tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49756867505936665582024-03-06T00:32:36.691-08:00My Curate's Egg BlogSomewhat good. Somewhat bad. Is it all ruined?Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-316717646177691952019-01-06T16:40:00.000-08:002019-01-06T16:40:27.820-08:00Review: The Coupe Next DoorI should be somewhat ashamed to say that the first book I read in 2019 is <i>The Couple Next Door</i> by Shri Lapena. It is a plot driven page turner / thriller focusing on the unraveling of a kidnapping. Although often compare to them, it does not in the same category of quality as <i>Gone Girl </i>or <i>The Girl on The Train</i>. There is very little character development, and what there is does not seem real or particularly well crafted. Because of this, the various twists just come out of nowhere, with some being guessed at from miles a why from first principles.<br />
<br />
Still, I read it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-32076167844648434792019-01-02T17:17:00.003-08:002019-01-02T17:17:56.586-08:00Review: The Favorite<i><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5083738/">The Favorite</a></i> was the first movie I saw in 2019. I'd heard good things about it, particularly the strong performances by Olivia Colman, Emma Stone, and Rachel Weisz. Plus, hearing that Colman will be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/arts/olivia-colman-the-favourite-the-crown.html">portraying Queen Elizabeth II in The Crown</a> made this a must see.<br />
<br />
Aspects of the film remind me Hillary Mantel's depiction of Thomas Cromwell. Not the subject matter, but the idea of transposing modern language and thought onto the past. There is apparently <a href="https://www.slashfilm.com/the-favourite-true-story/">much truth to the portrayal</a>.<br />
<br />
I just listened to the Slate Spoiler Special and must disagree with the Dana Stevens. I thought the movie was outstanding, and that the overly stylized directorial flourishes were both fitting and sort of the point. Plus, the dance sequence was great! I wish the spoiler special podcast had on an expert in Queen Anne and the 17th century English sexual and court politics. <br />
<br />
The performances, the characters, the satire, and the ducks make this a highly recommended movie!Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-36065053050990970682019-01-02T17:03:00.001-08:002019-01-02T17:03:44.178-08:00The last book I read in 2018The last book I read in 2018 was <i>The Big Oyster: History on the Half Shell</i> by <a href="http://www.markkurlansky.com/">Mark Kurlansky</a>. It was a quick and enjoyable read, perfect for a holiday or other vacation. It especially hit my interests of history, New York City, and, of course oysters. The focus on oysters, and the surrounding ocean more generally, is a great hook into pre-20th century New York City geography and culture.<br />
<br />
A draft genome of the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11413">Pacific Oyster was published in 2012</a>, with analysis showing an expansion of heat shock proteins (HSP) and cytochromes. Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-6059640603808976572016-11-28T18:24:00.000-08:002016-11-28T18:24:30.542-08:00Is this thing still on? Podcasting Done RightOver the past few years I've become increasingly hooked on podcasts. I listen while I walk, while I eat, while I do chores, and when I can't sleep. Perhaps I'll have more to say, but want to highlight the recent episode of <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/slate_money/2016/11/slate_money_talks_criminal_justice_data_and_the_role_of_philanthropy_post.html">Slate Money</a>. In this episode (Episode No. 133: The Optimism Edition), the usual hosts (Cathy O'Neil, Felix Salmon, and Joran Weissmann) were joined by Laura Arnold to discuss various aspects of the <a href="http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/">Laura and John Arnold Foundation</a>. Nothin too remarkable about that -- a post-Thanksgiving show focused on philanthropy seems pretty standard. What made this remarkable was the presence of Cathy O'Neil in the discussion, and her ability to challenge the assumptions and highlight ideas otherwise skipped over, particularly in the realm of models related to the use of statistical models in the criminal justice system. O'Neil has real expertise in this area, and opinions supported by research and thought and contemplation. This makes the conversation much more meaningful than so many other podcasts focused on some issue of the day that devolves into punditry.<br />
<br />
Expertise is valuable. Who knew?<br />
<br />
