...then you're uninvited!!
Seriously, I'm just keeping my head down on specific political events, but this cracks me up. It was kind of a weenie move to begin with and the rescinding looks particularly foolish and week--and sooooo junior high.
You know, maybe comedians aren't joking about it now, but the time is going to come when it's recognized that this is the funniest administration ever.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Taking of Pellham 1, 2, Profit!
There's a 1995 movie directed by a guy by the name of Mike Sedan (who I want to blog about some time) called Lap Dancing that I think of a lot. As the title suggests, Lap Dancing involves strippers, and the movie is about half angst-ridden sleazefest, and about half stripping routines which are largely not related to the other half of the movie. And the thing that struck me when watching this movie (on "Joe Bob Brigg's Drive In Theater", I think) was, "Wow, Sedan must really think strippers are boring!"
You see, any real stripping routine--any stage routine--is designed to be seen from a relatively static viewpoint: That of the crowd. (I've never been in a strip club, but I've seen the pseudo-documentary Stripper, so I'm an expert, okay?) Instead, the camera was jumping all over the place. If there was anything exciting about the routine, it was completely lost in the camerawork.
That thought has recurred over the years: "Wow, this guy must really think what he's filming is boring."
I think it a lot during Tony Scott movies like The Taking of Pellham 1 2 3. Scott using so many frenetic camera tricks in one of his films, I wonder if he has no faith in his stories. The buzz on this movie has been pretty mixed, too.
It was Father's Day, though. What was going to take him to see? The Proposal?
On top of that, my dad held little fond memories of the original, but free popcorn is free popcorn.
And it was actually pretty darn good.
The premise is preposterous, of course: A group of ne'er-do-wells (led by John Travolta) capture a subway train, with the intention of ransoming off the passengers.
Kinda kooky, innit? A subway's not exactly like a plane. You can't take it anywhere. The exit strategy, as it were, is problematic, to say the least. But Scott is no stranger to dubious plots, and he handles this pretty well.
Managing the crisis is everyman Denzel Washington--who's maybe too good looking to be an Everyman but surely gives Tom Hanks a run of his money in that area--as the guy who "takes the call" and rises to the occasion.
For all his flashy camera work, Scott knows where the drama is--between Travolta and Washington, and lets them do their thing. And they do their thing very well indeed, reminding me of another movie where two top-notch actors played off each other in what was generally considered a flawed movie: The Negotiator.
But I can watch that one over and over again--the little nuances of Samuel L. Jackson as he interacts with Kevin Spacey being very compelling. I can't say for sure this is in that category but it did keep me entertained.
Of course, this is an action flick, which is kind of tough when the two principal characters are: 1) holed up in a subway car, and; 2) sitting at a desk at the transit authority's office. Scott remedies this by having a cross-city car chase which is over-the-top and gratuitous but, hey, keeps you awake, right?
Supporting actors include John Turturro and James Gandolfini, who are also always compelling.
The only real problem I had with it is I could see three or four logical things the bad guys could've done to make their lives easier. Just painfully obvious stuff. A little trickier was the fact that Travolta tends to be very likable, but he's a cold-blooded murderer. (This isn't a light caper movie.) He was believable, but that particular aspect didn't quite sit right with me.
But, overall, a good, fun movie. All three of us liked it, including The Boy, who isn't really inclined to like these sorts of things, and my dad, who was carrying around baggage from not liking the original.
So, not really sure what the bitching is about.
You see, any real stripping routine--any stage routine--is designed to be seen from a relatively static viewpoint: That of the crowd. (I've never been in a strip club, but I've seen the pseudo-documentary Stripper, so I'm an expert, okay?) Instead, the camera was jumping all over the place. If there was anything exciting about the routine, it was completely lost in the camerawork.
That thought has recurred over the years: "Wow, this guy must really think what he's filming is boring."
I think it a lot during Tony Scott movies like The Taking of Pellham 1 2 3. Scott using so many frenetic camera tricks in one of his films, I wonder if he has no faith in his stories. The buzz on this movie has been pretty mixed, too.
It was Father's Day, though. What was going to take him to see? The Proposal?
On top of that, my dad held little fond memories of the original, but free popcorn is free popcorn.
And it was actually pretty darn good.
The premise is preposterous, of course: A group of ne'er-do-wells (led by John Travolta) capture a subway train, with the intention of ransoming off the passengers.
Kinda kooky, innit? A subway's not exactly like a plane. You can't take it anywhere. The exit strategy, as it were, is problematic, to say the least. But Scott is no stranger to dubious plots, and he handles this pretty well.
Managing the crisis is everyman Denzel Washington--who's maybe too good looking to be an Everyman but surely gives Tom Hanks a run of his money in that area--as the guy who "takes the call" and rises to the occasion.
For all his flashy camera work, Scott knows where the drama is--between Travolta and Washington, and lets them do their thing. And they do their thing very well indeed, reminding me of another movie where two top-notch actors played off each other in what was generally considered a flawed movie: The Negotiator.
But I can watch that one over and over again--the little nuances of Samuel L. Jackson as he interacts with Kevin Spacey being very compelling. I can't say for sure this is in that category but it did keep me entertained.
Of course, this is an action flick, which is kind of tough when the two principal characters are: 1) holed up in a subway car, and; 2) sitting at a desk at the transit authority's office. Scott remedies this by having a cross-city car chase which is over-the-top and gratuitous but, hey, keeps you awake, right?
Supporting actors include John Turturro and James Gandolfini, who are also always compelling.
