The corrupt hiring practices at the DoJ are already so ludicrous that they leave little for Stewart and Colbert to mock. However, last night Stewart was absolutely right when he attacked Wolf Blitzer's coverage of the issue (starting at about 4:05 in the video below).
The idea that reporting unflattering facts represents bias is insane. I've heard some pro-McCain-ers arguing that, even if you don't support McCain's policies, you should support divided government, since it forces each side to defend their policies and not overreach their mandate.
If you really want limited, defensive government, you'll get a lot more mileage out of agressive journalism than divided government (the 60 vote cloture rule in the Senate and Coburn's holds make division and compromise a foregone conclusion anyway). This kind of wimpy reporting makes it impossible for all but the most wonky to get energized about government misdeeds and to be motivated to push for change. Once again, Comedy Central is out reporting the MSM. Shame on you, Blitzer.
(If the embedded video doesn't work, the clip can be found here or by searching for "Illegaly Blonde" on the Daily Show website.)
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The Dark Knight: Despair isn't as Scary as Goodness
I've been enjoying the Yale /Mafia's commentary on The Dark Knight and really enjoyed the discussion what role the outlaw plays in a corrupt society and in one on the mend. I didn't get around to seeing the movie until today and, to be honest, I was relatively uninterested in Batman. Obviously, the Joker stole every scene he was in, and the weird reverb effect on Bale's voice made it hard to empathize with him, but it was Harvey Dent that really left me thinking.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
White hat DA Harvey Dent is transformed into the murderous Two-Face when he is caught in one of the Joker's plots. His girlfriend is killed and he is horribly disfigured. The Joker comes to see him in the hospital, stokes his anger, and frees him, a weapon with only one purpose, revenge.
The film tries to spin Dent's fall as a big victory for the Joker. The white hat loses hope and declares that in an immoral world, the best one can do is follow the dictates of chance. But where is the triumph? The proof that even the strongest have a breaking point is trivial. Besides, Dent's fall is more a conversion of convenience than a genuine reawakening. The Joker redirects Dent's desire for vengeance and gives him a new avenue to express it, but, unlike the Joker, Dent's nihilism is wholly subsumed in his desire for revenge. The Joker is an absolute force, the avatar of chaos, and he is unstoppable. Dent is too limited to be anywhere as scary. Once the targets of his revenge are eliminated, his motivation is spent, and he is defanged.
So could Dent become anything to match the power and terror that the Joker inspires? Maybe, but I think it would entail less of a fall than a rise. In A Wizard Alone, the sixth book in Diane Duane's Young Wizards series, Nita, one of the protagonists, encounters an abdal, a force of pure goodness, a conduit of the One's power into the world. But just because they're on our side doesn't make them pleasant to be around. Nita's mentor warns her that abdals mean
A Harvey Dent fueled by uncompromising virtue is the absolute force to oppose the Joker. (The Lawful Good to his Chaotic Neutral/Evil). Both are forces of destruction. Human beings, inherently flawed but striving for order, can't live with either.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
White hat DA Harvey Dent is transformed into the murderous Two-Face when he is caught in one of the Joker's plots. His girlfriend is killed and he is horribly disfigured. The Joker comes to see him in the hospital, stokes his anger, and frees him, a weapon with only one purpose, revenge.
The film tries to spin Dent's fall as a big victory for the Joker. The white hat loses hope and declares that in an immoral world, the best one can do is follow the dictates of chance. But where is the triumph? The proof that even the strongest have a breaking point is trivial. Besides, Dent's fall is more a conversion of convenience than a genuine reawakening. The Joker redirects Dent's desire for vengeance and gives him a new avenue to express it, but, unlike the Joker, Dent's nihilism is wholly subsumed in his desire for revenge. The Joker is an absolute force, the avatar of chaos, and he is unstoppable. Dent is too limited to be anywhere as scary. Once the targets of his revenge are eliminated, his motivation is spent, and he is defanged.
So could Dent become anything to match the power and terror that the Joker inspires? Maybe, but I think it would entail less of a fall than a rise. In A Wizard Alone, the sixth book in Diane Duane's Young Wizards series, Nita, one of the protagonists, encounters an abdal, a force of pure goodness, a conduit of the One's power into the world. But just because they're on our side doesn't make them pleasant to be around. Nita's mentor warns her that abdals mean
"Virtue, the real thing. It's not some kind of cuddly teddy bear you can keep on the shelf until you need a hug. It's dangerous... Virtue has its own agenda, and it's not always yours. The word itself means strength, power. And when it gets loose, you'd better watch out."Abdals are goodness, but they are so powerful that when they burn the dross off of us, there might not be anything left. This is the direction I thought Dent was going in, especially since he had gotten his start investigating Internal Affairs for the police. Throughout the movie, he harasses the police commissioner over his use of dirty cops, while the commissioner argues he has to make some compromises to have any officers at all. These are the dirty cops that help the Joker maim Dent and murder his girlfriend.
