Notes from Howard's Sabbatical from Working. The name comes from a 1998 lunch conversation. Someone asked if everything man knew was on the web. I answered "no" and off the top of my head said "Fidel Castro's favorite color". About every 6-12 months I've searched for this. It doesn't show up in the first 50 Google results (this blog is finally first for that search), AskJeeves says it's: red.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Chinese Hackers Infiltrate New York Times Computers
Chinese Hackers Infiltrate New York Times Computers "After surreptitiously tracking the intruders to study their movements and help erect better defenses to block them, The Times and computer security experts have expelled the attackers and kept them from breaking back in."
Here Are the Patterns the Feds Found for U.S. Mass Killings
Danger Room reports Here Are the Patterns the Feds Found for U.S. Mass Killings
"The basic pattern found by the New Jersey DHS fusion center, and obtained by Public Intelligence (.PDF), is one of a killer who lashes out at his co-workers. Thirteen out of the 29 observed cases ‘occurred at the workplace and were conducted by either a former employee or relative of an employee,’ the November report finds. His ‘weapon of choice’ is a semiautomatic handgun, rather than the rifles that garnered so much attention after Newtown. The infamous Columbine school slaying of 1999 is the only case in which killers worked in teams: they’re almost always solo acts — and one-off affairs. In every single one of them, the killer was male, between the age of 17 and 49.
They also don’t have military training. Veterans are justifiably angered by the Hollywood-driven meme of the unhinged vet who takes out his battlefield stress on his fellow Americans. (Thanks, Rambo.) In only four of the 29 cases did the shooter have any affiliation with the U.S. military, either active or prior at the time of the slaying, and the fusion center doesn’t mention any wartime experience of the killers. "
"One of the most striking patterns about U.S. mass killings is visible only through its absence. Terrorists aren’t committing these crimes. Ordinary, unhinged American men are. That’s despite an inability for federal law enforcement to track stockpiled firearms and literally years of al-Qaida sympathizers and propagandists urging disaffected U.S. Muslims to rise up against their neighbors."
"The basic pattern found by the New Jersey DHS fusion center, and obtained by Public Intelligence (.PDF), is one of a killer who lashes out at his co-workers. Thirteen out of the 29 observed cases ‘occurred at the workplace and were conducted by either a former employee or relative of an employee,’ the November report finds. His ‘weapon of choice’ is a semiautomatic handgun, rather than the rifles that garnered so much attention after Newtown. The infamous Columbine school slaying of 1999 is the only case in which killers worked in teams: they’re almost always solo acts — and one-off affairs. In every single one of them, the killer was male, between the age of 17 and 49.
They also don’t have military training. Veterans are justifiably angered by the Hollywood-driven meme of the unhinged vet who takes out his battlefield stress on his fellow Americans. (Thanks, Rambo.) In only four of the 29 cases did the shooter have any affiliation with the U.S. military, either active or prior at the time of the slaying, and the fusion center doesn’t mention any wartime experience of the killers. "
"One of the most striking patterns about U.S. mass killings is visible only through its absence. Terrorists aren’t committing these crimes. Ordinary, unhinged American men are. That’s despite an inability for federal law enforcement to track stockpiled firearms and literally years of al-Qaida sympathizers and propagandists urging disaffected U.S. Muslims to rise up against their neighbors."
Moonrise in Real Time
Full Moon Silhouettes is a real time video of the moon rising over the Mount Victoria Lookout in Wellington, New Zealand.
Full Moon Silhouettes from Mark Gee on Vimeo.
102 Spectacular Nonfiction Stories from 2012
102 Spectacular Nonfiction Stories from 2012 "Each year, I track the most exceptional stories I encounter while assembling my twice-weekly newsletter, The Best of Journalism, as well as acting as an editor-at-large for Byliner. These projects afford me the opportunity to read as much impressive nonfiction journalism as any single person possibly can. The result is my annual Best of Journalism List, now in its fifth year. If you’re feeling nostalgic, here’s the 2011 edition.
There are, of course, worthy pieces of writing and reporting that escaped my attention in 2012, but I can assure you that all of the 102 stories listed below deserve wider attention—as do the authors of these stories. The featured bylines are linked to the authors’ Byliner writer pages, which makes it easy to discover and read more of their excellent work. The stories are listed alphabetically by writer."
There are, of course, worthy pieces of writing and reporting that escaped my attention in 2012, but I can assure you that all of the 102 stories listed below deserve wider attention—as do the authors of these stories. The featured bylines are linked to the authors’ Byliner writer pages, which makes it easy to discover and read more of their excellent work. The stories are listed alphabetically by writer."
Introducing Courier Prime
Introducing Courier Prime "Today, we’re introducing a new typeface designed for screenwriters. It’s called Courier Prime. It’s Courier, just better."
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The Shakespeare Programming Language
The Shakespeare Programming Language "A few weeks earlier we had discovered a number of truly fascinating programming languages, such as Java2k, Sorted!, Brainfuck and Malbolge, and we wanted to make our own. We have no idea why, but that night we were also thinking about Shakespeare in general, and Shakespearian insults in particular and three hours later we had come up with this amazing idea: the Shakespeare Programming Language, SPL."
Monday, January 28, 2013
The Reward
This is a nicely done wordless short adventure film. Great visual story telling.
The Reward from The Animation Workshop on Vimeo.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Republicans Might Be Outsmarting Themselves on the Electoral College
Kevin Drum explains Republicans Might Be Outsmarting Themselves on the Electoral College
"Republicans, apparently convinced that they really are facing demographic doom, have been taking increasingly desperate measures to ensure their continued existence. Does this include an effort to moderate their views in order to win more votes? Don't be silly. Instead, they're trying to game the mechanics of the voting system itself."
"The plan is simple: There are half a dozen states that are controlled by Republicans but that often vote for Democratic presidents. Since most states (Nebraska and Maine are the only exceptions) use winner-take-all rules, this means that when Democrats win these states they get 100 percent of their electoral votes. So what would happen if these states instead divvied up their EVs by congressional district?"
"If this system of divvying up electoral votes were adopted nationwide, you could make a case for it. But the unfairness of adopting this system only in states that Democrats usually win is palpable. States in the deep South, for example, have no intention of adopting a similar system, and will continue awarding 100 percent of their electoral votes to Republican candidates. Republicans are picking and choosing different systems in different states, with not even a pretense that they're doing it for any reason aside from choosing whichever system benefits Republicans the most in each state. This is so obviously outrageous that it's likely to prompt a backlash."
He then points people at an alternative that I only recently found out about, the National Popular Vote.
"Republicans, apparently convinced that they really are facing demographic doom, have been taking increasingly desperate measures to ensure their continued existence. Does this include an effort to moderate their views in order to win more votes? Don't be silly. Instead, they're trying to game the mechanics of the voting system itself."
"The plan is simple: There are half a dozen states that are controlled by Republicans but that often vote for Democratic presidents. Since most states (Nebraska and Maine are the only exceptions) use winner-take-all rules, this means that when Democrats win these states they get 100 percent of their electoral votes. So what would happen if these states instead divvied up their EVs by congressional district?"
"If this system of divvying up electoral votes were adopted nationwide, you could make a case for it. But the unfairness of adopting this system only in states that Democrats usually win is palpable. States in the deep South, for example, have no intention of adopting a similar system, and will continue awarding 100 percent of their electoral votes to Republican candidates. Republicans are picking and choosing different systems in different states, with not even a pretense that they're doing it for any reason aside from choosing whichever system benefits Republicans the most in each state. This is so obviously outrageous that it's likely to prompt a backlash."
He then points people at an alternative that I only recently found out about, the National Popular Vote.
Why Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget
Rachel Weiner explains Why Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget. Three things: a budget isn't necessary, Democrats didn't want the blame, and they couldn't decide on one with their deficit hawk budget chair.
Sometimes, the Final Vote Hides the Real Vote
Jonathan Bernstein explains something important about Congressional votes, Sometimes, the Final Vote Hides the Real Vote.
"It was a five minute vote, and Republicans voted rapidly, and at first voted solidly for the measure. Democrats held back their votes, with those who voted against it mostly voting no. It thereby reached…aw, I didn’t take really good notes, but when it reached a winning number Republicans supported it at 199/9 while Democrats opposed it by something like 19/49. After that point, Democrats split fairly evenly but with somewhat more of them voting yes, while Republicans went from 199/9 to…199/33."
"And the thing is: no one says (at least not on the record) that their vote was available if needed, but they were happy not to have to vote for that necessary measure that they just voted against. Not only would that ruin the gain of being on record the other way, but no one wants to be seen as the Speaker’s lackey. Nor can we believe the leadership when they claim vote counts. So, really, we have no certain way of knowing whether Republicans had the votes on this one if they had to do it alone. But I’d bet they had more than the 199 they got."
"It was a five minute vote, and Republicans voted rapidly, and at first voted solidly for the measure. Democrats held back their votes, with those who voted against it mostly voting no. It thereby reached…aw, I didn’t take really good notes, but when it reached a winning number Republicans supported it at 199/9 while Democrats opposed it by something like 19/49. After that point, Democrats split fairly evenly but with somewhat more of them voting yes, while Republicans went from 199/9 to…199/33."
"And the thing is: no one says (at least not on the record) that their vote was available if needed, but they were happy not to have to vote for that necessary measure that they just voted against. Not only would that ruin the gain of being on record the other way, but no one wants to be seen as the Speaker’s lackey. Nor can we believe the leadership when they claim vote counts. So, really, we have no certain way of knowing whether Republicans had the votes on this one if they had to do it alone. But I’d bet they had more than the 199 they got."
Room for Improvement
I had preordered several books from Amazon. Three were released this week and all arrived on Thursday. Each shipped separately and was delivered via a different carrier. Since I have Amazon Prime, I didn't really pay for this shipping. I think there's some room for Amazon to optimize its operations.
Distance Traveled, Extraterrestrial Vehicles
Distance Traveled, Extraterrestrial Vehicles "If you thought driving on Earth is a chore, you haven't tried off-roading on another planet. So far, robotic rovers have reached out to the moon and Mars, with astronauts actually driving a lunar car on the moon during NASA's Apollo program. Those missions amount to what could be the first interplanetary road race."
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Lost Ending To Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining' Revealed
Lost Ending To Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining' Revealed. "Well, it was a scene set inside a hospital after the events at Overlook, in which Mr. Ullman tells Wendy that Jack Torrance's body was never found. He then gives Danny a tennis ball, which is of course what lured the child to the infamous Room 237 earlier in the film.
This much is known to anyone who is fan of the movie, but Unkrich got his hands on the actual script so you can now read the full scene right here, and it is pretty remarkable stuff. But additionally there's an epilogue in there that audiences have never seen, which is also eerie, if perhaps over the top:"
I can't say I find it at all compelling.
This much is known to anyone who is fan of the movie, but Unkrich got his hands on the actual script so you can now read the full scene right here, and it is pretty remarkable stuff. But additionally there's an epilogue in there that audiences have never seen, which is also eerie, if perhaps over the top:"
I can't say I find it at all compelling.
Conservatives Have Their Worst Week Ever
Matt Taibbi, entertaining as always, explains why Conservatives Have Their Worst Week Ever.
"So to recap: The gun lobby's response to Obama's inauguration was to organize a "Gun Appreciation Day" on Martin Luther King Day that left five of their own gun-loving members accidentally shot. Then they responded to Obama's inaugural speech by doubling down on the "elitist hypocrite" ad that earned them near-universal condemnation previously. So how could things get worse?
