but was it skippy or jif?

Didya know? Peanut butter disproves evolution. Watch this video, you will be amaaaazed.

Thanks go to Boing Boing for pointing me towards this.

all the news that isn't fit...

For a while there, all I knew of Fred Phelps was that he was the idiot pastor who protested the funeral of Mr. Rogers. That is pretty damning to a girl raised in the Neighborhood; you might as well throw rocks at Gandhi or Mother Teresa.

Then Phelps and his clan (family and congregation) began protesting the funerals of fallen American soldiers to make sure everyone noticed that God was punishing the US for allowing homosexuality. Even congressmen who couldn't agree about the war or homosexuality agreed that this was disgusting; in May 2006 Bush signed into law the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, banning protests within 300 feet of an army cemetery.

This post is not really about Fred Phelps. It was merely provoked by a recent BBC article about an upcoming BBC2 documentary on the Phelps family (the self-described Most Hated Family in America). In this article, the journalist interviews the maker of the documentary, Louis Theroux. He asks Theroux:

In America the media tries not to give them [the Phelpses] the coverage, but aren't you just giving them a voice over here?

Theroux goes into some completely expected but perfectly reasonable explanation about letting viewers judge for themselves. It isn't really the response that interests me, but the implications in the question.

While it makes sense to not give this insane family the coverage it craves, this implies a certain amount of suppression on the part of America's media. The media probably doesn't think of it that way. They are just refusing to reward the Phelps clan's atrocious behavior by refusing to give them the attention they are after. It's the same theory behind ignoring dogs and children when they're being annoying: don't reward them with attention, because it will reinforce the bad behavior.

That said, the media is there to inform the public of the news. By choosing to not cover something, they are actively suppressing information from the public. This leads to the question: Where is the line between appropriate and inappropriate suppression? Suppression of the Phelpses seems to be allowed because everyone all across the spectrum--Christians and atheists, gays and anti-gays, conservatives and liberals, everyone--agrees that he is a blight on society. Everyone agrees that he is wrong, everyone agrees that his opinions are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to propagate.

So where's the line? If 75% of the US decides that someone's opinion is dangerous, is that enough to suppress that opinion? What about 78%?

I don't really have answers at this point, only questions. I don't want to listen to Fred Phelps; I kind of want to forget he's there. But in principle, I dislike the idea of even altruistic media suppression, because I am wary of what it might lead to, and of who might be making such altruistic decisions now and in the future.

Just my musings for the day.

turn left at the giant squid

I've added a new bloglink over there on the right, Boing Boing. I haven't actually read much of it yet, but where else am I going to get my goldfish news? Also, for giggles, ask googlemaps how to drive from New York to Dublin, Ireland. Those two tidbits have earned Boing Boing a coveted place in the "blogs I read" section of this site.

back in the USSR

On this date in 1986, it became legal to buy/sell a Beatles album in Russia. The things you can find out on the internet.

This is the cover of Revolver, I believe.

trailers of bee

I rarely go into raptures over movie trailers. Ok, so I never go into raptures over movie trailers. Last night at TMNT, however, I saw a preview for the upcoming animated feature The Bee Movie and I just about died of laughter. Thanks to the glories of youtube, I can share said trailer with you. However, it turns out the one I saw was the second in a series (I need to get out more). So here are the two of them, in order, starring Jerry Seinfeld, Eddie Izzard, Chris Rock, and Stephen Spielberg.

Bee Trailer One

Bee Trailer Two

Please note I am not suggesting everyone run out and see this movie in November. Story looks kind of dull, actually. But seriously, these trailers are good.

Heroes in a half-shell--Turtle Power!

So a couple friends and I went and saw TMNT last night. Not such a good movie. Fun, yes. It has all the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle requirements: pizza, ninjas, big monsters, butt-kicking turtles. And the animation was fantastic. Emotion from mutant turtle eyes--who'da thunk it?