"Something bad might happen..."
"Impossible. But possibly something painful."
A Harvey Dent fueled by uncompromising virtue is the absolute force to oppose the Joker. (The Lawful Good to his Chaotic Neutral/Evil). Both are forces of destruction. Human beings, inherently flawed but striving for order, can't live with either.
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Bad Reason I Didn't Like Hair
I know I ragged on The Public's staging of Hair, but credit where credit's due; there was one really good moment in the production...
"Hair" rang out over the speaker system. The cast danced like dervishes through the audience and soon, half the audience (including me) had joined them on stage. The mood was electric, members of the audience dances with the cast and with each other as if it were the most natural thing in the world, and, at the end of it all, Jonathan Groff autographed my Metrocard. So what was the problem? The dance number came after the curtain call.
The actors were talented and appeared passionate, but, until that last number, I couldn't really believe it. The lack of plot or character development for most of the characters meant that all of the mood swings (mostly back and forth between bliss and comatose) were chemically fuelled and difficult for the mostly sober audience to share.
But the show wouldn't have been fixed by simply pulling the audience on stage earlier. Interactivity is great, but not in the form of blind enthusiasm. Ultimately, Hair suffered from comparison with my friend and classmate, Rafael Kern's production this year of The Bacchae.
Rafa incorporated audience participation from the opening of the show, when the cast threw open the doors of the theatre and pulled the audience in for dances and revels. He and the cast kept the energy high, so I spent the nearly the entire show in a state of Dionysian exhilaration. Which made the crash so much more wrenching.
Before the physical dismemberment of Pentheus, the cast circled on him and tore apart his concept of self. (Hard to describe on paper, frightening in person). They turned on him with now-playful-now-earnest cruelty, and the worst part was, if they had transitioned to this abuse straight from the dancing, it was hard to imagine that the audience wouldn't have joined in the taunting or that we might have gone so far as to strike Elliot (the actor playing Pentheus).
Rafa's production had the biggest impact on me of all the shows I saw this year because he transported you into the world of the play, and then, once he sucked you in, he made you complicit.
Hair failed for me because, even at its most engrossing, it was without consequence. The main characted, Claude, is lost to the drugged-out collective, but solely due to the outside influence of the US Army. Nothing suggests that the culture presented is not self-sustaining. If I wanted a happy-go-lucky musical with confusing shifts in mood I'd rewatch Mamma Mia!
Sorry, Public Theatre. No guilt. No good review.
"Hair" rang out over the speaker system. The cast danced like dervishes through the audience and soon, half the audience (including me) had joined them on stage. The mood was electric, members of the audience dances with the cast and with each other as if it were the most natural thing in the world, and, at the end of it all, Jonathan Groff autographed my Metrocard. So what was the problem? The dance number came after the curtain call.
The actors were talented and appeared passionate, but, until that last number, I couldn't really believe it. The lack of plot or character development for most of the characters meant that all of the mood swings (mostly back and forth between bliss and comatose) were chemically fuelled and difficult for the mostly sober audience to share.
But the show wouldn't have been fixed by simply pulling the audience on stage earlier. Interactivity is great, but not in the form of blind enthusiasm. Ultimately, Hair suffered from comparison with my friend and classmate, Rafael Kern's production this year of The Bacchae.
Rafa incorporated audience participation from the opening of the show, when the cast threw open the doors of the theatre and pulled the audience in for dances and revels. He and the cast kept the energy high, so I spent the nearly the entire show in a state of Dionysian exhilaration. Which made the crash so much more wrenching.
Before the physical dismemberment of Pentheus, the cast circled on him and tore apart his concept of self. (Hard to describe on paper, frightening in person). They turned on him with now-playful-now-earnest cruelty, and the worst part was, if they had transitioned to this abuse straight from the dancing, it was hard to imagine that the audience wouldn't have joined in the taunting or that we might have gone so far as to strike Elliot (the actor playing Pentheus).
Rafa's production had the biggest impact on me of all the shows I saw this year because he transported you into the world of the play, and then, once he sucked you in, he made you complicit.