Well, you could have a spokesman for Political Media, which organized "Gun Appreciation Day," tell the Hollywood Reporter that Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained is the perfect argument in support of gun rights. Political Media's Larry Ward said he's considering a "What Would Django Do?" campaign as part of this new rhetorical line they're thinking of trying to sell, particularly to the black community. The idea is, get this, that there wouldn't have been slavery if slaves had had gun rights."
"So to recap: The gun lobby's response to Obama's inauguration was to organize a "Gun Appreciation Day" on Martin Luther King Day that left five of their own gun-loving members accidentally shot. Then they responded to Obama's inaugural speech by doubling down on the "elitist hypocrite" ad that earned them near-universal condemnation previously. So how could things get worse?
Well, you could have a spokesman for Political Media, which organized "Gun Appreciation Day," tell the Hollywood Reporter that Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained is the perfect argument in support of gun rights. Political Media's Larry Ward said he's considering a "What Would Django Do?" campaign as part of this new rhetorical line they're thinking of trying to sell, particularly to the black community. The idea is, get this, that there wouldn't have been slavery if slaves had had gun rights."
Chicago's Freezing Fire
In Focus posted Chicago's Freezing Fire "On Tuesday night, a huge vacant warehouse on Chicago's South Side went up in flames. Fire department officials said it was the biggest blaze the department has had to battle in years and one-third of all Chicago firefighters were on the scene at one point or another trying to put out the flames. Complicating the scene was the weather -- temperatures were well below freezing and the spray from the fire hoses encased everything below in ice, including buildings, vehicles, and some firefighting gear. The warehouse was gutted, but the fire was contained. Fire crews remain on the scene as some smaller flare-ups continue to need attention. [16 photos]"
These firefighters deserve hazard pay.
These firefighters deserve hazard pay.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
What happened when Ezra Klein asked Paul Ryan why he hates taxes
Ezra Klein describes What happened when I asked Paul Ryan why he hates taxes
"The key to understanding the House Republicans’ mindset, Ryan said, was that ‘our value-add to the political system on all things is to help prevent a debt crisis.’ But it quickly became clear that the Republican Party’s fear of a debt crisis lags far behind their fear of further tax revenue. For House Republicans, it’s spending cuts or nothing. Actually, I shouldn’t say nothing. It’s spending cuts or House Republicans force another kind of crisis."
"“They already got their revenues,” Ryan said. “So what, we’ll roll over and they get more revenues? That’s not how it works. In the spirit of bipartisan compromise, they’ve gotten revenue increases already. We’ve yet to get anything as a result of it. It used to be 3-1. Isn’t that what Erskine says? $3 of spending cuts to every dollar of tax increase. The president in his own budget last year claimed 2.5 to 1. We’d argue with whether they actually achieved that, but where’s the 3? Where’s the two-and-a-half? Where’s the $1.8 trillion in cuts?”
As Montgomery reminded Ryan, though, Republicans got more than $1.8 trillion in spending cuts during the last session of Congress. “You got — what is it? — $2.2 trillion, $2.4 trillion between the [Budget Control Act] and the
sequester?”
“That was last session,” Ryan said. “We’re going forward now.”
Ryan’s wrong on that. Both the $630 billion in revenue that Democrats got as part of the fiscal cliff deal and the $2.2 trillion (or so) that Republicans got as part of the Budget Control Act both passed as part of the 112th Congress. The House approved the fiscal cliff deal Jan. 1, and President Obama signed the bill into law Jan. 2. The 113th Congress didn’t begin until Jan. 3. So neither side has gotten anything in this session of Congress."
This is why Paul Krugman doesn't take Paul Ryan seriously.
"The key to understanding the House Republicans’ mindset, Ryan said, was that ‘our value-add to the political system on all things is to help prevent a debt crisis.’ But it quickly became clear that the Republican Party’s fear of a debt crisis lags far behind their fear of further tax revenue. For House Republicans, it’s spending cuts or nothing. Actually, I shouldn’t say nothing. It’s spending cuts or House Republicans force another kind of crisis."
"“They already got their revenues,” Ryan said. “So what, we’ll roll over and they get more revenues? That’s not how it works. In the spirit of bipartisan compromise, they’ve gotten revenue increases already. We’ve yet to get anything as a result of it. It used to be 3-1. Isn’t that what Erskine says? $3 of spending cuts to every dollar of tax increase. The president in his own budget last year claimed 2.5 to 1. We’d argue with whether they actually achieved that, but where’s the 3? Where’s the two-and-a-half? Where’s the $1.8 trillion in cuts?”
As Montgomery reminded Ryan, though, Republicans got more than $1.8 trillion in spending cuts during the last session of Congress. “You got — what is it? — $2.2 trillion, $2.4 trillion between the [Budget Control Act] and the
sequester?”
“That was last session,” Ryan said. “We’re going forward now.”
Ryan’s wrong on that. Both the $630 billion in revenue that Democrats got as part of the fiscal cliff deal and the $2.2 trillion (or so) that Republicans got as part of the Budget Control Act both passed as part of the 112th Congress. The House approved the fiscal cliff deal Jan. 1, and President Obama signed the bill into law Jan. 2. The 113th Congress didn’t begin until Jan. 3. So neither side has gotten anything in this session of Congress."
This is why Paul Krugman doesn't take Paul Ryan seriously.
Government Spending is Down in the Obama Era
Kevin Drum: Government Spending is Down in the Obama Era. "Republicans like to say we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem, but the evidence doesn't back that up. Total government spending didn't go up much during the Clinton era, and it's actually declined during the Obama era. In the last two decades, it's only gone up significantly during the Bush era, the same era in which taxes were cut dramatically. What we have isn't a spending problem. That's under control. What we have is a problem with Republicans not wanting to pay the bills they themselves were largely responsible for running up."
Paul Krugman explains it with a bit more rigor, The Non-Surge in Government Spending. "So how can we get a better picture? First, express spending as a share of potential rather than actual GDP; we can use the CBO estimates of potential for that purpose. Second, keep your eye on the business cycle — and, in particular, on how spending is evolving now that a gradual recovery is underway. So, let’s look first at a longish time series of total government spending as a share of potential GDP:"
Mark Thoma points to a few articles expressing America’s Fiscal Policy is Not in Crisis. The long term problems are rising health care costs and the immediate problem isn't the deficit or debt but jobs.
Update: Nate Sliver a few days ago on What Is Driving Growth in Government Spending?
Paul Krugman explains it with a bit more rigor, The Non-Surge in Government Spending. "So how can we get a better picture? First, express spending as a share of potential rather than actual GDP; we can use the CBO estimates of potential for that purpose. Second, keep your eye on the business cycle — and, in particular, on how spending is evolving now that a gradual recovery is underway. So, let’s look first at a longish time series of total government spending as a share of potential GDP:"
Mark Thoma points to a few articles expressing America’s Fiscal Policy is Not in Crisis. The long term problems are rising health care costs and the immediate problem isn't the deficit or debt but jobs.
Update: Nate Sliver a few days ago on What Is Driving Growth in Government Spending?
Everyone hates TARP and the stimulus. Alan Blinder thinks everyone’s wrong.
Everyone hates TARP and the stimulus. Alan Blinder thinks everyone’s wrong. "Alan Blinder is the Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at the Princeton Department of Economics, and served both on President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors (1993-94) and as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (1994-96). His new book, a history of the financial crisis called After the Music Stopped, is out tomorrow. We talked on the phone Friday; a lightly edited transcript follows."
Contemplating Obama's Place in History, Statistically
Nate Silver is Contemplating Obama's Place in History, Statistically "As common sense might dictate — and as the statistics will also reveal — it is far too soon to conclude very much about this. Second-term presidents may be derided as lame ducks, but it is often in the second term when reputations are won or lost.
Still, we can say this much: Mr. Obama ran for and won a second term, something only about half of the men to serve as president have done (the tally is 20 or 21 out of 43, depending on how you count Grover Cleveland). We can also note, however, that Mr. Obama’s re-election margin was relatively narrow. Do these simple facts provide any insight at all into how he might be regarded 20, 50 or 100 years from now?"
Still, we can say this much: Mr. Obama ran for and won a second term, something only about half of the men to serve as president have done (the tally is 20 or 21 out of 43, depending on how you count Grover Cleveland). We can also note, however, that Mr. Obama’s re-election margin was relatively narrow. Do these simple facts provide any insight at all into how he might be regarded 20, 50 or 100 years from now?"
MP3 files written as DNA with storage density of 2.2 petabytes per gram
Ars Technica writes MP3 files written as DNA with storage density of 2.2 petabytes per gram "It's only within the past few decades, however, that humans have learned to speak DNA. Even then, it took a while to develop the technology needed to synthesize and determine the sequence of large populations of molecules. But we're there now, and people have started experimenting with putting binary data in biological form. Now, a new study has confirmed the flexibility of the approach by encoding everything from an MP3 to the decoding algorithm into fragments of DNA. The cost analysis done by the authors suggest that the technology may soon be suitable for decade-scale storage, provided current trends continue."
The European Southern Observatory
In Focus on The European Southern Observatory "High in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile, the European Southern Observatory (ESO) has built several collections of telescopes and observatories on remote, arid mountaintops. The locations are ideal for ground-based astronomy -- far from city lights, high above sea level, with more than 350 cloudless days a year. The ESO is an intergovernmental research organization with 15 member states, founded in 1962. It has been making observations from the southern hemisphere since 1966, and continues to expand its facilities to this day. The sites are La Silla, which hosts the New Technology Telescope (NTT); Paranal, home to the Very Large Telescope (VLT); and Llano de Chajnantor, which hosts the APEX submillimeter telescope and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA). Construction on the newest project in Chile's desert -- the European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT), a 40-meter-class telescope -- is due to start later this year in Cerro Armazones. I've collected below some amazing images of the ESO's observatories, and a few of the astronomical images they've been able to make over the years. [34 photos total]"
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The Climate Change Endgame
It's a good thing Obama mentioned climate change on Monday, but it's practically too late. The Climate Change Endgame "It is abundantly clear that the target of a 2-degree Celsius limit to climate change was mostly derived from what seemed convenient and doable without any reference to what it really means environmentally. Two degrees is actually too much for ecosystems. Tropical coral reefs are extremely vulnerable to even brief periods of warming. The elevated atmospheric CO2 also has raised the acidity of the oceans, which affects the ability of coral and mollusks such as oysters to build shells and skeletons. A 2-degree world will be one without coral reefs (on which millions of human beings depend for their well-being).
At current global warming of 0.8-0.9 degrees, the fingerprints of climate change can be seen virtually everywhere in nature. The coniferous forests of western North America are currently experiencing massive tree mortality because climate change has tipped the balance in favor of native bark beetles. The Amazon seems to be edging close to dieback in the southern and southeastern portions of the great forest.
At essentially double that current temperature increase, there undoubtedly will be massive extinctions and widespread ecosystem collapse. The difficulty of trying to buffer and manage change will increase exponentially with only small increments of warming.
In addition, the last time the planet was 2 degrees warmer, the oceans were four to six (perhaps eight) meters higher. We may not know how fast that will happen (although it is already occurring more rapidly than initially estimated), but the end point in sea-level rise is not in question. A major portion of humanity lives in coastal areas and small island states that will go under water. The site of the Earth Summit and Rio+20 will disappear under water fairly early on.