<header class="article-header" id="article_header" style="display: block; margin-bottom: 20px;"></header>Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-76523660261406161052011-08-28T20:43:00.000-07:002011-08-29T08:50:46.508-07:00Review: Hitch-22 <style>@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens">Christopher Hitchens</a> is best consumed in small doses.<span style=""> </span>This makes him a wonderfully infuriating essayist. His memoir, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hitch-22-Memoir-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/0446540331">Hitch-22</a>, however is much longer than an essay and at times takes some dedication to plow through.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">The memoir focuses on the upbringing and social scene that Hitchens became a part of. Following along is his stories of dinner parties and friendships offers a crash course in the names and personalities of the 20th century leftist public intellectual literati. Here is one example of the sort of banter associated with this set:
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>At all events there came a time when someone arrived late at a dinner party complaining of having been stuck at an airport with nothing to read but a Robert Ludlum-style novel.<span style=""> </span>This didn’t seem worth pursuing until the complaint was refined somewhat: “ I mean it’s not just that the prose is so bloody awful but that the titles are so sodding pretentious … <span style="font-style: italic;">The Bourne</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Inheritance</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Eiger Sanction</span>; all this portentous piffle.”<span style=""> </span>Again, not a subject to set the table afire, until someone idly said they wondered what a Shakespear play would be called if it were Ludlum who had the naming if it.<span style=""> </span>At once Salman [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie">Salman Rushdie</a>] was engaged and began to smile.<span style=""> </span>“All right, Salman: <span style="font-style: italic;">Hamlet</span> by Ludlum!”<span style=""> </span>At once—and I mean with as much preperation as I have given you – "The Elsinore Vacillation.”<span style=""> </span>Fluke?<span style=""> </span>Not exactly.<span style=""> </span>Challenged to the same for <span style="font-style: italic;">Macbeth</span>, he produced “The Dunsinane Reforestation” with hardly a flourish and barely a beat.<span style=""> </span>After this it was plain sailing through “The Kerchiefe Implication”, “The Rialto Sanction”, and one about Caliban and Prospero that I once knew but now can never remember.</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The parts I found most interesting involved Salman Rushdie, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said">Edward Siad</a>, and Hitchens’s opinions on the war in Iraq. Of course, must also mention Hitchens and Martin Amis.<span style=""> </span>This seems like a wonderful and true friendship.<span style=""> </span>We get it.<span style=""> </span>It is touching how Hitchens admires him, and knowingly compares his own literary abilities with those of his friend.</p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> The parade of authors and poets and Marxist intellectuals gets a little wearisome at times. But still, few can do self-righteous rage of the intellectual liberal sort as well as Hitchens. Again, on Rushdi:
<br /><blockquote>“When the <span style="font-style: italic;">Washington Post</span> telephoned me at home on Valentine’s Day 1989 to ask my opinion about the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa, I felt at once that there was something that completely committed me.<span style=""> </span>It was,<span style=""> </span>if I can phrase it like this, a matter of everything I hated versus everything I loved.<span style=""> </span>In the hate column: dictatorship, religion, stupidity, demagogy, censorship, bullying, and intimidation.<span style=""> </span>In the love column: literature, irony, humor,<span style=""> </span>the individual, and the defense of free expression.<span style=""> </span>Plus, of course, friendship—though I like to think that my reaction would have been the same if I hadn’t known Salman at all.<span style=""> </span>To re-state the premise of the argument again: the theocratic head of a foreign despotism offers money in his own name in order to suborn the murder of a citizen of another country, for the offense of writing a work of fiction.<span style=""> </span>No more root-and-branch challenge to the values of the Enlightenment (on the bicentennial of the fall of the Bastille) or to the First Amendment to the Constitution, could be imagined.<span style=""> </span>President George H. W. Bush, when asked to comment, could only say grudgingly that, as far as he could see, no American interests were involved.