Hair failed for me because, even at its most engrossing, it was without consequence. The main characted, Claude, is lost to the drugged-out collective, but solely due to the outside influence of the US Army. Nothing suggests that the culture presented is not self-sustaining. If I wanted a happy-go-lucky musical with confusing shifts in mood I'd rewatch Mamma Mia!
Sorry, Public Theatre. No guilt. No good review.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The Good Reason I Didn't Like Hair
The Public Theatre (home of Shakespeare in the Park) opened its second show, Hair, for previews on Tuesday night. My family and I went together, and, I'm sad to say, I didn't enjoy it that much.
Although the show opened with remarks about Hair's relevance to today, the musical really felt dated and kitchy. When it premiered in 1968, many of the songs and sight gags were incredibly controversial, but now they fall flat, which is, in many cases, a good thing. I thought the "Black Boys/White Boys" song was a complete waste of time with lousy lyrics, sample:
but my perspective changed when I was reading about the show and found out that, since the show premiered so soon after the push to repeal anti-miscegenation laws, this song (sung by white girls) was shocking and offensive. A number of similar gags playing on racism, homophobism, and whatever the term is for people who are anti-nudist are obsolete.
It's a cultural victory that takes the fun out of seeing the show, except as an historical/anthropological document. It might have been better, but I'll save my other objections for my next post: "The Bad Reason I Didn't Like Hair.
N.B. Anyone near NYC who wants to see the show, it runs through the end of August and is totally free. To get tickets, you wait on line in the morning in Central Park. For veterans of the line, best show up early (8-9 am at the latest). My family got the very last tickets showing up at 11:30am for the first show of previews of a dated show that, apart from Jonathan Groff, had no stars. Enjoy.
Although the show opened with remarks about Hair's relevance to today, the musical really felt dated and kitchy. When it premiered in 1968, many of the songs and sight gags were incredibly controversial, but now they fall flat, which is, in many cases, a good thing. I thought the "Black Boys/White Boys" song was a complete waste of time with lousy lyrics, sample:
Black boys are delicious
Chocolate flavored love
Licorice lips like candy
Keep my cocoa handy
I have such a sweet tooth
When it comes to love
but my perspective changed when I was reading about the show and found out that, since the show premiered so soon after the push to repeal anti-miscegenation laws, this song (sung by white girls) was shocking and offensive. A number of similar gags playing on racism, homophobism, and whatever the term is for people who are anti-nudist are obsolete.
It's a cultural victory that takes the fun out of seeing the show, except as an historical/anthropological document. It might have been better, but I'll save my other objections for my next post: "The Bad Reason I Didn't Like Hair.
N.B. Anyone near NYC who wants to see the show, it runs through the end of August and is totally free. To get tickets, you wait on line in the morning in Central Park. For veterans of the line, best show up early (8-9 am at the latest). My family got the very last tickets showing up at 11:30am for the first show of previews of a dated show that, apart from Jonathan Groff, had no stars. Enjoy.
Science Tuesday: Modern Day Indulgences
True, most of the time today, when we talk about indulgences we just mean something that's bad for us, that we permit ourselves. But it turns out coffee is also an indulgence in the best traditions of mideival Catholicism; it erases other misdeeds. According to this article from Science News:
The article goes on to say this result is seen mostly only in women, and stops short of recommending lazy smokers add a vice for their health. On the lazy side, I'm disappointed the only (non-athletic) way to deal with my sloth is to drink a beverage which makes me sick, I'll wait to here from Helen for the smoker's side.
One of the largest studies ever conducted shows that coffee drinkers die at almost the same rates as their non-drinking peers. But, after controlling for the fact that coffee drinkers tend to exercise less and smoke more, coffee is linked to a slightly lower death rate in both men and women...
Overall, participants who downed a few cups of coffee a day had about the same death rate as those who didn’t drink coffee, despite the fact that coffee drinkers tended to smoke more, drink more alcohol, not take vitamins and exercise less. All of those factors are linked to higher death rates.
The article goes on to say this result is seen mostly only in women, and stops short of recommending lazy smokers add a vice for their health. On the lazy side, I'm disappointed the only (non-athletic) way to deal with my sloth is to drink a beverage which makes me sick, I'll wait to here from Helen for the smoker's side.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Metro Section: Putting the "Community" in Community Pool
Just a quick link to this article from today's Metro Sectiona bout former and current gang members revitalizing a community pool.
~~~
Nice to have a little ray of sunshine on to light the abyss we must be in if I'm reading this in the NYT:
Scorpio, who is known by this name, is Terrance Carpenter, 26. He is one of a dozen or so young men who volunteer unofficially each week at the pool, which sits amid an area long fractured by hostilities among gangs like the Bloods, the Crips and the Latin Kings. Some of the volunteers are gang members, but others have turned their backs on crime...I don't have much to add, but I do think it's interesting that this story departs from the normal idea that you need to get the kids out of the gangs before you set them up as mentors.