More than a 2-degree increase should be unimaginable. Yet to stop at 2 degrees, global emissions have to peak in 2016. The Carbon Tracker organization has examined fossil-fuel investments around the world (including 1,200 new coal plants) and determined that they would lead to a 6-degree world. A recent World Bank report indicates the bank cannot fulfill its development mission in a 4-degree world. Given what we know about planetary biology, 2 degrees seems nightmarish as it is."
For less hope here's These 14 fossil-fuel projects could make our climate goals impossible. "The International Energy Agency estimates that the world can only burn about a third of its proven oil, gas, and coal reserves to have a good chance of keeping global warming below the 2°C threshold. And according to Ecofys, these 14 projects alone have the potential to burn through 30 percent of those reserves by 2030 — making those climate goals extremely difficult to reach."
At current global warming of 0.8-0.9 degrees, the fingerprints of climate change can be seen virtually everywhere in nature. The coniferous forests of western North America are currently experiencing massive tree mortality because climate change has tipped the balance in favor of native bark beetles. The Amazon seems to be edging close to dieback in the southern and southeastern portions of the great forest.
At essentially double that current temperature increase, there undoubtedly will be massive extinctions and widespread ecosystem collapse. The difficulty of trying to buffer and manage change will increase exponentially with only small increments of warming.
In addition, the last time the planet was 2 degrees warmer, the oceans were four to six (perhaps eight) meters higher. We may not know how fast that will happen (although it is already occurring more rapidly than initially estimated), but the end point in sea-level rise is not in question. A major portion of humanity lives in coastal areas and small island states that will go under water. The site of the Earth Summit and Rio+20 will disappear under water fairly early on.
More than a 2-degree increase should be unimaginable. Yet to stop at 2 degrees, global emissions have to peak in 2016. The Carbon Tracker organization has examined fossil-fuel investments around the world (including 1,200 new coal plants) and determined that they would lead to a 6-degree world. A recent World Bank report indicates the bank cannot fulfill its development mission in a 4-degree world. Given what we know about planetary biology, 2 degrees seems nightmarish as it is."
For less hope here's These 14 fossil-fuel projects could make our climate goals impossible. "The International Energy Agency estimates that the world can only burn about a third of its proven oil, gas, and coal reserves to have a good chance of keeping global warming below the 2°C threshold. And according to Ecofys, these 14 projects alone have the potential to burn through 30 percent of those reserves by 2030 — making those climate goals extremely difficult to reach."
Inauguration Tidbits
US presidential inauguration speeches: how does Obama's second compare? "Barack Obama has made his second presidential inauguration speech. But how does it compare to previous presidents? Santiago Ortiz has create this guide to every inauguration speech since Richard Nixon became president in 1969. Roll over a word to see which are closely connected to it, search in the box on the right an filter the most common words below."
The alliteration of Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall got some coverage. A Map of Human Dignity is a good primer if you don't know all the places (I didn't). Krugman has a little more.
But of course the really important question is Why Antonin Scalia Is Wearing That Hat to Inauguration which The Atlantic Wire covers in detail.
The alliteration of Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall got some coverage. A Map of Human Dignity is a good primer if you don't know all the places (I didn't). Krugman has a little more.
But of course the really important question is Why Antonin Scalia Is Wearing That Hat to Inauguration which The Atlantic Wire covers in detail.
Virginia Republicans Give Blacks the Finger on MLK Day
Kevin Drum writes Virginia Republicans Give Blacks the Finger on MLK Day "The Virginia state senate is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, 20-20. Republicans really hate this, but what can they do? Answer: wait for a Democratic state senator to be absent and jam through a mid-decade redistricting plan that switches one seat from D to R by creating a new pack-and-crack majority black district just south of Richmond. The vote was 20-19."
Seriously? Do Democrats do this kind of crap? He goes on to point out the missing senator was a civil rights lawyer who was in DC for the inauguration of the first black president on MLK Day and at the end of the day "the Senate adjourned in memory or [sic] [Confederate] General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson"
Seriously? Do Democrats do this kind of crap? He goes on to point out the missing senator was a civil rights lawyer who was in DC for the inauguration of the first black president on MLK Day and at the end of the day "the Senate adjourned in memory or [sic] [Confederate] General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson"
Monday, January 21, 2013
President Obama takes the oath ...
The White House tweeted this, President Obama takes the oath of office during the Inaugural swearing-in ceremony at the U.S. Capitol and included this picture. Notice his mother-in-law on the right...
They also posted The Second Inauguration of Barack Obama with a transcript and video.
They also posted The Second Inauguration of Barack Obama with a transcript and video.
Democrats Are Not Responsible for Republican Dysfunction
A few days ago David Brooks wrote The Next Four Years. He laments it but thinks in Obama's second term Democrats will think: “We live at a unique moment. Our opponents, the Republicans, are divided, confused and bleeding. This is not the time to allow them to rebuild their reputation with a series of modest accomplishments. This is the time to kick them when they are down, to win back the House and end the current version of the Republican Party."
Not surprisingly, some of the regular columnists I read took umbrage to this.
Kevin Drum, Let's Get One Thing Straight: It's Republicans Who Are Picking Fights, Not President Obama. "Politics is everywhere, and I don't doubt that Democrats would like to take advantage of Republican divisions. What party wouldn't? But look: if one party is dominated by a bunch of loons who make every political skirmish into a sign of the apocalypse, you really can't blame the other side for exposing this. What choice do they have?"
He gives the recent example of cabinet appointment fights for Susan Rice, Chuck Hagel and Jack Lew. "So what's he supposed to do? After winning reelection handily, is he supposed to agree that he won't nominate anyone to serve in his cabinet who isn't pre-approved by the most hardcore members of the opposition party? Of course not. That's crazy. Hagel and Lew are perfectly ordinary nominees, and Obama wasn't picking a fight with anyone by selecting them. He was just nominating people who agree with his policy positions. It was Republicans who insisted on turning this into a mortal insult."
"The same is true for Brooks's examples. It's Republicans who picked a fight over the debt ceiling that makes them look like wackos. It's Republicans who picked a fight over hurricane relief, earning the ire of Chris Christie and other members of their own party. (What was Obama supposed to do? Not propose any hurricane relief?) Ditto for gun regulations, where it's the NRA taking an absolutist position, not the president. Obama is plainly willing to compromise here, just as he's plainly willing to compromise over the budget. It's Republicans who aren't."
Ezra Klein, Is the Republican Party Obama’s fault?. First his own opinion, "The logic here is weirdly impeccable. The Republican Party’s dilemma is that House Republicans keeps taking all kinds of unreasonable and unpopular positions. If Obama weren’t president, the House Republicans wouldn’t be taking so many unreasonable and unpopular positions. But since Obama is president, and since he does need to work with House Republicans, he is highlighting their unreasonable and unpopular opinions in a bid to make them change their minds, which is making House Republicans look even worse. And so it’s ultimately Obama’s fault that House Republicans are, say, threatening to breach the debt ceiling if they don’t get their way on spending cuts. After all, if Mitt Romney had won the election, the debt ceiling wouldn’t even be a question!"
Then he comments on Brook's column, "So White House officials’ devious plan to destroy the Republican Party, in Brooks’s view, is that they will propose more moderate, popular policies than they did in their first term, thus making Republicans look terrible when they vote against everything."
Jonathan Chait did the best takedown, David Brooks Now Totally Pathological. He begins:
"Brooks begins by noting that the Grand Bargain on the deficit, which he has spent the last two years relentlessly touting, is not actually possible. Why is it impossible? Because, he writes, “A political class that botched the fiscal cliff so badly are not going to be capable of a gigantic deal on complex issues." Oh, the political class? That’s funny. In 2011, Obama offered an astonishingly generous budget deal to House Republicans, and Brooks argued at the time that if the GOP turned the deal down, it would prove their “fanaticism.” Naturally, they turned it down. Obama continues to offer a bargain including higher revenue through tax reform in return for lower spending on retirement programs, but Republicans refuse to consider higher taxes. So, in summary, this proves “the political class” is to blame."
He then goes through Brooks own examples of simple measures Dems could do that Republicans would like and shows why they're wrong. Education Reform? Obama passed some in 2009 and Brooks praised it. More Visas? Democrates tried last months and Republicans killed it. More natural gas drilling? It's already booming! An infrastructure bank? Republicans have called it DOA. He goes on…
"Right – Obama is the one inviting confrontations over the debt ceiling. Never mind that, before 2011, the debt ceiling was just an occasion for routine posturing, and Republicans insisted on turning it into a showdown with real, dangerous stakes. Also never mind that Obama offered to sign the plan — proposed by Mitch McConnell! — to permanently defuse the debt ceiling and let Republicans use it to posture against him rather than actually threatening a global meltdown. And never mind as well that, by refusing to cave in to extortion, Obama seems to actually be defusing the real danger to the world economy.
This is all Obama’s fault because it makes Republicans “look like whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy.” Brooks displays an almost surreal lack of interest in the underlying reality that Republicans actually are whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy. It is his responsibility to conceal this reality from America."
Not surprisingly, some of the regular columnists I read took umbrage to this.
Kevin Drum, Let's Get One Thing Straight: It's Republicans Who Are Picking Fights, Not President Obama. "Politics is everywhere, and I don't doubt that Democrats would like to take advantage of Republican divisions. What party wouldn't? But look: if one party is dominated by a bunch of loons who make every political skirmish into a sign of the apocalypse, you really can't blame the other side for exposing this. What choice do they have?"
He gives the recent example of cabinet appointment fights for Susan Rice, Chuck Hagel and Jack Lew. "So what's he supposed to do? After winning reelection handily, is he supposed to agree that he won't nominate anyone to serve in his cabinet who isn't pre-approved by the most hardcore members of the opposition party? Of course not. That's crazy. Hagel and Lew are perfectly ordinary nominees, and Obama wasn't picking a fight with anyone by selecting them. He was just nominating people who agree with his policy positions. It was Republicans who insisted on turning this into a mortal insult."
"The same is true for Brooks's examples. It's Republicans who picked a fight over the debt ceiling that makes them look like wackos. It's Republicans who picked a fight over hurricane relief, earning the ire of Chris Christie and other members of their own party. (What was Obama supposed to do? Not propose any hurricane relief?) Ditto for gun regulations, where it's the NRA taking an absolutist position, not the president. Obama is plainly willing to compromise here, just as he's plainly willing to compromise over the budget. It's Republicans who aren't."
Ezra Klein, Is the Republican Party Obama’s fault?. First his own opinion, "The logic here is weirdly impeccable. The Republican Party’s dilemma is that House Republicans keeps taking all kinds of unreasonable and unpopular positions. If Obama weren’t president, the House Republicans wouldn’t be taking so many unreasonable and unpopular positions. But since Obama is president, and since he does need to work with House Republicans, he is highlighting their unreasonable and unpopular opinions in a bid to make them change their minds, which is making House Republicans look even worse. And so it’s ultimately Obama’s fault that House Republicans are, say, threatening to breach the debt ceiling if they don’t get their way on spending cuts. After all, if Mitt Romney had won the election, the debt ceiling wouldn’t even be a question!"
Then he comments on Brook's column, "So White House officials’ devious plan to destroy the Republican Party, in Brooks’s view, is that they will propose more moderate, popular policies than they did in their first term, thus making Republicans look terrible when they vote against everything."