The only real problem I had with it is I could see three or four logical things the bad guys could've done to make their lives easier. Just painfully obvious stuff. A little trickier was the fact that Travolta tends to be very likable, but he's a cold-blooded murderer. (This isn't a light caper movie.) He was believable, but that particular aspect didn't quite sit right with me.
But, overall, a good, fun movie. All three of us liked it, including The Boy, who isn't really inclined to like these sorts of things, and my dad, who was carrying around baggage from not liking the original.
So, not really sure what the bitching is about.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
You Were Saying?
Quoth commenter Knox in the "Core Muscles" post:
Reconstructive taint surgery can't be far behind, can it?
Eventually there will be a "look" and then a "procedure" for every square inch of the body.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Five Dollar Baby
No, not a million dollar baby in a five-and-ten-cent store. A five dollar baby. The five dollar baby. Follow:
I mentioned here that The Boy and The Flower are both lawyers.
It's not hard to figure out: They both learned quickly that they couldn't get what they wanted through tantrums. An appeal to an authority called "The Parent Rules" dictated that, if a child had a tantrum, no matter how much a parent wanted to, there was just no way a child could get what he wanted.
This is an effective, if initially confusing, strategy. Because you say, "Oh no! Now I can't give you the toy because you had a tantrum! I'm so sorry!" And the child becomes confused because he was sure you were the one keeping the toy from him, and yet here you are expressing regret that you can't give him the toy.
But, you know, that's really the truth. You want to give your kids what they want. It's just good parenting that prevents you from doing it.
Anyway, this doesn't work with The Barbarienne. The slightest refusal--and there are many in a three-year-old's life--sends her into paroxysms of grief and/or anger. I haven't quite figured it out. She doesn't get what she wants from it. But there's obviously some "reason" she does it anyway.
But it wasn't always this way. Babies are funny things. There are things you can see on Day 1 that are there on Day 10,000. Essential characteristics. My sister started screaming the day she was born, and she's still screaming. I was quiet; I'm still quiet.
Some babies cry a lot, some sleep easily, some fuss, some like to be held more than others, and so on. The Barbarienne seldom cried, and slept like a log. Nothing bothered her.
One summer weekend, when she was six months old, we went up to some friends who lived across from Magic Mountain. We barbecued, swam in the pool, and watched the fireworks go up from the park. In five hours, the Barbarienne didn't cry, until the very end of the night when she was exhausted and needed to be changed. And as soon as she was changed, she went right to sleep.
My friends, who were debating whether or not to have children of their own, got into an argument. (Not a bad one; they're the sort of couple that has cute arguments all the time.)
The wife said, "You see, babies aren't that hard. They're not much trouble."
The husband replied, "This is perfect-baby. She never cries. Regular babies are difficult!"
And the wife responded, "Lots of babies are just like this!"
Finally, the husband said, "Five dollars! I'll give you five dollars if you can find another baby like this!"
Hence, the Barbarienne became The Five Dollar Baby.
She was definitely rare, in my experience. I'd like to think it was the culmination of nearly 20 years of experience with the whole gestation/delivery/infant management process that made it possible, but it could just have been luck.
Anyway, at eighteen months, she completely changed and became The Barbarienne. "So, she's going through terrible twos early," I thought. My kids do that, so no big deal.
Er. Yeah. It'll be two years of terrible twos pretty soon here. Why do I feel like this is going to be my life ten years from now?
I mentioned here that The Boy and The Flower are both lawyers.
It's not hard to figure out: They both learned quickly that they couldn't get what they wanted through tantrums. An appeal to an authority called "The Parent Rules" dictated that, if a child had a tantrum, no matter how much a parent wanted to, there was just no way a child could get what he wanted.
This is an effective, if initially confusing, strategy. Because you say, "Oh no! Now I can't give you the toy because you had a tantrum! I'm so sorry!" And the child becomes confused because he was sure you were the one keeping the toy from him, and yet here you are expressing regret that you can't give him the toy.
But, you know, that's really the truth. You want to give your kids what they want. It's just good parenting that prevents you from doing it.
Anyway, this doesn't work with The Barbarienne. The slightest refusal--and there are many in a three-year-old's life--sends her into paroxysms of grief and/or anger. I haven't quite figured it out. She doesn't get what she wants from it. But there's obviously some "reason" she does it anyway.
But it wasn't always this way. Babies are funny things. There are things you can see on Day 1 that are there on Day 10,000. Essential characteristics. My sister started screaming the day she was born, and she's still screaming. I was quiet; I'm still quiet.
Some babies cry a lot, some sleep easily, some fuss, some like to be held more than others, and so on. The Barbarienne seldom cried, and slept like a log. Nothing bothered her.
One summer weekend, when she was six months old, we went up to some friends who lived across from Magic Mountain. We barbecued, swam in the pool, and watched the fireworks go up from the park. In five hours, the Barbarienne didn't cry, until the very end of the night when she was exhausted and needed to be changed. And as soon as she was changed, she went right to sleep.
My friends, who were debating whether or not to have children of their own, got into an argument. (Not a bad one; they're the sort of couple that has cute arguments all the time.)
The wife said, "You see, babies aren't that hard. They're not much trouble."
The husband replied, "This is perfect-baby. She never cries. Regular babies are difficult!"
And the wife responded, "Lots of babies are just like this!"
Finally, the husband said, "Five dollars! I'll give you five dollars if you can find another baby like this!"
Hence, the Barbarienne became The Five Dollar Baby.
She was definitely rare, in my experience. I'd like to think it was the culmination of nearly 20 years of experience with the whole gestation/delivery/infant management process that made it possible, but it could just have been luck.
