carries his beloved as a passenger—is hijacked by a Union special ops squad, which intends to destroy the supplies therein and the supply line to the front. Gray grabs a separate engine to pursue, and hijinks ensue.
My first though was to wonder why our heroes were Confederates. Was it not as hard to sympathize with the Southern cause in those days? Nothing really awful is ever portrayed—it could have been any two warring sides, and the attempts by both the Union and later Gray to damage the rail lines to hold up supplies are certainly within standards of war. The only black persons I saw were unloading passengers just before the hijacking. But as I think back to the pro-South portrayal in Birth of a Nation--which I’ve also on read about—I’m curious about the turn-of-the-century view of the Civil War. Or, as I should say residing in Virginia, the War between the States.
My next impression, as a modern viewer, was that the best analog to what Keaton was doing might be a Jackie Chan film. This isn’t a comedy so much as an action adventure film that doesn’t take itself seriously—the comedy comes from the haplessness of our hero, and the times he and the Union soldiers are victims of physical gags. Specifically, what made me think of Chan films was the elaborate use of objects from the background environment. At one point, Gray leaves the line from a water tank, soaking his pursuers; in another, he gets a fun sight gag out of attempting to steal fence rails twice as long as he is tall for locomotive fuels. It strikes me as amazingly kinetic film for the times—although, as I said, I haven’t seen a lot of the silent comedies. The dual train chases give extended energy to the audience, like a beat that causes you to drive a little faster. While the set pieces are funny, they are also amazing in a way that makes you grin rather than chortle. I felt more like it was a fun ride that make me smile, than a side-spliter in which the plot steered me to the next laugh.
I was also struck by the brilliance of Keaton’s portrayal of Gray’s innocent bewilderment at events around him. Several times, he attempts to deal with a problem or obstruction, only to solve it (or for it to resolve itself) while his back is turned. For example, his engine starts to move without him, or a car blocking his way switches to a side track without him seeing. His confused look really sells his predicament to the audience.
The last thing that I wanted to mention was the clever way pieces of the film meshed into each other—very little was extraneous or unrelated to anything else. Not to give away (any more) of the best bits, but the uniform line I quoted above is not left without a callback, and several important discoveries or successes for Gray are set up by previous serendipitous failures or difficulties. There’s an economy to this film that encourages you to take it all in along the way.
OK, if you haven’t seen this, I can’t recommend it strongly enough. The disc Julie received from Netflix also had two other shorter pieces from Keaton on it (The Playhouse and Cops), both of which were brilliant as well. Seemed to be a 1995 copyright, if you’re casting about at your favorite rental or purchase place.
Baseball in the Newsreel

A 1927 Blog-a-thon Contributory Post
So when you say to me “1927” I immediately think of the Yankees, whose edition that year was one of the most dominant in baseball history; and of Babe Ruth’s 60 home runs that year. So I figure there’s got to be some newsreel footage right? Images abound; see Gehrig and Ruth, circa 1927, to the right.
Well, Paramount newsreels started in 1927, so close enough. I couldn’t find a good online archive, but the book Reel Baseball, with its included documentary, comes close. Well, as close as 1933, and having the 1927 Yankees lineup in the background at Lou Gehrig Day at Yankee Stadium (“Today…I consider myself luckiest man…on the face of the Earth.”) So, herein find some brief thoughts on how America’s pastime was experienced by the masses via the cinema, and Ruth in particular.
One thing that struck me is how this must have been the Sportscenter of the day—only far more intermittent. The narration is clearly trying to tell stories that establish our heroes, and surprisingly I found the attempts to be witty in a similar vane to highlight shows now—although, far less snarky, disparaging, or sarcastic. It was a time when the media gladly overlooked the moral failings of sports heroes—the tale of Ducky Medwick’s vicious spiking of Mickey Owen in the 1934 World Series, which led disgusted Tigers fans to pelt him with fruit—is told with a “that’s baseball” wink and a nod.
