I had a post, all worked out, then had a short internet outage, and once I could post again, the post didn't seem post worthy. But it did provide inspiration for a little daytrip I did today.
In the post, that you never got to see, I waxed poetic about the joys of The Mad Greek Diner in Baker, California, and specifically their fantastic milkshakes.
As a man of action, rather than imagining that taste, I decided to drive the 192 miles to Baker and get one myself.
But as a man without a plan, and a desire to wander, I took the long way there, via portions of Route 66, and then Kelbaker Rd. Added 80 miles to the trip by going that route, but then I wouldn't have seen the Daggett Pioneers Cemetery, or nearly pass out from heat stroke at the Kelso Dunes (I should mention it was 114 degrees when I got to Baker at 6:30pm, and probably hotter at the dunes two hours earlier), or taken photos at the recently restored Kelso Depot.
As a reminder to anyone thinking of heading to Kelso Dunes in July, don't do it in the afternoon, don't forget to pack water with you (I did), make sure you have plenty of water back in your car when you're done with your hike (I didn't), and don't go alone in case you have trouble (I was alone, and I don't think I was ever in trouble, but I was closer to being in serious trouble than I should have been).
Posts with photos will follow all week, and maybe even some dashcam YouTube videos, assuming any of it came out, hard to see the lcd screen with the midday sun overhead.
07 July 2007
Shaky Cam Must Die!!!
Saw Transformers, was impressed with the impressive bits, bored with the boring bits, and somewhat humored by the humorous bits. There's plenty of stupid to go around in this movie, but it's stupid in a good natured way, and that's important. It's two tales intertwined, a very simple old fashioned boy meets girl story, and a very simple bad guys versus good guys tale. Both tales are told less artfully than they should be, but you don't buy a ticket to this ride expecting a whole lot of plot.
Shia Labeouf is an unlikely action hero, but all we get nowadays are unlikely action heroes, the likely ones aren't ironic enough, or something.
Ed Driscoll points to this piece at Libertas praising the film, and mentioning the core pro-military, and pro-American message in the film.
This movie will still do fine in foreign lands, though. Even with the pro-American message (presumably a bad thing nowadays), the America haters will be happy to see large portions of Downtown Los Angeles torn to pieces.
Why don't aliens ever pick on Tehran, Beijing, or Caracas? Funny how they always end up in either DC, LA, or NYC.
The effects are the most seamlessly intergrated CGI with live action effects, ever. Despite the over the top nature of the destruction, you never get the sense that the actors are just reacting to a tennis ball in a green screened soundstage. The Autobots and Decepticons occupy real physical space, and interact in that space convincingly. Think of the recent War of the Worlds and King Kong remakes, this was the opposite. Both of those films had big set pieces with the heroes running from unimaginable destruction, yet you never got the sense of physical danger you should have.
But back to the shaky cam. Michael Bay uses it way too much in this, and it makes it impossible to follow the action in some of the sequences. Plus once you've seen one impossibly articulated and speedy robot, you've seen them all, so despite an attempt to give character to each robot, they have a tendency to blend in action.
It's a deeply flawed film, would have been the tightest, most visually stunning popcorn film, ever made at 90 minutes with a better script. Instead it was a meandering 144 minute film that has a few too many lulls. They don't need to lose the entire boy meets girl plot, but it should have been a lot tightened up, plus the whole hacker and "section 7" subplots were superfluous.
GM probably will get their money's worth, especially when the new Camaro comes out 1Q 2009 (maybe GM will encourage Paramount to rush a sequel that summer to give sales an extra boost, they always leave room for sequels in these pictures, could make it a Bumblebee solo pic, no Shia, no other Autobots, just the sweet, sweet Bumblebee and his bitchin' Camaro self). All the good guy robots are GM branded, but it never feels like a commercial. Selling the new Camaro in any color other than bumblebee gold, might be tough, though, it looks awesome in that color. In the film, turns out it's a reskinned Pontiac GTO in Camaro drag, but I won't tell if you don't.
But mainly, try and see this film in the loudest theater in your area, this is a film that sounds best turned up to 11.
I haven't made fun of Manohla Dargis in awhile, but luckily, the NYT made the mistake of assigning her this film (or she gladly volunteered to see a film she knew before seeing she'd hate).
The opening paragraph sets the tone
She says it as if those are bad things, "epically assaultive noise and nonsense", sounds good to me. Just in case that didn't prove Manohla's disdain for this film, and for its jingoism, she uncorks this bit
But, remember kiddies, Brand America is the only real evil in this world, and this movie didn't have the decency to even poke proper fun at our current president
What an ass. On the Dargis scale I give this review only 500 millidargis (a reminder of what the dargis unit is, here) as at least it's clear what she thought about the film and the reasons for her dislikes. The review is still mostly useless as a review of the film given that she spends most of the word count accusing all men of being infantile and Americans being war happy and our corporations being greedy, but at least she sort of mentions some specifics about the film while venting her spleen.
Shia Labeouf is an unlikely action hero, but all we get nowadays are unlikely action heroes, the likely ones aren't ironic enough, or something.
Ed Driscoll points to this piece at Libertas praising the film, and mentioning the core pro-military, and pro-American message in the film.
This movie will still do fine in foreign lands, though. Even with the pro-American message (presumably a bad thing nowadays), the America haters will be happy to see large portions of Downtown Los Angeles torn to pieces.