The volunteers have no enforcement powers; their duties are not clearly defined. But at the enormous pool full of excited — sometimes overexcited — children and teenagers, they provide extra ears and eyes for the officials charged with maintaining order. When the children violate the no-diving rule, they scold them. When horseplay gets too rowdy, they tone it down. When they see loiterers looking for trouble on the streets outside the pool, they swagger over to ward them off.
“This is my block,” Mr. Carpenter said. “It’s my love. It’s my family.”
~~~
Nice to have a little ray of sunshine on to light the abyss we must be in if I'm reading this in the NYT:
Britain should no longer rely on assurances by the United States that it does not torture terrorism suspects, an influential parliamentary committee said in a report released Sunday.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Couture Femininity isn't that flattering
Project Runway is back this week, and, aside from confirming my long-held belief that people who refer the themselves in the third person should be shot, it got me thinking about an interesting metaphor that Helen developed in the comments trail of this blog post.
Let me say first off, this is a great explanation of how femininity matters and how we can live within it without being crippled. I think this is a pretty good analogue, but part of the fashion side has me worried.
Two seasons ago the designers of Project Runway were challenged to design for each other's mothers. The mothers were, to put it delicately, not as petite as the androgynously-skinny models the designers were used to. This challenge produced some of the most hideous outfits I have ever seen on PR, and even the most talented designers were flummoxed. They had never been asked to design for ordinary women before.
Fashion may be moving forward, aesthetically speaking, and it's certainly more comfortable, but I don't feel it's grown more flattering on ordinary women. I fall withing the 'ordinary' range of female bodies and am nearly incapable of finding a flattering shirt or dress in most department stores.
That's why I think Helen's narrative is a little blithe. If the innovators of femininity are as divorced from ordinary women as fashion designers are, there's not a lot to draw on. I'm not sure that couture, aesthetic-only femininity exists, but I'm not listening to Tim Gunn on this one unless I'm sure he knows something about women (though if he has any ideas on the shirt front, I'm all ears).
To be more helpful: really, try and take the fashion metaphor more seriously. Yeah, fashion has meant lots of different things to lots of different cultures and eras. There are certain common themes (symmetry, simplicity, etc.), but not really enough common ground to hang your hat on. Sometimes we even look back at a particular era and say, "Wow, I can't believe that's what we thought 'fashionable' was!" (A good analogy for how I feel about 1950's femininity: acid wash jeans.) We never completely revert to a former era--fashion is always moving forwards, and so is femininity--but we do look to them for inspiration.
But in spite of all those caveats and admissions of arbitrariness, fashion still matters. You're still not allowed to wear a plaid jacket with a polka-dot tie and blue jeans to your office job and say, "The suit-and-tie uniform is arbitrary. Why can't I just wear what suits me?" If I went up to Tim Gunn and said, "I think that one is most stylish" and he disagreed, he would be right and I would be wrong. On the other hand, I could become a fashion innovator and outpace him (a path that would depend on learning, and to some meaningful extent playing by, the rules).
Let me say first off, this is a great explanation of how femininity matters and how we can live within it without being crippled. I think this is a pretty good analogue, but part of the fashion side has me worried.
Two seasons ago the designers of Project Runway were challenged to design for each other's mothers. The mothers were, to put it delicately, not as petite as the androgynously-skinny models the designers were used to. This challenge produced some of the most hideous outfits I have ever seen on PR, and even the most talented designers were flummoxed. They had never been asked to design for ordinary women before.
Fashion may be moving forward, aesthetically speaking, and it's certainly more comfortable, but I don't feel it's grown more flattering on ordinary women. I fall withing the 'ordinary' range of female bodies and am nearly incapable of finding a flattering shirt or dress in most department stores.
That's why I think Helen's narrative is a little blithe. If the innovators of femininity are as divorced from ordinary women as fashion designers are, there's not a lot to draw on. I'm not sure that couture, aesthetic-only femininity exists, but I'm not listening to Tim Gunn on this one unless I'm sure he knows something about women (though if he has any ideas on the shirt front, I'm all ears).
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Singing Supervillian Scientist (I love Joss Whedon!)
Blogging on fashion and femininity, tomorrow; shameless plug, right now.