Anyway, at eighteen months, she completely changed and became The Barbarienne. "So, she's going through terrible twos early," I thought. My kids do that, so no big deal.
Er. Yeah. It'll be two years of terrible twos pretty soon here. Why do I feel like this is going to be my life ten years from now?
You See, Bob, It's A Problem Of Motivation
One of the advantages of home-schooling is that you can motivate your child idiosyncratically. In fact, education should be idiosyncratic: Just logically, you want to maximize what your child learns, so you should really direct it as gingerly as possible.
A simple example is reading material. The most successful English classes I had gave broad parameters for reading material. Meanwhile, the books that everyone has to read, are often loathed for the rest of the student's life. And very often (kaffcatcherintherye) they're more about what the teacher thinks will be important and long-lasting versus what actually is.
And, of course, what is important? There are a lot of gray areas.
But I think it's generally safe to agree that the reading and writing material handed out to early grade-schoolers is pretty worthless. (Same with music handed out to people learning the piano, too! It's almost like they want reading or playing to be boring.)
So, how to motivate a first- or second-grade reader? Reading's not so much an issue for The Flower. She likes to read in bed at night.
But writing is more of a problem. First of all, it's an obsolete skill! (No, really, The Boy's notes all have to be typed!) But setting aside the issue of writing-by-hand, there's a matter of what to write.
What motivates The Flower? What makes her want to write and re-write and write some more?
Contracts.
She's drawing up contracts delineating her rights and responsibilities, what services will be rendered against what the rumener-- renumer-- what she's gonna get paid.
Another lawyer.
Well, The Boy went through that phase, and it's passed. So, there's always hope.
A simple example is reading material. The most successful English classes I had gave broad parameters for reading material. Meanwhile, the books that everyone has to read, are often loathed for the rest of the student's life. And very often (kaffcatcherintherye) they're more about what the teacher thinks will be important and long-lasting versus what actually is.
And, of course, what is important? There are a lot of gray areas.
But I think it's generally safe to agree that the reading and writing material handed out to early grade-schoolers is pretty worthless. (Same with music handed out to people learning the piano, too! It's almost like they want reading or playing to be boring.)
So, how to motivate a first- or second-grade reader? Reading's not so much an issue for The Flower. She likes to read in bed at night.
But writing is more of a problem. First of all, it's an obsolete skill! (No, really, The Boy's notes all have to be typed!) But setting aside the issue of writing-by-hand, there's a matter of what to write.
What motivates The Flower? What makes her want to write and re-write and write some more?
Contracts.
She's drawing up contracts delineating her rights and responsibilities, what services will be rendered against what the rumener-- renumer-- what she's gonna get paid.
Another lawyer.
Well, The Boy went through that phase, and it's passed. So, there's always hope.
Adolescence
Previously I linked to Knox's comment where she linked to the Glenn and Helen show where they interview Robert Epstein on adolescence, and a test designed to measure how adult one is. As you can see here, I just got carried away snarking on the test, which is actually pretty interesting.
More importantly, I agree with the basic topic: Adolescence is a bad idea. I'll never forget sitting down to my first college course and thinking, "WTF? We could have done this five years ago!"
Even allowing for my high level of comfort with school--I'm a chronic test taker, read for fun, quite good at sitting still for long periods, basically made for school--college is way too late for just about everyone. The Boy, while fine in school, is nowhere near as comfortable and casual about it as I was, and he's doing just fine in his class. (And he got a strict teacher, he has to turn in his notes, etc. This will work out excellently for him in terms of giving him real world experience for taking more classes.)
Anyway, I love the way the guy, Epstein, attacks the "teen brain" thing. That kind of stuff--the sort of vague assertions made by some segment of brain scientists--always smacks of phrenology to me. Teenagers used to be plenty responsible. Inexperienced, but not stupid.
In fact, the most plausible suggestion I've heard about adolescence is that it was created by trade guilds (unions) as a way to eliminate competition.
Well, let's be honest: It's hard on the ego. If we let teens work, they'd end up being better at what we do than we are. I mean, sure, we have experience, but they have energy, alertness, enthusiasm--and putting them to work early is the best way to blunt that. Wait, no, that's not what I meant to say.
Seriously, though: Teens will work hard, for little money, and they're eager to assume more responsibility. Adults should be afraid of them entering the workplace sooner--they would threaten our ability to slack!
Of course, if we were shrewd and up to the challenge, we could harness their energy in useful ways, and create a brand new, powerful, responsible demographic, and use our experience to direct them in ways ushered in a new era of wealth for everyone.
As always, the kids are all right. It's the adults that are the problem.
More importantly, I agree with the basic topic: Adolescence is a bad idea. I'll never forget sitting down to my first college course and thinking, "WTF? We could have done this five years ago!"
Even allowing for my high level of comfort with school--I'm a chronic test taker, read for fun, quite good at sitting still for long periods, basically made for school--college is way too late for just about everyone. The Boy, while fine in school, is nowhere near as comfortable and casual about it as I was, and he's doing just fine in his class. (And he got a strict teacher, he has to turn in his notes, etc. This will work out excellently for him in terms of giving him real world experience for taking more classes.)
Anyway, I love the way the guy, Epstein, attacks the "teen brain" thing. That kind of stuff--the sort of vague assertions made by some segment of brain scientists--always smacks of phrenology to me. Teenagers used to be plenty responsible. Inexperienced, but not stupid.
In fact, the most plausible suggestion I've heard about adolescence is that it was created by trade guilds (unions) as a way to eliminate competition.
Well, let's be honest: It's hard on the ego. If we let teens work, they'd end up being better at what we do than we are. I mean, sure, we have experience, but they have energy, alertness, enthusiasm--and putting them to work early is the best way to blunt that. Wait, no, that's not what I meant to say.