Jonathan Chait did the best takedown, David Brooks Now Totally Pathological. He begins:
"Brooks begins by noting that the Grand Bargain on the deficit, which he has spent the last two years relentlessly touting, is not actually possible. Why is it impossible? Because, he writes, “A political class that botched the fiscal cliff so badly are not going to be capable of a gigantic deal on complex issues." Oh, the political class? That’s funny. In 2011, Obama offered an astonishingly generous budget deal to House Republicans, and Brooks argued at the time that if the GOP turned the deal down, it would prove their “fanaticism.” Naturally, they turned it down. Obama continues to offer a bargain including higher revenue through tax reform in return for lower spending on retirement programs, but Republicans refuse to consider higher taxes. So, in summary, this proves “the political class” is to blame."
He then goes through Brooks own examples of simple measures Dems could do that Republicans would like and shows why they're wrong. Education Reform? Obama passed some in 2009 and Brooks praised it. More Visas? Democrates tried last months and Republicans killed it. More natural gas drilling? It's already booming! An infrastructure bank? Republicans have called it DOA. He goes on…
"Right – Obama is the one inviting confrontations over the debt ceiling. Never mind that, before 2011, the debt ceiling was just an occasion for routine posturing, and Republicans insisted on turning it into a showdown with real, dangerous stakes. Also never mind that Obama offered to sign the plan — proposed by Mitch McConnell! — to permanently defuse the debt ceiling and let Republicans use it to posture against him rather than actually threatening a global meltdown. And never mind as well that, by refusing to cave in to extortion, Obama seems to actually be defusing the real danger to the world economy.
This is all Obama’s fault because it makes Republicans “look like whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy.” Brooks displays an almost surreal lack of interest in the underlying reality that Republicans actually are whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy. It is his responsibility to conceal this reality from America."
In These 22 States, Every House Republican Voted Against Sandy Aid
Mother Jones made a map, In These 22 States, Every House Republican Voted Against Sandy Aid "In 22 states, every last Republican representative voted against HR 152 or abstained on the bill, which includes $17 billion for immediate repair and an amendment introduced by a Republican, New Jersey Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, that tacks on another $33.7 billion for long-term recovery and prevention. These included Maryland and the Carolinas (remember Hugo and Floyd?), states that are vulnerable to seasonal hurricanes but were largely spared by Sandy."
Of course they'll claim that they would have voted for the bill if it were paid for. If there were cuts someplace else to find the funds. They would of course reject raising any taxes to cover the money. They also ignore that historically disaster funding has usually been unfunded. Pay now, because it's needed now and find the money later. They also ignore that it works this way because Congress has been too stupid to include an emergency fund in the budget.
They also ignore that both sides play this game. If you disagree with a bill you say it's because it's unfunded and if you agree with it you accuse your opponents of being against it. Kerry's "I voted for it before voting against it" was about exactly this. It was for funding the troops. The first bill payed for it and Republicans voted against it. The second bill was unfunded, yes deficit spending, and the GOP was for it and accused Kerry of being against the troops.
It's just seems so ridiculously stupid and inefficient.
Of course they'll claim that they would have voted for the bill if it were paid for. If there were cuts someplace else to find the funds. They would of course reject raising any taxes to cover the money. They also ignore that historically disaster funding has usually been unfunded. Pay now, because it's needed now and find the money later. They also ignore that it works this way because Congress has been too stupid to include an emergency fund in the budget.
They also ignore that both sides play this game. If you disagree with a bill you say it's because it's unfunded and if you agree with it you accuse your opponents of being against it. Kerry's "I voted for it before voting against it" was about exactly this. It was for funding the troops. The first bill payed for it and Republicans voted against it. The second bill was unfunded, yes deficit spending, and the GOP was for it and accused Kerry of being against the troops.
It's just seems so ridiculously stupid and inefficient.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Air Quality Suffering in China
NASA posts Air Quality Suffering in China "Residents of Beijing and many other cities in China were warned to stay inside in mid-January 2013 as the nation faced one of the worst periods of air quality in recent history. The Chinese government ordered factories to scale back emissions, while hospitals saw spikes of more than 20 to 30 percent in patients complaining of respiratory issues, according to news reports."
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The Great Molasses Flood of 1919
The Boston Globe has pictures of The Great Molasses Flood of 1919 which happened 94 years ago today.
"The infamous molasses flood in Boston was a tragedy like no other. On January 15, 1919, a giant tank in the North End collapsed, sending a wave of an estimated 2.3 million gallons of molasses through the streets of Boston. The devastation the sticky liquid left was shocking. Twenty-one people were killed and 150 injured in its path of destruction."
"The infamous molasses flood in Boston was a tragedy like no other. On January 15, 1919, a giant tank in the North End collapsed, sending a wave of an estimated 2.3 million gallons of molasses through the streets of Boston. The devastation the sticky liquid left was shocking. Twenty-one people were killed and 150 injured in its path of destruction."
Friday, January 11, 2013
The Best of Kickstarter 2012
The Best of Kickstarter 2012 "From groundbreaking projects to inspiring stories, 2012 was a year of many memorable moments on Kickstarter. To celebrate the year that was, our team put together this look back at some of our favorite projects and moments. We hope you enjoy!"
Mapping The Entertainment Ecosystems: A Brief Revisit
Mapping The Entertainment Ecosystems: A Brief Revisit "I’ve decided to briefly revisit the topic today because the original post garnered quite a lot of discussion and feedback and because of two ‘events’ that have since happened. Firstly, Apple yesterday announced an expansion of the iTunes Music Store into dozens of new countries (and Movie store in a few additional countries). Secondly, I have since found two pieces of data on which countries Xbox Music is available in (for some odd reason I cannot find any official Microsoft document detailing the countries it is available in). So below is an update to the Music and Movie diagrams and graphs."
There are more interesting graphs on the page but here's the summary one:
There are more interesting graphs on the page but here's the summary one:
Qualcomm's insane CES 2013 keynote in pictures and tweets
The Verge describes Qualcomm's insane CES 2013 keynote in pictures and tweets "2013 was the first time in many years that Microsoft didn't host the opening keynote for the Consumer Electronics Show here in Las Vegas. Instead, the show went to Qualcomm and its CEO, Dr. Paul Jacobs. We weren't quite sure what to expect beyond a new series of processors, but what we got was weirder than anything we've seen in all of our collective years attending CES. While Chris Ziegler translated the surreal experiences into a liveblog and I took photos of the craziest moments, the rest of the Verge staff took to Twitter to react to the event. You can relive the insanity right here."
Wintry Weather
Wintry Weather "The chill of mid-winter has set in around the northern hemisphere, bringing freezing temperatures to much of Asia, and an unusual snowstorm to the Mideast this week. People are coping where they must and playing where they can, from China to Maine, from Minnesota to Austria. Gathered here are a few recent images of the chilly weather across the north. [34 photos]"
Wintry Weather: Middle East Edition "Following up on yesterday's essay Wintry Weather, I was struck by photographs of the unusually heavy winter storm that just blanketed many Middle Eastern countries in snow. I discovered a wide range of unique images, from Saudis tossing snowballs to Israelis on sleds to the newly white roofs of Istanbul. Gathered here are a handful of those images, showing that, despite the harshness of the storm, some were able to find a moment of joy in the rare snowfall. [32 photos]"
Harbin International Ice and Snow Festival 2013 "The opening ceremonies for this year's Harbin International Ice and Snow Festival in Heilongjiang province in northeastern China were held earlier this week. The event, held since 1963, can last more than a month, depending on the weather, and attracts visitors from around the world who come to see the elaborate ice and snow sculptures. -- Lloyd Young (20 photos total)"
Wintry Weather: Middle East Edition "Following up on yesterday's essay Wintry Weather, I was struck by photographs of the unusually heavy winter storm that just blanketed many Middle Eastern countries in snow. I discovered a wide range of unique images, from Saudis tossing snowballs to Israelis on sleds to the newly white roofs of Istanbul. Gathered here are a handful of those images, showing that, despite the harshness of the storm, some were able to find a moment of joy in the rare snowfall. [32 photos]"
Harbin International Ice and Snow Festival 2013 "The opening ceremonies for this year's Harbin International Ice and Snow Festival in Heilongjiang province in northeastern China were held earlier this week. The event, held since 1963, can last more than a month, depending on the weather, and attracts visitors from around the world who come to see the elaborate ice and snow sculptures. -- Lloyd Young (20 photos total)"
Thursday, January 10, 2013
25 Handy Words That Simply Don’t Exist In English
25 Handy Words That Simply Don’t Exist In English. Here's an example:
"2 Arigata-meiwaku (Japanese): An act someone does for you that you didn’t want to have them do and tried to avoid having them do, but they went ahead anyway, determined to do you a favor, and then things went wrong and caused you a lot of trouble, yet in the end social conventions required you to express gratitude"
"2 Arigata-meiwaku (Japanese): An act someone does for you that you didn’t want to have them do and tried to avoid having them do, but they went ahead anyway, determined to do you a favor, and then things went wrong and caused you a lot of trouble, yet in the end social conventions required you to express gratitude"
Oscar Nominations
I did pretty well in my predictions this year.
I don't know why I only picked 9 nominees for Best Picture, but the Academy did to so that worked out. I got 8 of 9 right. They picked Amour over Moonrise Kingdom. I've seen all of the 8 and Moonrise but not Amour yet.
Director seems to be the big shocker of a category. I got only two picks right, Lincoln and Life of PI which seemed pretty easy. I got three wrong, Zero Dark Thirty, Argo and Django and people seemed quite surprised that Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow didn't get nominated. I'm thrilled that Benh Zeitlin did for Beasts of the Southern Wild. I'm not so sure about David O. Russell for Silver Linings Playbook or Michael Haneke for Amour. Again, I haven't seen Amour yet (and it's not playing anywhere around me) but I'm still kinda pissed about Cache.
I got three right in Actor. I'm pissed that John Hawkes didn't get picked for The Sessions and think he deserved it over Joaquin Phoenix. I have heard good things about Jean-Louis Trintignant in Amour and wasn't as thrilled with Jackman as everyone else seems to be.
I nailed all five picks for Best Actress.
In each of the Supporting categories I went 4/5. I think Leonardo was better than DeNiro and Maggie Smith was better than Jacki Weaver (well, more entertaining at least).
I went 4/5 in each of the writing categories. I really liked Looper and haven't seen Flight yet. I also liked Perks of Being a Wallflower and while Argo was very good, I thought for a 2 hour movie there was very little character development.
Here's the list of feature films (not shorts) by nominations. Aside from Amour, Anna Karenina and Flight, I've seen all the films with more than one nomination. Of the 23 films with just one nomination I've only seen six. I've seen none of the Foreign Language, Animated or Documentary features. I've seen one of the Documentary Shorts, Monday's at Racine at IFF Boston and it was wonderful. And I just watched the nominated Simpsons short on YouTube (a bad illegal copy).
12 Lincoln
11 Life of Pi
8 Silver Linings Playbook
8 Les Misérables
7 Argo
5 Zero Dark Thirty
5 Skyfall
5 Django Unchained
5 Amour
4 Beasts of the Southern Wild
4 Anna Karenina
3 The Master
3 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
2 Snow White and the Huntsman
2 Flight
1 Wreck-It Ralph
1 War Witch
1 The Sessions
1 The Pirates! Band of Misfits
1 The Invisible War
1 The Impossible
1 The Gatekeepers
1 The Avengers
1 Ted
1 Searching for Sugar Man
1 Prometheus
1 ParaNorman
1 No
1 Moonrise Kingdom
1 Mirror Mirror
1 Kon-Tiki
1 How to Survive a Plague
1 Hitchcock
1 Frankenweenie
1 Chasing Ice
1 Brave
1 A Royal Affair
1 5 Broken Cameras
I am surprised at how many categories I've already completed. I've seen all the nominees in 7 categories (both supporting, adapted screenplay, editing, makeup, and both sound categories). In another 8 categories I only need to see one film to complete them, and once I see just two films (Amour and Anna Karenina) I'll have completed five of these 8 categories.