Why don't aliens ever pick on Tehran, Beijing, or Caracas? Funny how they always end up in either DC, LA, or NYC.
The effects are the most seamlessly intergrated CGI with live action effects, ever. Despite the over the top nature of the destruction, you never get the sense that the actors are just reacting to a tennis ball in a green screened soundstage. The Autobots and Decepticons occupy real physical space, and interact in that space convincingly. Think of the recent War of the Worlds and King Kong remakes, this was the opposite. Both of those films had big set pieces with the heroes running from unimaginable destruction, yet you never got the sense of physical danger you should have.
But back to the shaky cam. Michael Bay uses it way too much in this, and it makes it impossible to follow the action in some of the sequences. Plus once you've seen one impossibly articulated and speedy robot, you've seen them all, so despite an attempt to give character to each robot, they have a tendency to blend in action.
It's a deeply flawed film, would have been the tightest, most visually stunning popcorn film, ever made at 90 minutes with a better script. Instead it was a meandering 144 minute film that has a few too many lulls. They don't need to lose the entire boy meets girl plot, but it should have been a lot tightened up, plus the whole hacker and "section 7" subplots were superfluous.
GM probably will get their money's worth, especially when the new Camaro comes out 1Q 2009 (maybe GM will encourage Paramount to rush a sequel that summer to give sales an extra boost, they always leave room for sequels in these pictures, could make it a Bumblebee solo pic, no Shia, no other Autobots, just the sweet, sweet Bumblebee and his bitchin' Camaro self). All the good guy robots are GM branded, but it never feels like a commercial. Selling the new Camaro in any color other than bumblebee gold, might be tough, though, it looks awesome in that color. In the film, turns out it's a reskinned Pontiac GTO in Camaro drag, but I won't tell if you don't.
But mainly, try and see this film in the loudest theater in your area, this is a film that sounds best turned up to 11.
I haven't made fun of Manohla Dargis in awhile, but luckily, the NYT made the mistake of assigning her this film (or she gladly volunteered to see a film she knew before seeing she'd hate).
The opening paragraph sets the tone
Boys and their toys are in full formation in “Transformers,” a movie of epically assaultive noise and nonsense. Originating with the shape-shifting toys — created in Japan, rebranded in America — that transform from robots into stuff like cars and planes, then back again, the movie has been designed as the ultimate in shock-and-awe entertainment. The result is part car commercial, part military recruitment ad, a bumper-to-bumper pileup of big cars, big guns and, as befits its recently weaned target demographic, big breasts.
She says it as if those are bad things, "epically assaultive noise and nonsense", sounds good to me. Just in case that didn't prove Manohla's disdain for this film, and for its jingoism, she uncorks this bit
The movie waves the flag equally for Detroit and the military, if to no coherent end. Last year the director of General Motors brand-marketing and advertising clarified how the company’s cars were integral to the movie: “It’s a story of good versus evil. Our cars are the good guys.” And sure enough, most of the Autobots take the shape of GM vehicles, including Ratchet (a Hummer H2) and Ironhide (a TopKick pickup truck).
But, remember kiddies, Brand America is the only real evil in this world, and this movie didn't have the decency to even poke proper fun at our current president
Shape-shifters of another kind, Hollywood action movies bend this way and that politically in a bid to please as many viewers as possible, but they almost always play out exactly the same, as entertaining violence leads to heroic individualism leads to the restoration of order. “Transformers” is no different, even if it does offer chewy distraction for the bored viewer: the would-be suicide bomber, American soldiers tearing it up in the Middle East while American cars keep up the fight at home, along with plugs for Burger King, Lockheed Martin, Mountain Dew and the Department of Defense. Why there’s even a president who asks for a Ding Dong. He’s wearing red socks like a big old clown, but no one really laughs.
What an ass. On the Dargis scale I give this review only 500 millidargis (a reminder of what the dargis unit is, here) as at least it's clear what she thought about the film and the reasons for her dislikes. The review is still mostly useless as a review of the film given that she spends most of the word count accusing all men of being infantile and Americans being war happy and our corporations being greedy, but at least she sort of mentions some specifics about the film while venting her spleen.
04 July 2007
Calvin Coolidge, Jumped In a Time Machine, Read My Blog, and Stole My Ideas . . .
. . . or not.
That might be a little far fetched.
Still, the idea that we represent modernity with our classical liberal Burkean founding principles while reactionary movements like postmodernism, gaiaism, and fundamental islamism represent regressive primitivism would seem to be echoed in his 5th of July speech in 1926 commemorating our nation's 150th birthday. It's not a short speech, but it's a reminder of a more thoughtful and scholarly time in our politics. Even though we're constantly reminded of the sheer brilliance of President Clinton on a regular basis by his fans, when it came to writing his autobiography it was a meandering mess. A president who admired Coolidge greatly, was the one that came closest to his scholarship since, as evidenced by his recently published diaries.
Silent Cal could orate, when needed. His reputation for silence was exaggerated, his commitment to the core Jeffersonian and Burkean values at the heart of our national experiment, under appreciated.