There are lots of World Series and All-Star game highlights in the 1933-1965 time frame covered on this documentary, but less in between—mostly commemorations and stunts (e.g., Bob Feller throwing fastballs through an Army device which tested the speed of artillery shells, and measured his fastball at 98 miles per hour). One such stunt was a wartime exhibition between Babe Ruth (in his late forties) and Walter Johnson (in his fifties.) Ruth looks mostly like you remember him, even then, although his swing is obviously slower and his timing is way off. Ruth looks (and sounds) much worse later, in footage of him playing Santa Claus in the late 40s, when the throat cancer which would eventually kill him must have been progressing. I’m sure he loved entertaining kids, but I don’t know how well a raspy voiced Santa with a beard that wouldn’t stay put was taken—the kids don’t look entirely thrilled.
But of course, even that footage of how we remember Ruth betrays what he was—he had let the hot dogs and booze soften him around the middle by then, and the mental image most have is of a pudgy, swing from the heels type. He was, of course, much more than that; had he stayed a pitcher his whole career he probably would have been a Hall of Famer for that alone, and early in his career he was a tremendous defender and graceful base stealer as well. Compare his face in this photo from his Red Sox days and this wallpaper from the Baseball Hall of Fame.
I talk in a post below about how I’d disagree with this as a “golden age” of baseball; I think that’s a sentiment of those who tend to romanticize the past and overlook its flaws. But in ways, it was a magical time for the cinema and baseball. Unless you lived in the Northeast or Midwest, you didn’t have major league baseball for most of this time. In 1927—and through 1953, when the Boston Braves moved to Milwaukee--Teams were in New York (3), Boston (2), Philadelphia (2), Washington, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago (2), and St. Louis (2). The rest of the country only saw footage in their theaters.
Did this contribute to the larger than life status of baseball stars, as they were only literally seen that way? Did the associations get made with other famous stars, images of far-off locales (that were really studio lots), and epic tales of valor and romance to elevate baseball to America’s game in the rest of the country as well? I’ll argue it helped, but despite a lack of major league baseball, there were plenty of regional leagues in the south and west, and these minor leagues, at that time, were not the farm system we know today—they were independent, scouted and signed their own players, and while they passed them up to better teams in exchange for fees, they could make local heroes of their own. But the newsreels did bring the top players, the best of the best (save for the color line) to most of America, and no doubt contributed to the sense of wonder.
As a mini "Shameful Book Report," I highly recommend to the baseball fans with a sense of history getting a copy of Reel Baseball from your local library--the documentary CD with the actual footage is certainly worth it, as it contains tons of footage of famous plays you've heard about (e.g., Al Gionfriddo's catch in the 1947 World Series) but probably only seen stills of. A very entertaining hour spent. The book doesn't contain a lot of info I didn't know already, but that's because I've read it before. If you know someone just getting into pre-War and early post-War baseball history, I think it would be a good pickup.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Notes and Preview
The rest of Denver went alright, though I fought off the cold all last week down here at sea level, only to see it or another one move into my head in the last couple of days. Bleah. I will get pictures, such as they are, up at some point. I'm not a photojournalist.
I got a personal invite to contribute to John McCain's Presidential bid exploratory committee! Since they sent me a free return envelope for my check, I imagine I'll send him some unsolicited advice. Perhaps I'll post it here.

In other news, I'll be participating in goatdog's 1927 Blogathon. I'm afraid it might be a somewhat tenuous connection; my first thoughts of 1927, of course, turn to Ruth and the Yankees, and I thought I'd do something on the rise of Ruth's popularity with the newsreels--and low and behold, I find Paramount News started in 1927. Aha! I thought. Well, I found a disappointing lack of good material on the Internets, and then got busy with APS and such and forgot to do my homework. I did snag a copy of Reel Baseball (see the Booklist) from the library (sadly, Fairfax County, not the Library of Alexandria) but they sat on the hold for a couple of days, so I just got it tonight. Wherein I discover that none of the footage on the DVD appears to be from Paramount, and the earliest is from 1933.
