The New York Times reported In Trader’s Cocoa Binge, Fear for Chocolate Prices
"Mr. Ward, 50, is not some rabid chocoholic, former employees say. He simply has a head for cocoa. And, through his private investment firm, Armajaro, he now controls a cache equal to 7 percent of annual cocoa production worldwide, a big enough chunk to sway prices."
"Now, traders here are buzzing that Mr. Ward has placed an audacious $1 billion bet in the London market for cocoa futures. This month, he bought 241,100 metric tons of beans, they say. His play has some people up in arms. While some see it as a simple bet that cocoa prices will rise on falling supply, others say Mr. Ward has created a shortage of cocoa simply to drive up the price himself."
Monday, July 26, 2010
Who Cooked the Planet?
Paul Krugman answers Who Cooked the Planet? "Alas, Mr. McCain wasn’t alone; and there will be no climate bill. Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price."
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Vegetative State
In June The Economist wrote Dialogue. "PATIENTS in a vegetative state are, by definition, unable to respond to stimulation with any form of overt behaviour. Recently, however, a group of British and Belgian researchers have shown that some of them respond to simple commands by altering their brain activity while in an MRI scanner."
Will it optimize?
A quiz for programmers only, Will it optimize? "See how well you know (or can anticipate) gcc’s optimizer. For each question, the left box contains some code, while the right box contains code that purports to do the same thing, but that illustrates a particular optimization. Will gcc apply that optimization? Put another way, will the code on the left be as fast as the code on the right, when compiled with an optimizing gcc?"
I screwed up 1 and 5.
I screwed up 1 and 5.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Death of the Climate Bill
The New York Times wrote yesterday Democrats Call Off Climate Bill Effort "The effort to advance a major climate change bill through the Senate this summer collapsed Thursday even as President Obama signed into law another top Democratic priority — a bill to restore unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who have been out of work for six months or more. Bowing to political reality, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, said the Senate would not take up legislation intended to reduce carbon emissions blamed as a cause of climate change, but would instead pursue a more limited measure focused on responding to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and tightening energy efficiency standards."
I guess keeping the planet habitable just isn't important enough.
Kevin Drum wrote about Obama and Climate Change. "This has been a pure vote whipping exercise from the start, and the votes were never there. Aside from common sense, there are two big pieces of evidence for this. First, the House climate bill, even after massive compromises, passed by only 219-212. That is, it won by one vote in a chamber where Democrats hold a 35-vote majority. Second, when Lisa Murkowski's bill to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases came before the Senate, the vote against it was only 53-47. As Dickinson notes, six Democrats voted for it: Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, and Jay Rockefeller. Aside from Lindsey Graham, there were never going to be any Republican votes for a climate bill. If we in the liberal community still haven't figured that out, we have rocks in our skulls. And it's almost certain that three or four of those six Democrats were simply unpersuadable too. Even a watered-down climate bill never had more than about 55 votes in the Senate, and even that's probably optimistic.
Still, Dickinson is right that Obama should have done more. Even if the bill lost anyway, he should have done more. It's his job, after all, to rally public opinion... His problem isn't that he worked an inside game on Capitol Hill or gave a weak speech after the Gulf spill, the problem is that he's barely talked about climate change for years. Even if he had, the spark that it takes to get it done might still not have come. But without it, it will never come."
Matthew Yglesias wrote about The Death of Comprehensive Climate Legislation and points out the GOP cynicism. "The fact that McCain and other Republicans supported the goal of reducing carbon emissions and support carbon pricing as the means of reducing carbon emissions is the whole reason anyone ever thought reducing carbon emissions via carbon pricing was feasible. When they decided—for no clear reason—that they no longer held this view, they doomed the idea to defeat."
And you wouldn't know this from reading the standard press articles reporting one side and the other equally, Scientific expertise lacking among 'doubters' of climate change, says new analysis "The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study led by Stanford researchers."
But even if you choose to be ignorant and ignore science, there are other considerations, What happens when we run out of oil and coal?. "Many of the plans for addressing climate change rely on 20- to 50-year roadmaps of increased efficiency and use of renewable energy. But, as Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin pointed out in his talk at the Lindau Meeting, we're going to have to deal with alternative technologies on that time scale no matter what—many projections indicate we're going to be out of oil within 60 years (usable coal will last a century and a half longer, give or take). So, even if you don't think climate change is something to worry about, Laughlin suggested you might want to be thinking about the sorts of technologies we'd need to do without fossil fuels—and that, in turn, requires some thought about what existing technologies we'd want to bring forward."
Are there alternatives to the federal legislation?
The Times' Green Blog writes After the Climate Bill Failure "Can federal and state governments move ahead under existing law to achieve some or all of the greenhouse gas reductions envisioned in the failed legislation? Just in time comes a report from the respected World Resources Institute attempting to answer just that question...The bottom line: If federal agencies and state governments pursue the most ambitious paths available, the United States could achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gases that approach but fall short of the 17 percent."