But the movie got so tied up in rejecting the campiness of the original 1980s tv series that it tripped over itself and fell with a squelch into a big gray puddle of CGI rain.

The theme--of both the color palette and the story--was dark. There was a lot of nighttime, a lot of rain. The turtles looked gray much of the time and they scowled more often than really necessary. This was probably because they were having brother-relationship issues, mostly between Raphael (red; "cool but rude") and Leonardo (blue; eldest and leader). This is where the story got bogged down; this brother stuff felt forced. When the movie was doing its comic-book ninja thing it was fun. When Leo and Raph were scowling at each other and then (inevitably) realizing they actually needed/cared for each other, the movie wasn't so hot.

This was all part of a conscious effort to avoid the campy, funny style of the 1980s TMNT tv series we all know and love. The original creator of the turtles (Peter Laird) apparently considers that tv show a failure and has been trying to darken the turtles ever since (source: IMDb). While I am generally a nostalgic traditionalist, if the original creator of a story/concept/character decides to change things, I won't complain too much. I can see why the changes are being made here. While fun (at least in my memory), the original TMNT series doesn't translate well for adults and didn't really have any staying power. I'm fine with this new, darker direction for the series. (ok, so it's not so new. it's been this way for at least one previous movie and the newest tv series. it's new compared to the last time I watched anything TMNT.)

I just wish the idea had been conceptualized better. It was a fun movie; I enjoyed it while I was there, and I don't regret the $6. But I'm not ever going to make any effort to see the movie again.

The most disappointing part of the movie was the lack of original theme song. Campiness issues aside, that was one fantastic theme song. I provide a link here for your listening/viewing pleasure.

"war is not hell. it's worse."

From Corpus Obscurum:

The most decorated Native American soldier of the Vietnam War dead at 57
Billy Walkabout died on Wednesday, March 7, of pneumonia and renal failure at a Norwich (CT) hospital. Walkabout, a Cherokee of the Blue Holley Clan, received the Distinguished Service Cross, Purple Heart, five Silver Stars and five Bronze Stars and was believed to be the most decorated Native American soldier of the Vietnam War. His exposure to the Agent Orange defoliant and wounds suffered during a 1968 assassination mission left Walkabout with disabling injuries. He spent many years suffering from suicidal thoughts and bouts of self-isolation, but would find comfort in the Native American powwows he attended. In a 1986 Associated Press interview about his 23 months of service in Vietman, Walkabout declared, "War is not hell. It's worse." Walkabout was 57.
Source: Associated Press, Wikipedia

248 dimensions

Ok, now this is just plain awesome:

248-dimension maths puzzle solved

I wish there were a picture.

back in business

I'm back. Here are a few of the impressions/ideas I have upon my return, quickly before I run to class:

*Arkansas is pretty.

*It is ironic that the area of the country that is most into Patriotism and flag-waving these days--the South--is covered in the Confederate flag, harking back to a time when they tried to secede from the country they now laud.

*Do not speed in Missouri. Those highway cops know what they're doing, and they're everywhere.

*Don't make assumptions about the South. On one small-town street, I walked past three stores that were flying the rainbow flag.

*Whoever invented all-you-can-eat catfish should be deified.

*Spring Break isn't nearly long enough.

spring break. I swear.

So I lied about the break thing, I guess. But I haven't technically left yet, so it's ok. Best book prize ever:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6437705.stm

spring break

One week of no school. Sounds great, right? Well, yes, except I have two papers due the week after and at least 500 pages of reading to do. Why do professors think "break" is code for "assign as much homework as possible?"Anyway, the blog will probably be pretty quiet for the next week or so, as my internet connection will vary from spotty to nonexistant. Cheers.

Disney Does Diversity

Meet Disney's first black princess, coming soon to a theater near you.

Her name is Maddy, she reportedly lives in 1920s New Orleans (I didn't know Louisiana had princesses) and she will star in The Frog Princess. This film, which will return to the old-fashioned hand-drawn animation style, is being made by John Musker and Ron Clements, the duo behind two of the greatest Disney creations ever, The Little Mermaid and Aladdin.