I don't know why I only picked 9 nominees for Best Picture, but the Academy did to so that worked out. I got 8 of 9 right. They picked Amour over Moonrise Kingdom. I've seen all of the 8 and Moonrise but not Amour yet.
Director seems to be the big shocker of a category. I got only two picks right, Lincoln and Life of PI which seemed pretty easy. I got three wrong, Zero Dark Thirty, Argo and Django and people seemed quite surprised that Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow didn't get nominated. I'm thrilled that Benh Zeitlin did for Beasts of the Southern Wild. I'm not so sure about David O. Russell for Silver Linings Playbook or Michael Haneke for Amour. Again, I haven't seen Amour yet (and it's not playing anywhere around me) but I'm still kinda pissed about Cache.
I got three right in Actor. I'm pissed that John Hawkes didn't get picked for The Sessions and think he deserved it over Joaquin Phoenix. I have heard good things about Jean-Louis Trintignant in Amour and wasn't as thrilled with Jackman as everyone else seems to be.
I nailed all five picks for Best Actress.
In each of the Supporting categories I went 4/5. I think Leonardo was better than DeNiro and Maggie Smith was better than Jacki Weaver (well, more entertaining at least).
I went 4/5 in each of the writing categories. I really liked Looper and haven't seen Flight yet. I also liked Perks of Being a Wallflower and while Argo was very good, I thought for a 2 hour movie there was very little character development.
Here's the list of feature films (not shorts) by nominations. Aside from Amour, Anna Karenina and Flight, I've seen all the films with more than one nomination. Of the 23 films with just one nomination I've only seen six. I've seen none of the Foreign Language, Animated or Documentary features. I've seen one of the Documentary Shorts, Monday's at Racine at IFF Boston and it was wonderful. And I just watched the nominated Simpsons short on YouTube (a bad illegal copy).
12 Lincoln
11 Life of Pi
8 Silver Linings Playbook
8 Les Misérables
7 Argo
5 Zero Dark Thirty
5 Skyfall
5 Django Unchained
5 Amour
4 Beasts of the Southern Wild
4 Anna Karenina
3 The Master
3 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
2 Snow White and the Huntsman
2 Flight
1 Wreck-It Ralph
1 War Witch
1 The Sessions
1 The Pirates! Band of Misfits
1 The Invisible War
1 The Impossible
1 The Gatekeepers
1 The Avengers
1 Ted
1 Searching for Sugar Man
1 Prometheus
1 ParaNorman
1 No
1 Moonrise Kingdom
1 Mirror Mirror
1 Kon-Tiki
1 How to Survive a Plague
1 Hitchcock
1 Frankenweenie
1 Chasing Ice
1 Brave
1 A Royal Affair
1 5 Broken Cameras
I am surprised at how many categories I've already completed. I've seen all the nominees in 7 categories (both supporting, adapted screenplay, editing, makeup, and both sound categories). In another 8 categories I only need to see one film to complete them, and once I see just two films (Amour and Anna Karenina) I'll have completed five of these 8 categories.
Oscar Nomination Predictions
Oscar nominations are tomorrow morning, here are some last minute predictions for the big categories:
Picture: Lincoln, Les Miserables, Zero Dark Thirty, Argo, Silver Linings Playbook, Life of Pi, Moonrise Kingdom, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained
Director: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln; Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty; Ben Affleck, Argo; Ang Lee, Life of Pi; Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained
Actor: Daniel Day Lewis, Lincoln; John Hawkes, The Sessions; Denzel Washington, Flight; Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook; Jean-Louis Trintignant, Amour
Actress: Jessica Chastin, Zero Dark Thirty; Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook; Naomi Watts, The Impossible; Quvenzhane Wallis, Beasts of the Southern Wild; Emmanuelle Riva, Amour
Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln; Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained; Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master; Alan Arkin, Argo; Leonardo diCaprio, Django Unchained
Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables; Sally Field, Lincoln; Helen Hunt, The Sessions; Amy Adams, The Master; Maggie Smith, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Adapted Screenplay: Lincoln, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Perks of Being a Wallflower Silver Linings Playbook, Life of Pi
Original Screenplay: Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained, Moonrise Kingdom, Amour, Looper
Picture: Lincoln, Les Miserables, Zero Dark Thirty, Argo, Silver Linings Playbook, Life of Pi, Moonrise Kingdom, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained
Director: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln; Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty; Ben Affleck, Argo; Ang Lee, Life of Pi; Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained
Actor: Daniel Day Lewis, Lincoln; John Hawkes, The Sessions; Denzel Washington, Flight; Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook; Jean-Louis Trintignant, Amour
Actress: Jessica Chastin, Zero Dark Thirty; Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook; Naomi Watts, The Impossible; Quvenzhane Wallis, Beasts of the Southern Wild; Emmanuelle Riva, Amour
Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln; Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained; Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master; Alan Arkin, Argo; Leonardo diCaprio, Django Unchained
Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables; Sally Field, Lincoln; Helen Hunt, The Sessions; Amy Adams, The Master; Maggie Smith, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Adapted Screenplay: Lincoln, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Perks of Being a Wallflower Silver Linings Playbook, Life of Pi
Original Screenplay: Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained, Moonrise Kingdom, Amour, Looper
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Monopoly to Replace One Classic Playing Token
Which piece will get the boot? Monopoly to scrap one classic playing token - Telegraph "One of eight classic Monopoly tokens will go straight to jail without a get out of jail free card after makers of the board game decided to scrap one playing piece and replace it with a modern-day alternative."
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
2012 Was Hottest Year Ever in U.S.
2012 Was Hottest Year Ever in U.S.
"The numbers are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the corn belt and a massive storm that caused broad devastation in the mid-Atlantic states, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.
How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit."
"The numbers are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the corn belt and a massive storm that caused broad devastation in the mid-Atlantic states, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.
How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit."
Movies Seen in 2012
In 2011 I saw 366 feature length films. I didn't do that in 2012. I saw a respectable 197 features and 44 shorts. Of those 197 features, 4 were TV original movies.
I used the Academy's definition of short, that is under 40 minutes long. 46% I watched on cable, and 44% were in a theater (this is the first question people usually ask). The rest were online or via netflix or DVD. 11% I had seen before, the rest were first times. (This is the second question people ask and yes reruns count. Seeing Casablanca a second or third time is still seeing a movie).
My year was definitely front loaded with lots of movies. That's mostly Oscar season and IFFBoston (which is awesome).
The bulk of the films I saw were from 2011 and 2012. I rated all the films on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the best. I use what's mostly a Netflix scale. 3 is ok, 4 I really liked and 5 is great. 2 I didn't like and 1 I hated. I didn't see many fives this year and I was pretty good about only seeing reruns that I liked. It's not quite a balanced bell curve of quality.
These don't include shorts, I think I saw too few foreign films.
I'm mostly happy with how I break down genres but it's still hard to get one and only one sub-genre for a film and I didn't always do that (particularly for dramas). These charts include shorts.
I kept track of which theaters and TV channels I saw movies. These get a little rainbow in the long tail, but there are a few surprises. These don't include shorts (some of which I saw at IFF Boston) and still the Somerville Theatre was got 26% of all my theaters. I'm also surprised the Kendell got almost that much (no shorts there). I'm not surprised that TCM and HBO came in first in cable channels, but I'm a little surprised that EPIX came in third (I think I got that channel just a year or so ago).
Here's the list of everything:
I used the Academy's definition of short, that is under 40 minutes long. 46% I watched on cable, and 44% were in a theater (this is the first question people usually ask). The rest were online or via netflix or DVD. 11% I had seen before, the rest were first times. (This is the second question people ask and yes reruns count. Seeing Casablanca a second or third time is still seeing a movie).
My year was definitely front loaded with lots of movies. That's mostly Oscar season and IFFBoston (which is awesome).
The bulk of the films I saw were from 2011 and 2012. I rated all the films on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the best. I use what's mostly a Netflix scale. 3 is ok, 4 I really liked and 5 is great. 2 I didn't like and 1 I hated. I didn't see many fives this year and I was pretty good about only seeing reruns that I liked. It's not quite a balanced bell curve of quality.
These don't include shorts, I think I saw too few foreign films.
I'm mostly happy with how I break down genres but it's still hard to get one and only one sub-genre for a film and I didn't always do that (particularly for dramas). These charts include shorts.
I kept track of which theaters and TV channels I saw movies. These get a little rainbow in the long tail, but there are a few surprises. These don't include shorts (some of which I saw at IFF Boston) and still the Somerville Theatre was got 26% of all my theaters. I'm also surprised the Kendell got almost that much (no shorts there). I'm not surprised that TCM and HBO came in first in cable channels, but I'm a little surprised that EPIX came in third (I think I got that channel just a year or so ago).