Joe Klein points out MA v. EPA, There Will Be An Energy Bill...soon. "Why? Because there is a Supreme Court ruling, now three years old, that carbon dioxide is a poison that needs to be cleaned up. Next year, the Environmental Protection Agency will begin regulating the hell out of Co2. The business community won't like that, nor will many Republicans. "Putting a price on carbon is the only alternative," says Senator Maria Cantwell, who has offered a bill--with Maine Republican Susan Collins as co-sponsor--that would force the 2000 top polluters to participate in an auction to purchase the right to spew; 75% of the income would be returned as a "dividend" to taxpayers, the other 25% would go to alternative energy. "There's no question that we will have a bill before the EPA regulations kick in." "
Then again maybe the followup legislation isn't so good. Natural Gas Vehicles, Here We Come. "So the big winner of the climate-bill fiasco could turn out to be… T. Boone Pickens. That's right, the billionaire who financed the Swift Boat ads against John Kerry in 2004. According to Harry Reid, the slimmed-down energy bill that's getting introduced next week will include four parts: Some new oil-spill regulations, money for land and water conservation, incentives for home efficiency, and—this one's the kicker—money to "invest in the manufacturing of natural gas vehicles." (well trucks)."
I guess keeping the planet habitable just isn't important enough.
Kevin Drum wrote about Obama and Climate Change. "This has been a pure vote whipping exercise from the start, and the votes were never there. Aside from common sense, there are two big pieces of evidence for this. First, the House climate bill, even after massive compromises, passed by only 219-212. That is, it won by one vote in a chamber where Democrats hold a 35-vote majority. Second, when Lisa Murkowski's bill to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases came before the Senate, the vote against it was only 53-47. As Dickinson notes, six Democrats voted for it: Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, and Jay Rockefeller. Aside from Lindsey Graham, there were never going to be any Republican votes for a climate bill. If we in the liberal community still haven't figured that out, we have rocks in our skulls. And it's almost certain that three or four of those six Democrats were simply unpersuadable too. Even a watered-down climate bill never had more than about 55 votes in the Senate, and even that's probably optimistic.
Still, Dickinson is right that Obama should have done more. Even if the bill lost anyway, he should have done more. It's his job, after all, to rally public opinion... His problem isn't that he worked an inside game on Capitol Hill or gave a weak speech after the Gulf spill, the problem is that he's barely talked about climate change for years. Even if he had, the spark that it takes to get it done might still not have come. But without it, it will never come."
Matthew Yglesias wrote about The Death of Comprehensive Climate Legislation and points out the GOP cynicism. "The fact that McCain and other Republicans supported the goal of reducing carbon emissions and support carbon pricing as the means of reducing carbon emissions is the whole reason anyone ever thought reducing carbon emissions via carbon pricing was feasible. When they decided—for no clear reason—that they no longer held this view, they doomed the idea to defeat."
And you wouldn't know this from reading the standard press articles reporting one side and the other equally, Scientific expertise lacking among 'doubters' of climate change, says new analysis "The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study led by Stanford researchers."
But even if you choose to be ignorant and ignore science, there are other considerations, What happens when we run out of oil and coal?. "Many of the plans for addressing climate change rely on 20- to 50-year roadmaps of increased efficiency and use of renewable energy. But, as Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin pointed out in his talk at the Lindau Meeting, we're going to have to deal with alternative technologies on that time scale no matter what—many projections indicate we're going to be out of oil within 60 years (usable coal will last a century and a half longer, give or take). So, even if you don't think climate change is something to worry about, Laughlin suggested you might want to be thinking about the sorts of technologies we'd need to do without fossil fuels—and that, in turn, requires some thought about what existing technologies we'd want to bring forward."
Are there alternatives to the federal legislation?
The Times' Green Blog writes After the Climate Bill Failure "Can federal and state governments move ahead under existing law to achieve some or all of the greenhouse gas reductions envisioned in the failed legislation? Just in time comes a report from the respected World Resources Institute attempting to answer just that question...The bottom line: If federal agencies and state governments pursue the most ambitious paths available, the United States could achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gases that approach but fall short of the 17 percent."
