Half-Life and Times: 6/6/04

Monday, June 07, 2004

Prisoner of Azkaban

JennySlash and I saw it last night and we definitely belong in the "best Potter movie yet" camp. It also happens to be my favorite book of the 5 so far (although Order of the Phoenix is pretty close). I know many people won't have seen it yet, so no spoilers here - just generalities (I know you've all read the book, but this one strays a little further from the text than its predecessors). Much less focus on veteran English actors and much more on the three principals - while I have absolutely enjoyed the performances of Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, etc. the dominance of Harry, Hermione and Ron (primarily the first two) was fine with me. I think Emma Watson really steals this movie, actually - of the three, I think she's so far shown the most genuine acting talent. Excellent work by David Thewlis as Lupin and Gary Littleoldman [sorry, Mel Brooks reference - TP] as Sirius Black - Oldman doesn't get a lot of screentime (yet) but makes good use of what's there. Kudos to Cuaron - Hogworts is given a much more expansive feel this time through - the grounds are freaking HUGE! CGI is good but not overwhelming. I know there are a lot of other movies coming out that are competing for our entertainment bucks, but we'll definitely want to see this one at least one more time on the big screen.

Reagan

1980 was the first year that I was eligible to vote for President. I proudly cast my vote for Jimmy Carter, warts and all, because I knew what a Reagan presidency was capable of. Somewhere in my files I still have an article from the Washington Post with a list of a number of Heritage Foundation aims that the Reagan campaign appeared to be adopting, many of which are only now coming to fruition in the current regime. Whatever Carter's faults were as president (and I believe there were fewer than the sort of snap judgements that one gets of him today would have you think), I'd be hardpressed to find a better man that has held that office, while being willing to concede that he may not have been particularly well-suited for the job.

On the other hand, it astounds me that so many people appear to regard Reagan as one of the great presidents. Iran-Contra should have been enough to keep anyone from suggesting naming any damn thing after him (other than maybe a Federal penitentiary), regardless of whatever good happened in his administration. Couple that with his denial of the existence of AIDS for many years as many thousands of people died, growing deficits, policies that turned thousands of sick people out of mental hospitals, disastrous environmental policies, the list goes on and on. That's not to say that I think that the administration was a TOTAL disaster (unlike the current one) - I just think there are plenty of strong enough negatives that any discussion of him as a great President is ridiculous.

I've seen a lot of stuff the last couple of days around the political blogosphere about how this affects the current campaign. Anybody who thinks it'll have any lasting effect at all has yet to give me any good reason why. Dubya looks so puny and scattered in comparison to Reagan that I really can't see him getting anything positive out of coverage of Reagan - on the other hand, the wingnut policies that first received discussion in the Reagan administration will be aired as coming from someone other than Bush, so maybe that strengthens Republicans that are wary of Bush's nuttiness. But it'll all be non-news within a week.

Finally, nobody but nobody deserves Alzheimer's - I'm sure the last ten years were a nightmare for him and for his family. For their sake, I'm glad it's over.

Things I Think about while Running (Sunday Edition)

"Damn! That looked just like that tennis player - Anna Ka-... Anna Ke-... Karenina? Kevorkian? Kalashnikov? Koyanisqaatsi? Whatever."

Friday, June 04, 2004

It's Raining!!!!

A good bit, too. Thank goodness! Looks like it might last a little while - I can almost see the grass greening up again...

Thursday, June 03, 2004

Why I Blog

I suspect that everyone who sets up a blog must at some point write this post. Most of the blogs I read regularly, whether they are written by friends or just people that I find interesting, are written by people that in some form or another are writers by profession or at least inclination. They're journalists, essayists, novelists, comic book writers, teachers, political writers, etc. That certainly does not describe me. I've never felt "compelled to write" and I don't have a novel inside me somewhere screaming to get out - I've tried writing fiction, I guess because I felt like I should, but it has been painful and gone nowhere.