<br />
<br /></blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>The description of the friendship and then falling apart (personally and intellectually) of Hitchens and Edward Said offers a wonderful description of the nature of such intellectual relations.<span style=""> </span>The chapter on him is great, and it inspired me to look up and read <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2088944/">Hitchens’s essay after Said's death</a>. It, as well as other writings revealed by Google, make me think that I may not actually understand what Said is really trying to say in <span style="font-style: italic;">Orientalism</span>.
<br />
<br />Some of these best parts of Hitch-22 have appeared elsewhere. Also, there is no denying the negative qualities of Hitchens (he can come across as an ass and a misogynist). But, anyone who enjoys or loves to hate his essays would get something out of <span style="font-style: italic;">Hitch-22</span>.
<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-80775381550655084172011-08-28T20:14:00.000-07:002011-08-28T20:33:53.232-07:00Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love <style>@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.filmonair.com/video/dont-you-think-youre-a-little-old-be-using-cheesy-pickup-lines-crazy-stupid-love">You’re a double negative!</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The plot is rather predictable, but <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1570728/">Crazy, Stupid, Love</a> was still a fair bit of fun.<span style=""> </span>The beginning, with Steve Carell’s character (he has a name, but really, everyone will think of him as the Steve Carell character), jumping out of a car because is gripping in a sardonically tragic way.<span style=""> Some such moments</span> hint that, despite appearances, this may be an unexpectedly deep or subtle movie. Then, instead, the predictably expected happens, followed by the expectedly unexpected.<span style=""> </span>Expected doesn’t mean totally unfunny, but it does mean unimaginative and uninspiring. Hey--don't worry, Emma Stone and <span itemprop="description">Ryan Gosling are amusing at times.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /><span itemprop="description"></span></p>Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-52234417103892521682011-08-23T21:48:00.000-07:002011-08-23T21:57:27.878-07:00Review: Breakfast At Tiffany'sShe's a phony, but at least she's a real phony.
<br />
<br />I liked <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054698/">Breakfast at Tiffany's</a> despite myself. I've managed to make it this far without seeing this movie. I'm not sure what I expected it to be like, but somehow my expectations were very far off. It was a lot of fun, and the images of early 1960s New York were wonderful.
<br />
<br />Audrey Hepburn, a cat, and the early 60s. Plus, lots of drinking and smoking and not-subtle suggetions. What's not to like?
<br />
<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-6517363223644061552011-08-21T23:48:00.000-07:002011-08-22T00:11:45.380-07:00The Legacy of DFWIt's like this criticism was aimed directly at me along with every other keyboard pounder out here. There is a lot of truth in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/another-thing-to-sort-of-pin-on-david-foster-wallace.html?ref=books">Another Thing to Sort of Pin on David Foster Wallace</a>, an essay by <a href="http://maudnewton.com/blog/">Maud Newton</a> in this week's New York Times Magazine, argues that Wallace's tone of aware detachment was just as manipulative as the other styles he often pilloried. Worse, the Wallace style is itself highly addictive and, when employed by us lesser thinkers and writers, rather annoying.
<br />
<br />Newton argues that the Wallace style is the default mode of discourse on blogs and in much other commentary. This constant qualification serve to undermine our own arguments, and to wrap ourselves up in verbal clouds of possible deniability.
<br /><blockquote>How we arrived at the notion that the postmodern era is the first ever to confront the tension between sincerity and irony despite millennia of evidence to the contrary is no mystery: every generation believes its insights are unprecedented, its struggles uniquely formidable, its solutions the balm for all that ails the world. Why so many of our critics are still, after all these years, making their arguments in this inherently self-undermining voice — still trying to ward off every possible rejoinder and pre-emptively rebut every possible criticism by mixing a weird rhetorical stew of equivocation, pessimism and Elysian prophecy — is another question entirely. Perhaps even now some Wallacites would argue that we simply have yet to reach that idyllic moment at which our discourse will naturally transform into a sincere yet knowing cry from the heart. I would put it differently.