Joe Klein points out MA v. EPA, There Will Be An Energy Bill...soon. "Why? Because there is a Supreme Court ruling, now three years old, that carbon dioxide is a poison that needs to be cleaned up. Next year, the Environmental Protection Agency will begin regulating the hell out of Co2. The business community won't like that, nor will many Republicans. "Putting a price on carbon is the only alternative," says Senator Maria Cantwell, who has offered a bill--with Maine Republican Susan Collins as co-sponsor--that would force the 2000 top polluters to participate in an auction to purchase the right to spew; 75% of the income would be returned as a "dividend" to taxpayers, the other 25% would go to alternative energy. "There's no question that we will have a bill before the EPA regulations kick in." "
Then again maybe the followup legislation isn't so good. Natural Gas Vehicles, Here We Come. "So the big winner of the climate-bill fiasco could turn out to be… T. Boone Pickens. That's right, the billionaire who financed the Swift Boat ads against John Kerry in 2004. According to Harry Reid, the slimmed-down energy bill that's getting introduced next week will include four parts: Some new oil-spill regulations, money for land and water conservation, incentives for home efficiency, and—this one's the kicker—money to "invest in the manufacturing of natural gas vehicles." (well trucks)."
Charlie Rangel
And in case anyone wants to call me biased against Republicans and in favor of Democrats, maybe I am a bit, but fuck Charlie Rangel and the House Ethics Committee. Why is this dragging on so freaking long? Rangel has certainly done some good things and overcome a lot, but corruption is another matter and he needs to resign and/or be charged crimes. He's 80 years old and has been in the House for 40 years, it's time for someone else to represent Harlem and the Upper West Side.
CNN writes on Charlie Rangel's spectacular rise and fall but Wikipedia does a better job on detailing the lengthy investigations.
CNN writes on Charlie Rangel's spectacular rise and fall but Wikipedia does a better job on detailing the lengthy investigations.
Combating Lies
Krugman had an op-ed yesterday that's great. Addicted to Bush "For a couple of years, it was the love that dared not speak his name. In 2008, Republican candidates hardly ever mentioned the president still sitting in the White House. After the election, the G.O.P. did its best to shout down all talk about how we got into the mess we’re in, insisting that we needed to look forward, not back...In recent weeks, G.O.P. leaders have come out for a complete return to the Bush agenda, including tax breaks for the rich and financial deregulation. They’ve even resurrected the plan to cut future Social Security benefits."
He gives several examples, but here's one: "On the economy: Last week Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, declared that “there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.” So now the word is that the Bush-era economy was characterized by “vibrancy.” I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “vibrant.” The actual record of the Bush years was (i) two and half years of declining employment, followed by (ii) four and a half years of modest job growth, at a pace significantly below the eight-year average under Bill Clinton, followed by (iii) a year of economic catastrophe. In 2007, at the height of the “Bush boom,” such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000."
So here's my question, why does this kind of stuff, you know fact-checking, only appear in an editorial by someone considered biased? Isn't this what journalists (you know the skilled kind with degrees and stuff) are supposed to be doing all the time in their stories? I couldn't find a story on McConnell's comments on the NY Times site (and why does filtering to just "articles" include reader's comments?). Here's the original TPM story, It's Unanimous! GOP Says No To Unemployment Benefits, Yes To Tax Cuts For The Rich and here's Ezra Klein commenting on it in the Washington Post, McConnell: 'No evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue'. Krugman commented at the time too. It really bothers me that the GOP can spread lies and the Constitutionally protected press does too little to stop it.
Krugman also commented today on Iraq, Again. "Were we lied into war? Yes." and he has to point to the WSJ and Financial Times for his evidence, Iraq intelligence fiasco could happen again. "As documents released by the inquiry make clear, the government was warned the invasion would increase the threat of terrorism to the UK. All this was disregarded, as Mr Blair embarked determinedly on his great adventure with George W. Bush into the mire of Mesopotamia, creating laboratory conditions for the urban warfare urged on jihadis by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s strategist. It is now harder than ever to avoid the conclusion that the Bush and Blair governments cherry-picked morsels of intelligence. "
He gives several examples, but here's one: "On the economy: Last week Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, declared that “there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.” So now the word is that the Bush-era economy was characterized by “vibrancy.” I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “vibrant.” The actual record of the Bush years was (i) two and half years of declining employment, followed by (ii) four and a half years of modest job growth, at a pace significantly below the eight-year average under Bill Clinton, followed by (iii) a year of economic catastrophe. In 2007, at the height of the “Bush boom,” such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000."
So here's my question, why does this kind of stuff, you know fact-checking, only appear in an editorial by someone considered biased? Isn't this what journalists (you know the skilled kind with degrees and stuff) are supposed to be doing all the time in their stories? I couldn't find a story on McConnell's comments on the NY Times site (and why does filtering to just "articles" include reader's comments?). Here's the original TPM story, It's Unanimous! GOP Says No To Unemployment Benefits, Yes To Tax Cuts For The Rich and here's Ezra Klein commenting on it in the Washington Post, McConnell: 'No evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue'. Krugman commented at the time too. It really bothers me that the GOP can spread lies and the Constitutionally protected press does too little to stop it.
