Sun, May 28

Marie Antoinette, World Trade Center

Two period movies take a look at respective moments in our past. I take a look at the trailers for the movies. Kirsten Dunst takes a look at the inside of her own face. (Read more.)

2 comments with related links

Fri, May 26

Mutant Enemy Prescriptions

Even with a new director at the helm, X-Men: The Last Stand isn't bad. Can you make a Famke Janssen superhero movie that is? (Read more.)

0 comments with related links

Thu, May 25

Excelsior... this is getting creepy—8:38 PM

As I understand it, the whole concept of synchronicity is related to perception. That is, things are happening all the time that might seem to be remarkably coincidental, but if you don't notice it then it doesn't feel like a big deal. Synchronicity refers to when you do notice it and it feels like the world is falling in on itself.

Today, after years of dormancy, the word "Excelsior" hit me three separate times from three absolutely different directions.

1. My new book, The Universal Baseball Association, Inc., J. Henry Waugh, Prop., features a fantasy baseball team named the Excelsiors. I read this on the plane from Jacksonville to Chicago.

2. Waiting to board my flight in Chicago, a girl is talking on her cell phone when I must lean across her to throw away a McDonald's Coke (yes, at 10 in the morning – don't judge me!). The snippet of her conversation that I overhear: "We stayed at the ... uh ... The Excelsior."

3. Checked into my room and surfing through the day's RSS feeds, a post from 37signals: Fly on the Wall: "Excelsior!".

Wow.

***

Tangent 1: "Synchronicity" would've been a way better title for Cusack-Beckinsale-starrer Serendipity, but only if the plot of the movie would also have changed accordingly.

Tangent 2: I live in the glassiest of glass houses when it comes to the sin of reliving one's own best material and then pausing expectantly, head cocked, for the adulation to roll in. At best, it's usually a "had to be there" moment – at worst you just sound like a self-absorbed jackass. ("I'm not funny right this minute, but allow me to regale you with tales of past brilliance!")

However, even I am a little put off by 37s's latest blog meme, "Fly on the Wall" – in which they recount hilarious moments from their own internal chat room discussions. I understand that their blog (Signal vs. Noise) has come under scrutiny for being too meandering at times, and I do think adding regular features like "Fly on the Wall," "Screens Around Town," and "The Filter" are a nice way to make it sort of episodic and keep people coming back for the features they like. (This is something I routinely fail to do with the Survivor stuff.)

But "Fly on the Wall" seems insular and self-focused to an extreme. We get it! You're clever! But this isn't helping. Reading "Fly on the Wall" entries, I finally understand the weary eye rolls I get from my family when I tell them all about some hilarious thing I said to Arksie two years ago.

4 comments with related links

Tue, May 16

The Damnedest Things—10:56 PM

The other day, I was hanging speakers in the new condo, so I was watching TV with my back to the screen and I wasn't bothering to fast-forward through the commercials. An ad started up with a child's voice singing:

There ain't no bugs on me
There ain't no bugs on me
There may be bugs
On some of you mugs
But there ain't no bugs on me

And I immediately thought, "Oh, that's a shame. TV kids shouldn't be perpetuating that sort of terrible grammar." I mean, today's kids face enough educational challenges – they shouldn't be sounding like morons because of TV kids slinging "ain't" around.

Then the announcer came on, and it became clear that it was an ad for flea collars. It wasn't a kid singing; it was a puppy. And I actually breathed a sigh of relief. Before I could even stop myself, I thought, "Well, that's better then. It's just a dog."

I still laugh when I think about that sequence of reactions.

But now I'm het up because of how stupid it is that we're still airing TV commercials with talking animals. For Christ's sake!

1 comment

"Scene"—4:40 PM

Chris Ware on Chicago:

It’s also a good place to be an artist — unpretentious, without any real “scene” or certain civic identity to restrict oneself, allowing one to do anything without any ridiculous fear of fitting into any fashionable theory or trend.

Obvioously, I can't say that I specifically perceived this in my brief visit to Chicago a couple of years ago, but I did prefer it markedly to New York, and I think this underlying distinction is partly why. The "scene" mentality is something I've always detested about New York (along with the constant crowds). New Yorkers seems to have a distinct ownership of their city, their borough, and sometimes their block – an ownership which seems exclusive and semi-hostile. (BOCTAOE.)

That's something I liked about Los Angeles, but didn't realize it until I heard Ware put it this way. It was a town that was aware of its reputation for apathy and disconnectedness, and at times it specifically nurtured that reputation. This had its drawbacks, but it also kept me from feeling excluded in the way NYC does. Sure, I was excluded, but it seemed like it was part of the general disconnectedness – nothing personal.