Two webisodes of three are up now, and it all goes dark (except for iTunes) Sunday night. How can you miss a musical where Neil Patrick Harris's love song has these lyrics "With my freeze ray I will stop/the world/With my freeze ray I will/Find the time to/Find the words to..."
Enjoy!
Two webisodes of three are up now, and it all goes dark (except for iTunes) Sunday night. How can you miss a musical where Neil Patrick Harris's love song has these lyrics "With my freeze ray I will stop/the world/With my freeze ray I will/Find the time to/Find the words to..."
Enjoy!
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Some things are simple
I'm excerpting from today's
Editorial Observer in the NYT, but I really recommend reading the whole article (it's not long). It tells the story of Pfc. Joseph Dwyer who died last month at home after serving honorably in Iraq.
The way we treat our veterans is a travesty. This isn't an issue that should cause divisions on partisan, ideological, or philosophical lines. This isn't an issue that needs to wait for a new Administration. Summer is a slow season, and, while Obama and McCain are focus group testing their fall ads, they should take some time out to say, together that our vetrans deserve better, and they should endorse a biparisan plan now. Pfc. Dwyer, and others like him, won't make it to January.
Editorial Observer in the NYT, but I really recommend reading the whole article (it's not long). It tells the story of Pfc. Joseph Dwyer who died last month at home after serving honorably in Iraq.
He was 31 and very sick. For years he had been in and out of treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and addiction. He was seized by fearful delusions and fits of violence and rage. His wife left him to save herself and their young daughter. When the police were called to Mr. Dwyer’s apartment on June 28, he was alone. They broke down the door and found him dying among pill bottles and cans of cleaning solvent that friends said he sniffed to deaden his pain...
His friends tried an intervention, showing up at his door in October 2005 and demanding his guns and cans of solvent. He refused to give them up.
Hours later, gripped by delusions, he shot up his apartment. He was glad when the SWAT team arrived, Ms. Knapp said, because then he could tell them where the Iraqis were. He was arrested and discharged, and later moved to Pinehurst, N.C. His parents tried to get him help, but nothing worked. “He just couldn’t get over the war,” his mother, Maureen, told a reporter. “Joseph never came home.”
The way we treat our veterans is a travesty. This isn't an issue that should cause divisions on partisan, ideological, or philosophical lines. This isn't an issue that needs to wait for a new Administration. Summer is a slow season, and, while Obama and McCain are focus group testing their fall ads, they should take some time out to say, together that our vetrans deserve better, and they should endorse a biparisan plan now. Pfc. Dwyer, and others like him, won't make it to January.
Science Tuesday: Curing the Symptom/Curing with the Symptom
To follow up on an earlier post, I was complaining about the modern desire to ignore oversimplify systems, favoring quick fixes (hookworm-based pills) over an acknowledgement of the complexity of its dynamics. This week's New York Times Magazine's cover story was on "Pill Popping Pets," animals who are prescribed mood-regulating drugs. This article did make a good case for treating the (inbred) dogs that suffer from compulsive, self-harming behaviors. Plus, it included this quote:
More worrying is that fundamentally, these people are medicating their dogs for being dogs, whether the dogs are restless from being stuck in an appartment all day or are so attached to their owners that they panic when their owners leave. The most objectively egregious example are pet owners who demand diet pills for their pets. Just feed them less! For the most part, pet prescriptions are another easy-out solution that avoids acknowledging the real problem by focusing on the symptoms.
~~~
Then again, someone's found an awesome way to use symptoms to find cures (hat tip to Ars Technica for the story. By using data mining techniques on side effects of FDA approved drugs, scientists are finding the target mechanism of drugs and clarifying protein pathways. Unfortunately, some symptoms were just not helpful. According to Ars Technica, "so many drugs were reported to cause dizziness that it was nearly useless for the analysis."
Eli Lilly brought to market its own drug Reconcile last year. The only difference between it and Prozac is that Reconcile is chewable and tastes like beef.
More worrying is that fundamentally, these people are medicating their dogs for being dogs, whether the dogs are restless from being stuck in an appartment all day or are so attached to their owners that they panic when their owners leave. The most objectively egregious example are pet owners who demand diet pills for their pets. Just feed them less! For the most part, pet prescriptions are another easy-out solution that avoids acknowledging the real problem by focusing on the symptoms.
~~~
Then again, someone's found an awesome way to use symptoms to find cures (hat tip to Ars Technica for the story. By using data mining techniques on side effects of FDA approved drugs, scientists are finding the target mechanism of drugs and clarifying protein pathways. Unfortunately, some symptoms were just not helpful. According to Ars Technica, "so many drugs were reported to cause dizziness that it was nearly useless for the analysis."