Krugman also commented today on Iraq, Again. "Were we lied into war? Yes." and he has to point to the WSJ and Financial Times for his evidence, Iraq intelligence fiasco could happen again. "As documents released by the inquiry make clear, the government was warned the invasion would increase the threat of terrorism to the UK. All this was disregarded, as Mr Blair embarked determinedly on his great adventure with George W. Bush into the mire of Mesopotamia, creating laboratory conditions for the urban warfare urged on jihadis by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s strategist. It is now harder than ever to avoid the conclusion that the Bush and Blair governments cherry-picked morsels of intelligence. "
Astronomy News
Hyperfast Star Was Booted From Milky Way "A hundred million years ago, a triple-star system was traveling through the bustling center of our Milky Way galaxy when it made a life-changing misstep. The trio wandered too close to the galaxy's giant black hole, which captured one of the stars and hurled the other two out of the Milky Way. Adding to the stellar game of musical chairs, the two outbound stars merged to form a super- hot, blue star."
NASA Telescope Finds Elusive Buckyballs in Space "Astronomers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have discovered carbon molecules, known as 'buckyballs,' in space for the first time. Buckyballs are soccer-ball-shaped molecules that were first observed in a laboratory 25 years ago. They are named for their resemblance to architect Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes, which have interlocking circles on the surface of a partial sphere. Buckyballs were thought to float around in space, but had escaped detection until now. " They are the largest molecules to have been found in space.
NASA Spacecraft Camera Yields Most Accurate Mars Map Ever "A camera aboard NASA's Mars Odyssey spacecraft has helped develop the most accurate global Martian map ever...The map was constructed using nearly 21,000 images from the Thermal Emission Imaging System, or THEMIS, a multi-band infrared camera on Odyssey. Researchers at Arizona State University's Mars Space Flight Facility in Tempe, in collaboration with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., have been compiling the map since THEMIS observations began eight years ago."
NASA Telescope Finds Elusive Buckyballs in Space "Astronomers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have discovered carbon molecules, known as 'buckyballs,' in space for the first time. Buckyballs are soccer-ball-shaped molecules that were first observed in a laboratory 25 years ago. They are named for their resemblance to architect Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes, which have interlocking circles on the surface of a partial sphere. Buckyballs were thought to float around in space, but had escaped detection until now. " They are the largest molecules to have been found in space.
NASA Spacecraft Camera Yields Most Accurate Mars Map Ever "A camera aboard NASA's Mars Odyssey spacecraft has helped develop the most accurate global Martian map ever...The map was constructed using nearly 21,000 images from the Thermal Emission Imaging System, or THEMIS, a multi-band infrared camera on Odyssey. Researchers at Arizona State University's Mars Space Flight Facility in Tempe, in collaboration with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., have been compiling the map since THEMIS observations began eight years ago."
Last Roll of Kodachrome Processed
Wired writes Death of Film: Last Roll of Kodachrome Processed
"What do you know about Dwayne’s Photo Service of Parsons, Kansas? It is the place where the very last roll of the Kodachrome was processed. Kodachrome, the slide-film that inspired songs, was discontinued by Kodak last year at 74 years of age"
"What do you know about Dwayne’s Photo Service of Parsons, Kansas? It is the place where the very last roll of the Kodachrome was processed. Kodachrome, the slide-film that inspired songs, was discontinued by Kodak last year at 74 years of age"
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Oil spill in Dalian, China
The Big Picture of Boston.com does another amazing job with Oil spill in Dalian, China. These photos are astounding.
"Five days ago, in the northeastern port city of Dalian, China, two oil pipelines exploded, sending flames hundreds of feet into the air and burning for over 15 hours, destroying several structures - the cause of the explosion is under investigation. The damaged pipes released thousands of gallons of oil, which flowed into the nearby harbor and the Yellow Sea. The total amount of oil spilled is still not clear, though China Central Television earlier reported an estimate of 1,500 tons (400,000 gallons), as compared to the estimated 94 - 184 million gallons in the BP oil spill off the Louisiana coast. The oil slick has now grown to at least 430 square kilometers (165 sq mi), forcing beaches and port facilities to close while government workers and local fishermen work to contain and clean up the spill. (29 photos total)"
"Five days ago, in the northeastern port city of Dalian, China, two oil pipelines exploded, sending flames hundreds of feet into the air and burning for over 15 hours, destroying several structures - the cause of the explosion is under investigation. The damaged pipes released thousands of gallons of oil, which flowed into the nearby harbor and the Yellow Sea. The total amount of oil spilled is still not clear, though China Central Television earlier reported an estimate of 1,500 tons (400,000 gallons), as compared to the estimated 94 - 184 million gallons in the BP oil spill off the Louisiana coast. The oil slick has now grown to at least 430 square kilometers (165 sq mi), forcing beaches and port facilities to close while government workers and local fishermen work to contain and clean up the spill. (29 photos total)"
The Good, the Bad, and Ugly, of iPad app user interfaces
I don't have an iPad but that doesn't stop me from reading things like The Good, the Bad, and Ugly, of iPad app user interfaces.