Too bad. I'll make it stretch.
Let me disagree here, though, with the book's contention that this was baseball's Golden Age. First, that's tough to say the black and white footage included on the DVD doesn't need much black to show the players for half of the "Golden Age" time frame. Second, the very fact that the newsreels were the prime means most fans saw baseball belies this notion--how is it not better with major league teams from coast to coast, minor league ball affordable and available all over, Baseball Tonight for your moving picture highlights, and the vast majority of games available for your enjoyment on Internet radio, Internet TV, or cable/satellite package, if you can pony up the cash?
Of course, that's my opinion before more than a cursory flip through the book. I want to read it and watch the footage before defining the thread of my post/essay. Just wanted to get that criticism out so I can be more positive and thoughtful.
I got a personal invite to contribute to John McCain's Presidential bid exploratory committee! Since they sent me a free return envelope for my check, I imagine I'll send him some unsolicited advice. Perhaps I'll post it here.

In other news, I'll be participating in goatdog's 1927 Blogathon. I'm afraid it might be a somewhat tenuous connection; my first thoughts of 1927, of course, turn to Ruth and the Yankees, and I thought I'd do something on the rise of Ruth's popularity with the newsreels--and low and behold, I find Paramount News started in 1927. Aha! I thought. Well, I found a disappointing lack of good material on the Internets, and then got busy with APS and such and forgot to do my homework. I did snag a copy of Reel Baseball (see the Booklist) from the library (sadly, Fairfax County, not the Library of Alexandria) but they sat on the hold for a couple of days, so I just got it tonight. Wherein I discover that none of the footage on the DVD appears to be from Paramount, and the earliest is from 1933.
Too bad. I'll make it stretch.
Let me disagree here, though, with the book's contention that this was baseball's Golden Age. First, that's tough to say the black and white footage included on the DVD doesn't need much black to show the players for half of the "Golden Age" time frame. Second, the very fact that the newsreels were the prime means most fans saw baseball belies this notion--how is it not better with major league teams from coast to coast, minor league ball affordable and available all over, Baseball Tonight for your moving picture highlights, and the vast majority of games available for your enjoyment on Internet radio, Internet TV, or cable/satellite package, if you can pony up the cash?
Of course, that's my opinion before more than a cursory flip through the book. I want to read it and watch the footage before defining the thread of my post/essay. Just wanted to get that criticism out so I can be more positive and thoughtful.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Hello Down There
You know what Denver needs? Oxygen.
I kid, but in retrospect, asthma + chest cold + thin air = not so fun. It's better today--I seemed to cough a lot of it out this morning--but I'm using my inhaler like crazy, feeling quite winded after little exertion--even taking my decidedly non-Olympic conditioning into account--and looking up symptoms of altitude sickness (not showing any, other than the getting winded, which happens to me astmatic lungs at sea level.)
Anyway, the talk went pretty well. It wasn't great work, so that brought it down, but I pulled it off smoothly.
So far, I've gotten 3 free meals...two hotel breakfasts (hot, not Continental) and one lunch sprung for by one of my old professors. This frees up the budget for $16 scotch. About a shot and a half worth, but still. I'd have stayed and tried more of their huge selection, but it was also a cigar bar, so I didn't need anything more coming between me and sweet, sweet oxygen.
I have some time tomorrow and Thursday slated for siteseeing, so I hope to get some picks of the mountains from the state capitol, the Coors Field exterior, and anything else that suits me. I already have a pic of the two-story blue bear that seems to be looking inside the convention center for snacks.
Speaking of the convention center, it's the only one of seen, out of all these March Meetings, that has prominent ads in the concourses for local gentlemen's clubs. Guess they're not going to get a lot of NOW conventions.
I kid, but in retrospect, asthma + chest cold + thin air = not so fun. It's better today--I seemed to cough a lot of it out this morning--but I'm using my inhaler like crazy, feeling quite winded after little exertion--even taking my decidedly non-Olympic conditioning into account--and looking up symptoms of altitude sickness (not showing any, other than the getting winded, which happens to me astmatic lungs at sea level.)