No thanks, I'll just keep living in a world without smallpox
The NYT's Editorial Observer and I are on the outs. Commenting on Spain's recent resolution granting legal rights to chimps, the Observer has this to say:
Absolutely. I'm against the horrific conditions in which we raise our livestock, and I support discouraging the use of apes in circus-like performances. Most of us have no problem with outlawing needless cruelty. I just happen to think that "harmful medical research" is pretty darn needful.
I don't mean to downplay the suffering experienced by chimps in medical facilities. Richard Preston's excellent history of smallpox, The Demon in the Freezer details the horrible suffering of chimps infected with smallpox, and the scientist involved genuinely mourn for their charges. I think eliminating crippling diseases trumps our concern for the human-like nature of apes, just as crippling hunger would justify butchering and eating them. We shouldn't outlaw important medical research, but we should, just like the scientists Preston observes, understand the weight of what we are doing and mourn accordingly.
(Of course, I'll admit to being somewhat heartless in this matter. When I read in Paul de Kruif's Microbe Hunters (another great book) that Pasteur neglected to confirm that his TB cure worked, since this would have involved deliberately not treating babies for a control group. Unfortunately for science, TB was already in decline when Pasteur developed his treatment, so there's no confirmation that it works. I would have been in favor of an actual human trial.)
Strip away the goofier rhetoric of the ape-rights activists, and their claim is straightforward. Great apes are biologically very close to humans; chimps and humans share about 98 percent of their DNA. Apes have complex communication skills and close emotional bonds. They experience loneliness and sorrow. They deserve some respect.
Absolutely. I'm against the horrific conditions in which we raise our livestock, and I support discouraging the use of apes in circus-like performances. Most of us have no problem with outlawing needless cruelty. I just happen to think that "harmful medical research" is pretty darn needful.
I don't mean to downplay the suffering experienced by chimps in medical facilities. Richard Preston's excellent history of smallpox, The Demon in the Freezer details the horrible suffering of chimps infected with smallpox, and the scientist involved genuinely mourn for their charges. I think eliminating crippling diseases trumps our concern for the human-like nature of apes, just as crippling hunger would justify butchering and eating them. We shouldn't outlaw important medical research, but we should, just like the scientists Preston observes, understand the weight of what we are doing and mourn accordingly.
(Of course, I'll admit to being somewhat heartless in this matter. When I read in Paul de Kruif's Microbe Hunters (another great book) that Pasteur neglected to confirm that his TB cure worked, since this would have involved deliberately not treating babies for a control group. Unfortunately for science, TB was already in decline when Pasteur developed his treatment, so there's no confirmation that it works. I would have been in favor of an actual human trial.)
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Dining In, Dining Out: Happy B-Day Proust!
Throughout my year in DS, my professors emphasized (in handout and lecture) the importance of "close reading." Clearly, any deficiencies in my method are wholly due to the fact that my DS:Lit papers were not accepted in the form of cullinary concoctions.
Happily, Edmund Levin is filling this void with this article in Slate, titled "How much did Proust know about madeleines?" He exerpts the famous passage and then reflects:
I won't spoil this literary mystery, except to say that the author consults no fewer than three Proust scholars, one of whom contends:
Crumbled or shmooshed, these (possibly invented) madeleines are nearly as delicious as Proust's wonderful, lyric sentences. I have only read Swann in Love, but I hope to read more Proust this summer and find the prospect of reading him in French the strongest arguement for continuing with French instead of switching to Latin next semester.
Happy 137st! Requiescat in pace, at least until you see this.
Happily, Edmund Levin is filling this void with this article in Slate, titled "How much did Proust know about madeleines?" He exerpts the famous passage and then reflects:
What can we glean from this passage? Proust's madeleine was quite dry. It demanded not just a quick dunk, but immersion to "soften" it (according to the new translation by Lydia Davis, said to be the most accurate). And, you'll note, Marcel never bites the cookie. The memory surge is triggered by crumbs.
The Crumb Factor is the key to this culinary mystery. A close analysis of the text yields the following sequence: Marcel 1) breaks off and drops the morsel into the tea. 2) The madeleine piece then wholly or partially disintegrates during its immersion. 3) Marcel then fishes about with his spoon, yielding a spoonful of tea mixed with crumbs.
The question, then: What recipe would deliver this dry, extraordinary crumb-producer?