Critiquing the Kindle Commercial
This strikes me as a combination of a Corona and Apple commercial. Beach scene, check. Catchy toon, check. No obnoxious voice over telling you about the product, check.
It's a good idea, the eInk screen is a huge selling point for the Kindle and it works much better on a beach than say an iPad. But the first time I saw it I thought it was backwards. It should have started with the shot from behind them to make it look like a Corona commercial and then zoomed in over their shoulders to reveal the Kindle and then passed them into the horizon (which matches with the lyrics).
Inside the iPhone Network Meltdown
Wired wrote Bad Connection: Inside the iPhone Network Meltdown this month and it got a lot of good buzz. I finally read and it's ok but I can't say I learned much new.
The Seven Most Inaccurate Movie Sound Effects
The Seven Most Inaccurate Movie Sound Effects "Let’s face it, some things just sound cooler in your imagination than they do in real life. Like your own voice, for example. You hear yourself on tape and think ‘Do I really sound that much like a monkey? Why did no one ever tell me? I will never eat a banana in public again.’ Movies can present a similar situation: some things just sound way, way cooler if they’re enhanced or just plain made up. Here are a few:
"
"
Sunset on Mars
This image has been making the rounds today as Sunrise on Mars when it's actually a sunset from 2008. Still, it's pretty amazing."Spirit acquired this view of the Martian sunset from Gusev Crater on April 23, 2005. Using data from images such as this, scientists have learned that twilight on Mars is longer than on Earth, lasting for up to two hours before sunrise or after sunset. Dust high in the atmosphere scatters light to the night side of the planet. Similar twilights are seen on Earth following major volcanic eruptions. "
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Lightning Over Athens
Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is Lightning Over Athens. Holy Crap!
"Explanation: Have you ever watched a lightning storm in awe? Join the crowd. Oddly, nobody knows exactly how lightning is produced. What is known is that charges slowly separate in some clouds causing rapid electrical discharges (lightning), but how electrical charges get separated in clouds remains a topic of much research. Lightning usually takes a jagged course, rapidly heating a thin column of air to about three times the surface temperature of the Sun. The resulting shock wave starts supersonically and decays into the loud sound known as thunder. Lightning bolts are common in clouds during rainstorms, and on average 6,000 lightning bolts occur between clouds and the Earth every minute. Pictured above, an active lightning storm was recorded over Athens, Greece earlier this month."
"Explanation: Have you ever watched a lightning storm in awe? Join the crowd. Oddly, nobody knows exactly how lightning is produced. What is known is that charges slowly separate in some clouds causing rapid electrical discharges (lightning), but how electrical charges get separated in clouds remains a topic of much research. Lightning usually takes a jagged course, rapidly heating a thin column of air to about three times the surface temperature of the Sun. The resulting shock wave starts supersonically and decays into the loud sound known as thunder. Lightning bolts are common in clouds during rainstorms, and on average 6,000 lightning bolts occur between clouds and the Earth every minute. Pictured above, an active lightning storm was recorded over Athens, Greece earlier this month."
Childhood Obesity Infographic Submissions
Project: Create an Infographic About Childhood Obesity, Submissions "Our latest infographic contest asked you to create an infographic about childhood obesity, in partnership with the Let's Move! Initiative. We've received some great submissions, which you can see below. "
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The Stupidity and Hypocrisy of the Austerity Movement
538 writes about The Stupidity and Hypocrisy of the Austerity Movement.
"So what have we learned?
1.) This new found love of lower government spending is politically motivated. It has nothing to do with altruism or love of country. It's about the November elections. Period.
2.) Government spending has been and always will be part of the the GDP equation
3.) Countries that tried austerity are worse off for it.
4.) Countries that inject massive amounts of the proper stimulus (such as infrastructure spending) grow at high rates."
"So what have we learned?
1.) This new found love of lower government spending is politically motivated. It has nothing to do with altruism or love of country. It's about the November elections. Period.
2.) Government spending has been and always will be part of the the GDP equation
3.) Countries that tried austerity are worse off for it.
4.) Countries that inject massive amounts of the proper stimulus (such as infrastructure spending) grow at high rates."
Killing zombie lies and exploding the Social Security myths
digby wrote about Killing zombie lies and exploding the Social Security myths "The assignment is this and this post by Susan G at Daily Kos about Social Security myths. The first is this one about life expectancy, which is something that has driven me crazy for years. Mush of the literature about 'problems' with social security will tell you that longer life expectancy was unanticipated by the people who designed the system, which is ridiculous. They certainly did. And they will also tell you that life expectancy was only 63 at the time social security was designed, which is true, but they neglect to explain that life expectancy in those days was was shorter mostly because of childhood diseases, which means that the financing ratios were never affected. After all, kids who die at 3 never pay FICA in the first place. "
Good read.