Here's the part that resonates most with what I wrote earlier (having not read this speech before)
The summation of the speech is also very interesting,
What we get so right, and what too many nations still get so wrong is a strong adherence to a rule of law endowed by unalienable rights. Coolidge ascribes these rights as divine. Whatever the source of that spiritual yearning for freedom, that yearning waited a long time till it found its best expression in our founding documents. Lucky for us that we get to live at a time when we see the expression of those values more so than at any time in the past. Luckily for the rest of the world, we're happy to export the best of what we have to offer. We'll let you have those ideas for free, no strings attached. We'll even spend a great deal of our own treasure helping your country get there. We know in the long run our philosophy is irresistible (if not to those in power, at least to the people governed), and that trade partners are vastly preferable to armed rivals. But if you insist on the rivalry route, we're generous with the ass-kickings, as well (just ask our first dance partners, the Barbary Pirates).
(hat tip Powerline, via Ed Driscoll)
That might be a little far fetched.
Still, the idea that we represent modernity with our classical liberal Burkean founding principles while reactionary movements like postmodernism, gaiaism, and fundamental islamism represent regressive primitivism would seem to be echoed in his 5th of July speech in 1926 commemorating our nation's 150th birthday. It's not a short speech, but it's a reminder of a more thoughtful and scholarly time in our politics. Even though we're constantly reminded of the sheer brilliance of President Clinton on a regular basis by his fans, when it came to writing his autobiography it was a meandering mess. A president who admired Coolidge greatly, was the one that came closest to his scholarship since, as evidenced by his recently published diaries.
Silent Cal could orate, when needed. His reputation for silence was exaggerated, his commitment to the core Jeffersonian and Burkean values at the heart of our national experiment, under appreciated.
Here's the part that resonates most with what I wrote earlier (having not read this speech before)
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
The summation of the speech is also very interesting,
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.
What we get so right, and what too many nations still get so wrong is a strong adherence to a rule of law endowed by unalienable rights. Coolidge ascribes these rights as divine. Whatever the source of that spiritual yearning for freedom, that yearning waited a long time till it found its best expression in our founding documents. Lucky for us that we get to live at a time when we see the expression of those values more so than at any time in the past. Luckily for the rest of the world, we're happy to export the best of what we have to offer. We'll let you have those ideas for free, no strings attached. We'll even spend a great deal of our own treasure helping your country get there. We know in the long run our philosophy is irresistible (if not to those in power, at least to the people governed), and that trade partners are vastly preferable to armed rivals. But if you insist on the rivalry route, we're generous with the ass-kickings, as well (just ask our first dance partners, the Barbary Pirates).
(hat tip Powerline, via Ed Driscoll)
Why Victor Davis Hanson Rocks
He unleashes a litany of information regarding our 'bungled' adventure in Iraq. It's not the usual litany of failures, rather it's a lengthy litany of our successes, and the trouble our success there is causing our enemies.
Expect him to be belittled, ignored, but not refuted. There aren't any factual errors in what he says, so they can't attack him on the facts, instead they'll just claim he's painting an improbably rosy picture of what clearly is a continuing failure by the Bush Administration.
If we continue to fail as well as we have been, the world might be a pretty great place by 2030.
Think back 25 years to 1982. All the things Reagan was doing was needlessly provocative, ruinous to our economy, and lacking nuance with regards to the Soviet's legitimate desire to carve out a sphere of influence in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, or at least that was the conventional wisdom at the time.
I think history shows whether the Reagan critics, or Reagan was right back in 1982. Mistakes and bungles were made back then, too. Saddam flourished because we needed him to contain Iran. We helped plant the seeds of the Taliban by not following up with more aid after the Soviet pull out. But I think very few people in the former Warsaw Pact were sad to see that organization dissolve, and our best friends in Europe are those countries that suffered the most under the Soviet boot.
In another 20 years, will a free Kurdistan, peaceful Iraq, and truly democratic Iran be our best allies in the region?
Don't be surprised if it happens, and don't root against it just cause you hate President Bush. Nobody foresaw the fall of the Soviet Empire happening as quickly, and relatively peacefully (former Yugoslavia excepted) as it did. So nobody other than somebody like Victor Davis Hanson is willing to suggest that the hopefulness of The Cedar Revolution (currently hitting a road bump, but the spirit and will to reform remains), and the Purple Fingers, and the amazing prosperity in Arbil are not isolated incidents, but early signs of our inevitable victory over primitive tribalism, even in an area with millennia of tradition honing mutual hatred.
Terrorism is a tool used by failing ideologies, and power mad nihilists. Terrorism will never go away completely, but remaking the world into a place where no state can seek to help or even harbor terrorists in their midst is a worthy goal. A goal for which success will be hard to measure, and failure will be all too obvious. Each bomb that goes off isn't a failure, and each day without a bomb isn't a success, but another 4th of July was celebrated in the United States, and despite the threats, chatter and insinuations from the crazies, they weren't able to screw with people's plans (mother nature on the other hand, she's hardcore).
Expect him to be belittled, ignored, but not refuted. There aren't any factual errors in what he says, so they can't attack him on the facts, instead they'll just claim he's painting an improbably rosy picture of what clearly is a continuing failure by the Bush Administration.
If we continue to fail as well as we have been, the world might be a pretty great place by 2030.
Think back 25 years to 1982. All the things Reagan was doing was needlessly provocative, ruinous to our economy, and lacking nuance with regards to the Soviet's legitimate desire to carve out a sphere of influence in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, or at least that was the conventional wisdom at the time.