<br /></blockquote>
<br />Newton goes on to say that this is because in the era of Facebook and Twitter, we all just want to be liked. I am not yet convinced of that, but it is hard to disagree that "the best way to make an argument is to make it, straightforwardly, honestly, passionately, without regard to whether people will like you afterward."
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-35447509069800385512011-08-20T13:48:00.000-07:002011-08-20T14:08:22.391-07:00Review: One DayLike many movies, the best thing about <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1563738/">One Day</a> is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hathaway_%28actress%29">Anne Hathaway</a>. Still, the movie was quite enjoyable. The movie, based on a book, depicts the life of two British Gen-Xers through series of actions that all take place on July 15th. A.O. Scott is right to describe the resulting effect as "<a href="http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/movies/one-day-directed-by-lone-scherfig-review.html?ref=movies">less a conventional story than a mixtape</a>."
<br />
<br />One's opinion is likely totally dependent on how one feels about the ending. I liked it, but can I see how others might not. But, I would like to see a film that tries to imagine <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2268709/">that sometimes men and women can just be friends</a>.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-35752718945020174432011-08-20T10:24:00.001-07:002011-08-20T10:37:50.948-07:00Reviw: The HelpI saw <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454029/">The Help</a> after listening to the discussion on the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2300013/">Slate Cultural Gabfest</a>. The gabfest discussion included Wesley Morris of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Boston Globe</span> and mostly focused on a discussion of<a href="http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-10/ae/29872908_1_hilly-holbrook-maids-emma-stone"> his review of the film</a>. The thrust of Morris's critcism is about more than this one movie
<br /><blockquote>Skeeter’s exposé is meant to empower both the subjects and the author, but “The Help’’ joins everything from “To Kill a Mockingbird’’ to “The Blind Side’’ as another Hollywood movie that sees racial progress as the province of white do-gooderism. Skeeter enjoys all the self-discovery and all the credit. She cracks the mystery of her missing childhood maid (Cicely Tyson). She finds a career at a moment in which women rarely had them. And she changes the lives of a couple of dozen black women whose change is refracted primarily through her. Skeeter’s awakening is a seemingly risk-free reassurance, just as Hilly’s Hanna-Barbera villainy is a kind of delight. The meaner she gets the bigger and higher her hair goes.
<br /></blockquote>This was especially on my mind after watching the preview for the so-much-a-caricature-of-this-point I couldn't believe it film about some criminal who finds religion, builds villages in Africa and takes up arms. The downplaying (ignoring!) of the adjacency of others in favor of the white savior is really striking. When it is first pointed out you can't help but see it everywhere in the movies.
<br />
<br />That said, the film is actually rather good. It is entertaining, and one can't help but get emotionally involved in the story. But, it could have been a much better film. Both with some mechanical cleaning up of some of the scenes and story arcs, as well as with a broader-based and reflective placement of the time, place, and continuing struggle.
<br />
<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-41128807181560252282011-08-20T10:19:00.000-07:002011-08-20T10:23:37.650-07:00Review: Dial M for MurderMy knowledge of Hitchcock films isn't as deep as I would like it to be, so it was a treat to see <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046912/">Dial M for Murder</a> the other night. The plot is fairly simple, but it is executed so well that it remains funny and enjoyable. Since the audience knows exactly what happened, the film is more of a comedy. The ending -- with the mustache comb-- received laughs and applause.