Good read.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Obama Assails G.O.P. for Blocking Benefits Bill
The NY Times says Obama Assails G.O.P. for Blocking Benefits Bill "‘After years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, the same people who didn’t have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn’t offer relief to middle-class Americans like Jim or Leslie or Denise, who really need help,’ Mr. Obama said, referring to the three people who stood with him in the Rose Garden, brought to Washington by the White House to help illustrate the president’s point."
Well, it's a start.
Well, it's a start.
If You Need Convincing to See Inception
I will try to tell you a little about Inception without giving away any spoilers. I loved this film but I can easily see it's not for everyone. My hope is this will help you figure out if you'd hate it or not.
I knew three things about the film going into it. One, it was about dreams. Two, the writer-director Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Dark Knight) was being compared to Stanley Kubrick. Three, it has an ending that spawned various articles that talked about it.
The first isn't a spoiler at all and is given away in first or second scene. The second seemed absurd to me before seeing the film. I do venerate Kubrick and Nolan just does different stuff, but a little into the film I understood why the comparison is being made.
Eyes Wide Shut was a film about dreams. The point of it was to make you experience a dream. All the stuff was bizarre and not clearly understood and moved at an other-worldly pace and had jarring music. Kubrick didn't explain it was a dream. No review I read ever explained it as such (and I read dozens and dozens). I tried to analyze every element of the film and didn't work it out on my own. I knew Kubrick was a genius and I was missing something, but I couldn't figure out what. It wasn't until I saw Martin Scorcese guest host with Ebert on At The Movies where he put it in his Top 10 list and explained it.
Inception is about dreams. Your experience watching it is dream-like. It's complex and teases out information about what's going on and you can almost follow it. As an example, they explain at one point, that when you dream, you're someplace, and yet you don't know how you got there. This film recreates that feeling for the viewer but in such a way it's not annoying. There's a complex plot, it juggles a lot of plates at once and I always felt I had just enough info to think I was following what was currently going on and had just strong enough memories of all the levels down the rabbit hole that I thought I knew how we got here but knew I was just forgetting something. It kept me completely engaged throughout. I thought about looking at my watch, but I honestly didn't want to know how much time had passed and I seriously didn't want to look away from the screen for a single second.
I think, like with Eyes Wide Shut, a lot of critics are missing that the point (well a point) was to experience a dream while watching the film. If you don't like complex stories and hate not following everything, you might not like the experience at all. If you always complain that movies are too simple and find plot holes in everything, you'll love this film. If you're looking to go to the theater and turn your mind off, don't pick Inception.
Knowing there was something interesting about the ending I kept trying to figure it all out. With some films (think M. Knight Shyamalan), knowing there's a twist ending can ruin the experience because you look for every little clue and might figure it out. That's not the case with Inception. There were several times where I thought something and I may or may not have been right, but it didn't matter at all. The visceral experience was so wonderful and it was so much fun working so hard to keep up. And yet, what's really magic about this film, I think you can watch this on just a scene by scene basis and not have to figure out every little detail and get an equal enjoyment of the ride, you'll still experience a dream. I'm not sure, but I bet if you do figure it all out (and I will try) it will be completely internally consistent. It's like a Pixar film that works for kids and adults at two levels. This works (should work) if you follow it or not. And if you're really good, it works at another level too.
To compare it to other films, I'd have to say it's the point of Eyes Wide Shut, but instead of being boring, it has all the mind-trippy thrills of The Matrix and it's as effective and emotionally manipulative as Where the Wild Things Are.
I don't know if I've ever had as satisfying a movie going experience. They're completely different films, but I loved A Fish Called Wanda and In The Loop. But I wasn't riveted to the screen for two and half hours barely able to keep up. I loved the amazing story telling of the first half of Wall-E but the second half not so much (though I loved the end credits). Star Wars made a huge impact on me as an 11 year-old, but it didn't manipulate my brain as a second order effect as Inception did. The only recent film that comes close to this for me is Where the Wild Things Are and this left me far more excited. I always say Rear Window is my favorite film, because it's great but also because it really started me on my extreme love of movies. It might take me 20 years to figure it out, but I'm not sure Inception will quite be that for me, but it will be in my Top 10.
As far as other comparisons with Kubrick, I don't see it. I'm not sure there was any imagery in this film that will be as iconic as Kubrick always managed to do. There's no monolith, axe through a door, Singing in the Rain, man riding a nuclear bomb, or anything like that that's seared into my brain. Maybe that's better. I can't figure out if I want to see it again right now, or let it slowly fade like a dream.
I knew three things about the film going into it. One, it was about dreams. Two, the writer-director Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Dark Knight) was being compared to Stanley Kubrick. Three, it has an ending that spawned various articles that talked about it.