I think history shows whether the Reagan critics, or Reagan was right back in 1982. Mistakes and bungles were made back then, too. Saddam flourished because we needed him to contain Iran. We helped plant the seeds of the Taliban by not following up with more aid after the Soviet pull out. But I think very few people in the former Warsaw Pact were sad to see that organization dissolve, and our best friends in Europe are those countries that suffered the most under the Soviet boot.
In another 20 years, will a free Kurdistan, peaceful Iraq, and truly democratic Iran be our best allies in the region?
Don't be surprised if it happens, and don't root against it just cause you hate President Bush. Nobody foresaw the fall of the Soviet Empire happening as quickly, and relatively peacefully (former Yugoslavia excepted) as it did. So nobody other than somebody like Victor Davis Hanson is willing to suggest that the hopefulness of The Cedar Revolution (currently hitting a road bump, but the spirit and will to reform remains), and the Purple Fingers, and the amazing prosperity in Arbil are not isolated incidents, but early signs of our inevitable victory over primitive tribalism, even in an area with millennia of tradition honing mutual hatred.
Terrorism is a tool used by failing ideologies, and power mad nihilists. Terrorism will never go away completely, but remaking the world into a place where no state can seek to help or even harbor terrorists in their midst is a worthy goal. A goal for which success will be hard to measure, and failure will be all too obvious. Each bomb that goes off isn't a failure, and each day without a bomb isn't a success, but another 4th of July was celebrated in the United States, and despite the threats, chatter and insinuations from the crazies, they weren't able to screw with people's plans (mother nature on the other hand, she's hardcore).
Things Seen Today (That I Had Rather Not Seen)
The thing I saw that I would have prefered not seeing was a 'healthy' young bird (past healthy, more rolly-polly, and I call her a bird since I have reason to believe she's a loyal subject of Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II), in an above the knee black skirt, a Union Jack top entirely too form fitting for her form, and worst of all, UGG boots.
I have no problem with people who carry around a little extra weight, so long as they recognize this about themselves and dress accordingly.
I have no problem with somebody proudly displaying a Union Jack on their body, but not on Independence Day.
I have no problem with UGG boots, worn indoors, or actually in a ski chalet, but on the streets near the beach, on a summer day, paired with a skirt, that ain't right.
I have no problem with people who carry around a little extra weight, so long as they recognize this about themselves and dress accordingly.
I have no problem with somebody proudly displaying a Union Jack on their body, but not on Independence Day.
I have no problem with UGG boots, worn indoors, or actually in a ski chalet, but on the streets near the beach, on a summer day, paired with a skirt, that ain't right.
Whiskey, Democracy, Sexy
Happy 4th of July.
And if you haven't at least squeezed in two of the three above mentioned things in your day, try to do so before midnight, our founding fathers will be angry if you don't.
Speaking of the 4th and Whiskey. . .
Speaking of the 4th and Democracy . . .
Speaking of the 4th and Sexy . . .
Enjoy, and here's to the next 231, we're still a young country, a hopeful country, a whiskey soaked country, a democratic country, and above all else, a sexy country.
Take that, Luxemborg (I'm sure there are many fine people in Luxemborg, but nobody ever describes that country as being 'sexy').
And if you haven't at least squeezed in two of the three above mentioned things in your day, try to do so before midnight, our founding fathers will be angry if you don't.
Speaking of the 4th and Whiskey. . .
Speaking of the 4th and Democracy . . .
Speaking of the 4th and Sexy . . .
Enjoy, and here's to the next 231, we're still a young country, a hopeful country, a whiskey soaked country, a democratic country, and above all else, a sexy country.
Take that, Luxemborg (I'm sure there are many fine people in Luxemborg, but nobody ever describes that country as being 'sexy').
03 July 2007
It's Is Important To Have A Good Working Relationship With the Press . . .
. . . but this is probably taking things a bit far.
This dashes any hopes Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had at being a vice-presidential candidate (there was talk). He had been toadying up to Sen. Clinton which some have questioned as he would seem to be less 'moderate' than she is. Speculation was that he's angling for a position in her hoped for administration, possibly as high as Vice President.
On the plus side, she's hot, which helps (if Monica, or Paula were hotter, Bill would have been ridiculed less), and she's Mexican, which probably helps, too (had it been one of the cutie bunny blond reporters he'd been 'getting in depth' with, then that'd have hurt him deeply with core supporters).
Personally, don't care, getting outside nooky while your marriage is falling apart doesn't make somebody a bad mayor. Even sleeping with someone in the press doesn't make you a bad mayor. Villaraigosa is a bad mayor cause he refuses to enforce the law, spends too much time trying to draw the spotlight to himself personally and not on the city in general, and advocates a variety of ill-advised nanny-state programs that could damage the long term prosperity that Los Angeles should be destined to achieve.
Los Angeles has been fairly lucky with its mayors, Tom Bradley did a decent job, but held on for about a decade too long, Richard Riordan did a phenomenal job during a very tough time in our history, and just those two men cover most of my adult life (James Hahn was so forgettable, that I forgot about his one term not so long ago), so I won't bother you with tales of the Sam Yorty years, as I really don't recall them.
Compared to Chicago, New York, or Philadelphia, the mayoralty in Los Angeles has been exemplary for a large metropolis. Maybe it's cause they don't really have much power here (that's wielded by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, probably the most powerful non-state, non-federal government positions in the country, if not world).
This dashes any hopes Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had at being a vice-presidential candidate (there was talk). He had been toadying up to Sen. Clinton which some have questioned as he would seem to be less 'moderate' than she is. Speculation was that he's angling for a position in her hoped for administration, possibly as high as Vice President.