Seriously, though: Teens will work hard, for little money, and they're eager to assume more responsibility. Adults should be afraid of them entering the workplace sooner--they would threaten our ability to slack!
Of course, if we were shrewd and up to the challenge, we could harness their energy in useful ways, and create a brand new, powerful, responsible demographic, and use our experience to direct them in ways ushered in a new era of wealth for everyone.
As always, the kids are all right. It's the adults that are the problem.
All The Awful Things That Ever Were
In response to the previous post on The Boy's college career, Knox linked to the Glenn and Helen show where they interview Robert Epstein on adolescence, and a test designed to measure how adult one is.
I got an ""Adultness" Comepetency Score" of 90%. Double-scare quotes! The quotes around "Adultness" are theirs, mine are around the whole phrase. I'm pretty sure you have to be quite mature to use double-scare quotes.
The results page then lists your scores by subject matter. Of course, I'm an old time test-taker. I could get whatever score I wanted. I answered some of the questions "incorrectly" because I they were phrased badly.
For example, "You can earn a high school diploma by completing high school or passing an equivalency test. Do you agree?" Well, no, I don't, because it's not true. You can take the GED--though the current California system bars you from taking it pretty much until you're 18, take that! you overachievers!--but even if you take the GED, you don't have a high school diploma, and you won't be treated like you do. (This is along the same lines of The Boy getting his MBA: Getting the sheepskin is about him having options should he need to get a job, even if his current plan is to be an employer rather than an employee.)
I thought it was amusing that I scored 100% on the "managing high-risk behaviors" section. This (for me) has nothing to do with being mature. I just don't find most high-risk behaviors entertaining. I guess driving counts. But guns? Very few people are accidentally hurt by guns. Guns are meant to be deadly; power tools probably claim more casualties. Cars do by an order of magnitude.
I scored quite badly on the "physical abilities" section (56%). I see what they're getting at: An adult realizes that he has to take care of his body. But even at my peak fitness, I never regarded myself as "strong" or "flexible". Those things are relative. And I tend to look at those things--not just physical fitness, but also intelligence--in terms of where they fail (almost always sooner than where I'd like).
Kinda sucks that poor health makes you less adult than a teenage football player.
The more legit one is "Personal Care". Legit in the sense of being less a relative use of words, versus actually being accurate. My score there was 78%, but I know it's because I sacrifice elements of personal care (sleep, in particular) for my children. And I suppose most people don't really have to do that regularly, but the questions are completely context free, and any adult knows that there are plenty of circumstances where you do sacrifice optimum personal behaviors for your children.
But then, as an adult, I know better than to put much stock in an Internet quiz.
I got an ""Adultness" Comepetency Score" of 90%. Double-scare quotes! The quotes around "Adultness" are theirs, mine are around the whole phrase. I'm pretty sure you have to be quite mature to use double-scare quotes.
The results page then lists your scores by subject matter. Of course, I'm an old time test-taker. I could get whatever score I wanted. I answered some of the questions "incorrectly" because I they were phrased badly.
For example, "You can earn a high school diploma by completing high school or passing an equivalency test. Do you agree?" Well, no, I don't, because it's not true. You can take the GED--though the current California system bars you from taking it pretty much until you're 18, take that! you overachievers!--but even if you take the GED, you don't have a high school diploma, and you won't be treated like you do. (This is along the same lines of The Boy getting his MBA: Getting the sheepskin is about him having options should he need to get a job, even if his current plan is to be an employer rather than an employee.)
I thought it was amusing that I scored 100% on the "managing high-risk behaviors" section. This (for me) has nothing to do with being mature. I just don't find most high-risk behaviors entertaining. I guess driving counts. But guns? Very few people are accidentally hurt by guns. Guns are meant to be deadly; power tools probably claim more casualties. Cars do by an order of magnitude.
I scored quite badly on the "physical abilities" section (56%). I see what they're getting at: An adult realizes that he has to take care of his body. But even at my peak fitness, I never regarded myself as "strong" or "flexible". Those things are relative. And I tend to look at those things--not just physical fitness, but also intelligence--in terms of where they fail (almost always sooner than where I'd like).
Kinda sucks that poor health makes you less adult than a teenage football player.
The more legit one is "Personal Care". Legit in the sense of being less a relative use of words, versus actually being accurate. My score there was 78%, but I know it's because I sacrifice elements of personal care (sleep, in particular) for my children. And I suppose most people don't really have to do that regularly, but the questions are completely context free, and any adult knows that there are plenty of circumstances where you do sacrifice optimum personal behaviors for your children.
But then, as an adult, I know better than to put much stock in an Internet quiz.
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Boy Goes To College
We had planned to send The Boy off for the winter session, but it's a really, really big deal around here to get a 13-year-old in. The Dean has to give personal permission, papers must be signed, oaths sworn, etc. This all magically vanishes at 14.
Bureaucracy is a wondrous thing.
Not complaining, mind you: There's still plenty 'round here to teach him.
Anyway, The Boy is at his first class today. Summer session is a dicey time to start. Classes are relatively intense (two hours a day, every day) and, of course, you have the "teacher factor" magnified. An easy teacher is probably going to be extra easy in the summer, while a harder teacher is going to concentrate all the work he'd normally give into half the time.
He wanted to take a business or economics class--he's got his eye on an MBA before 20--but they were full. I suggested the cinema class. I figure that it will be interesting, and I hope not to grueling--but it will get him used to being on campus. (And get him some legit university credits.)