The first isn't a spoiler at all and is given away in first or second scene. The second seemed absurd to me before seeing the film. I do venerate Kubrick and Nolan just does different stuff, but a little into the film I understood why the comparison is being made.
Eyes Wide Shut was a film about dreams. The point of it was to make you experience a dream. All the stuff was bizarre and not clearly understood and moved at an other-worldly pace and had jarring music. Kubrick didn't explain it was a dream. No review I read ever explained it as such (and I read dozens and dozens). I tried to analyze every element of the film and didn't work it out on my own. I knew Kubrick was a genius and I was missing something, but I couldn't figure out what. It wasn't until I saw Martin Scorcese guest host with Ebert on At The Movies where he put it in his Top 10 list and explained it.
Inception is about dreams. Your experience watching it is dream-like. It's complex and teases out information about what's going on and you can almost follow it. As an example, they explain at one point, that when you dream, you're someplace, and yet you don't know how you got there. This film recreates that feeling for the viewer but in such a way it's not annoying. There's a complex plot, it juggles a lot of plates at once and I always felt I had just enough info to think I was following what was currently going on and had just strong enough memories of all the levels down the rabbit hole that I thought I knew how we got here but knew I was just forgetting something. It kept me completely engaged throughout. I thought about looking at my watch, but I honestly didn't want to know how much time had passed and I seriously didn't want to look away from the screen for a single second.
I think, like with Eyes Wide Shut, a lot of critics are missing that the point (well a point) was to experience a dream while watching the film. If you don't like complex stories and hate not following everything, you might not like the experience at all. If you always complain that movies are too simple and find plot holes in everything, you'll love this film. If you're looking to go to the theater and turn your mind off, don't pick Inception.
Knowing there was something interesting about the ending I kept trying to figure it all out. With some films (think M. Knight Shyamalan), knowing there's a twist ending can ruin the experience because you look for every little clue and might figure it out. That's not the case with Inception. There were several times where I thought something and I may or may not have been right, but it didn't matter at all. The visceral experience was so wonderful and it was so much fun working so hard to keep up. And yet, what's really magic about this film, I think you can watch this on just a scene by scene basis and not have to figure out every little detail and get an equal enjoyment of the ride, you'll still experience a dream. I'm not sure, but I bet if you do figure it all out (and I will try) it will be completely internally consistent. It's like a Pixar film that works for kids and adults at two levels. This works (should work) if you follow it or not. And if you're really good, it works at another level too.
To compare it to other films, I'd have to say it's the point of Eyes Wide Shut, but instead of being boring, it has all the mind-trippy thrills of The Matrix and it's as effective and emotionally manipulative as Where the Wild Things Are.
I don't know if I've ever had as satisfying a movie going experience. They're completely different films, but I loved A Fish Called Wanda and In The Loop. But I wasn't riveted to the screen for two and half hours barely able to keep up. I loved the amazing story telling of the first half of Wall-E but the second half not so much (though I loved the end credits). Star Wars made a huge impact on me as an 11 year-old, but it didn't manipulate my brain as a second order effect as Inception did. The only recent film that comes close to this for me is Where the Wild Things Are and this left me far more excited. I always say Rear Window is my favorite film, because it's great but also because it really started me on my extreme love of movies. It might take me 20 years to figure it out, but I'm not sure Inception will quite be that for me, but it will be in my Top 10.
As far as other comparisons with Kubrick, I don't see it. I'm not sure there was any imagery in this film that will be as iconic as Kubrick always managed to do. There's no monolith, axe through a door, Singing in the Rain, man riding a nuclear bomb, or anything like that that's seared into my brain. Maybe that's better. I can't figure out if I want to see it again right now, or let it slowly fade like a dream.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Go See Inception
I'm going to write three reviews for Inception. This one, which will be brief and give away nothing about the film (except my reaction to it), another for those that need a little more convincing, and another with spoilers for discussion after seeing the film. The third might take a few days for me to get to and maybe another viewing or two.
So here's the point: If you're willing to see a film based solely on my recommendation, read nothing about this film and get to a theater. It's a masterpiece.
Don't worry about IMAX or digital projection or anything. It doesn't matter, just see it. (I saw a digital projection which was great, but it really doesn't matter.
i was hooked immediately. I almost literally didn't blink for the last two hours. I was continuously awestruck for the whole two and half hours. I was audibly and uncontrollably giddy three times. I don't mean I laughed at something that struck as me funny (which happens a lot), I mean that my body physically needed to express the gleeful delight I was experiencing. When it ended, I had to sit in the theater for a few minutes to catch my breath before leaving. I actually thought if there was oxygen available I would take some. I was actually wobbly on my feet leaving the theater. After walking a couple of blocks to a pub and sitting for a few minutes and ordering, I turned to a friend and said you may have to drive my car home.