Anyway, the talk went pretty well. It wasn't great work, so that brought it down, but I pulled it off smoothly.
So far, I've gotten 3 free meals...two hotel breakfasts (hot, not Continental) and one lunch sprung for by one of my old professors. This frees up the budget for $16 scotch. About a shot and a half worth, but still. I'd have stayed and tried more of their huge selection, but it was also a cigar bar, so I didn't need anything more coming between me and sweet, sweet oxygen.
I have some time tomorrow and Thursday slated for siteseeing, so I hope to get some picks of the mountains from the state capitol, the Coors Field exterior, and anything else that suits me. I already have a pic of the two-story blue bear that seems to be looking inside the convention center for snacks.
Speaking of the convention center, it's the only one of seen, out of all these March Meetings, that has prominent ads in the concourses for local gentlemen's clubs. Guess they're not going to get a lot of NOW conventions.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Rocky Mountain High....
Now that you've got that stuck in your head, time to report that I'm off to Denver tomorrow (later today) for the American Physical Society March Meeting. I'll try to blog if I can (and I'm taking song suggestions) but we'll see how connectivity goes. And also, how my oxygen supply holds up at altitude. Anyone know the experiences of Colorado asthmatics?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
"Un but! Vokoun est completement supris!"
I just had a marvelous time watching the Montreal Canadiens top the Nashville Predators, 6-5, in a shootout. The trick was the broadcast the Center Ice feed had was from RDS--the French langauge station. No idea why there was no English feed, but I wanted to see newest Predator Petr Forsberg, and to root against the Preds overtaking the Red Wings in the standings. I could only catch bits an pieces of the commentary, but it was fun nonetheless. And I could read the on-screen promo that some form of food deal was given to fans because the Candiens scored five goals.
Yeah, that French minor was good for something, at least.
Yeah, that French minor was good for something, at least.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Shameful Book Report--Collapse
Collapse is Jared Diamond's followup to Guns, Germs, and Steel, his study of how aspects of geography and speciation have given certain societies advantages over others. In his new work, Diamond examines the fates of societies who stretched their available natural resources, and the ways those societies have either scaled back or continued to their own demise, as well as the whys. He does this from case studies diverse societies, such as Polynesian Easter Island, the Greenland Norse and Inuit, and Native American civilizations in the Southwest.
While these are interesting anthropological investigations in their own right, the book also aims to apply them to ecological issues faced by modern societies, using modern case studies of regions such as Montana and Hispaniola, and industries like mining and petroleum extraction.
It's hard not to find a book like this somewhat depressing. It illustrates societies that overexploited their resources during environmental conditions conducive to expansion, and also couldn't or wouldn't adapt to changes in those environmental conditions. It's hard not to see the same lack of adaptability in our society--including my own lifestyle--and a similar lack of political will in our electorate. However, Diamond makes pains not to be that pessimistic in his conclusions. Although he sees reason for concern, he doesn't think the looming problems are insurmountable.
Partly due to this sense of worry, I didn't find I enjoyed Collapse as much as I did Guns, Germs, and Steel. I didn't find the story or its telling as compelling (though in both cases, Diamond can lapse into lists of facts that can be dry and sometimes repetitive.) I also didn't think the individual stories of societies held the book together as well as the overarching story of human civilization in Diamond's prior work. However it's only in the comparison that this book suffers. Collapse is an interesting look at anthropological stories you may have heard, but not with the most recently learned details. It does a good job of judging societies by their contemporary knowledge and attitudes. Yet, it also shows where these mores failed their societies, and ways in which are modern attitudes may be similar. This is an important read as we face potential tipping points in our modern world.
While these are interesting anthropological investigations in their own right, the book also aims to apply them to ecological issues faced by modern societies, using modern case studies of regions such as Montana and Hispaniola, and industries like mining and petroleum extraction.