I won't spoil this literary mystery, except to say that the author consults no fewer than three Proust scholars, one of whom contends:
[Levin's theory that] Marcel had "dissolved pieces of madeleine floating around in his teacup," [is] "not likely." And, to my surprise, he asserted that Marcel does dunk and bite the madeleine—which would mean there's no crumb production mystery to be explained. The professor insisted that the crumbs are simply created in the narrator's mouth after he bites off a morsel and shmooshes it around
Crumbled or shmooshed, these (possibly invented) madeleines are nearly as delicious as Proust's wonderful, lyric sentences. I have only read Swann in Love, but I hope to read more Proust this summer and find the prospect of reading him in French the strongest arguement for continuing with French instead of switching to Latin next semester.
Happy 137st! Requiescat in pace, at least until you see this.
Thursday House and Home: New Neighbors
Two new Yale blogs have joined the Mafia.
Adrian Ryan is blogging as the Conservative Hipster. He terms it his
The other newcomers are Bryce Taylor, George Singer, and Mathew Gerkin, united as the Quixotic Cavers who are attempting to follow Don Quixote's
No word yet on a rival "Sancho's Insula" blog, presumably run by the Progs and composed of many transliterated Spanish proverbs strung together into a single, glorious post.
Welcome to the family guys. Don't be strangers.
(Yes, I am shoehorning this plug under 'House and Home' on the grounds that plugs are appropriate house/blogwarming gifts).
Adrian Ryan is blogging as the Conservative Hipster. He terms it his
personal blog of musings on music, culture, philosophy, and politics. It stems from an idea I had while posting here, when I realized that making others know that conservatives come in all shapes and colours, even in a hipster variety that cares about the shape and colour of the typeface on ones shirts, is an important endeavor.
The other newcomers are Bryce Taylor, George Singer, and Mathew Gerkin, united as the Quixotic Cavers who are attempting to follow Don Quixote's
valiant quest for romance, beauty, and truth in its highest form... To be sure, we do not aspire to see castles where there are only inns. We suspect, however, that some of the things ordinarily taken these days to be but ramshackle inns will turn out to be majestic castles in the end.
No word yet on a rival "Sancho's Insula" blog, presumably run by the Progs and composed of many transliterated Spanish proverbs strung together into a single, glorious post.
Welcome to the family guys. Don't be strangers.
(Yes, I am shoehorning this plug under 'House and Home' on the grounds that plugs are appropriate house/blogwarming gifts).
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Science Tuesday: Healing with Hookworms
First it was leeches draining excess blood from grafts, then maggots began saving limbs from amputatation, now, hookworms may be next to make the leap from pest to prescription. Scienctist David Pritchard (profiled here) knows hookworms
(in limited dosage) are safe, since he had ten crawl through his skin and set up home in his gut. He believes that the worms can suppress immune function in people with severe allergies or autoimmune disorders. So far, so good.
This is one of the good arguments for not mindlessly annihilating species, even parasites. But Dr. Pritchard's long term goals seem to miss why this kind of science is so cool. He hopes to "to figure out exactly how the worms turn down the immune-system radar, so he can borrow the tactics to develop alternatives to immune-suppressant and allergy-fighting drugs."
The problem that the hookworms are dealing with is caused by not being aware of our connection with nature. Not in some Kumbaya, Mother Spirit way, but a simple humility and willingness to recognize that removing ourselves from nature can be debilitating. Irritable Bowel Syndrom, whose rates have been skyrocketing in an age of casually prescribed antibiotics, may be caused or exacerbated by destruction of intestinal bacteria.
It may be that no distillation of hookworms can reproduce the effect actual hookworms have in a human body. We may be desperately trying to remove ourselves from the environment, but it's important to remember we aren't just a sack of chemicals, we are an ecosystem within an ecosystem. Ultimately, recognizing this reality may produce solutions that are more effective, as well as objectively awesome.
(in limited dosage) are safe, since he had ten crawl through his skin and set up home in his gut. He believes that the worms can suppress immune function in people with severe allergies or autoimmune disorders. So far, so good.
The National Health Services ethics committee let him conduct a study in 2006 with 30 participants, 15 of whom received 10 hookworms each. Tests showed that after six weeks, the T-cells of the 15 worm recipients began to produce lower levels of chemicals associated with inflammatory response, indicating that their immune systems were more suppressed than those of the 15 placebo recipients. Despite playing host to small numbers of parasites, worm recipients reported little discomfort. Trial participants raved about their allergy symptoms disappearing.
This is one of the good arguments for not mindlessly annihilating species, even parasites. But Dr. Pritchard's long term goals seem to miss why this kind of science is so cool. He hopes to "to figure out exactly how the worms turn down the immune-system radar, so he can borrow the tactics to develop alternatives to immune-suppressant and allergy-fighting drugs."
