nmb

1:

You can find some people’s idea of the best reads of 2004 and 1/2 here, tucked away on an obscure mailing list of some sort. It’s an interesting list, though it would be nice if it had at least some kind of indication what the books are about, or how many people (from the mailing list) suggested each one. Because, for instance, the book Word Freak: Heartbreak, Triumph, Genius and Obsession in the World of Competitive Scrabble Players might have been suggested by one lone reader, or it might have been well-received, with 317 people suggesting it on account of its sheer goodness. Which would be quite helpful. But it’s a list, anyway.

(via LII)

2:

At How To Save the World, you get a list (annotated, this time) of 56 potentially life-changing books and articles, what b&a the blog author says changed his worldview. It’s a good list.

Apologies for the unnecessary exclamation point. But I had to draw your attention in somehow, and now that you’re here, let me say what I have to say and get it over with.

The editor of the American Chemical Society (of all organizations) rants on idiotic environmental non-policies.

On his list—allegedly “inspired by TV’s David Letterman” (as compared to, say, radio’s David Letterman?), since, as we all know, top 10 lists had previously been undiscovered—are: the failure to properly address invasive species (#8); the abominable and too-extreme use of fertilizers & pesticides in suburban lawns and whatnot (#10); a junk water policy (#6); perverse taxes/subsidies (#5); and crap fuel and energy policy (a no-brainer, this takes up #s 2, 3 and 4), among other things.

(“Top 10 stupid environmental policies,” by Jerald L. Schnoor [July 1, 2004]; via PLANETizen)

• New Scientist looks at trials of a drug thought to hold potential in treating vCJD. The trial will look at an anti-malarial drug (of all things) that seems to have some promise in the whole mad cow arena.
• The Guardian provides a handy-dandy Q&A format article on BSE/vCJD—giving, among other things, a straightforward, helpful explanation of the CJDs (Sporadic, Variant, etc.). Curiously, the article does not mention the “mad cow” appellation, assuming—probably—that by now people have heard the acronym BSE knocked around often enough to know it’s mad cow disease.

(New Scientist: “Trial of treatments for vCJD to launch,” by Andy Coghlan [August 5, 2004]; Guardian: “vCJD,” by James Meikle [August 6, 2004])

Robert Chalmers of the Independent interviews Chuck Palahniuk in a piece called “Chuck Palahniuk: Stranger than Fiction.” By the sound of things, it’s likely to be one of very few interviews (of its particular flavor) to come from the author for a while—a fact that’s notable mostly in Palahniuk’s statement against ‘personal profiles,’ of which the aforelinked article is one.

For newbies, “Chuck Palahniuk: Stranger than Fiction” is a pretty good backgrounder on the author. It gives you a relatively good sense of the eccentric, authorial personal Palahniuk has tried—successfully, for the most part—to cultivate. It also gives you a relatively good sense of how trying to cultivate a particular persona for whatever purpose can distort your view of reality, not to mention your view of yourself. Part of it’s maybe the need to sculpt actual opinions to appropriately reflect the image you’re trying to offer the public, which in turn becomes internalized to the extent that sculpted opinions become your actual opinions, to the discomfort of your real self. (Or maybe not; I certainly wouldn’t know, though it’s interesting to speculate.)

Chalmers shows us this confusion:

Palahniuk is noticeably ill at ease here in a public space in Portland, the city where he’d lived for almost 25 years before his recent move. He says he’s widely disliked for Fugitives and Refugees, his entertaining travel book on the city which was published last year. It alienated locals so intensely, he claims, that he decided to move up the coast. “I am persona non grata in this town,” he says.

(”If he really believes that,” a Portland journalist told me, “he is insane. People here are proud of him.” Like cartoonist John Callahan, the band Pink Martini, or Katherine Dunn, author of Geek Love, the reporter adds, “Palahniuk is a quirky claim to fame for a city that has few others.”)

Anyway, it’s an interesting interview-slash-profile, running the gamut of topics. Palahniuk’s book, Non-Fiction, is the unifying theme (well, and the author himself), but you’ll find tidbits on writing philosophy, confrontation, traffic, autopsy photos, shoplifting, and about a dozen other topics.