0 comments

Mon, May 15

Da Vinci Bashing—12:55 PM

The Chicago Sun-Times has convened a panel of authors and literary critics to pick apart what's worst about Dan Brown's immensely popular book, The Da Vinci Code. Plus, isn't Tom Hanks's hairdo weird?!

It seems like most of the criticism comes from underdeveloped characters, uninspired prose, diluted historical arguments, and treating the reader like a simpleton. Well, yeah. That's what makes it something less than a literary classic. But that's also what makes it hugely popular. People are idiots, and they don't like books that remind them of it. For most, books are highfalutin gibberish that waste hours when a TV show could say it more succinctly. Of course they're going to gravitate toward easy stuff that keeps them in the loop and involves enough intellectual material (in the background) to make them feel smart. Plus, its breakneck pace makes it almost as quick to read as if you're skimming it, which is what most of them do anyway.

I read it. I loved it. I can certainly understand why it's very popular, and I think it'll make a fun movie. Some books are intellectual exercises with fascinating topics and tantalizing questions about the human experience (and many of them suck). Some books are easy summer reading, just for enjoyment (and many of them suck, too). It's the same with movies: not every one has to be the high achievement of the art form. Merit is not based on how lofty a work's ambitions are: it's how well it achieves the ambitions it has.

In the case of The Da Vinci Code, there's also a fair amount of that pop culture backlash, where people start sniping that anyone who appreciates something so popular has "drunk the Kool-Aid." I prefer the Kool-Aid spit take.

2 comments with related links

Iran—10:36 AM

Scott Adams has been thinking about the likelihood of nuclear weapons in Iran. These days, I think we'd all do good to be somewhat skeptical of who Bush refers to as an imminent nuclear threat. Don't disregard it altogether, but take it with a grain of salt, is all I'm saying.

I don't follow the news. (Stephen Colbert tells me how to feel about things.) But last week, I read a lot about this letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and how everyone dismissed it as a joke, but it seemed to make a few okay points as far as I could tell. I mean obviously the guy is posturing and it shouldn't be regarded as a purely diplomatic overture. But it seemed kind of optimistic and forward-looking – in some passages – the kind of thing that might be a starting point for discussions which might yield a peaceful (i.e., shockless, aweless) resolution. Remember when world leaders used to write each other long, involved letters that were respectful and sometimes critical? Well, me either. It went out with the XYZ Affair. I just don't think the president has to respond to everything like it's a PR problem.

Anyway, one of the things that bugged me about the whole Iranian nuclear program thing is, who decides they're not allowed to build nukes? One of you smarties will probably tell me some world body like the UN decided it, and that's cool, but... why? I mean, what's the standard by which we decide that a country doesn't have the right to build an arsenal to defend itself? They're over there where all the shit's going down – they probably need nukes more than we do.

Which brings me to my other point: if we go around demanding that nobody else have a nuclear stockpile, doesn't that remove the justification for our own? I mean, if the Bushies successfully talk Iran and North Korea into doing away with all their bombs, can we slice the defense budget in half and get some public schools a history textbook that mentions the reunification of Germany?

I'm supposed to "blame America first" every month or so, or they take away my dirty hippie pacifist liberal membership card. (Actually, it's not so much a card, since cards represent The Man's subjugation of trees to do his communicating for him; it's more of a polished hazel nut casing.) But I'm not trying to bash America here. I love America, and I understand that its position as the world's police is accepted somewhat grudgingly – as Spidey's aunt says, great power/great responsibility. This administration has pursued that responsibility more enthusiastically than some, but hey, we let them do it. (Not me personally, but you did. Those of you in Congress.)

It just seems odd that we make a list of who we trust with nuclear weapons and who we don't and if you're on the wrong list you're not allowed to enrich any uranium no matter what. I bet if you took a poll, a majority of people don't trust us with nukes either. But I'm hoping Scott's right and Iran becomes an ally and everything settles down.

0 comments

Aras? Fuck.—10:16 AM

I completely forgot to TiVo the Survivor finale last night. (Instead I was watching Grey's Anatomy while four episodes of Veronica Mars awaited me on the TiVo. I don't know who I am any more.) I never got around to watching the preceding three Thursday episodes, but I was kind of curious to see how things played out.

Now that I realize it's Aras, I'm not so inclined to go back and watch those other episodes. Certainly a testament to the dislikability of Danielle though. Damn.

2 comments with related links

Wed, May 10

Alienating His Base—9:47 AM

President Bush has finally lost touch with the one group he could always count on: crazy, stupid psychos who are mindlessly determined to support him no matter what.

A new poll conducted by CBS and The New York Times gives him a 31% overall approval rating, but also splits up his approval based on various issues. On the fuel price issue alone, his approval dips below the 27% Crazification Factor which has normally been there to protect him.