On the plus side, she's hot, which helps (if Monica, or Paula were hotter, Bill would have been ridiculed less), and she's Mexican, which probably helps, too (had it been one of the cutie bunny blond reporters he'd been 'getting in depth' with, then that'd have hurt him deeply with core supporters).
Personally, don't care, getting outside nooky while your marriage is falling apart doesn't make somebody a bad mayor. Even sleeping with someone in the press doesn't make you a bad mayor. Villaraigosa is a bad mayor cause he refuses to enforce the law, spends too much time trying to draw the spotlight to himself personally and not on the city in general, and advocates a variety of ill-advised nanny-state programs that could damage the long term prosperity that Los Angeles should be destined to achieve.
Los Angeles has been fairly lucky with its mayors, Tom Bradley did a decent job, but held on for about a decade too long, Richard Riordan did a phenomenal job during a very tough time in our history, and just those two men cover most of my adult life (James Hahn was so forgettable, that I forgot about his one term not so long ago), so I won't bother you with tales of the Sam Yorty years, as I really don't recall them.
Compared to Chicago, New York, or Philadelphia, the mayoralty in Los Angeles has been exemplary for a large metropolis. Maybe it's cause they don't really have much power here (that's wielded by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, probably the most powerful non-state, non-federal government positions in the country, if not world).
The Key To Prospering In the Current Economy
Reading today's Bleat something jumped out at me. I think I may have an insight, it may not be original, or it might be. I'm not sure, either way, I'll ram it down your throat whether you want it or not.
At the end of it he wrote:
Seems to me, that's what all businesses should look for, especially in jobs that require lots of brain work and enthusiasm.
You want to hire people to do jobs that they would be happy to pay you to do, but rather than use that against them to keep them underpaid, pay them enough so that they don't feel like they need to turn their obsession into a hobby. By paying Lileks to do what he'd been giving away for free for years, the Star Tribune has just gotten a much greater value out of an asset that they'd been undervaluing for far too long.
Seems like that's what PIXAR does, and why they've been able to succeed so wildly at making films that gross hundreds of millions every time out. Every job doesn't lend itself to finding the perfect obsessive to fill the job. And not every obsessive would do a job worth paying. But when the two come together just right, it's magical, and lucrative for all involved.
The entire economy can't run along on Eudaimoniacal principles, but it's getting increasingly possible to make many jobs and workers fit together harmoniously. Humans being human, the trouble that will happen is the friction between the happy workers doing their dream jobs rubbing elbows with the drones just collecting a paycheck. Folks can't help but try and bring the happy ones down a peg or two.
Joy comes from within, but sometimes it needs an assist to flourish. It's fun watching how clearly joyous Lileks is at the moment, and contrasts greatly with his months of dread and trepidation before his new found bucket (though some of his writing during the trepidatious period was his best). One danger about obsessives getting paid to do what they love to do, is they might forget that there's life outside of their obsession. When you enjoy what you do, and get rewarded well for doing it, you might forget that "off" is not only an option, but a necessity.
At the end of it he wrote:
New comics, and of course buzz - with a new video around 11 AM or so. See you there! (Note: I finished the video around 10:30, and realized I'd been at the job, in one way or another, since 8:30 AM. Didn't feel like it. Didn't feel like work at all.)
Seems to me, that's what all businesses should look for, especially in jobs that require lots of brain work and enthusiasm.
You want to hire people to do jobs that they would be happy to pay you to do, but rather than use that against them to keep them underpaid, pay them enough so that they don't feel like they need to turn their obsession into a hobby. By paying Lileks to do what he'd been giving away for free for years, the Star Tribune has just gotten a much greater value out of an asset that they'd been undervaluing for far too long.
Seems like that's what PIXAR does, and why they've been able to succeed so wildly at making films that gross hundreds of millions every time out. Every job doesn't lend itself to finding the perfect obsessive to fill the job. And not every obsessive would do a job worth paying. But when the two come together just right, it's magical, and lucrative for all involved.
The entire economy can't run along on Eudaimoniacal principles, but it's getting increasingly possible to make many jobs and workers fit together harmoniously. Humans being human, the trouble that will happen is the friction between the happy workers doing their dream jobs rubbing elbows with the drones just collecting a paycheck. Folks can't help but try and bring the happy ones down a peg or two.
Joy comes from within, but sometimes it needs an assist to flourish. It's fun watching how clearly joyous Lileks is at the moment, and contrasts greatly with his months of dread and trepidation before his new found bucket (though some of his writing during the trepidatious period was his best). One danger about obsessives getting paid to do what they love to do, is they might forget that there's life outside of their obsession. When you enjoy what you do, and get rewarded well for doing it, you might forget that "off" is not only an option, but a necessity.
02 July 2007
Sorry Ollie, But We Find Your Anti-Americanism A Bit Over the Top
(hat tip Drudge)
Pres. Ahmadinejad rejects a proposed documentary on him by Oliver Stone.
Doesn't President Ahmadinejad realize that Stone would make a piece of pure pro-Mahmoud propaganda?
Did Mahmoud find Stone's Castro doc too hard hitting?
Maybe he just didn't want to be around Stone in close quarters for too long (make up your own reasons for this fear, but try and include bodily fluids, odors, and sexual attraction in your answers).