Here's the list of everything:
When | Type | Title | Year | Country | Rating |
Jan 1 | Feature | Rango | 2011 | US | 4 |
Jan 2 | Feature | Sophies Choice | 1983 | US | 4 |
Jan 3 | Feature | Angels Crest | 2011 | US | 2 |
Jan 4 | Feature | The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo | 2011 | US | 4 |
Jan 5 | Feature | The Adventures of Tintin | 2011 | US | 3 |
Jan 6 | Feature | Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol | 2011 | US | 4 |
Jan 7 | Feature | Stardust Memories | 1980 | US | 2 |
Jan 8 | Feature | The Gold Rush | 1925 | US | 4 |
Jan 8 | Feature | Wages of Fear | 1953 | France | 5 |
Jan 9 | Feature | The Kid | 1921 | US | 4 |
Jan 12 | Feature | Inception | 2010 | US | 5 |
Jan 14 | Feature | Airplane | 1980 | US | 4 |
Jan 15 | Feature | Monty Python and the Holy Grail | 1974 | Britain | 5 |
Jan 24 | Feature | Paradise Lost | 1996 | US | 4 |
Jan 24 | Short | Small Fry | 2011 | US | 3 |
Jan 24 | Feature | The Muppets | 2011 | US | 3 |
Jan 25 | Feature | Paradise Lost 3 | 2011 | US | 4 |
Jan 25 | Feature | Paradise Lost 2 | 2000 | US | 3 |
Jan 25 | Feature | Pina | 2011 | Germany | 4 |
Jan 26 | Feature | Celeste and Jesse Forever | 2012 | US | 3 |
Jan 27 | Feature | The Grand Illusion | 1937 | France | 4 |
Jan 28 | Feature | Hell and Back Again | 2011 | US | 4 |
Jan 29 | Feature | The Train | 1964 | US | 5 |
Jan 29 | Feature | Haywire | 2012 | US | 4 |
Jan 31 | Feature | Arthur | 2011 | US | 2 |
Feb 1 | Feature | Albert Nobbs | 2011 | US | 3 |
Feb 1 | Feature | The Iron Lady | 2011 | US | 1 |
Feb 2 | Feature | A Better Life | 2011 | US | 4 |
Feb 3 | Feature | Jane Eyre | 2011 | Britain | 4 |
Feb 4 | Feature | Carnage | 2011 | France | 3 |
Feb 7 | Feature | Bridesmaids | 2011 | US | 2 |
Feb 9 | Feature | War Horse | 2011 | US | 2 |
Feb 11 | Feature | Brigadoon | 1954 | US | 4 |
Feb 11 | Feature | Warrior | 2011 | US | 4 |
Feb 12 | Feature | Kevin Smith: Burn in Hell | 2012 | US | 3 |
Feb 12 | Short | Pentecost | 2011 | Ireland | 4 |
Feb 12 | Short | Time Freak | 2011 | US | 4 |
Feb 12 | Short | Dimanche/Sunday | 2011 | Canada | 4 |
Feb 12 | Short | La Luna | 2011 | US | 4 |
Feb 12 | Short | A Morning Stroll | 2011 | Britain | 4 |
Feb 12 | Short | Tuba Atlantic | 2011 | Norway | 3 |
Feb 12 | Short | Nullarbor | 2011 | Australia | 3 |
Feb 12 | Short | Skylight | 2011 | Canada | 3 |
Feb 12 | Short | Hybrid Union | 2011 | US | 3 |
Feb 12 | Short | Raju | 2011 | Germany | 2 |
Feb 12 | Short | The Shore | 2011 | Ireland | 2 |
Feb 12 | Short | The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore | 2011 | US | 2 |
Feb 12 | Short | Amazonia | 2011 | US | 2 |
Feb 12 | Short | Wild Life | 2011 | Canada | 1 |
Feb 13 | Feature | A Separation | 2011 | Iran | 4 |
Feb 14 | Feature | Rio | 2011 | US | 3 |
Feb 14 | Feature | Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close | 2011 | US | 2 |
Feb 15 | Feature | Transformers: Dark of the Moon | 2011 | US | 1 |
Feb 15 | Short | Saving Face | 2011 | US | 5 |
Feb 15 | Short | Incident in New Baghdad | 2011 | US | 4 |
Feb 15 | Short | The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom | 2011 | US | 4 |
Feb 15 | Short | The Barber of Birmingham | 2011 | US | 3 |
Feb 19 | Feature | The Big Fix | 2011 | US | 4 |
Feb 19 | Feature | The Heir Apparent: Largo Winch | 2011 | France | 4 |
Feb 19 | Short | Therapy | 2011 | US | 3 |
Feb 19 | Short | Ruby and the Wolf | 2011 | US | 2 |
Feb 19 | Feature | Cracks | 2011 | Britain | 2 |
Feb 23 | Feature | Real Steel | 2011 | US | 3 |
Feb 24 | Feature | Bullhead | 2011 | Belgium | 2 |
Mar 1 | Feature | Casino Jack | 2010 | US | 2 |
Mar 1 | Feature | Hobo with a Shotgun | 2011 | US | 2 |
Mar 1 | Feature | Attack the Block | 2011 | Britain | 4 |
Mar 2 | Feature | Louis C. K.: Hilarious | 2010 | US | 4 |
Mar 2 | Feature | The Long Hot Summer | 1958 | US | 2 |
Mar 4 | Feature | Hanna | 2011 | US | 4 |
Mar 4 | Feature | Louis C. K.: Live at the Beacon Theater | 2011 | US | 4 |
Mar 4 | Feature | Kill List | 2012 | Britain | 2 |
Mar 5 | Feature | Exporting Raymond | 2012 | US | 3 |
Mar 5 | Feature | The Temptress | 1926 | US | 2 |
Mar 6 | Feature | Shadows and Fog | 1991 | US | 3 |
Mar 6 | Feature | Cedar Rapids | 2011 | US | 3 |
Mar 6 | Feature | Rubberneck | 2012 | US | 4 |
Mar 8 | Feature | Freakonomics | 2010 | US | 4 |
Mar 9 | Feature | The Curious Case of Curt Flood | 2011 | US | 4 |
Mar 9 | Feature | Shaft | 1971 | US | 2 |
Mar 10 | TV | Game Change | 2012 | US | 3 |
Mar 11 | Feature | In Darkness | 2011 | Poland | 4 |
Mar 12 | Feature | Fat Man and Little Boy | 1989 | US | 3 |
Mar 12 | Feature | Win Win | 2011 | US | 4 |
Mar 12 | Feature | X-Men: First Class | 2011 | US | 4 |
Mar 13 | Feature | Five Fingers | 2006 | US | 3 |
Mar 13 | Feature | The Loving Story | 2011 | US | 3 |
Mar 14 | Feature | The Speed of Thought | 2011 | US | 1 |
Mar 15 | Feature | Thor | 2011 | US | 3 |
Mar 18 | Feature | Green Lantern | 2011 | US | 2 |
Mar 18 | Feature | 21 Jump Street | 2012 | US | 3 |
Mar 18 | Feature | Being Flynn | 2012 | US | 3 |
Mar 19 | Feature | Bad Teacher | 2011 | US | 3 |
Mar 23 | Feature | John Carter | 2012 | US | 3 |
Mar 25 | Feature | The Hunger Games | 2012 | US | 4 |
Mar 31 | Feature | Moonrise Kingdom | 2012 | US | 2 |
Apr 1 | Feature | The Raid: Redemption | 2012 | Indonesia | 2 |
Apr 6 | Feature | The Hunter | 2012 | Australia | 3 |
Apr 6 | Feature | Goon | 2012 | US | 2 |
Apr 7 | Feature | Monogamy | 2011 | US | 2 |
Apr 8 | Feature | Daybreakers | 2010 | Australia | 3 |
Apr 8 | Feature | Indiscreet | 1958 | US | 3 |
Apr 8 | Feature | The Adjustment Bureau | 2011 | US | 3 |
Apr 8 | Feature | Jiro Dreams of Sushi | 2012 | US | 3 |
Apr 10 | Feature | Friends With Benefits | 2011 | US | 3 |
Apr 11 | Short | God is the Bigger Elvis | 2011 | US | 3 |
Apr 11 | Short | Caines Arcade | 2012 | US | 4 |
Apr 15 | Feature | The Cabin in the Woods | 2012 | US | 5 |
Apr 19 | Feature | The Thin Blue Line | 1988 | US | 4 |
Apr 19 | Feature | Indie Games | 2012 | US | 4 |
Apr 22 | Feature | Conan the Barbarian | 2011 | US | 2 |
Apr 22 | Feature | Monsieur Lazhar | 2011 | Canada | 3 |
Apr 23 | Feature | Revenge of the Electric Car | 2011 | US | 3 |
Apr 23 | Short | Youre Darn Tootin | 1928 | US | 3 |
Apr 23 | Short | Two Tars | 1928 | US | 3 |
Apr 23 | Short | Putting Pants on Philip | 1927 | US | 3 |
Apr 23 | Short | Do Detectives Think? | 1927 | US | 3 |
Apr 25 | Feature | Sleepwalk With Me | 2012 | US | 4 |
Apr 26 | Feature | The Imposter | 2012 | US | 4 |
Apr 26 | Feature | Polisse | 2012 | France | 3 |
Apr 27 | Feature | Burn | 2012 | US | 5 |
Apr 27 | Feature | Headhunters | 2012 | Norway | 5 |
Apr 28 | Short | CatCam | 2012 | US | 5 |
Apr 28 | Feature | Were Not Broke | 2012 | US | 4 |
Apr 28 | Short | Neve & Sons | 2012 | US | 4 |
Apr 28 | Feature | Kunckleball! | 2012 | US | 4 |
Apr 28 | Feature | We Are Legion | 2012 | US | 4 |
Apr 28 | Feature | God Bless America | 2012 | US | 4 |
Apr 28 | Short | The Lookout | 2012 | US | 3 |
Apr 28 | Short | Extraordinary Harvest | 2012 | US | 2 |
Apr 29 | Short | Aglow | 2012 | US | 5 |
Apr 29 | Short | Mondays at Racine | 2012 | US | 5 |
Apr 29 | Short | The Love Competition | 2012 | US | 4 |
Apr 29 | Feature | From Nothing, Something | 2012 | US | |
Apr 29 | Feature | Downeast | 2012 | US | 2 |
Apr 29 | Feature | Trishna | 2012 | Britain | 2 |
Apr 30 | Feature | Beware of Mr. Baker | 2012 | US | 5 |
Apr 30 | Feature | Beauty is Embarrassing | 2012 | US | 4 |
May 1 | Feature | Paul Williams Still Alive | 2012 | US | 4 |
May 1 | Feature | Rubberneck | 2012 | US | 3 |
May 2 | Feature | The Queen of Versailles | 2012 | US | 4 |
May 6 | Feature | The Avengers | 2012 | US | 5 |
May 13 | Feature | Alien | 1979 | US | 5 |
May 13 | Feature | Dark Shadows | 2012 | US | 1 |
May 15 | Feature | Meeting Evil | 2012 | US | 2 |
May 24 | Feature | Everything Must Go | 2011 | US | 4 |
May 24 | Feature | The Men | 1950 | US | 3 |
May 24 | Feature | Larry Crowne | 2011 | US | 2 |
May 26 | Feature | Rififi | 1955 | France | 4 |
May 27 | Feature | The Avengers | 2012 | US | 5 |
May 28 | Feature | Super 8 | 2011 | US | 1 |
May 28 | Feature | Alien 3 | 1992 | US | 3 |
May 28 | Feature | 30 Minutes or Less | 2011 | US | 2 |
Jun 2 | Feature | Alien Resurrection | 1997 | US | 2 |
Jun 3 | Feature | Best Exotic Marigold Hotel | 2012 | Britain | 4 |
Jun 5 | Short | Lucky Day Forever | 2012 | Poland | 3 |
Jun 6 | Feature | Beasts of the Southern Wild | 2012 | US | 5 |
Jun 10 | Feature | Prometheus | 2012 | US | 3 |
Jun 12 | Feature | Centurion | 2010 | Britain | 3 |
Jun 16 | Feature | Captain America | 2011 | US | 4 |
Jun 16 | Feature | The Beaver | 2011 | US | 3 |
Jun 17 | Feature | Face/Off | 1997 | US | 1 |
Jun 22 | Feature | Street Scene | 1921 | US | 3 |
Jun 24 | Feature | Cure For Pain: The Mark Sandman Story | 2011 | US | 3 |
Jun 30 | Short | Multiple Sidosis | 1970 | US | 3 |
Jul 1 | Feature | Your Sisters Sister | 2012 | US | 3 |
Jul 13 | Feature | Hesher | 2010 | US | 3 |
Jul 13 | TV | Page Eight | 2011 | Britain | 3 |
Jul 14 | Feature | With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story | 2010 | US | 3 |
Jul 14 | Feature | Days of Heaven | 1978 | US | 4 |
Jul 14 | Feature | In Time | 2011 | US | 2 |
Jul 14 | Feature | Kissing Jessica Stein | 2001 | US | 3 |
Jul 15 | Feature | Safety Not Guaranteed | 2012 | US | 4 |
Jul 17 | TV | Roadracers | 1994 | US | 3 |
Jul 17 | Feature | Take This Waltz | 2012 | US | 4 |
Jul 17 | Feature | Meeks Cutoff | 2011 | US | 2 |
Jul 22 | Feature | Nixon | 1995 | US | 4 |
Jul 22 | Feature | The Dark Knight Rises | 2012 | US | 4 |
Jul 23 | Feature | Batman Begins | 2005 | US | 5 |
Jul 24 | Feature | The Dark Knight | 2008 | US | 5 |
Jul 24 | Feature | The Dark Knight Rises | 2012 | US | 5 |
Aug 2 | Short | Sight | 2012 | Israel | 4 |
Aug 5 | Feature | Easy Money | 2012 | Sweden | 3 |
Aug 12 | Feature | The Bourne Legacy | 2012 | US | 2 |
Aug 19 | Feature | Killer Joe | 2012 | US | 4 |
Sep 3 | Feature | Barefoot in the Park | 1967 | US | 4 |
Sep 3 | Short | The Guilt | 2012 | Spain | 4 |
Sep 4 | Feature | From the Terrace | 1960 | US | 2 |
Sep 4 | Feature | In a Better World | 2011 | Denmark | 5 |
Sep 6 | Feature | Martha Marcie May Marlene | 2011 | US | 3 |
Sep 9 | Feature | Oslo, August 31 | 2012 | Norway | |
Sep 11 | Short | Time Piece | 1965 | US | 4 |
Sep 14 | Feature | Once Upon a Time in the West | 1969 | Italy | 4 |
Sep 14 | Feature | Man on Fire | 2004 | US | 2 |
Sep 18 | Feature | The Merry Widow | 1925 | US | 1 |
Sep 21 | Short | The Daredevil | 1923 | US | 3 |
Sep 21 | Feature | The Extra Girl | 1923 | US | 2 |
Sep 23 | Feature | The Master | 2012 | US | 2 |