Update to come shortly.
Bureaucracy is a wondrous thing.
Not complaining, mind you: There's still plenty 'round here to teach him.
Anyway, The Boy is at his first class today. Summer session is a dicey time to start. Classes are relatively intense (two hours a day, every day) and, of course, you have the "teacher factor" magnified. An easy teacher is probably going to be extra easy in the summer, while a harder teacher is going to concentrate all the work he'd normally give into half the time.
He wanted to take a business or economics class--he's got his eye on an MBA before 20--but they were full. I suggested the cinema class. I figure that it will be interesting, and I hope not to grueling--but it will get him used to being on campus. (And get him some legit university credits.)
Update to come shortly.
Bein' A Dad
Bein' a dad isn't so bad
Except that you've gotta feed 'em!
You gotta shoe 'em and clothe 'em
And try not to loathe 'em
Bug 'em and hug 'em and heed 'em
Bein' a dad can sure make you mad
Man it even can drive you crazy
Yeah, it's as hard as it looks
You gotta read 'em dumb books
And you end up despising Walt Disney
Bein' a dad starts to get radical
When they turn into teenagers
You gotta tighten the screws
Enforce the curfews
Confiscate weapons and pagers
But a daughter or son
Can be sort of fun
Just as long as they don't defy you
They'll treat you like a king
They'll believe anything
They're easy to frighten and lie to
Bein' a dad
Bein' a dad
Bein' a dad can make you feel glad
When you get paperweights and aftershave lotions
Yeah, it feels pretty great
When they graduate
That's when you're choked with emotions
But bein' a dad takes more than a tad
Of good luck and divine intervention
You need airtight alibis
Fullproof disguises
Desperation is the father of invention
So sometimes you take off
For a few rounds of golf
And you stay away for half of their lifetimes
The result of it all is
Is you're captured
And hauled up
Before a tribunal for "dad crimes"
Bein' a dad
Bein' a dad
Bein' a dad can make you feel sad
Like you're the insignificant other
Yeah, right from the start,
They break your heart
In the end, every kid wants his mother
Bein' a dad
--Loudon Wainwright III
(Link to song with goofy video.)
Except that you've gotta feed 'em!
You gotta shoe 'em and clothe 'em
And try not to loathe 'em
Bug 'em and hug 'em and heed 'em
Bein' a dad can sure make you mad
Man it even can drive you crazy
Yeah, it's as hard as it looks
You gotta read 'em dumb books
And you end up despising Walt Disney
Bein' a dad starts to get radical
When they turn into teenagers
You gotta tighten the screws
Enforce the curfews
Confiscate weapons and pagers
But a daughter or son
Can be sort of fun
Just as long as they don't defy you
They'll treat you like a king
They'll believe anything
They're easy to frighten and lie to
Bein' a dad
Bein' a dad
Bein' a dad can make you feel glad
When you get paperweights and aftershave lotions
Yeah, it feels pretty great
When they graduate
That's when you're choked with emotions
But bein' a dad takes more than a tad
Of good luck and divine intervention
You need airtight alibis
Fullproof disguises
Desperation is the father of invention
So sometimes you take off
For a few rounds of golf
And you stay away for half of their lifetimes
The result of it all is
Is you're captured
And hauled up
Before a tribunal for "dad crimes"
Bein' a dad
Bein' a dad
Bein' a dad can make you feel sad
Like you're the insignificant other
Yeah, right from the start,
They break your heart
In the end, every kid wants his mother
Bein' a dad
--Loudon Wainwright III
(Link to song with goofy video.)
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Core Muscles
I forgot to mention in the Wii post that the Wii Fit talks a lot about core muscles.
I had not heard of "core muscles" prior to the Fit, though I did intuit what they were. Especially when they became "those things that hurt" after doing the Fit's balance games--which are, in essence, all about leaning slightly one way or the other.
Althouse has a post about this, though with not much commentary, referencing a New York Times article on how people are wrecking their backs in the quest for washboard abs. I had a couple of thoughts.
Like, first, if they meant "abs", they would call them "abs", not "core muscles". There was no stigma attached to "abs", such that they, like stewardesses, had to seek a new name. If the secret to great abs was just "exercise your abs a lot", well, that wouldn't be much of a bloody secret now, would it?
Second, I used to be really skinny. This was a time when I could crank out a hundred sit ups, and was required to, actually, as part of my martial arts training. Never had six-pack abs. I never thought of it as something to strive for. In fact, I thought--and still think--it's a little effete to focus on that sort of thing.
Third, when did washboard abs get to be the thing everyone had to have? What's wrong with a nice, flat stomach? Or even a slightly rounded one? And if they're so gosh-darned important to have, why can't people face just doing what needs to be done to get them without wrecking their bodies?
OK, I've gone into full Andy Rooney mode, which means it's time for this post to end.
I had not heard of "core muscles" prior to the Fit, though I did intuit what they were. Especially when they became "those things that hurt" after doing the Fit's balance games--which are, in essence, all about leaning slightly one way or the other.
Althouse has a post about this, though with not much commentary, referencing a New York Times article on how people are wrecking their backs in the quest for washboard abs. I had a couple of thoughts.
Like, first, if they meant "abs", they would call them "abs", not "core muscles". There was no stigma attached to "abs", such that they, like stewardesses, had to seek a new name. If the secret to great abs was just "exercise your abs a lot", well, that wouldn't be much of a bloody secret now, would it?
Second, I used to be really skinny. This was a time when I could crank out a hundred sit ups, and was required to, actually, as part of my martial arts training. Never had six-pack abs. I never thought of it as something to strive for. In fact, I thought--and still think--it's a little effete to focus on that sort of thing.