. . . In other film news, the title of Fishbone's album Chim-Chim's Badass Revenge became eerily prophetic when a chimp on the set of the live action Speed Racer film bit an actor on set.
Hopefully the song Party at Ground Zero will remain unprophetic.
UPDATE:
I dug around the PressTV website (the Iranian government's English language propaganda outlet), and found their take on it, here it is in full (not going to link to their propaganda page, bad enough to visit it):
Bet Oliver Stone is very shocked to find that he's considered part of "the global arrogance" or even "the US media". He really ought to have a heart to heart with them and explain that he hates the "Great Satan" even more than they do.
Also found their account of the Clintons fascinating on multiple levels:
The Iranian government is rooting for Sen. Clinton to take over the "Great Satan"?
Should I be disturbed?
Should I be surprised?
Bet they don't publish anything that positive about Sen. Fred Thompson.
Pres. Ahmadinejad rejects a proposed documentary on him by Oliver Stone.
Doesn't President Ahmadinejad realize that Stone would make a piece of pure pro-Mahmoud propaganda?
Did Mahmoud find Stone's Castro doc too hard hitting?
Maybe he just didn't want to be around Stone in close quarters for too long (make up your own reasons for this fear, but try and include bodily fluids, odors, and sexual attraction in your answers).
. . . In other film news, the title of Fishbone's album Chim-Chim's Badass Revenge became eerily prophetic when a chimp on the set of the live action Speed Racer film bit an actor on set.
Hopefully the song Party at Ground Zero will remain unprophetic.
UPDATE:
I dug around the PressTV website (the Iranian government's English language propaganda outlet), and found their take on it, here it is in full (not going to link to their propaganda page, bad enough to visit it):
Mahdi Kalhor said that Oliver Stone has repeatedly requested to make a film about Ahmadinejad over the past year.
“We have already seen his documentaries on Arafat, Castro and Hezbollah. Even though Stone is considered a member of the opposition group in the US, it is still part of the 'Great Satan'.
We believe the American cinema is void of real art and culture and that it is largely used as a mouthpiece," he added.
He also noted that Ahmadinejad personally rejected the idea from the very beginning.
The global arrogance has been making efforts to tarnish the image of Iran's president and this is no new ruse in the US media.
Bet Oliver Stone is very shocked to find that he's considered part of "the global arrogance" or even "the US media". He really ought to have a heart to heart with them and explain that he hates the "Great Satan" even more than they do.
Also found their account of the Clintons fascinating on multiple levels:
The charismatic former president's first campaign swing with his wife opened Monday with a folksy speech at the Iowa State Fairgrounds where he urged the party faithful to vote for Hillary because she is both the best qualified and the most responsible, AFP reported.
"You will never have anybody in the White House who cares more about how every decision she makes affects you," Bill Clinton said from a stage surrounded by flag-lined hay bales.
Hillary thanked him for the brief speech by saying, "I'm awfully glad to have my husband here," and went on to list his achievements and everything that had been lost since he left office.
"After two terms of the Bush administration and their cronyism and their incompetence we're going to have a lot of cleaning up to do," Hillary told the cheering crowd.
Bill has made a few early forays into the campaign, most notably dipping a toe in the race in May with a syrupy Internet video tribute to his wife and again in June when he appeared in a stylish spoof of the mystery ending of hit mob show "The Sopranos" unveiling Hillary's campaign song.
His speech Monday reflected that first tribute as he described Hillary's lifelong commitment to public service and the work she did as first lady of Arkansas and then the United States.
Hillary's ranking nationally, however, has given her an aura of invincibility. Recent polls show her garnering 43 to 48 percent of the Democratic vote compared with 19 to 25 percent for Obama and 11 to 17 percent for Edwards.
The Iranian government is rooting for Sen. Clinton to take over the "Great Satan"?
Should I be disturbed?
Should I be surprised?
Bet they don't publish anything that positive about Sen. Fred Thompson.
There Are NO RIGHT ANSWERS, Only Less Wrong Ones
A possible new feature, indecipherable multiple choice analogies questions.
Those bastards at Princeton Review don't put analogies on the SAT anymore, but that doesn't stop Conan from using them for a bit, and according to an emailer to Ken Jennings, that doesn't stop AAA from using them on job applications. Read his post, then you'll understand my inspiration for this feature
I'll give you one to start, and I'll provide the non-answers in inviso-text, cause I can't get enough of inviso-texting.
1) Kobe Bryant:Jeremy Bentham :: David Beckham:
a) Edmund Burke
b) John Locke
c) Adam Smith
d) Baruch Spinoza
The correct answer, of course is all the above (it's an off the menu choice). If one were to consider Kobe Bryant's recent actions with regards to his demands on his team as an example of Utilitarianism (I'm being very generous to Kobe to suggest so), than to unlock this analogy one would have to figure out which philosophical system is best exemplified by David Beckham's pending move to play football in the United States represents.
"a" is the right answer since Beckham in the States is a manifestation of classical liberalism. Beckham is free to choose his course, unbound by national commitments, and his choosing to come to the USA specifically seems pretty Burkean in my book.