Sep 25 | Feature | Tower Heist | 2011 | US | 2 |
Sep 26 | Feature | Wild Target | 2010 | Britain | 3 |
Sep 27 | Feature | Winchester 73 | 1950 | US | 4 |
Sep 27 | Short | Peace on Earth | 1939 | US | 4 |
Sep 27 | Short | Good Will to Men | 1955 | US | 4 |
Sep 30 | Feature | Looper | 2012 | US | 4 |
Oct 7 | Feature | Taken 2 | 2012 | US | 3 |
Oct 13 | Short | Partysaurus Rex | 2012 | US | 3 |
Oct 14 | Feature | Argo | 2012 | US | 4 |
Oct 20 | TV | The Girl | 2012 | US | 2 |
Oct 21 | Feature | Seven Psychopaths | 2012 | US | 4 |
Oct 24 | Feature | Perks of Being a Wallflower | 2012 | US | 4 |
Oct 30 | Feature | The Last Hurrah | 1958 | US | 3 |
Nov 3 | Feature | Contraband | 2012 | US | 3 |
Nov 5 | Feature | The Sessions | 2012 | US | 4 |
Nov 10 | Feature | Chronicle | 2012 | US | 3 |
Nov 10 | Feature | Cloud Atlas | 2012 | US | 4 |
Nov 11 | Feature | Red State | 2011 | US | 2 |
Nov 11 | Feature | Skyfall | 2012 | UK | 3 |
Nov 21 | Feature | Silver Linings Playbook | 2012 | US | 3 |
Nov 23 | Feature | Ides of March | 2011 | US | 3 |
Nov 23 | Feature | Dial M For Murder | 1954 | US | 5 |
Nov 23 | Feature | Kiss The Girls | 1997 | US | 3 |
Nov 24 | Feature | Red Tails | 2012 | US | 3 |
Nov 25 | Feature | Aliens of the Deep | 2005 | US | 3 |
Dec 2 | Feature | We Bought a Zoo | 2011 | US | 3 |
Dec 2 | Feature | The Greatest Movie Ever Sold | 2011 | US | 3 |
Dec 4 | Feature | The Recruit | 2003 | US | 3 |
Dec 4 | Feature | 360 | 2012 | Britain | 3 |
Dec 10 | Feature | The Rainmaker | 1997 | US | 4 |
Dec 10 | Feature | Hitchcock | 2012 | US | 3 |
Dec 11 | Feature | Lincoln | 2012 | US | 4 |
Dec 14 | Feature | Life of Pi | 2012 | US | 3 |
Dec 16 | Feature | The Hobbit 1 | 2012 | US | 3 |
Dec 18 | Feature | Deadfall | 2012 | US | 2 |
Dec 20 | Short | Notes on Liberty | 2009 | US | 2 |
Dec 20 | Feature | Chasing Ice | 2012 | US | 3 |
Dec 23 | Feature | The Big Year | 2011 | US | 3 |
Dec 23 | Feature | The Distinguished Gentleman | 1992 | US | 4 |
Dec 24 | Feature | Hope Springs | 2012 | US | 3 |
Dec 25 | Feature | The Odd Life of TImothy Green | 2012 | US | 3 |
Dec 26 | Feature | The Visitor | 2011 | US | 4 |
Dec 31 | Feature | Les Miserables | 1934 | France | 4 |
Monday, January 07, 2013
Winners of the National Geographic Photo Contest 2012
Winners of the National Geographic Photo Contest 2012 - In Focus - The Atlantic "The winners have just been announced of this year's National Geographic photo contest. The Society received more than 22,000 entries from over 150 countries. Presented here are the winners from the three categories of People, Places, and Nature, captions provided by the photographers. The Grand Prize Winner receives $10,000 and a trip to National Geographic headquarters in Washington, D.C., to participate in the annual National Geographic Photography Seminar in January 2013. Be sure to also see earlier In Focus collections of entries: Part I and Part II. [14 photos]"
Saturday, January 05, 2013
We Don't Have a Spending Problem. We Have an Aging Problem
Kevin Drum explains We Don't Have a Spending Problem. We Have an Aging Problem.
"But even with the 2008 recession, federal spending is still on track to be lower a decade from now than it was when Reagan took office…tax revenue was 19.6 percent of GDP when Reagan took office, and it's projected to be 19.2 percent of GDP in 2017."
"The facts are pretty clear. Spending isn't our big problem. The recession spike of 2008 aside, it's about the same as it was 30 years ago. But instead of paying for that spending, we've repeatedly cut taxes, which are now at their lowest level in half a century. Tax revenue will go up as the economy improves, but even five years from now it will still be lower than it was when Reagan took office.
So what's our real problem? That's simple: America is getting older and healthcare costs are rising. That means we'll need to spend more money in the future on Social Security and Medicare. There's simply no way around that unless we're willing to immiserate our elderly, and that's not going to happen. Not only is it politically inconceivable, but the truth is that even Republicans don't want to do it, no matter how tough a game they talk. Like it or not, this means that over the next 20 or 30 years, spending on the elderly is going to go up by three or four percent of GDP."
"Add in the increased spending on the elderly, and federal outlays are going to be in the neighborhood of 23-24 percent of GDP by around 2030. Those are simply the facts. Even under a scenario where we control spending pretty tightly, spending is going to go up to about 24 percent of GDP."
He showed some graphs and they were simple enough I tried to recreate them in FRED. It's always a little tricky as FRED has lots of different versions of economic statistics and I don't understand the subtle (or maybe not so subtle differences) but I got basically what he showed for Current Federal Expenses (red) and Current Federal Receipts (green) and divided by GDP, I also ran it back to 1947 (note his include estimates out to 2017 that I couldn't do in FRED).
"But even with the 2008 recession, federal spending is still on track to be lower a decade from now than it was when Reagan took office…tax revenue was 19.6 percent of GDP when Reagan took office, and it's projected to be 19.2 percent of GDP in 2017."
"The facts are pretty clear. Spending isn't our big problem. The recession spike of 2008 aside, it's about the same as it was 30 years ago. But instead of paying for that spending, we've repeatedly cut taxes, which are now at their lowest level in half a century. Tax revenue will go up as the economy improves, but even five years from now it will still be lower than it was when Reagan took office.
So what's our real problem? That's simple: America is getting older and healthcare costs are rising. That means we'll need to spend more money in the future on Social Security and Medicare. There's simply no way around that unless we're willing to immiserate our elderly, and that's not going to happen. Not only is it politically inconceivable, but the truth is that even Republicans don't want to do it, no matter how tough a game they talk. Like it or not, this means that over the next 20 or 30 years, spending on the elderly is going to go up by three or four percent of GDP."
"Add in the increased spending on the elderly, and federal outlays are going to be in the neighborhood of 23-24 percent of GDP by around 2030. Those are simply the facts. Even under a scenario where we control spending pretty tightly, spending is going to go up to about 24 percent of GDP."
He showed some graphs and they were simple enough I tried to recreate them in FRED. It's always a little tricky as FRED has lots of different versions of economic statistics and I don't understand the subtle (or maybe not so subtle differences) but I got basically what he showed for Current Federal Expenses (red) and Current Federal Receipts (green) and divided by GDP, I also ran it back to 1947 (note his include estimates out to 2017 that I couldn't do in FRED).
Yes, House Republicans supported the fiscal cliff deal
Yes, House Republicans supported the fiscal cliff deal "What we saw, in other words, wasn’t Boehner betraying the will of most House Republicans. It’s that what most House Republicans wanted was for the fiscal cliff deal to pass without them having to provide the votes to pass it. A majority of the majority favored passage of the fiscal cliff deal, even if they didn’t favor voting ‘yes’ themselves, and that’s why the bill was sent to the floor without being amended."
Why the fights over disaster relief in Congress keep getting worse
Why the fights over disaster relief in Congress keep getting worse
"Since the 1980s, Congress has been picking up a bigger portion of the tab for damage caused by tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms and all manner of disasters.
Now, there are arguments for and against the federal government getting more involved in disaster relief. On the plus side: It’s easier for Congress to borrow money for emergencies than it is for state and local governments. On the minus side: Many federal aid programs encourage development in disaster-prone areas. That makes future hurricanes and floods even more expensive.
But whatever the merits, the authors point out that Congress has never planned for this rapid growth in federal disaster aid. A huge portion of relief spending isn’t budgeted ahead of time — it’s just approved on an emergency, ad hoc basis. That’s not very transparent, and it’s not a great way to make policy.
How big a deal is this? Quite big: ‘Given the current approach to disaster relief funding,’ the NBER authors write, ‘we project an ‘unfunded’ liability for disaster assistance over the next seventy-five years comparable to that of Social Security.’ And the problem could get worse still as climate change and sea-level rise make floods and other natural disasters more frequent and more destructive."
"Since the 1980s, Congress has been picking up a bigger portion of the tab for damage caused by tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms and all manner of disasters.
Now, there are arguments for and against the federal government getting more involved in disaster relief. On the plus side: It’s easier for Congress to borrow money for emergencies than it is for state and local governments. On the minus side: Many federal aid programs encourage development in disaster-prone areas. That makes future hurricanes and floods even more expensive.
But whatever the merits, the authors point out that Congress has never planned for this rapid growth in federal disaster aid. A huge portion of relief spending isn’t budgeted ahead of time — it’s just approved on an emergency, ad hoc basis. That’s not very transparent, and it’s not a great way to make policy.
How big a deal is this? Quite big: ‘Given the current approach to disaster relief funding,’ the NBER authors write, ‘we project an ‘unfunded’ liability for disaster assistance over the next seventy-five years comparable to that of Social Security.’ And the problem could get worse still as climate change and sea-level rise make floods and other natural disasters more frequent and more destructive."
The jobs report in six charts
The jobs report in six charts "December’s jobs report showed a holding pattern. A gain of 155,000 jobs is a decent but hardly spectacular figure, while unemployment stayed constant at 7.8 percent. As we do every month, let’s break down the Bureau of Labor Statistics report’s main findings, in six charts."