After some reflection I think it comes down to two things, both having to do with my real work - what I do and where I do it. On the one hand, I probably spend more time in a day writing that Lex or PC or most of the bloggers I read. I spend most of the day writing e-mails and creating presentations, usually with one ear to the phone and 4 or 5 instant messenger windows open. So I write constantly. I am the Emperor of the Executive Summary, the Prince of PowerPoint, the Baron of Bulleted lists. But rarely do I have the occasion to actually write something more narrative or conversational or personal. It's all pretty cold and sterile and, well, business-y. The blog gives me an opportunity to be more expansive, to write something that has some feeling, something that doesn't have implications for my company or my customer or the peeps that work for me.

The other thing that came to mind is that as a telecommuter, there is a certain interaction with co-workers that I miss out on. I am absolutely blessed with the opportunity to work from my home and I treasure it and know that it could end tomorrow. Even better is the fact that JennySlash works from home as well, and we're able to eat lunch together and talk during the day over coffee (although you'd be amazed at how often she has to resort to MS Messenger to get my attention). But I do at times miss having the opportunity to have a face-to-face chat with coworkers. IM sort of takes the place of the coffee pot conversations. Quick, fleeting, a "how was your weekend?" or a "whatcha doing this weekend?" - IM is pretty good for that. What is missing is the conversation over lunch down at the company cafeteria or over a Golden Corral lunch buffet, where you can actually talk about something and have a real conversation. I'm finding that both blogging and commenting on other blogs is starting to replace that necessary interaction.

So I'm actually a little surprised at how much of my blogging has consisted of metablogging or quoting newspaper articles that I think are interesting - I suspect that's just a matter still of getting my feet wet, coupled with the fact that it takes a lot of damn time to actually write something substantive!

By the way, I firmly believe the advent of instant messaging technology has done more good for remote management of people and for managing business than anything since the telephone. For me, it frankly has come close to replacing the telephone. In the least, I can ping someone to ensure that they are there and not on the phone before I call, ensuring that the phone is answered (beats the HELL out of trading voice mails all day). Better yet, I can get amazing amounts of people management done via IM while I sit on interminable audioconference calls - it's pretty damned astounding.

Anyway, if you're reading, I appreciate it - it's all part of the conversation that I've been missing. If you feel like commenting, even better (and thanks to those of you that have done so over the last couple of months!). I probably owe you lunch at Golden Corral!

God loves Dubya, I guess

Most of you have probably already seen this article on other blogs or in various newspapers:

President Bush's re-election campaign is trying to recruit supporters from 1,600 religious congregations in Pennsylvania -- a political push that critics said Wednesday could cost churches their tax breaks.

An e-mail from the campaign's Pennsylvania office, obtained by The Associated Press, urges churchgoers to help organize "Friendly Congregations" where supporters can meet regularly to sign up voters and spread the Bush word.

"I'd like to ask if you would like to serve as a coordinator in your place of worship [emphasis mine - TP]," says the e-mail, adorned with the Bush-Cheney logo, from Luke Bernstein, who runs the state campaign's coalitions operation and is a former staffer to Sen. Rick Santorum, the president's Pennsylvania chairman.

The final grafs:

The director of a nonpartisan watchdog group called the campaign's church appeal "a breathtakingly sad example of mixing religion and politics."

"I have never in my life seen such a direct campaign to politicize American churches -- from any political party or from any candidate for public office," said Rev. Barry W. Lynn of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "By enrolling churches in an election scheme like this, I think the Bush-Cheney campaign is actually endangering those churches' tax exemptions without even the courtesy of telling them that they run a risk."

So...

Kevin Madden, a Bush-Cheney spokesman at campaign's headquarters, said the campaign did not mean to imply that religious supporters should actually congregate for the president at their places of worship.

As Anthony at slapnose says: "Oh I see. They didn't mean to imply it, they meant to just come right out and say it"

Certainly using churches to further political campaigns or agendas are nothing new - African-American churches have certainly been hotbeds of political action since the 50's and 60's and the conservative movement politicized many Protestant congregations starting at least in the late 70's (at least that I was aware of - may have started before). But this appears at least to be much more overt and much more likely to cause problems with tax-exempt status except... who's going to prosecute them? This adminstration has gone so much further than any previous to politicize normally (and legally) apolitical departments (down to publishing Bush campaign talking points on every Treasury Department document) that I can't imagine there being any steps taken against any congregation unless this administration is dumped.