It's hard not to find a book like this somewhat depressing. It illustrates societies that overexploited their resources during environmental conditions conducive to expansion, and also couldn't or wouldn't adapt to changes in those environmental conditions. It's hard not to see the same lack of adaptability in our society--including my own lifestyle--and a similar lack of political will in our electorate. However, Diamond makes pains not to be that pessimistic in his conclusions. Although he sees reason for concern, he doesn't think the looming problems are insurmountable.
Partly due to this sense of worry, I didn't find I enjoyed Collapse as much as I did Guns, Germs, and Steel. I didn't find the story or its telling as compelling (though in both cases, Diamond can lapse into lists of facts that can be dry and sometimes repetitive.) I also didn't think the individual stories of societies held the book together as well as the overarching story of human civilization in Diamond's prior work. However it's only in the comparison that this book suffers. Collapse is an interesting look at anthropological stories you may have heard, but not with the most recently learned details. It does a good job of judging societies by their contemporary knowledge and attitudes. Yet, it also shows where these mores failed their societies, and ways in which are modern attitudes may be similar. This is an important read as we face potential tipping points in our modern world.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Fourteen years, four bankruptcies, three franchise moves, two lockouts, one lost season and no effective leadership.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
Gary Bettman has been poor to awful for the NHL. Perhaps it's not all of his own doing--I certainly wouldn't blame him for the FOX broadcast inanity, such as dueling goal robots--but he certainly has been on watch for it, and needs to go.
The thing that has always annoyed me about the broadcast situation is how every other sport gets to build its audience with national weekend broadcasts, starting at some point a ways into the season and continuing until the end. Hockey? Everytime they swing a network deal--FOX, ABC, NBC--it's 5 games, non consecutively, and then playoffs. Even if they have to take a hit in the per-game rights fees--or hell, subsidize it--they have to get on every weekend, so viewership can drop in, get interested, and come back at some point, even if it's not the next week. What they do now doesn't help grow the fanbase one bit.
Gary Bettman has been poor to awful for the NHL. Perhaps it's not all of his own doing--I certainly wouldn't blame him for the FOX broadcast inanity, such as dueling goal robots--but he certainly has been on watch for it, and needs to go.
The thing that has always annoyed me about the broadcast situation is how every other sport gets to build its audience with national weekend broadcasts, starting at some point a ways into the season and continuing until the end. Hockey? Everytime they swing a network deal--FOX, ABC, NBC--it's 5 games, non consecutively, and then playoffs. Even if they have to take a hit in the per-game rights fees--or hell, subsidize it--they have to get on every weekend, so viewership can drop in, get interested, and come back at some point, even if it's not the next week. What they do now doesn't help grow the fanbase one bit.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Booze and Islamic Cab Drivers
Since I haven't had much time to write, I'll let you chew on this story. In which, we see there is a religious conflict brewing in Minneapolis. It seems many of the Muslim cabbies believe their religious prescription against alcohol extends to not transporting it in their cabs--such as, airport customers who have partaken of duty-free goods. The airport, of course, doesn't want a large fraction of its taxi fleet refusing to serve a sizable fraction of its customers.
So the question is, upon whom will the hammer fall? Those trying to stay true to their faith, or those legally purchasing an entertaining chemical? The general principle of allowing free practice of religion in this country (as long as it does no harm to the unconsenting) butts heads with the notion that all people should get equal service (if they are not being belligerent or threatening.) I guess the question is if "waiting for the appropriate cab" is sufficient harm ask people to decide between their faith and their meager livelihood.
The thing that gets me, that the story doesn't answer, is what these cabbies do in regards to one of their other societal roles--getting drunk people home from bars safely. Do they refuse service to the intoxicated? If so, is that person more likely to get in their car? Or even to have driven it in the first place, instead of taking a cab? To me, it would seem that taking someone to a bar is just as much "making money off of alcohol" as is transporting someone with a bottle of wine. I'm curious about this angle, and how it affects public safety, but apparently the reporter is not.