Friday, January 04, 2013
The December jobs report proves the fiscal cliff deal a farce
I agree with Ezra Klein, The December jobs report proves the fiscal cliff deal a farce
"Let’s say I gave you three pieces of information about the U.S. economy. First, we have a terrible unemployment problem that’s not solving itself anytime soon. Second, we’re running big deficits that we expect will become unsustainable in the coming years, though there’s no evidence that the market is even mildly concerned about them right now. Third, we can borrow for next to nothing because the world sees us as a rare safe harbor during a time of global economic turmoil. What sort of economic policy would you design?
It’s not a particularly hard question. First, you’d want policies to create jobs, like a big tax credit for businesses that hire new workers and a large investment in rebuilding infrastructure. Then, you’d want a plan that brought both deficits and debt-to-GDP down in the coming years.
Typically, this is where you’d run into trouble: The policies to create jobs cost money, making it harder to reduce the deficit. The policies to reduce the deficit require you to cut spending and raise taxes, which tend to destroy jobs.
But, happily, America’s lucky situation means you don’t have to choose. We can borrow for nearly nothing right now — actually, less than nothing after accounting for inflation — and so the obvious answer to your dilemma is to borrow now to create jobs while putting in place a significant deficit-reduction plan that would begin once unemployment fell below, say, seven percent. If you didn’t want to work very hard at coming up with all these plans yourself, you could just pass the White House’s American Jobs Act now and then the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction plan after that."
This all makes so much sense to me and liberals have been saying it for years (and I've been linking to them). I know that politics is polarized and I know that in negotiations if the two sides both say "I want this" and "I want that" you don't get very far. But I always got around that by saying "I want this because…" and explaining what the problem is and why I think the thing I want will help that. Usually that means the other side will offer solutions they think will help the problem and we can figure out which is better. But with polarized sides each getting information from their own sources I don't expect that much in the media.
That's sad and wrong but shouldn't be destroying our country's ability to function. But I don't see the elected officials having talks like this (see this from yesterday). I keep wondering, if Boehner can't rally the tea partiers, when does Obama meet with them (or have Biden or Geithner meet with them) to explain the above and explain why they have their positions? I don't expect Eric Cantor to be convinced while on TV but in a closed meeting with the president? As Paul Krugman says, the facts have a liberal bias, it should be easy to use them to convince someone (anyone) to change their position. But no, as Ezra points out, Washington continues to have the wrong debate.
"Let’s say I gave you three pieces of information about the U.S. economy. First, we have a terrible unemployment problem that’s not solving itself anytime soon. Second, we’re running big deficits that we expect will become unsustainable in the coming years, though there’s no evidence that the market is even mildly concerned about them right now. Third, we can borrow for next to nothing because the world sees us as a rare safe harbor during a time of global economic turmoil. What sort of economic policy would you design?
It’s not a particularly hard question. First, you’d want policies to create jobs, like a big tax credit for businesses that hire new workers and a large investment in rebuilding infrastructure. Then, you’d want a plan that brought both deficits and debt-to-GDP down in the coming years.
Typically, this is where you’d run into trouble: The policies to create jobs cost money, making it harder to reduce the deficit. The policies to reduce the deficit require you to cut spending and raise taxes, which tend to destroy jobs.
But, happily, America’s lucky situation means you don’t have to choose. We can borrow for nearly nothing right now — actually, less than nothing after accounting for inflation — and so the obvious answer to your dilemma is to borrow now to create jobs while putting in place a significant deficit-reduction plan that would begin once unemployment fell below, say, seven percent. If you didn’t want to work very hard at coming up with all these plans yourself, you could just pass the White House’s American Jobs Act now and then the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction plan after that."
This all makes so much sense to me and liberals have been saying it for years (and I've been linking to them). I know that politics is polarized and I know that in negotiations if the two sides both say "I want this" and "I want that" you don't get very far. But I always got around that by saying "I want this because…" and explaining what the problem is and why I think the thing I want will help that. Usually that means the other side will offer solutions they think will help the problem and we can figure out which is better. But with polarized sides each getting information from their own sources I don't expect that much in the media.
That's sad and wrong but shouldn't be destroying our country's ability to function. But I don't see the elected officials having talks like this (see this from yesterday). I keep wondering, if Boehner can't rally the tea partiers, when does Obama meet with them (or have Biden or Geithner meet with them) to explain the above and explain why they have their positions? I don't expect Eric Cantor to be convinced while on TV but in a closed meeting with the president? As Paul Krugman says, the facts have a liberal bias, it should be easy to use them to convince someone (anyone) to change their position. But no, as Ezra points out, Washington continues to have the wrong debate.
Now This is a Cast
I caught a bit of Shame on TV last night and looked up director Steve McQueen's next film. It's called Twelve Years a Slave and has an interesting premise, "A man living in New York during the mid-1800s is kidnapped and sold into slavery in the deep south." But what really impressed me was the cast, it's amazing:
Sherlock Holmes, Tyler Durden, Magneto/David,Carl Jung, Paul/Eli Sunday, Miss Isringhausen, John Adams/Harvey Pekar, Omar/Chalky White, The Operative, John Henry/Francis Wolcott/Jack McCall, Hushpuppy, Jonathan Cavanaugh-san and Lafayette's mother.
Sherlock Holmes, Tyler Durden, Magneto/David,Carl Jung, Paul/Eli Sunday, Miss Isringhausen, John Adams/Harvey Pekar, Omar/Chalky White, The Operative, John Henry/Francis Wolcott/Jack McCall, Hushpuppy, Jonathan Cavanaugh-san and Lafayette's mother.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.
Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.
"If you fear genetically modified food, you may have Mark Lynas to thank. By his own reckoning, British environmentalist helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-‘90s, arguing as recently at 2008 that big corporations’ selfish greed would threaten the health of both people and the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of Lynas and people like him, governments around the world—especially in Western Europe, Asia, and Africa—have hobbled GM research, and NGOs like Greenpeace have spurned donations of genetically modified foods. But Lynas has changed his mind—and he’s not being quiet about it. On Thursday at the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas delivered a blunt address: He got GMOs wrong."
I've never really looked at the issue in detail. My understanding has always been that farmers have crossed plants to make new hybrids and GMOs are just another way of doing that. GMOs can be more controlled in what they change, though it's really hard to know the effects on humans, particularly over the long term, without studies that probably don't happen to the extent we'd like (particularly over the long term). Still I'm for trying to improve things using best current practices. I'm not sure how it all pans out with patent issues and monopolies and while labeling is fine, there's no way to provide the public with information that would be at all useful in a decision. Still, given all that, I'm happy to see that someone discovered science, looked into the issue, and came to a conclusion, particularly one that was different from their original position. That's the way it's supposed to work.
"If you fear genetically modified food, you may have Mark Lynas to thank. By his own reckoning, British environmentalist helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-‘90s, arguing as recently at 2008 that big corporations’ selfish greed would threaten the health of both people and the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of Lynas and people like him, governments around the world—especially in Western Europe, Asia, and Africa—have hobbled GM research, and NGOs like Greenpeace have spurned donations of genetically modified foods. But Lynas has changed his mind—and he’s not being quiet about it. On Thursday at the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas delivered a blunt address: He got GMOs wrong."
I've never really looked at the issue in detail. My understanding has always been that farmers have crossed plants to make new hybrids and GMOs are just another way of doing that. GMOs can be more controlled in what they change, though it's really hard to know the effects on humans, particularly over the long term, without studies that probably don't happen to the extent we'd like (particularly over the long term). Still I'm for trying to improve things using best current practices. I'm not sure how it all pans out with patent issues and monopolies and while labeling is fine, there's no way to provide the public with information that would be at all useful in a decision. Still, given all that, I'm happy to see that someone discovered science, looked into the issue, and came to a conclusion, particularly one that was different from their original position. That's the way it's supposed to work.
The date for filibuster reform: Jan. 22. Probably.
The date for filibuster reform: Jan. 22. Probably.
"But Thursday was the first day of the 113th Congress. And it came and went without filibuster reform. So is filibuster reform dead? Nope. Majority Leader Harry Reid is just making the first day of the session last far longer than the typical 24 hours:
The way this technically works is that Reid is ‘recessing’ rather than ‘adjourning’ for the day. The Senate is a weird place. But the filibuster reform debate is still on the way. Reformers tell me that the expected deadline is Jan. 22, or thereabouts."
"But Thursday was the first day of the 113th Congress. And it came and went without filibuster reform. So is filibuster reform dead? Nope. Majority Leader Harry Reid is just making the first day of the session last far longer than the typical 24 hours:
The way this technically works is that Reid is ‘recessing’ rather than ‘adjourning’ for the day. The Senate is a weird place. But the filibuster reform debate is still on the way. Reformers tell me that the expected deadline is Jan. 22, or thereabouts."
Politicians Should Learn Bigger Lessons From Their Pet Causes
Kevin Drum writes Politicians Should Learn Bigger Lessons From Their Pet Causes.
"But too many politicians, and this especially includes self-described fiscal conservatives, simply can't draw the obvious conclusion from all this: namely that you shouldn't support help for the poor and the sick and elderly only if you personally happen to know someone who's poor or sick or elderly. All of these people exist whether or not they happen to be family members.
So I'd suggest to Kirk that he broaden his horizons. Making sure that Medicaid helps stroke victims is a great idea. But an even better idea is making sure that Medicaid also helps victims of diseases that Mark Kirk hasn't personally confronted. "
I totally agree.
"But too many politicians, and this especially includes self-described fiscal conservatives, simply can't draw the obvious conclusion from all this: namely that you shouldn't support help for the poor and the sick and elderly only if you personally happen to know someone who's poor or sick or elderly. All of these people exist whether or not they happen to be family members.
So I'd suggest to Kirk that he broaden his horizons. Making sure that Medicaid helps stroke victims is a great idea. But an even better idea is making sure that Medicaid also helps victims of diseases that Mark Kirk hasn't personally confronted. "
I totally agree.
10 Reasons Why We Know the Earth is Round
This is from Minute Physics, is short and fun and has some non-obvious points (at least to me).
The 10 juiciest tidbits from the ‘fiscal cliff’ talks
Ezra Klein collects The 10 juiciest tidbits from the ‘fiscal cliff’ talks "Three excellent reconstructions of the fiscal cliff talks have been released by the Washington Post, the National Journal, and Politico. Here are the juiciest and most important parts:"
How Obama Decides Your Fate If He Thinks You're a Terrorist
The Atlantic shows How Obama Decides Your Fate If He Thinks You're a Terrorist.
"Over the years, U.S. authorities have responded with astonishing variety to American nationals suspected of terrorism, from ignoring their activities to conducting lethal drone strikes. All U.S. terrorists are not created equal. And the U.S. response depends heavily on the role of allies, the degree of threat the suspect poses, and the imminence of that threat -- along with other factors. What follows is a flow chart that takes us through the criteria and decision points that can lead to a suspect terrorist’s being ignored as a minor nuisance, being prosecuted in federal court, being held in a Pakistani prison, or being met with the business end of a Hellfire missile."
It's a flow chart, and clicking on each box shows some interesting details.
"Over the years, U.S. authorities have responded with astonishing variety to American nationals suspected of terrorism, from ignoring their activities to conducting lethal drone strikes. All U.S. terrorists are not created equal. And the U.S. response depends heavily on the role of allies, the degree of threat the suspect poses, and the imminence of that threat -- along with other factors. What follows is a flow chart that takes us through the criteria and decision points that can lead to a suspect terrorist’s being ignored as a minor nuisance, being prosecuted in federal court, being held in a Pakistani prison, or being met with the business end of a Hellfire missile."
It's a flow chart, and clicking on each box shows some interesting details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)