But, like the man says, “Chuck Palahniuk is, admittedly, not for everybody.”

(Independent: “Chuck Palahniuk: Stranger than fiction,” by Robert Chalmers [August 1, 2004])

(2003) dir. Alejandro González Iñárritu - Sean Penn, Naomi Watts, Benicio Del Toro, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Melissa Leo et al.

Synopsis: 21 Grams is a story of guilt and suffering, pain and redemption, etc.; it’s a story of three people and their families, and how their lives become hopelessly entangled. I won’t say any more; it’s difficult to say much about the plot without giving away too much, since the movie’s set up in a nonlinear fashion.

Review: I’m a big fan of nonlinearity. In ‘21 Grams’, it’s not an absolutely necessary device (as in, e.g., Memento), but it’s put to good use nonetheless. It helps mold an already-interesting story into something more, infusing mystery into scenes that would be otherwise straightforward, and redirecting suspense—telling you the outcome and letting you wonder how they get there. Which, admittedly, can sound a little lame, but in the case of ‘21 Grams’ isn’t. Having a vague but fairly straightforward idea of how the movie will end early on doesn’t help, because very little of what you see makes sense in relation to how you know the timeline starts out. It’s almost (though not quite) like watching two different movies with the same cast spliced randomly together. But, as they say, that’s not all. Performances are outstanding all around. Naomi Watts (Mulholland Drive [••••½], The Ring) does very well in vastly different scenes; Sean Penn and Benecio Del Toro both do great jobs in the strange roles into which they’re thrown (or ‘cast,’ if you prefer). I could have gone without Paul Rivers (Penn) reciting South American poetry to Cristina (Watts), but the quip about kidney damage probably offsets it, so no harm, no foul. Although pinpointing any particular actor is probably unfair because, as I said, performances are outstanding all around. Nor do I mean, the ‘main’ performances—all the actors, from Denis O’Hare as Dr. Rothberg to Antef A. Harris as ‘Basketball Guy’ to Lew Temple as the County Sheriff, do exceptionally well in their roles. The team of Iñárritu (directing), Arriaga (writing), and Santaolalla (composing) did quite well on ‘Amores Perros’ [••••], and did even better on ‘21 Grams.’ I’m eager to see what they do next.

Rating: [••••½] out of [•••••]

Now’s your chance.

Pick the setting, background, cast, script, soundtrack, and titles, then sit back and watch the brilliance unfold. Or not, as the case may be. (The music gets a little repetitive when it comes time for the actual movie.)

(via MeFi)

You may or may not have heard of the legendary Hogzilla.

You may or may not have known it was called Hogzilla, depending on what parts you’re from.

“Around these parts,” the article states, “they are calling it Hogzilla.”

Hog-zilla.

Anyway, it’s a great headline-maker, as far as quirky news stories go. And it’s also a great human-interest story, one that sees no one [no human, anyway] slaughtered, arrested, etc.; it’s the story of a boy and his hog… his 12 foot, 1,000lb hog that he killed, anyway.

Of course, any right-thinkin’ person might be set a-wonderin’ after reading how the gigantic terror of a hog was killed, strung up, photographed… and then buried, without any keepsakes to pass from father to son?

Snopes thinks it’s a wee bit exaggerated as well, and has a pretty good write-up on the beast. A 1000lb wild hog, like many other things, is difficult to disprove entirely, but Snopes does a good job of showing why we might doubt the claims as to its enormity.

What it all boils down to is two questions and—conveniently enough—two answers.

Q: Was a wild hog killed? (And did somebody nickname it ‘Hogzilla’?)
A: Yes.

Q: Did it weigh 1,000lbs, etc. etc. etc.?
A: Almost certainly not.

So there you have it.