"b" is the right answer since Beckham in the USA is Lockean in that he's pursuing self motivated interests despite the hits in public opinion he'll take in his homeland. He's intrigued by using his (diminishing) skills to broaden the appeal of the sport he loves, he sees soccer in the USA as a tabula rasa, and he hopes to be the brand that widens his sports acceptance in an important market
"c" is the right answer since Beckham in the USA is a perfect manifestation of Adam Smith's dead hand. Beckham is acting purely out of motivated self-interest and nothing else. The potential endorsement income he could expect if he succeeds in building soccer in the United States is massive. He's taking a huge risk, spending a great deal of his own capital of good will back home, but he sees the potential rewards worth the massive risks. That sounds pretty Smith-y to me.
"d" is the right answer cause Beckham's attempt to bring soccer to the masses in the USA represents a perfect encapsulation of Spinoza's concern with upsetting "received authority". If Beckham accepted the authoritative view of his sport in the United States, then he knows this project is doomed to failure, but using Spinoza's philosophical methods, Beckham has come to the realization that given the infinite nature of the natural world, to suggest that soccer is destined to fail in the United States is folly. If all possibilities are possible, then Beckham endeavors to be the agent of change and bring the possibility of soccer sweeping the United States to fruition.
That's the first one done, if you disagree with my answer, tough. Let's see you do better. Next up . . . . . ,
Transformers the Movie:Moby Dick :: (to be continued)
Those bastards at Princeton Review don't put analogies on the SAT anymore, but that doesn't stop Conan from using them for a bit, and according to an emailer to Ken Jennings, that doesn't stop AAA from using them on job applications. Read his post, then you'll understand my inspiration for this feature
I'll give you one to start, and I'll provide the non-answers in inviso-text, cause I can't get enough of inviso-texting.
1) Kobe Bryant:Jeremy Bentham :: David Beckham:
a) Edmund Burke
b) John Locke
c) Adam Smith
d) Baruch Spinoza
The correct answer, of course is all the above (it's an off the menu choice). If one were to consider Kobe Bryant's recent actions with regards to his demands on his team as an example of Utilitarianism (I'm being very generous to Kobe to suggest so), than to unlock this analogy one would have to figure out which philosophical system is best exemplified by David Beckham's pending move to play football in the United States represents.
"a" is the right answer since Beckham in the States is a manifestation of classical liberalism. Beckham is free to choose his course, unbound by national commitments, and his choosing to come to the USA specifically seems pretty Burkean in my book.
"b" is the right answer since Beckham in the USA is Lockean in that he's pursuing self motivated interests despite the hits in public opinion he'll take in his homeland. He's intrigued by using his (diminishing) skills to broaden the appeal of the sport he loves, he sees soccer in the USA as a tabula rasa, and he hopes to be the brand that widens his sports acceptance in an important market
"c" is the right answer since Beckham in the USA is a perfect manifestation of Adam Smith's dead hand. Beckham is acting purely out of motivated self-interest and nothing else. The potential endorsement income he could expect if he succeeds in building soccer in the United States is massive. He's taking a huge risk, spending a great deal of his own capital of good will back home, but he sees the potential rewards worth the massive risks. That sounds pretty Smith-y to me.
"d" is the right answer cause Beckham's attempt to bring soccer to the masses in the USA represents a perfect encapsulation of Spinoza's concern with upsetting "received authority". If Beckham accepted the authoritative view of his sport in the United States, then he knows this project is doomed to failure, but using Spinoza's philosophical methods, Beckham has come to the realization that given the infinite nature of the natural world, to suggest that soccer is destined to fail in the United States is folly. If all possibilities are possible, then Beckham endeavors to be the agent of change and bring the possibility of soccer sweeping the United States to fruition.
That's the first one done, if you disagree with my answer, tough. Let's see you do better. Next up . . . . . ,
Transformers the Movie:Moby Dick :: (to be continued)
So In the French Language Version, Will Everybody Be Speaking With "Extra" French Accents?
Saw Ratatouille, loved it, great PIXAR film, up to their usual standard. Lileks gives a solid mini-review in his early Monday Bleat. I agree completely with his complaints about the complaints the EW reviewer had regarding the film.
But I was a bit disturbed by the French accents that some of the actors felt the need to put on. Especially Janeane Garafolo, her accent fluctuated depending on the line reading, it was a bit silly, especially when a little NYC would slip in from time to time.
I'm not singling her out for political reasons, purely voice actorly reasons (she looked good at the premiere, also read a recent interview mentioning she's keeping sober which is good, and I've always found her compelling on a personal level, so if you're interested in a date with a quirky 38 year old multi-racial libertarian leaning Reagan Republican, email me, Janeane, and if I have to get in a cage match with Henry Rollins for the privilege, no problem, I could take him, he's all bark and no bite)
I would be curious to know how they handle that in the French language version though, I assume they'd use regional accents to reflect the different origins and social status of each character, but I wouldn't be able to tell the difference as I've never studied French.
One other thing, didn't have my camera so you'll have to take my word for it, but I think either there's an infestation ongoing at the 3rd St. Promenade, or this was the worst idea for a guerrilla marketing campaign ever. In the alley outside the theatre showing Ratatouille there were numerous rat traps. They may be cute (or cutish) on film, but in an alley way, better that they're dead, than alive, and even better if they're non-existent (though impossible, where there are people there are rats, they've done a good job of domesticating us).
But I was a bit disturbed by the French accents that some of the actors felt the need to put on. Especially Janeane Garafolo, her accent fluctuated depending on the line reading, it was a bit silly, especially when a little NYC would slip in from time to time.