So, it's pretty clear. We'll continue to love you if you listen to our phone calls, imprison our neighbors, and kill our kids – but we draw a line when the gas for our Excursion costs more than $125 a tank.

Keep it in mind, Bush. 87% of us demand satisfaction!

21 comments

Thu, May 4

A Pox on Jack LaLanne!—10:01 PM

The theme of 2005 was "Changing Course." It took almost exactly one year to do it. (Eerily, nearly a year to the day – the wheels were set in motion around 1/26/05, and it was 1/21/06 that I pulled into my parents' driveway in Florida.) But it cannot be argued – the course was changed!*

The theme of 2006 is to be: "Get in shape. Get a life." I decided to focus on the first part first, and then "see how things go" with the second part. I'm not a miracle worker. So, needless to say, the first thing I did upon returning to Florida was... gain ten pounds.

Whoops! Turns out Mom's home cooking is considerably healthier than frozen Tyson chicken nuggets four nights a week – but the portions are, comparably, massive. That "get in shape" mantra really started to feel critical. There's a certain amount of time I'll cheerfully spend Photoshopping my neck fat out of family pictures, but at some point it starts to cross a line.

So, Li'l Sis and I started investigating some gym options, and tonight was our first official visit with our new personal trainer, Clark. He's awesome and the gym is awesome, and I'm very excited to be embarking on a regimen that will hopefully sustain a healthier lifestyle long into the future.

However, reps suck.

Dear holy monkey-smiting God, do reps ever suck.

Because, I'm pudgy compared to what I should be, and I'm not in great shape, but I'm reasonably able in terms of physical feats. I can do just about anything once. (Except watch Yes, Dear. I learned that the hard way.) But reps? Are awful. Just terrible. I don't just start questioning my fitness goals. I start questioning why it is even worth it to be alive.

Of course, Clark wouldn't make us do them if they weren't good for us, so here's hoping in the long run the reps will be a good thing – they'll convert fat into muscle and I won't be forced to start wearing sweatpants to work.

* There's a long column entitled "Mulligan" that I've been working on since last December 23, which describes in detail the whole process behind "2005: Changing Course" – the decisions and activities. I intended to post it back then, but it's been challenging to work on because there are so many things involved. I can only write it in short bursts before getting exhausted, and it's absolute murder to reapproach it after any significant time off. Hopefully it will be posted someday.

2 comments

Tue, May 2

Sloppy Tech Journalism—3:52 PM

If you're at all interested in news articles about Apple and the Mac (in other words, "Andyyyyyy!"), you're familiar by now with mainstream stories that make hay out of viruses or other security vulnerabilities that have been identified for Mac OS X.

These articles exaggerate and misrepresent the issue, because it makes for a more sensational story than the truth: Macs, like any other computer hooked up to the Internet, are susceptible to some level of hacking. For a variety of reasons, they are very rarely hacked, and when new vulnerabilities are discovered, they are discovered by security companies who announce their potential for harm despite the fact that no one in the real world has actually acted to take advantage of the vulnerabilities. (In most cases, Apple fixes the loophole before anyone has time to exploit it; in all cases, such an exploit is entirely preventable if users practice basic online safety, like not running programs that they receive as attachments to spam e-mail.)

It surprises me that – if newspapers have such low standards for getting the facts right – they wouldn't go after topics more interesting than Apple Computer. If you're going to make shit up just to sell a story, make shit up about Brangelina. That's where the money is.

Anyway, I read one such article back in February and I wanted to rip it apart but I never got around to it:

'Worms' Turn on Apple Macs, Bigger Target as Sales Boom [WSJ]

Ah, the perennially enjoyable "selling more Macs is dangerous for Apple" approach. How cute.

More recently, the AP released another such dopey article, and the now-fully-full-time John Gruber had the decency to tear it apart for us:

Good Journalism [DF]

So, enjoy that. Unless you don't really follow Macs in the press, in which case it's just a funny blog entry.

2 comments

Mon, May 1

Under the Rug

A father mourns his son, reflecting on the events that ended his life. (Read more.)

0 comments with related links and photos

"Add 10% more design."—3:34 PM

There's a ridiculous debate about whether "too much design" can sink a website. It's as preposterous as it sounds, and it's meaningless, but I jumped in because what else do I have to do on a Monday but fabricate reasons not to write about Survivor?

This isn't a comparison between too much design and not enough design. It's a comparison between good and bad. A site that forces visitors to endure a 10-minute Flash intro before getting down to work is bad because it isn't functional.

That's why it's silly to use Craigslist as an example supporting the fallacy that people prefer sites without design: design is part of what makes Craigslist successful. In its case, the design is an "undesigned" look (or, to use an actual word, "minimalist"). If it were truly an undesigned site, the categories wouldn't line up in those nice little columns. It's just a functional, graphic-free design, and that's working for them - so why undergo some drastic overhaul?