Given that, and the fact that as word gets out, people will just stuff their duty-free booze in a bag and not say anything about it (making the cabbies transport it anyway), I want to say I'd side with the airport commission here, but it's not as if most cabbies could easily slip into another line of work. For many it's the best living they'll be able to make, and it seems harsh to tell them to take it or leave it. And it's not like taxicabs are some inalienable human right. So I don't know. Thoughts?
So the question is, upon whom will the hammer fall? Those trying to stay true to their faith, or those legally purchasing an entertaining chemical? The general principle of allowing free practice of religion in this country (as long as it does no harm to the unconsenting) butts heads with the notion that all people should get equal service (if they are not being belligerent or threatening.) I guess the question is if "waiting for the appropriate cab" is sufficient harm ask people to decide between their faith and their meager livelihood.
The thing that gets me, that the story doesn't answer, is what these cabbies do in regards to one of their other societal roles--getting drunk people home from bars safely. Do they refuse service to the intoxicated? If so, is that person more likely to get in their car? Or even to have driven it in the first place, instead of taking a cab? To me, it would seem that taking someone to a bar is just as much "making money off of alcohol" as is transporting someone with a bottle of wine. I'm curious about this angle, and how it affects public safety, but apparently the reporter is not.
Given that, and the fact that as word gets out, people will just stuff their duty-free booze in a bag and not say anything about it (making the cabbies transport it anyway), I want to say I'd side with the airport commission here, but it's not as if most cabbies could easily slip into another line of work. For many it's the best living they'll be able to make, and it seems harsh to tell them to take it or leave it. And it's not like taxicabs are some inalienable human right. So I don't know. Thoughts?
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Hockey Close-Up


I like to splurge on lower-bowl seats once a year, if I can. There's nothing wrong with watching hockey from the "cheap" seats, but there's something to be said for being able to see faces shmushed into the glass, as well. And the speed is even more incredible up close. Now, if the prices more adequately reflected demand and quality of product, so that more people could get a look at the game, maybe the game could re-establish footholds and be in position to take Mark Cuban's advice.
Monday, January 08, 2007
About Damn Time
I love Edy's. I really do; they make excellent No Sugar Added Ice Cream in a variety of interesting flavors.
But for years, I have begged them to make a Cookies and Cream. It's my favorite flavor, and given that both NSA Vanilla and artificially sweetened Oreo clones exist, it shouldn't be so hard, right?
Finally.
Now, could they send me a notice or coupon to reward my pestering? Noooooooo.
Also my nearest Safeway doesn't carry it. I may have to threaten to take my shopping elsewhere.
But for years, I have begged them to make a Cookies and Cream. It's my favorite flavor, and given that both NSA Vanilla and artificially sweetened Oreo clones exist, it shouldn't be so hard, right?
Finally.
Now, could they send me a notice or coupon to reward my pestering? Noooooooo.
Also my nearest Safeway doesn't carry it. I may have to threaten to take my shopping elsewhere.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Capital Punishment and the Social Contract
Something struck me in this Eric Zorn blog entry, and it was this sentence:
If you don't have time to read the whole entry, he's arguing that his opposition to capital punishment is pragmatic, as opposed to on moral grounds, in that he admits there are criminals so heinous and obvious they should be executed (but that in most case, we can't know guilt with enough certainty that execution benefits society).
I don't see these things as necessarily following from one another. I wouldn't argue that the most awful tyrants, terrorists, mass murderers and genocidal maniacs have abused their right and privilege to breath the planet's oxygen. But I would argue that a society should not execute any one of them. The question in my mind is, "At what point can a group of individuals, bound by social contract, perform an action that it is wrong for any one individual to perform?" And I would argue that, no matter how duly constituted the social body, it does not have the right to terminate the life of a human being.