<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-78214260710731262442011-08-14T18:28:00.000-07:002011-08-14T18:33:03.031-07:00Review: The Whistleblower<span class="moviename">It will make you sad. Then disgusted, upset, angry, and a little bit more cynical. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896872/">The Whistleblower</a> is a good movie worth seeing. The tendency of things not to change shouldn't serve as an easy excuse not to bother or care.</span>
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-54695556459280787002009-11-28T16:14:00.000-08:002009-11-28T16:27:15.470-08:00Review: Bright StarI'm sometimes a sucker for period pieces, particularly ones with a literary bent. In this regard, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/">Bright Star</a>, which focuses on the poet John Keats but is really about Fanny Brawne does not disappoint. The use of the language of Keats's poems works well. The film imparts the tightly circumscribed world of most people during that time and place as well as the intense, rather adolescent, nature of love at the time. The movie is exactly what you think it is. I enjoyed it.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-40574271499733088872009-11-28T16:09:00.000-08:002009-11-28T16:14:55.183-08:00Review: The Hurt LockerIn many ways <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/">The Hurt Locker</a> is a simple film that works very well. Simple because it focuses on an extremely circumscribed stage: the experiences of a single group of people. There is no encompassing larger theme. Just one man and his relationship with war. No political message, other then, perhaps, the meek hopelessness of war, is imparted. As a movie it is tight and suspenseful. There is no real political message here. Perhaps that is as it should be. But, one can't help but wonder why are we there and what are we trying to do?Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-57148069276716591102009-11-28T00:01:00.000-08:002009-11-28T00:32:37.133-08:00Selected Thoughts on The New Yorker November 23Selected thoughts on the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2009/11/23/toc_20091116">23 November 2009 edition of The New Yorker:</a><br /><br />This is the food issue.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/23/091123fa_fact_colapinto">Lunch With M. (by John Colapinto)<br /></a>Colapinto interviews an inspector from the Michelin restaurant review in New York. Interesting tidbits about their training, the Michelin philosophy, and the impact of rankings on the restaurant scene are revealed. There is definitly an element of food porn to this article. If there is ever a place for that, though, I suppose it would be the yearly New Yorker food issue. So, there you go. Still, an enjoyable article to read.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/23/091123fa_fact_khatchadourian">The Taste Makers (by Raffi Khatchadourian)<br /></a>This was an extremely interesting article. It is all about "natural flavors", what exactly that means, and how flavorists hunt up and create new flavors in the lab and by sampling nature. The article is largely centered on Michelle Hagen, a flavorist for the Givaudan company in Cincinnati. It follows her in her lab as well as on taste searching trips. This long article is wonderful and full of too much information to easily summarize. You won't regret reading it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/11/23/091123crat_atlarge_gopnik">What's the Recipe (by Adam Gopnik)<br /></a>The setup to this essay by Gopnik is ripped right from a New Yorker cartoon caption: a man and a women reading in bed. She's reading a fashion magazine and he's reading a cookbook. Why are they reading this things? Indeed, in this age-of-Google, what is a cookbook for? Gopnik lays out some potential reasons, but the point that sticks with me his is phrasing about the cycle of desire and disillusion:<br /><blockquote>The desire to go on desiring, the wanting to want, is what makes you turn the pages—all the while aware that the next Boston cream pie, the sweet-salty-fatty-starchy thing you will turn out tomorrow, will be neither more nor less unsatisfying than last night’s was. When you start to cook, as when you begin to live, you think that the point is to improve the technique until you end up with something perfect, and that the reason you haven’t been able to break the cycle of desire and disillusion is that you haven’t yet mastered the rules. Then you grow up, and you learn that that’s the game.<br /></blockquote><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2009/11/23/091123crte_television_franklin">Unheavenly Host (by Nancy Franklin)<br /></a>A review of television (and radio) personality Glenn Beck. Real or imagined, it really is some sort of performance.