Third, when did washboard abs get to be the thing everyone had to have? What's wrong with a nice, flat stomach? Or even a slightly rounded one? And if they're so gosh-darned important to have, why can't people face just doing what needs to be done to get them without wrecking their bodies?
OK, I've gone into full Andy Rooney mode, which means it's time for this post to end.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Wii-dux
We recently passed the One Year mark on the Wii Fit board--we had one pre-ordered, actually. Sort of amusingly, I'm the primary user of the board, though I'm sporadic. The Boy used it for 8 hours one day, got all the high scores, took his blood sugar down to alarmingly low levels--interesting that--but then never cared to use it again.
The obvious distinction there is that The Boy is definitely a hardcore gamer. (I've been one in the past, but it got difficult to keep up 'round about kid #3.) The Wii isn't really about hardcore games. We have a few, but they don't get much play.
Of course, what the Wii is about--the reason it comes close to outselling the XBox 360 and the PS3 combined--is a simple physicality that makes it both accessible and interesting in a way that thumb twitching is not.
What's less obvious, of course, is that--particularly with the Wii Fit--the physicality isn't all that interesting to The Boy, at least in part because it's just way too easy for him. And this is before he started doing his current program, which he says has really improved his reflexes. (The other part, I think, is that hardcore gamers tend to want to minimize any exertion between their intention and action.) But it's not that easy for me, which I take to be a sign of "aging".
And, when I say "aging", I of course mean "any deterioration I can attribute to forces outside of my control, regardless of actual causes, particularly causes that I might not want to address."
Anyway, one of the tests on the Wii is to stand still--well, really to balance. If a kid can hold himself still, it's just a matter of standing very still and with weight distributed equally on both legs. I'm pretty sure this was never a problem for me before. I mean, I do okay on the test. Very close to perfect. But this and a lot of the other tests (shifting weight, standing on one leg) seem challenging in a way I don't think they would've been a "few" years ago.
I used to do all kinds of karate maneuvers on one leg (which is of dubious practicality, but that's a discussion for a different time). But not having had the technology at the time, it's hard to say how much (or even whether, he suggested optimistically) of a deterioration there's been over the years.
Meanwhile, I've wrested quite a few of The Boy's high scores away.
It's just a temporary respite, of course. The Flower and I played a couple hours of Wii Sports over the past few days, and she can give me a run for my money--beat me, even--on tennis and baseball, and her bowling skills are coming up. She doesn't quite have the light touch needed for golfing, and nobody can really touch me on boxing. Well, yet. Give her time.
All's not perfect in the Wii world, of course. As much as I love the Wii, it's more a tantalizing taste of the future than a great implementation. The wiimote suggests a time when true motion capture will be used to interact with games--and perhaps other software, though I think contra Minority Report, big gestures aren't going to ever be the norm--and the new MotionPlus is supposedly dynamite, but the games do show the limits of the motion control. (Of course, at the other end, you have complaints that the MotionPlus is too sensitive. There's a lot of frontier to be crossed, technologically speaking.)
Worse, despite the killer console sales I'm not seeing a lot of games that really embrace the motion, and the whole gaming support industry is really not set up to distinguish between traditional hardcore games and games that use the motion system effectively.
Then, there are minor issues. I think the Wii Fit board is too narrow. (I'm used to a wider stance from my karate days, and one size fits all doesn't seem optimum.) Also, there's a lot of nagging. I understand why it's in there, but it does seem condescending at first, and--after two years--irritating. It's all designed to be gentle, but needs to be a lot more easily dismissed after the 200th viewing.
Still, we've enjoyed the console, and I foresee it having another three years life, easily, on our shelf. I don't see replacing it with a button masher ever though.
The obvious distinction there is that The Boy is definitely a hardcore gamer. (I've been one in the past, but it got difficult to keep up 'round about kid #3.) The Wii isn't really about hardcore games. We have a few, but they don't get much play.
Of course, what the Wii is about--the reason it comes close to outselling the XBox 360 and the PS3 combined--is a simple physicality that makes it both accessible and interesting in a way that thumb twitching is not.
What's less obvious, of course, is that--particularly with the Wii Fit--the physicality isn't all that interesting to The Boy, at least in part because it's just way too easy for him. And this is before he started doing his current program, which he says has really improved his reflexes. (The other part, I think, is that hardcore gamers tend to want to minimize any exertion between their intention and action.) But it's not that easy for me, which I take to be a sign of "aging".
And, when I say "aging", I of course mean "any deterioration I can attribute to forces outside of my control, regardless of actual causes, particularly causes that I might not want to address."
Anyway, one of the tests on the Wii is to stand still--well, really to balance. If a kid can hold himself still, it's just a matter of standing very still and with weight distributed equally on both legs. I'm pretty sure this was never a problem for me before. I mean, I do okay on the test. Very close to perfect. But this and a lot of the other tests (shifting weight, standing on one leg) seem challenging in a way I don't think they would've been a "few" years ago.
I used to do all kinds of karate maneuvers on one leg (which is of dubious practicality, but that's a discussion for a different time). But not having had the technology at the time, it's hard to say how much (or even whether, he suggested optimistically) of a deterioration there's been over the years.
Meanwhile, I've wrested quite a few of The Boy's high scores away.
It's just a temporary respite, of course. The Flower and I played a couple hours of Wii Sports over the past few days, and she can give me a run for my money--beat me, even--on tennis and baseball, and her bowling skills are coming up. She doesn't quite have the light touch needed for golfing, and nobody can really touch me on boxing. Well, yet. Give her time.