And when I say soon, I mean 2008. 71 years after Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. But still. Black Disney Princess. Better late then never...

standing ovation for The Glass Menagerie

I finally got around to seeing The Glass Menagerie, being performed at the Guthrie until March 25th. It was brilliant.

I'm going to be lazy and save myself the trouble of a long review by saying that everything that could possibly be good about a production was good about this one. Acting, directing, lighting, sets, music, everything. Ok, so the sets did sort of feel like the Guthrie showing off: "hey look guys, we're the Guthrie, we have lots of money and lots of space and look at these walls flying around!" That feeling left after about two minutes, though, and Tennessee Williams's writing drew the audience in and the actors keep us riveted.

I'd actually never seen the play before, but one thing that I overheard at least three times while leaving the theater was the comment that the mother character was nicer in this production than anyone had ever seen before. Apparently she's usually portrayed "more nasty," to quote the man in the green coat.

Like I said, brilliant. Go see it. And next up at the Guthrie, one of my favorite Shakespeares: The Merchant of Venice.

War and Cheat, part II

Whaddya know, I was right. Speaker A in the BBC conversation was indeed the bluffer, Ross Leckie. How did I do it?

I'm an English major. I've seen people bluff through such conversations before.

To begin with, there's the rhetoric. "I think," "I would argue," "I find." While the Booker Prize judge, John Sutherland, uses "I think" maybe once, Ross Leckie loves to think and expound. I've found that people who need to enhance their connection to a book are the ones least likely to have read it.

Then there was Leckie's superb ability at changing the subject or simply agreeing with what Sutherland said. (That backfired on him once, when Sutherland referenced a different Tolstoy work and Leckie thought the character was from War and Peace.) Leckie also spends a fair amount of time talking very generally, not about the novel.

This whole experiment by the BBC brings up a couple of interesting points. First, Leckie won the voting; more people thought Sutherland was the fake. So Leckie proved that bluffing can be done.

But more troubling to me is the epidemic Leckie represents.

"He does not believe he is missing out," to quote the BBC. Fine. I didn't particularly like Moby Dick, either. (More than I ever wanted to know about whaling in those middle chapters.) I believe everyone should be exposed to great literature, but if they don't like it, hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

What bothers me is the fact that bluffing knowledge is becoming acceptable. There is an entire mini-genre of books out there about how to b.s. your way through a conversation on the classics. Some are about bluffing in general, and some deal with bluffing a specific list of 50 or so novels (like a super Cliff's Notes).

Being able to b.s. a conversation on War and Peace is not the point of War and Peace. The journey from the beginning to the end of the novel is what matters. I've never read Great Expectations, but I can tell you the major plot points. I could probably even b.s. some themes if pressed. I'm still going to read it. I don't care what happens in the book. I care how it happens, and I care how the author presents it.

If you aren't going to read the book, you are deciding that it isn't pertinent to your life. If it isn't pertinent, then don't pretend it is. In the time you aren't reading War and Peace, you must be doing something else with yourself. (Like, I dunno, building a house or something. That book is a monster.) Be proud of that.

Just don't make that "something else" be learning how to pretend like you've read these books. I'm imagining a world in the near future in which nobody has read a classic like War and Peace but they all stand around talking about anyway. That vision scares me.

War and Cheat

The BBC is celebrating World Book day in a fascinating manner: they've hosted a conversation about War and Peace between a former Booker Prize chairman and a man who has never read the book, the author of The Bluffer's Guide to the Classics. This is the second news article I've seen recently referencing a "how to b.s. your way through a conversation on the classics" book, a genre I hate. More on that on some future date, probably.

Read the article and guess which one is the academic and which is the faker. Scroll down for my guess--I'll post the answer tomorrow when the BBC does. Right now the voting is pretty even, which is enough of a victory for fake-man.





I think A is the faker.