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-11265407314697952392009-11-27T23:08:00.000-08:002009-11-27T23:59:59.056-08:00Selected Thoughts on The New Yorker November 16Selected thoughts on the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2009/11/16/toc_20091109">16 November 2009 edition of The New Yorker</a>:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/11/16/091116taco_talk_packer">November 9th (by George Packer)<br /></a>The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War sort of snuck up on me. Hard to believe it's been 29 years. Packer's piece reminds us just how amazing the turn of events was--especially in contrast with other would-be revolutions since then that haven't work out nearly as peacefully or successfully. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/16/091116fa_fact_krystal">Slow Fade (by Arthur Krystal)<br /></a>Krystal recounts the years famed author F. Scott Fitzgerald spent trying to make a living as a Hollywood screenwriter. Piece is notable for its depiction of the factory-like nature of the screenwriting process. Fitzgerald never really fit in well as a cog in that machine.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/16/091116fa_fact_talbot">Nightmare Scenario (by Margaret Talbot)</a><br />This is a fascinating article that focuses on nightmares--particularly on emerging psychotherapeutic techniques for treating (managing?) them. The article largely focuses on Barry Krakow (who apparently has a <a href="http://sleeptreatment.com/about/barrys-blogs">blog</a>)of the <a href="http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Maimonides.Sleep.Arts.And.Sciences.505-998-7200">Maimonides Sleep Arts & Sciences</a>, a clinic in New Mexico. Talbot interviews several other researchers, with a focus on a technique known as imagery-rehearsal therapy. It is pretty much what it sounds like, a sort of cognitive-behavioral take on dreams. There are all kinds of interesting things in this article, unfortunately I'm not sure how much weight to put into them since I'm newly wary of the <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1897">Igon Value</a> effect. That's a topic I'll have to come to terms with at some point. For example, there is an interesting claim that self-reported dreaming in color vs black and white has a strong correlation with television technology, and that dreams are now experienced as short, YouTube ready snippets rather than the sprawling narratives of Freud's era.<br /><br /><a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1897">The Pharaoh (by Ian Parker)<br /></a>This is an absolutely fascinating article. Parker presents a profile of the well-known Egyptian archeologist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahi_Hawass">Zahi Hawass</a>. Hawass is the head of the Egyptian Council of Antiquities and an omni-present expert on television documentaries. The article discusses the interesting role of ancient artifacts in modern Egypt as well as the politics of the small community of Ancient Egyptian scholars. Hawass's own academic findings and work habits are also explained. It was very enjoyable to learn more about Hawass, as well as the inside information on the connection between infotainment and scholarship when it comes to ancient Egypt. This piece is a must read if you are at all interested in ancient Egypt.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert">Hosed (by Elizabeth Kolbert)<br /></a>Kolbert's review <span style="font-style: italic;">Superfreakonomics</span> is an apt <i>coup de grâce </i>to the whole issue of "experts" (square quotes intended) and contrariness. Kolbert attacks the problem head on:<br /><blockquote>But what’s most troubling about “SuperFreakonomics” isn’t the authors’ many blunders; it’s the whole spirit of the enterprise. Though climate change is a grave problem, Levitt and Dubner treat it mainly as an opportunity to show how clever they are. Leaving aside the question of whether geoengineering, as it is known in scientific circles, is even possible—have you ever tried sending an eighteen-mile-long hose into the stratosphere?—their analysis is terrifyingly cavalier.<br /></blockquote><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_levy">Lift and Separate (by Ariel Levy)<br /></a>I've been thinking about Feminism lately. This is partly spurred by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/fashion/weddings/18VOWS.html">Jessica Valenti's wedding</a> and partly by Sarah Palin. So, I was happy to come across the review of the Feminism movement by Levy. In this piece, motivated by a new book about American Women from 1960 to the present by Gail Collins, Levy argues for a collective bout of amnesia coupled with false memories when it comes to the history and accomplishments of feminism.