All's not perfect in the Wii world, of course. As much as I love the Wii, it's more a tantalizing taste of the future than a great implementation. The wiimote suggests a time when true motion capture will be used to interact with games--and perhaps other software, though I think contra Minority Report, big gestures aren't going to ever be the norm--and the new MotionPlus is supposedly dynamite, but the games do show the limits of the motion control. (Of course, at the other end, you have complaints that the MotionPlus is too sensitive. There's a lot of frontier to be crossed, technologically speaking.)
Worse, despite the killer console sales I'm not seeing a lot of games that really embrace the motion, and the whole gaming support industry is really not set up to distinguish between traditional hardcore games and games that use the motion system effectively.
Then, there are minor issues. I think the Wii Fit board is too narrow. (I'm used to a wider stance from my karate days, and one size fits all doesn't seem optimum.) Also, there's a lot of nagging. I understand why it's in there, but it does seem condescending at first, and--after two years--irritating. It's all designed to be gentle, but needs to be a lot more easily dismissed after the 200th viewing.
Still, we've enjoyed the console, and I foresee it having another three years life, easily, on our shelf. I don't see replacing it with a button masher ever though.
Sadder Than A Really Sad Thing
It was sad that I went to eat a veggie dog. (It doesn't matter that much: Put a bun around it, slather in catsup, mustard, relish, pickles, sauerkraut and sawdust, and it doesn't matter what the hot dog is made of. A fact hot dog vendors have relied on for years.)
It was sad that I dropped the dog.
It was really sad that The Big White Dog picked up the dog whole.
I had a moment of hope when The Big White Dog spit it out without having bitten into it.
But then, there was this dog on the floor. So I called the Little Black Dog over.
Sadder than a really sad thing? The Big White Dog snatched the veggie dog up and swallowed it whole.
Worse than kids.
It was sad that I dropped the dog.
It was really sad that The Big White Dog picked up the dog whole.
I had a moment of hope when The Big White Dog spit it out without having bitten into it.
But then, there was this dog on the floor. So I called the Little Black Dog over.
Sadder than a really sad thing? The Big White Dog snatched the veggie dog up and swallowed it whole.
Worse than kids.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Things That Have Ruined The Internet, Part I: "Free"ware
So, I went to make a recording. (I'm not much into recording. I prefer to let any given performance, warts and all, be ephemera. I find myself more easily convinced by the praise of others when there are no records to disabuse me.)
I fired up SndRec32, the multimedia extravaganza application built-in to Windows (my only mic is on my Windows laptop, though thinking about it now, I could've booted it to Ubuntu, hmmm) and recorded for about 3 minutes.
'course, SndRec32 stops recording after a minute. You can force it to go in minute increments with some trickery but I thought, shoot, I could put together a simple recorder in 5 minutes. (Might, even.) Surely, there would be a plethora of simple sound recorders.
Which brings me to something that's ruined the Internet: A proliferation of pages offering "free" software that tops any search you do, where the software isn't free at all--or the download link for the free software is almost completely occluded by a bunch of links to paid software.
I ended up downloading a program called AVS Audio Editor, a "full featured audio editor", which was so not what I wanted. (I just wanted a slightly less dumb SndRec32, fercryingoutloud.) But what the hell, I figured I'd try it and see. If it were a genuine limited-use software I might stick with it. (For what I need, I don't really want to pay $40. And even more than the $40, I don't want the overhead of keeping track of some registration key and upgrading, etc. etc. etc.)
So I hunt around on this massive panel for a "record" button, set up the microphone (oh, yes, it required setup, because this is a Serious Audio Application) and got to recording. Recorded my three minutes again and used the special effects panel to boost the rather soft results. Went to save and discovered that the "trial" version inserted a blank second for every 5 seconds or so of recording. In other words, you couldn't save.
Well, fine. I guess. I looked for a free app, instead I got a non-free one by mistake, and it was so crippled and annoying that there's no chance, ever, that I would buy or even use this application. Of course, I uninstalled, but nothing ever really uninstalls in Windows.
And it's all due to these jerky pages serving these "free" apps and, besides plastering 10 ads on the page, hide the legit app to full you into downloading a fake one.
I miss BBSes.
I fired up SndRec32, the multimedia extravaganza application built-in to Windows (my only mic is on my Windows laptop, though thinking about it now, I could've booted it to Ubuntu, hmmm) and recorded for about 3 minutes.
'course, SndRec32 stops recording after a minute. You can force it to go in minute increments with some trickery but I thought, shoot, I could put together a simple recorder in 5 minutes. (Might, even.) Surely, there would be a plethora of simple sound recorders.
Which brings me to something that's ruined the Internet: A proliferation of pages offering "free" software that tops any search you do, where the software isn't free at all--or the download link for the free software is almost completely occluded by a bunch of links to paid software.
I ended up downloading a program called AVS Audio Editor, a "full featured audio editor", which was so not what I wanted. (I just wanted a slightly less dumb SndRec32, fercryingoutloud.) But what the hell, I figured I'd try it and see. If it were a genuine limited-use software I might stick with it. (For what I need, I don't really want to pay $40. And even more than the $40, I don't want the overhead of keeping track of some registration key and upgrading, etc. etc. etc.)
So I hunt around on this massive panel for a "record" button, set up the microphone (oh, yes, it required setup, because this is a Serious Audio Application) and got to recording. Recorded my three minutes again and used the special effects panel to boost the rather soft results. Went to save and discovered that the "trial" version inserted a blank second for every 5 seconds or so of recording. In other words, you couldn't save.