The problem that the hookworms are dealing with is caused by not being aware of our connection with nature. Not in some Kumbaya, Mother Spirit way, but a simple humility and willingness to recognize that removing ourselves from nature can be debilitating. Irritable Bowel Syndrom, whose rates have been skyrocketing in an age of casually prescribed antibiotics, may be caused or exacerbated by destruction of intestinal bacteria.
It may be that no distillation of hookworms can reproduce the effect actual hookworms have in a human body. We may be desperately trying to remove ourselves from the environment, but it's important to remember we aren't just a sack of chemicals, we are an ecosystem within an ecosystem. Ultimately, recognizing this reality may produce solutions that are more effective, as well as objectively awesome.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Happy 4th of July!
It was a lovely evening. My family, take-out Chinese food, my first ever viewing of The Godfather, and, finally, watching the country club's members' only fireworks from the highway median just outside the gates. Here's to the immigrant experience and the American Dream.
P.S. The New York Public Library has a cool exhibit on the Declaration of Independence which includes a draft of the Declaration in Jefferson's own hand. If anyone is in the area, it's worth checking out.
P.S. The New York Public Library has a cool exhibit on the Declaration of Independence which includes a draft of the Declaration in Jefferson's own hand. If anyone is in the area, it's worth checking out.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
YouScrewed: Please don't be evil, Google
No NYT link on this story, since Ars Technica beat them to the punch.
Remember that $1 billion lawsuit Viacom filed against YouTube, and by extension, Google? Well, a big ruling just came down. No, not a verdict, of course, the case has been going for only about a year, now. The verdict in question specifies what information Viacom is entitled to as part of the discovery process.
The judge denied some of the more absurd requests (all of Google's source code, YouTube's source code, every private video ever uploaded). Unfortunately, Viacom is still getting plenty to make mischief with.
Viacom is entitled to receive a copy of every video removed for any reason (be it porn or piracy) to make the case that YouTube is not just a safe harbor for piracy, but rather is fueled by them. The second concession is worse:
Leaving aside the fairly likely possibility that Viacom, like RIAA, will use this information to sue and settle with users who viewed pirated content, this concession would be a substantial violation of the users' privacy. The videos an 'anonymous' user watches should not be tabulated and turned over. This concession will curtail viewings and creativity on sharing websites if every view is logged and may come back to haunt you. Employers already peruse Facebook profiles, information that is willingly uploaded by users. Making it possible to request viewing logs without reason is a step in the wrong direction. Google should appeal and defy this order.
Remember that $1 billion lawsuit Viacom filed against YouTube, and by extension, Google? Well, a big ruling just came down. No, not a verdict, of course, the case has been going for only about a year, now. The verdict in question specifies what information Viacom is entitled to as part of the discovery process.
The judge denied some of the more absurd requests (all of Google's source code, YouTube's source code, every private video ever uploaded). Unfortunately, Viacom is still getting plenty to make mischief with.
Viacom is entitled to receive a copy of every video removed for any reason (be it porn or piracy) to make the case that YouTube is not just a safe harbor for piracy, but rather is fueled by them. The second concession is worse:
A 12TB database containing logging information on every video ever watched at YouTube. The database will also show which username and IP address watched every video, a move with potential privacy implications.
Leaving aside the fairly likely possibility that Viacom, like RIAA, will use this information to sue and settle with users who viewed pirated content, this concession would be a substantial violation of the users' privacy. The videos an 'anonymous' user watches should not be tabulated and turned over. This concession will curtail viewings and creativity on sharing websites if every view is logged and may come back to haunt you. Employers already peruse Facebook profiles, information that is willingly uploaded by users. Making it possible to request viewing logs without reason is a step in the wrong direction. Google should appeal and defy this order.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Front Page: US cribs from China on torture
I feel pretty strongly about torture as a moral issue, but Scott Shane's article China Inspired Interrogations at Guantanamo makes it pretty clear this isn't a big moral dilemma, balancing the needs of the many against one person's human rights, if torture doesn't produce actionable intelligence. Or any intelligence at all, really. Leaving aside the fact that when China practised the techniques we've adopted on American soldiers we called it torture, here's the real money quote:
So we've adopted as protocol for intelligence work techniques designed to produce false information. With the White House pushing to keep Gitmo in the shadows, what on earth do we need false, coerced confessions for?
The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”
What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners. [emphasis added]
So we've adopted as protocol for intelligence work techniques designed to produce false information. With the White House pushing to keep Gitmo in the shadows, what on earth do we need false, coerced confessions for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