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-59211595118228856102009-11-15T00:13:00.000-08:002009-11-15T17:16:01.840-08:00Review: The Age of InnocenceFollowing on from <span style="font-style: italic;">The House of Mirth</span>, I recently finished Edith Wharton's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Innocence"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Age of Innocence</span></a>. Published in 1920, this novel focuses on the morals of 1870s-era New York Society. The title is intended to be ironic, as the protagonist, Newland Archer, definitely has some inclinations that Society would not approve of. The point, however, is that in the end Archer chooses to repress his true feelings.<br /><br />Archer, a young lawyer from a fashionable family, faces a problem that is not unique to his time or place. Should he marry the woman he is engaged to--the beautiful but dull and passive May, or the exciting, foreign-influenced, and curious (and already married but nearly divorced) Ellen? What a choice. Clearly, in the end Archer does the Right Thing and carries on through life and marriage as he is dutifully expected to. This is made all the more apparent by the final chapter which revisits Archer and his engaged son 25 years later. His son lives essentially in the times depicted in <span style="font-style: italic;">The House of Mirth</span>, a detail that adds a fascinating backdrop for Wharton's depiction of the way things were.<br /><br />I quite enjoyed my 2009 perspective on Wharton's 1920 perspective on what things were like in the 1870s. There isn't anything deep or nuanced in the story, but the commentary on society and shifting morals and marriage is still fertile territory.<br /><br />The obvious questions is, all things considered, did Archer pick the right woman? But, really, he never actually had a choice. And, more importantly, no body was nearly as independent, educated, or--dare I say it--modern as the characters in <span style="font-style: italic;">The House of Mirth.</span>Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-38214145381964833532009-11-14T23:32:00.000-08:002009-11-14T23:59:05.418-08:00Review: PNB Director's ChoiceWell, I guess <a href="http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/pacific-northwest-ballet/Content?oid=2708912">even geniuses put together a dud at times</a>. I did not enjoy <a href="http://www.pnb.org/Season/09-10/DirectorsChoice/">Pacific Northwest Ballet's recent Directors Choice</a> performances. I was irritated at times, however, so perhaps Peter Boal is doing something right. <br /><br />Some brief comments:<br /><br />Parts of <span style="font-style: italic;">Petite Mort</span> were very good. And what is there to not like about dancing with swords? But, the dancers were noticeably out of sync at points--a big problem in a piece with such slow segments. It had less of an emotional punch than I expected. <span style="font-style: italic;">Mopey</span>, featuring James Moore, was just very odd. Perhaps I wasn't angry enough to get it? <span style="font-style: italic;">The Seasons</span> (a world premiere of a piece by Val Caniparoli) was much more traditional. Parts of it were engaging, but I would have preferred more of a plot or emotional trajectory connecting the different parts. <span style="font-style: italic;">West Side Story Suite</span> (which I have seen before at PNB) is just a travesty. What's the point? Just go see a production of the musical--<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8R9GiLImSw">it already has such iconic choreography</a>. <br /><br />Perhaps my disappointment in this production indicates that I have now seen enough ballet to know what I like and to be unafraid of having a negative opinion. Still, I'm looking forward to my next chance to see a ballet.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-30058759210771953702009-11-14T22:32:00.000-08:002009-11-14T23:28:39.856-08:00Selected Thoughts on The New Yorker October 26, November 2, and November 9I got distracted by life (turns out to be a <a href="http://weekwaster.wordpress.com/">good way to waste a week</a>). Here is a 3-in-1 update of very selected thoughts.<br /><br />Selected thoughts on the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2009/10/26/toc_20091019">26 October 2009 edition of The New Yorker</a>:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer">The Predator War (by Jane Mayer)<br /></a>The use of remote-controlled aircraft to kill people has become common place, as Mayer's piece makes clear. How is this different from targeted assassinations? And what does it mean for the connection between us and the real costs of war? It's no <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28Terminator%29">Skynet</a>, but this piece raises some very important questions.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_kenneally">The Inferno (by Christine Kenneally)</a><br />Typically, in Australia people are told to stay and ride-out a forest fire, while in the US people are urged to flee. Is that changing? Kenneally reports on a tragic fire in Australia and how the results of tthe different approaches may effect future government advice.