Well, fine. I guess. I looked for a free app, instead I got a non-free one by mistake, and it was so crippled and annoying that there's no chance, ever, that I would buy or even use this application. Of course, I uninstalled, but nothing ever really uninstalls in Windows.
And it's all due to these jerky pages serving these "free" apps and, besides plastering 10 ads on the page, hide the legit app to full you into downloading a fake one.
I miss BBSes.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Etsba Elohim: Out Of The Blue
"I have an idea. Let's have coffee." So suggests Shabtai to his cousin Herzel, but falls asleep before the coffee is ready. He has a dream of a beautiful woman speaking intimately to him and, on waking, discovers that the woman is real--in fact a national celebrity, model, singer, businesswoman named Lili Dekel. He then constructs a fantasy story of his relationship with Lili while Herzel listens, entranced.
So begins Yigal Bursztyn's delightful little movie Etsba Elohim, featured in the 24th Israeli Film Festival in America as Out of the Blue.
Shabtai and Herzel are junkmen, buying and selling old furniture on the streets of Tel Aviv. Shabtai is married and lives in a small apartment with his wife, Rachel, and his daughter Batya, while Herzel, an orphan, lives alone in Shabtai's warehouse.
Shabtai is lazy, surly and unfulfilled, while Herzel is his simple, cheerful sidekick who does most of the work, and becomes increasingly enamored of Shabtai's fabrication. He hatches a plan for them to meet Lili Dekel which ends up taking some very funny turns.
Herzel is spurred on by his infatuation with Shabtai's daughter, a young (high school?) girl who likes getting gifts from him, but seems a little dense as far as understanding his intentions. (Which are honorable, but pretty inappropriate.)
The twist of this movie is that Lily finds herself attracted to Herzel, while he's doing everything he can to direct her to an increasingly hostile Shabtai. In fact, Shabtai seems to have a penchant for freezing up in a clinch. And we begin to wonder why Herzel is so loyal--and he is, even when Shabtai treats him very badly indeed.
Anyway, good fun. You probably won't have a chance to see it, without going out of your way. Israel seems to turn out a bunch of good little movies that don't get much airing over here. (See the 2004 charmer Ha Ushpizin for example.)
We actually saw it "by accident". There's another movie called Out of the Blue, a 2006 crime drama with Karl Urban which IMDB linked to instead of this one. I kind of figured it wasn't the one showing--I knew the Israeli film festival was at the theater. I like to know a little bit more about things going in, but at 90 minutes, it wasn't a huge risk.
Though it was $12 a ticket. Yow! Painful. But always easier to swallow when the money's going to some struggling film auteur.
Anyway, no regrets. Lots of fun. Actually enjoyed it more than The Hangover.
So begins Yigal Bursztyn's delightful little movie Etsba Elohim, featured in the 24th Israeli Film Festival in America as Out of the Blue.
Shabtai and Herzel are junkmen, buying and selling old furniture on the streets of Tel Aviv. Shabtai is married and lives in a small apartment with his wife, Rachel, and his daughter Batya, while Herzel, an orphan, lives alone in Shabtai's warehouse.
Shabtai is lazy, surly and unfulfilled, while Herzel is his simple, cheerful sidekick who does most of the work, and becomes increasingly enamored of Shabtai's fabrication. He hatches a plan for them to meet Lili Dekel which ends up taking some very funny turns.
Herzel is spurred on by his infatuation with Shabtai's daughter, a young (high school?) girl who likes getting gifts from him, but seems a little dense as far as understanding his intentions. (Which are honorable, but pretty inappropriate.)
The twist of this movie is that Lily finds herself attracted to Herzel, while he's doing everything he can to direct her to an increasingly hostile Shabtai. In fact, Shabtai seems to have a penchant for freezing up in a clinch. And we begin to wonder why Herzel is so loyal--and he is, even when Shabtai treats him very badly indeed.
Anyway, good fun. You probably won't have a chance to see it, without going out of your way. Israel seems to turn out a bunch of good little movies that don't get much airing over here. (See the 2004 charmer Ha Ushpizin for example.)
We actually saw it "by accident". There's another movie called Out of the Blue, a 2006 crime drama with Karl Urban which IMDB linked to instead of this one. I kind of figured it wasn't the one showing--I knew the Israeli film festival was at the theater. I like to know a little bit more about things going in, but at 90 minutes, it wasn't a huge risk.
Though it was $12 a ticket. Yow! Painful. But always easier to swallow when the money's going to some struggling film auteur.
Anyway, no regrets. Lots of fun. Actually enjoyed it more than The Hangover.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
"I Believe In The Principle of Free Speech But...
...shut up already!" Or so says Althouse in this post. I assume it's the "but" she objects to, so apparently if you believe in anything less than absolute freedom of speech all the time, she doesn't want to hear it.
I feel for her. Her blog's been inundated with trolls at a time when she probably couldn't be much less interested in maintenance issues. But I've never seen an online community with an absolute freedom of speech rule that wasn't ultimately destroyed by that devotion.
The logical paradox I see is that she's not rebuking the trolls, who are acting in bad faith, but she is rebuking people who bitch about the trolls, even though they're acting in good faith. So why is free speech an absolute for trolls--but not for troll haters?
I feel for her. Her blog's been inundated with trolls at a time when she probably couldn't be much less interested in maintenance issues. But I've never seen an online community with an absolute freedom of speech rule that wasn't ultimately destroyed by that devotion.
The logical paradox I see is that she's not rebuking the trolls, who are acting in bad faith, but she is rebuking people who bitch about the trolls, even though they're acting in good faith. So why is free speech an absolute for trolls--but not for troll haters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