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

I'm in serious pain...

I think I just broke my spleen laughing at the trailer for Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. Even if nothing else in the movie is funny, the trailer has enough yucks to beat most recent comedies all by itself. The movie website also has a black and white 50's public school film from the ADAA (American Dodgeball Association... of America) to introduce young boys to the sport (Hank Azaria as the seven time Dodgeball All-American Patches O'Houlihan) - too funny.

No links - you lazy bastards go look 'em up for yourself this time! I'm still at work...

Quickie research tool

I can't remember how I originally stumbled across the Library of Congress Federal Research Division Country Studies website but it's a neat little tool for country background. Since it was sponsored by the Department of the Army with the intent "to focus primarily on lesser known areas of the world or regions in which U.S. forces might be deployed", there aren't entries on Canada or Australia, for example (although I would worry if suddenly one shows up!). But if you want a concise history of, say, Bhutan, well there you go. A quick look at a few of the entries would lead me to believe that most of the studies date from 10-15 years ago, so the political/social sections are likely useless, but the geography and history sections should be of some interest. For example, you guys all might already know that

"Bantu peoples apparently moved to Comoros before the fourteenth century, principally from the coast of what is now southern Mozambique; on the island of Nzwani they apparently encountered an earlier group of inhabitants, a Malayo-Indonesian people. A number of chieftains bearing African titles established settlements on Njazidja and Nzwani, and by the fifteenth century they probably had contact with Arab merchants and traders who brought the Islamic faith to the islands."

but I didn't.

Rockin' Parents

I'd imagine that most of the people that are likely to read this grew up with parents who grew up before rock and roll. Mom and Dad were in high school by the time Elvis and Gene Vincent and Buddy Holly and company were hitting, so they actually grew up with a different kind of music (let's put aside for a minute the fact the r 'n' r didn't just spring fully-grown from Bill Haley's head with no antecedents). My generation is the first to have been born and grow up with rock and roll from the cradle. So it was kind of cool the last couple of days to read a couple of accounts of bringing up rock and roll kids - people my age for whom rock and roll IS music raising their own.

The first was from Neil Gaiman's on-line journal as he has "the conversation" (not the one you're thinking of) with his daughter Holly. I'm not going to excerpt it - it's short, funny and very sweet, so go check it out.

The second I found via AlterNet - a description from freelance writer Marrit Ingman of overtly trying to raise a rocker. To whit:

Next was the rock-and-roll count-off. First we had to learn to count to four.

"One and two!" he'd yell.

"How about 'One, two, three, four!' "

"One and two and two!"

"What comes after two?"

"One!"

"Okay, we'll work on it. Then you can experiment with funny rhythms and stuff." I was imagining Thom Yorke at the beginning of "Polyethylene."

It's stuff like this that makes me feel like we're leaving the future in good hands...

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

Making Light

I don't know how I first ran across Teresa Nielson Hayden's Making Light blog, but it's an excellent read - her very long analysis today of The Writers' Collective as glorified vanity press I found very interesting. Quoting:

This latest outgrowth started with a comment posted yesterday by Charles Boyle:

You say to be wary of publishing assistance that requires payment by the author.
A group called The Writers’ Collective seems to be different.
Can you provide an opinion, please.
I said:

Yes. There’s one throbbing, luminous, mindbendingly huge distinction: this particular vanity publisher calls itself a writers’ collective. Aside from that, it’s just another vanity publisher.

TWC charges you $275 the first year and $150 each year thereafter, and calls it membership fees or dues. There’s a further charge for having your book printed—had you noticed that yet? It doesn’t matter what TWC calls itself. You’re still paying to have your book published.

Different vanity publishers have come up with a bunch of different terms for the money they want you to pay them. That’s why Yog’s Law doesn’t specify what that payment is called. It simply states, “Money should always flow toward the author.”

Lots of good analysis follows. Since most of you guys seem to be writers of some sort or another (now THERE'S a surprise!), thought it might be of some interest.

Half-Life and Times