I'm not sure I've ever enjoyed seeing a film as much as this one. I'm sure I'll be able to come up with a handful of films, but it will be a short list and I doubt those films are "better" than this. I can't conceive of how there will be a better film than Inception the rest of this year (but how amazing that would be).
A friend I saw it with said she was a little bored the first half hour and while I wasn't at all, I can see how people might feel that way. I can also see how it might not be to everyone's taste, but I'll gladly say, they're wrong. The point of this film is to evoke a visceral experience and it definitely achieves that.
I'll accept another excuse for not seeing this in a theater. I had a couple sitting next to me that kept talking. I honestly didn't want to miss or be distracted from a single second of this film. I shhh'ed them once and then once more much more firmly which worked. If it hadn't, I was going to say to them "if you can't be quiet for two and half hours than don't come to the fucking theater, now be quiet or leave."
But seriously, if I was at all vague above, you should see Inception.
So here's the point: If you're willing to see a film based solely on my recommendation, read nothing about this film and get to a theater. It's a masterpiece.
Don't worry about IMAX or digital projection or anything. It doesn't matter, just see it. (I saw a digital projection which was great, but it really doesn't matter.
i was hooked immediately. I almost literally didn't blink for the last two hours. I was continuously awestruck for the whole two and half hours. I was audibly and uncontrollably giddy three times. I don't mean I laughed at something that struck as me funny (which happens a lot), I mean that my body physically needed to express the gleeful delight I was experiencing. When it ended, I had to sit in the theater for a few minutes to catch my breath before leaving. I actually thought if there was oxygen available I would take some. I was actually wobbly on my feet leaving the theater. After walking a couple of blocks to a pub and sitting for a few minutes and ordering, I turned to a friend and said you may have to drive my car home.
I'm not sure I've ever enjoyed seeing a film as much as this one. I'm sure I'll be able to come up with a handful of films, but it will be a short list and I doubt those films are "better" than this. I can't conceive of how there will be a better film than Inception the rest of this year (but how amazing that would be).
A friend I saw it with said she was a little bored the first half hour and while I wasn't at all, I can see how people might feel that way. I can also see how it might not be to everyone's taste, but I'll gladly say, they're wrong. The point of this film is to evoke a visceral experience and it definitely achieves that.
I'll accept another excuse for not seeing this in a theater. I had a couple sitting next to me that kept talking. I honestly didn't want to miss or be distracted from a single second of this film. I shhh'ed them once and then once more much more firmly which worked. If it hadn't, I was going to say to them "if you can't be quiet for two and half hours than don't come to the fucking theater, now be quiet or leave."
But seriously, if I was at all vague above, you should see Inception.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Obama Blasts Republicans?
In today's Weekly Address, Obama talks about Weekly Address: Filibustering Recovery & Obstructing Progress "The President blasts Republicans in the Senate who are blocking unemployment insurance and small business tax breaks to create jobs -- even as they push for permanent, massive tax cuts for the richest Americans." Transcript.
That's "blasting" huh? I was reminded of this clip from Happy Days (just before the 6 minute mark), you need to have hit someone before...
That's "blasting" huh? I was reminded of this clip from Happy Days (just before the 6 minute mark), you need to have hit someone before...
Friday, July 16, 2010
Tim Geithner’s Ninth Political Life
Simon Johnson writes about Tim Geithner’s Ninth Political Life now that it seems he's trying to block Elizabeth Warren from being head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I have no doubt that Warren should be offered the position before anyone else.
There's also this. Congress, Progressives Roll Out in Support of Elizabeth Warren
There's also this. Congress, Progressives Roll Out in Support of Elizabeth Warren
The Newest Apple
No this isn't about Apple Computers (or phones or pods or pads). Slashfood writes The Newest Apple: Red to the Core "It may look like a tomato, but the new Redlove Era is all apple -- and has red flesh beneath the skin, all the way to the core. Talk about true blue -- er, red.
The Redlove, marketed by Suttons of Britain, has yet to make it into supermarkets, but according to the London Times, those who've tasted it are giving it raves. 'Berry nuances,' they're saying. 'Sweet and tangy.' 'Ideal for cooking.' Not only that, but the apple may even be healthier than its paler counterparts -- that red tint is due to the presence of flavonoids, which have antioxidant properties. And get this: Apparently the flesh won't go brown, making the apple a dream for salads and other raw dishes."
The Redlove, marketed by Suttons of Britain, has yet to make it into supermarkets, but according to the London Times, those who've tasted it are giving it raves. 'Berry nuances,' they're saying. 'Sweet and tangy.' 'Ideal for cooking.' Not only that, but the apple may even be healthier than its paler counterparts -- that red tint is due to the presence of flavonoids, which have antioxidant properties. And get this: Apparently the flesh won't go brown, making the apple a dream for salads and other raw dishes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)