(AP: “Legend grows around 1,000-pound hog reportedly killed on Ga. plantation,” by Elliott Minor [July 28, 2004]; Snopes article)

An otherwise marginally interesting NYT article hits a bright spot with this odd philosophical entreaty:

You are not a sweaty, tired person hoping against hope for a quiet spot in the crowd. You are a grain of sand, a drop in the sea of humanity. You don’t need some fancy rational strategy. Be the blanket. Let the space choose you. Get over yourself.

(NYT: “Sociology. History. Where to Put the Blanket.” by James Gorman [August 3, 2004])

“What, precisely, is so bad about sex between adult siblings, bestiality, and the eating of corpses?”

I’m glad you asked.

Paul Bloom of Yale looks at the oft-irrational premises of disgust in modern times, delving also into its more ancient roots to look at where disgust comes from (for those who don’t want to read the whole article, it’s this [vastly oversimplified, of course]: a biological adaptation to keep us from eating things we shouldn’t). An interesting article. Moral of the story? There is generally nothing inherently moral about disgust, and we’d do well to be wary about using it as a moral compass. We’d do better yet, in fact, looking to other avenues of decision-making.

(Guardian: “To urgh is human,” by Paul Bloom [July 22, 2004])

• No dope? Lincoln Allison has an article in the Guardian that asks whether performance-enhancing drugs are really something that should be shied away from. He has lots of thoughtful points (e.g., that in sports where knowledge of doping is fairly public, fans don’t mind that records are “tainted” by drugs; that a strict anti-drug policy is obscene when the athlete’s performance ultimately relies on judgement, strategy, and skill—things not in the least bit enhanced by the drugs, etc.), and the article as a whole provides an interesting contrast to the “default” assessment that doping’s a bad thing. Give it a read. (Guardian: “Faster, stronger, higher,” by Lincoln Allison [August 9, 2004])
• Giant, Millenia-Old UFO. Scientists are just now beginning to probe the depths of an Antarctic lake that is 40 times larger than Lake Tahoe. This is a lake buried under two miles of ice. A lake, the contents of which (water, yes, but possibly also microbes and such) have been undisturbed for probably several hundred thousand years. Which is kinda neat, and also obvious fodder for sci-fi movies. Also, curiously, planetary scientists are interested in Lake V, because it probably shares numerous similarities with places like some of the moons of Jupiter. Go figure. Scope out a Google for Vostok on the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory if you’re itching for more info. (SFGate: “Beneath Antarctica’s ice lies mysterious Lake Vostok High-tech tools help scientists detail underwater features,” by David Perlman [August 2, 2004])
• I suppose you liked Savage Bees? While we’re on the topic of undiscovered treasures, let me just say that the Agony Booth is a gem. It is, in its own words, “an ongoing inquisition into some of the worst movies humanity has to offer.” The site offers absurdly long reviews of hilariously awful movies—what movies’ hilarity is all the more amplified by someone else seeing them in your stead. (via LII)
• Better late. Than never. I had no idea it was National Punctuation Day on Sunday. If I had I would have, er, celebrated.
• No ninjas. I don’t usually throw any pure-blog entries into the rundown mix, but this item over at onepotmeal is worth a glimpse, if only for the “Dear Denouement” format (a keeper) and the P.S., which really cinches the whole thing.
• Speaking of ninjas. Reuters “reports” that you ought to check the symmetry of your opponent’s extremities before picking a fight. The article cites a study that purports to show people with asymmterical extremities (hands, ears, etc.) had shorter fuses, due to stressors during pregnancy. It doesn’t give you enough of the details to really make heads or tails of, but golly, doesn’t it make a nice headline. If I were you, I’d wait till I had my hands on the actual study before I started picking fights with symmetrical people. (Also, contrary to the headline of the article, I have my doubts that the original study actually advises people to “Check Ears Before You Pick a Fight.” Though of course I’ve been wrong before.) (Reuters: “Check Ears Before You Pick a Fight, Study Advises” [August 23, 2004])

Like all internet “personality” quizzes, this one isn’t exactly what you’d call totally authoritative. It’s called the Belief-O-Matic, and it helps you deduce what religion you ought to be practicing. Well, not exactly, but same idea. Is it useful? Ha! That’s a good one. Is it useful? Of course it’s useful.