Basecamp isn't flashy (no swooshes at all!) but nobody would call it undesigned. People who don't know what they're talking about just don't realize that design can be done well enough that it doesn't seep out around the seams. "Design" doesn't necessarily mean drop shadows and big, chunky Helvetica. Good design doesn't have to look designed.

0 comments with related links

More Death and Sorrow—9:25 AM

Apparently, my senior year was a bit of a downer. (I always remembered it being kind of fun!) Finding no reason not to, I'm posting another short story I wrote that year – and it's got more misery and tears.

This time, we were given eight images of various weird occurrences – each with a title and a caption. The idea was to build a story around the image, incorporating the caption at some point. I forget where the pictures came from, but they always had a sort of Chris van Allsburg vibe to them, I thought.

I'm pretty proud of the setup I devised for this story and I think the narrative style and pace are pretty good, with lots of nice detail. Of course, like everything I write, the denouement comes on like a flash flood. I guess I get antsy and want to stop writing; what I should do is stop writing for the moment and come back later when I've got a fresh stock of words in me.

Anyway, live and learn. (Gradually, of course. I mean, here we are ten years later...)

0 comments with related links and photos

Too Soon—2:06 AM

Just finished watching Stephen Colbert's address at the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner. Yeesh.

First of all, it's always fun to TiVo C-SPAN. I like to imagine the entire C-SPAN staff gathering for a congratulatory toast every time TiVo, Inc. e-mails them to say that someone has recorded one of their shows.

I love Stephen Colbert. You won't find anyone more supportive of him than me. I actually prefer his show to Jon Stewart's these days – if only by a little bit – because The Daily Show is often too silly when it's silly and too serious when it's serious. The Colbert Report is just right. Most of the time, it's ridiculously silly on the surface and deadly serious underneath. "Kidding on the square" – one of my favorites.

So, I was thrilled to hear that Colbert had been tapped to speak at this year's Correspondents' Dinner. It seemed astonishing they'd want him, but I assumed he probably had some direction from the Correspondents' Association about what sort of material was expected.

Apparently not.

It seems the WHCA just selected Colbert because his show has been going very well, and that makes him pretty hot. When you narrow the list to people with a defensible connection to politics or journalism, he's right at the top. They didn't bother to assess whether his material would be appropriate for the crowd at all.

Colbert delivered the speech in character as the host of The Colbert Report, after a few opening jokes ("Whoever's driving 14 bulletproof black SUVs, you're blocking in 14 other bulletproof black SUVs."). A good third of the material was straight out of his TV show's October premiere. He dismissed books and facts, preferring to operate "from the gut," and applauded the president for the same unwavering commitment to instinct. But whenever he veered into territory more sensitive than global warming jokes, the crowd wasn't with him. His satirical endorsement of Bush's ability to maintain the same opinion on Wednesday as he did on Monday, "no matter what happens on Tuesday" and his multiple pointed references to Bush's plummeting poll numbers were greeted with uncomfortable chuckles and lots of silence. (When he consoled the president: "Don't listen to those who say the glass is half empty; at 32%, the glass is two-thirds empty," he tripped on the setup and had to start the joke over – something frequent Report viewers may find familiar.)

It was great stuff, and entirely in character. He cleverly and incisively pointed out the same problems with the administration and the media as he does on his show. ("For the first few years after 2001, we didn't want to know what was going on – and you [the press] had the courtesy not to try to find out.") But, like a Bush town hall meeting, it seems Colbert's message is best received by a loyal audience. Playing to the subjects of his satire, the material fell flat, which threw off the timing, which made the bomb seem even worse. By the time he screened a pre-taped piece in which Helen Thomas chased him like Richard Kimble in The Fugitive, the audience was almost completely still. The spaces edited into the video to allow for laughter just stretched on in uncomfortable silence.

Colbert soldiered on, showing bold courage but lacking comic instinct. He seemed to expect a better reception, but I'm not sure why. Maybe the WHCA put him up to it. Maybe everyone thought, "If Stewart can host the Oscars, why can't Colbert do this?" It's a completely different event; besides, Stewart didn't host the Oscars "in character." Perhaps if Colbert had spoken as himself, it would have seemed less mean-spirited and the audience would have embraced him. (Personally, I agree that the audience deserved as mean-spirited a speech as possible – but it had to be painful up there for Colbert to keep going.)

There's some disparity in the reporting as to whether Bush and his wife were coldly dismissive or tersely congratulatory toward Colbert after the talk, but it's abundantly clear that the Colbert performance has a time and a place. And this was neither.

1 comment with related links