I'm not singling her out for political reasons, purely voice actorly reasons (she looked good at the premiere, also read a recent interview mentioning she's keeping sober which is good, and I've always found her compelling on a personal level, so if you're interested in a date with a quirky 38 year old multi-racial libertarian leaning Reagan Republican, email me, Janeane, and if I have to get in a cage match with Henry Rollins for the privilege, no problem, I could take him, he's all bark and no bite)
I would be curious to know how they handle that in the French language version though, I assume they'd use regional accents to reflect the different origins and social status of each character, but I wouldn't be able to tell the difference as I've never studied French.
One other thing, didn't have my camera so you'll have to take my word for it, but I think either there's an infestation ongoing at the 3rd St. Promenade, or this was the worst idea for a guerrilla marketing campaign ever. In the alley outside the theatre showing Ratatouille there were numerous rat traps. They may be cute (or cutish) on film, but in an alley way, better that they're dead, than alive, and even better if they're non-existent (though impossible, where there are people there are rats, they've done a good job of domesticating us).
Strange Food Related Lawsuit of the Day Involving a Lennon
(hat tip Defamer)
First up, who knew Julian Lennon was a restauranteur?
Second up, suing like this isn't very christian of the very Christian In-N-Out Corporation.
Third up, I'm no legal expert, but it seems like suing for copyright infringement on an unoffical off menu item seems like a tough case to win.
Sure, everybody who goes to In-N-Out (and in this area that's almost everybody) knows there are lots of 'off menu' specialty orders that you can place (a partial list here), but I don't think that helps In-N-Out in this case. Seems to me you actually have to officially market something to claim a trademark or copyright on a phrase. I could be wrong here, and maybe this open secret, secret menu constitutes registered trademarks, and looking at the offical site, they do show the "R" in a circle after Animal, 3x3, 4x4, and Protein, so clearly they are claiming those as trademarks for food related products.
Still seems like they've hired some overzealous attorneys who have gotten a bit registered trademark and sue-happy.
Good for Julian Lennon for standing up to them and not altering the menu at Blowfish Sushi.
All this won't change the fact that In-N-Out is indeed what a hamburger is all about (maybe on my pilgrimage to the Kwik-E-Mart, I'll swing by the In-N-Out on Venice Blvd. about a mile east).
UPDATE: Noticed Tammy Bruce is also on this case. Must be a slow news day, not like anything is going on right now.
First up, who knew Julian Lennon was a restauranteur?
Second up, suing like this isn't very christian of the very Christian In-N-Out Corporation.
Third up, I'm no legal expert, but it seems like suing for copyright infringement on an unoffical off menu item seems like a tough case to win.
Sure, everybody who goes to In-N-Out (and in this area that's almost everybody) knows there are lots of 'off menu' specialty orders that you can place (a partial list here), but I don't think that helps In-N-Out in this case. Seems to me you actually have to officially market something to claim a trademark or copyright on a phrase. I could be wrong here, and maybe this open secret, secret menu constitutes registered trademarks, and looking at the offical site, they do show the "R" in a circle after Animal, 3x3, 4x4, and Protein, so clearly they are claiming those as trademarks for food related products.
Still seems like they've hired some overzealous attorneys who have gotten a bit registered trademark and sue-happy.
Good for Julian Lennon for standing up to them and not altering the menu at Blowfish Sushi.
All this won't change the fact that In-N-Out is indeed what a hamburger is all about (maybe on my pilgrimage to the Kwik-E-Mart, I'll swing by the In-N-Out on Venice Blvd. about a mile east).
UPDATE: Noticed Tammy Bruce is also on this case. Must be a slow news day, not like anything is going on right now.
Woohoo!
Doing some ego-googling, for the term "immodest proposals", and currently this website is the first link on google's list.
Take that William Tenn!
(whose collected works I've yet to read, and might be wonderful, probably should read and review them one day)
Also #1 on Yahoo
Also #1 on MSFT's Live Search
But, Ask.com, and their fancy algorithms, can go screw themselves, they haven't yet put this site on top.
The other link high on all the lists is an article interviewing a Burlington lawyer (specialist in obscenity cases) in Seven Days (Vermont's Alternative Weekly, cause I guess the regular weeklys in Vermont aren't "alternative" enough, I can't imagine how "alternative" alternative means in a state where Bernie Sanders represents)
Take that William Tenn!
(whose collected works I've yet to read, and might be wonderful, probably should read and review them one day)
Also #1 on Yahoo
Also #1 on MSFT's Live Search
But, Ask.com, and their fancy algorithms, can go screw themselves, they haven't yet put this site on top.
The other link high on all the lists is an article interviewing a Burlington lawyer (specialist in obscenity cases) in Seven Days (Vermont's Alternative Weekly, cause I guess the regular weeklys in Vermont aren't "alternative" enough, I can't imagine how "alternative" alternative means in a state where Bernie Sanders represents)
If Fluctuations in the Price of Machetes . . .
. . . is any indica of the political mood in your country, then you live in a messed up place.
Shouldn't At Least One of Them Been In A Springfield?
Kwik-E Mart, in Burbank.
(there's also one in Mar Vista nearer by, I'll make a pilgrimage to get myself a Squishee, cause even if The Simpsons haven't been all that great lately, they're still The Simpsons)
(there's also one in Mar Vista nearer by, I'll make a pilgrimage to get myself a Squishee, cause even if The Simpsons haven't been all that great lately, they're still The Simpsons)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)