Okay, so it’s not, really. But it’s kinda interesting, and not totally off the mark—though I very much doubt that anyone would find a truly earth-shaking revelation in their results. (”But… but… I thought I was a Scientologist!”)

(My results, for the eternal record, are as follows:

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (96%)
4. Secular Humanism (87%)
5. Neo-Pagan (83%)
6. New Age (74%)
7. Bahá’í Faith (69%)
8. Theravada Buddhism (62%)
9. Nontheist (58%)
10. Mahayana Buddhism (57%)
11. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (53%)
12. Taoism (53%)
13. Reform Judaism (51%)
14. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (50%)
15. New Thought (46%)
16. Orthodox Quaker (45%)
17. Sikhism (38%)
18. Scientology (37%)
19. Jehovah’s Witness (37%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (35%)
21. Jainism (30%)
22. Hinduism (25%)
23. Orthodox Judaism (23%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (20%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (16%)
26. Islam (16%)
27. Roman Catholic (16%)

)

On a related (and more secular) note, you can take the 12 question “Ethical Philosophy Selector”, which purports to tell which philosophers most match your own personal ethics beliefs. (Both quizzes, incidentally, are produced by the same people/group.)

(via MeFi)

It’s a tough job, but somebody has to do it:

Immigration officers are having to pore through naked pictures of hundreds of exotic dancers to keep imposters out of Canada, the Toronto Sun reported Tuesday.

Foreign strippers planning to table dance in clubs must now provide photos of themselves with no clothes on to qualify for a visa for Canada, said immigration officials.

Although, for the record—and I’m no immigration expert, to be sure—it seems to me that if someone wanted to get into Canada badly enough, the challenge of providing a nude picture wouldn’t be exactly insurmountable. But then again, maybe this policy is just meant to stop the really lazy, self-conscious and/or hideously deformed from entering Canada.

(Toronto Sun: “Foreign strippers must supply nude photos to officials” [July 27, 2004])

(2002) Roman Polanski - w/ Adrien Brody, Thomas Kretschmann, Ed Stoppard, Julia Rayner, Jessica Kate Meyer, etc.

Synopsis: ‘The Pianist’ tells the (true) story of Wladyslaw Szpilman (the titular pianist), a Jewish pianist living in Warsaw through the outbreak of WWII. The movie begins with Szpilman in what’s a fairly comfortable position even in spite of the incipient anti-Jewish measures. As the movie progresses, however, this comfort vanishes and we follow Szpilman through his travails in struggling to survive.

Review: Curiously, Polanski chose a non-style style to film the story, opting to move away from camera flourishes and whatnot, believing that a story of such power should be allowed to tell itself. The result is a film that’s well-done all around, but that is not brilliant. The technical skill here is on par with Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby and Macbeth (and even Death and the Maiden), but there’s something missing. Bear in mind, it’s an excellent film. But…

Missing something, right; you catch on fast.

Part of the problem has to do with the fact that Polanski does almost nothing with suspense; early on the general sense of foreboding sets in—because of course we all have some idea about what’s going to happen, if not the specifics of the Szpilman’s own story—and terror throughout helps maintain that foreboding, but there’s never anything like a build-up of suspense. Quite possibly ‘The Pianist’ has no place for suspense. It’s a true story, after all, and in that sense it’s difficult to “add” suspense without belittling the story or making it too melodramatic. But because of this, Polanski is unable to craft as fine a movie as, e.g., ‘Chinatown’ or ‘Rosemary’s Baby’.

In any case, ‘The Pianist’ is mighty fine. But the best movie you’ve ever seen it is not.

Rating: [••••] out of [•••••]

Ted Turner is an odd duck. Though I don’t really have anything against odd ducks. Witness:

Moderator: Who would you want to become the president of the US?
Turner: I’m for whoever speaks to our survival not our demise.
Moderator: So Who?
Turner: Who do you think?