The entire justice system, of course, is an illustration of that question; it allows a means for determining and punishing guilty actions where an individual would be a vigilante for doing so; the civil system provides a means restitution where individual retribution would be no more than self-justified theft. But I'm not comfortable with the justice system ending life in my name. (And it is in my name, in part, in this government of, by, and for the people.) So I guess I seem to hold the contradiction in my head that there are those who have so wronged decent society that they don't deserve to live, but they should continue doing so anyway.
I guess that makes my objection principled.
I can't make a persuasive moral case that, say, Timothy McVeigh or John Wayne Gacy deserves to live; that it is wrong for a society to hang a Saddam Hussein.
If you don't have time to read the whole entry, he's arguing that his opposition to capital punishment is pragmatic, as opposed to on moral grounds, in that he admits there are criminals so heinous and obvious they should be executed (but that in most case, we can't know guilt with enough certainty that execution benefits society).
I don't see these things as necessarily following from one another. I wouldn't argue that the most awful tyrants, terrorists, mass murderers and genocidal maniacs have abused their right and privilege to breath the planet's oxygen. But I would argue that a society should not execute any one of them. The question in my mind is, "At what point can a group of individuals, bound by social contract, perform an action that it is wrong for any one individual to perform?" And I would argue that, no matter how duly constituted the social body, it does not have the right to terminate the life of a human being.
The entire justice system, of course, is an illustration of that question; it allows a means for determining and punishing guilty actions where an individual would be a vigilante for doing so; the civil system provides a means restitution where individual retribution would be no more than self-justified theft. But I'm not comfortable with the justice system ending life in my name. (And it is in my name, in part, in this government of, by, and for the people.) So I guess I seem to hold the contradiction in my head that there are those who have so wronged decent society that they don't deserve to live, but they should continue doing so anyway.
I guess that makes my objection principled.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Well, it's been fun...
But I suppose I have to put an end to the creative exhortations for me to post. They were counterproductive though--I was enjoying them too much to give a reason to stop. :P
Well, what's new? I've been watching the Steve Yzerman number retirement ceremony and game tonight. Pretty good, if the production is as cheesy as expected . My favorite moment was the part of his speech where he questioned his reputation as a leader, saying all he did was go out and play hard like everyone else did. In this day of pampered superstar/Terrell Owens crap, that is leadership, especially from your one-of-the-greatest stud players.
What other newness? Applying for faculty jobs again...no word yet. I think most of you know I've been seeing a wonderful woman named Julie for several months now...we've survived family Christmases into 2007. We barely survived United airlines though. I'll repost a diatribe I wrote for elsewhere as a comment in this thread. I haven't decided whether to bowdlerize it yet. I mean, the cursing's creative, but I suppose this is public, you know?
I have taken care of some of my reading list. Cryptonomicon and Bringing Down the Househave been finished, but World War Z and The Last Town on Earth have been added. I've decided this is how I should keep pressure on myself to read--always have a list of at least half a dozen things to shame me into not watching "Celebrity Deathmatch" or some such nonsense.
Well, what's new? I've been watching the Steve Yzerman number retirement ceremony and game tonight. Pretty good, if the production is as cheesy as expected . My favorite moment was the part of his speech where he questioned his reputation as a leader, saying all he did was go out and play hard like everyone else did. In this day of pampered superstar/Terrell Owens crap, that is leadership, especially from your one-of-the-greatest stud players.
What other newness? Applying for faculty jobs again...no word yet. I think most of you know I've been seeing a wonderful woman named Julie for several months now...we've survived family Christmases into 2007. We barely survived United airlines though. I'll repost a diatribe I wrote for elsewhere as a comment in this thread. I haven't decided whether to bowdlerize it yet. I mean, the cursing's creative, but I suppose this is public, you know?
I have taken care of some of my reading list. Cryptonomicon and Bringing Down the Househave been finished, but World War Z and The Last Town on Earth have been added. I've decided this is how I should keep pressure on myself to read--always have a list of at least half a dozen things to shame me into not watching "Celebrity Deathmatch" or some such nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)