…

Turner: The invasion of Iraq was the biggest debacle in the history of the world… except maybe the AOL Time-Warner merger. The AOL Time-Warner merger was bullshit.
Moderator: You were quoted as saying that signing was as good as having sex for the first time.
Turner: I was just being a team player. It wasn’t really. It was the stupidest move I’ve ever seen. Almost as stupid as the war on Iraq…

…

Turner: My vision comes from thinking. I don’t watch TV.

(via Joi Ito’s Socialtext Workspace via BoingBoing)

The Austin Chronicle has an article on an, um, interesting remake of ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark.’ You’re not likely to ever see it—it was made by three ten-year-olds from Mississippi—but there’s always the chance it’ll come out on DVD. (And before you write it off as a simple little home movie, bear in mind that the kids used live snakes, set an actual truck on fire, and even set one of the actors on fire [as in the original movie].)

(Austin Chronicle: “‘Lost Ark,’ Resurrected,” [on-site article here] by Sarah Hepola [May 30, 2004]; originally via memepool)

So… oil prices (per barrel) are heading for $45.00, ouch.

Except that even $45.00 is unabashedly unrealistic.

Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker (and an advisor to Bush-Cheney) says:

“Oil is far too cheap at the moment. … The figure I’d use is around $182 a barrel. We need to price oil realistically to control its demand. That is because global production is peaking.”

In other words, oil prices should be four times what they currently are.

What fun.

(BBC: “Is the world’s oil running out fast?” by Adam Porter [June 7, 2004]; via TSTW)

I’m nothing like a regular reader of the Economist, but this article provides an interesting foray into the search for truth, something I hold near and dear to my heart. The article explores the checkered past of so-called “lie detectors” (polygraphs and their ilk) and delves into the future of the field, providing summaries of some up-and-coming technology.

Also of interest, the Economist article references a NAS book on lie detectors, the full text of which is available online. Admittedly, it’s not quite the same as reading a book in the flesh, but it’s a lot of information for explorin’ if you’re interested.

Another related resource I’ve stumbled across a while back is another online book, Pathological Lying, Accusation, and Swindling by William and Mary Healy, which has some case studies of, yes, pathological liars.

Also, keep yer eyes peeled, for I have a couple other lie-related morsels of info I’m going to be sharing in the near future. “Lie-related morsels,” as in, morsels relating to the detection of lies; not actual lies, in case you were wondering.

(Economist: “Making windows in men’s souls” [July 8, 2004]; National Academies Press: “The Polygraph and Lie Detection” by BCSSE & CNSTAT [2003])

There’s a new, highly sophisticated model for traffic prediction on the block. Which would be helpful, if you happen to be driving the Autobahn. What’s interesting is that the new model predicts traffic with a high degree of accuracy, but may well make itself irrelevant as more and more people look to its predictions, and change their plans accordingly. While the model accurately predicts traffic density at a rate of 90% or better, the net result of 300,000+ people checking the forecasts daily may well undermine the model’s track record.

Another interesting tidbit from the article: what this new model does that older, much less accurate models did not, is base itself in part on bad driving. The new model (developed by engineers at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany) takes into account aggressive driving styles: drivers getting too close to the cars in front of them and being forced to break, drivers changing lanes too quickly, etc. The result of which is a highly accurate model.

(NewScientist: “Bad driving the secret to traffic forecasts,” by Justin Mullins [July 2, 2004])

NYTimes:

Federal Relief Is Distributed in Florida Areas Hit by Storm

Independent:

Bush accused of exploiting hurricane in Florida as he offers aid to disaster area

WaPo:

Fla. Begins Recovery From Deadly Storm

Stern:

Charley als Wahlkampfhelfer [~Charley as campaign-helper]

LATimes:

Bush Promises Quick Hurricane Relief

Obviously this isn’t more than a cursory overview of some headlines, and nothing like a comprehensive survey or anything like that; but it’s an interesting contrast, nonetheless, w/ non-US papers pointing out the obvious and US papers feigning (or striving for?) some kind of objectivity.

Not that either approach is right or wrong. I’m just saying: it’s interesting.