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_goodyear">Man of Extremes (by Dana Goodyear)<br /></a>One can't help but to compare Goodyear's profile of director James Cameron with David Foster Wallace's profile of David Lynch. The two pieces are very different in focus and style, but both are very rewarding reads. In addition to discussion of the Cameron's soon-to-be-released film, <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CA4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Ftitle%2Ftt0499549%2F&rct=j&q=avatar&ei=D6T_SqXSN4-ssgOrk-CHCw&usg=AFQjCNGm4MDQhTQFBIGC3QkgCiT_53geaw">Avatar</a> (perhaps the most expensive movie every made), this piece revisits Cameron's past work and explores his motivation. This is very interesting article.<br /><br />Selected thoughts on the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2009/11/02/toc_20091026">2 November 2009 edition of The New Yorker</a>:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2009/11/02/091102ta_talk_surowiecki">Why Banks Stay Big (by James Surowiecki)<br /></a>Yet another cogent discussions of financial system. Surowiecki makes an interesting point: it is a huge pain to switch banks, meaning that most people end up being "locked in" to some specific choice. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/humor/polls/cartoonidontgetit/091102">I Don't Get It<br /></a>This is the cartoon issue of the New Yorker. Per usual, some obscure cartoon references are explained. It's fun to try to differentiate the fake and the real explanations.<br /><br />Selected thoughts on the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2009/11/09/toc_20091102">9 November 2009 edition of The New Yorker</a>:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wilkinson">Talk This Way (Alec Wilkinson)<br /></a>This piece is a fascinating profile of Hollywood dialect coach Tim Monich. He is an academic descendant of Henry Sweet--the model for <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAYUuspQ6BY">Henry Higgins</a>. The written examples illustrate the sounds of the different dialects surprisingly well. It is clear why Monich is the master of this area.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright">Captives (by Lawrence Wright)<br /></a>Wright reports on what happened during the most recent Israeli incursions in Gaza. More importantly, he provides a larger context of the recent history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I was shocked by the contrast between the present situation in the Palestinian territories with the state of affairs in the early 1990s. It is hard to be somewhat depressed by this piece. A lot is written and claimed about this conflict, and there are claims and counterclaims and points of moral equivalency that I cannot even begin to judge. I will not try to summarize this article. I recommend reading it and thinking hard about the world we live in.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_mallon">Possessed (by Thomas Mallon)<br /></a>Mallon uses the recent publication of two biographies about Ayn Rand to discuss her as an author and philosopher. One might think that Rand would be going out of style because of the economic meltdown--after all, Alan Greenspan was a disciple of Rand. However, it seems that the opposite has occurred, with her philosophy getting a rebirth. This, of course, has happened before--usually whenever the Democratic Party gains even a little bit of political power. Most people realize the problems with Rand's philosophy by the end of their teenage years (<a href="http://aynrandnovels.com/essay-contests/winners-anthem-1998.html">I think I was done with it shortly after 1998</a>), but it is useful to keep in mind what this is all about. Mallon offers a depiction of the modern Objectivism movement (such as it is), coupled with a scathing critique of Rand-as-author. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/09/091109crbo_books_kolbert">Flesh of Your Flesh (by Elizabeth Kolbert)<br /></a>Kolbert takes on the topic of vegetarianism in this review of <span style="font-style: italic;">Eating Animals</span> by Jonathan Safran Foer. This strikes me an honest and clear treatment of the issue. After describing various arguments for and against eating animals (and they way they are treated), Kolbert offers this summary:<br /><blockquote>Foer’s position is that all such arguments are, finally, bogus. We eat meat because we like to, and we devise justifications afterward. “Almost always, when I told someone I was writing a book about ‘eating animals,’ they assumed, even without knowing anything about my views, that it was a case for vegetarianism,” he says. “It’s a telling assumption, one that implies not only that a thorough inquiry into animal agriculture would lead one away from eating meat, but that most people already know that to be the case.” What we know about eating animals is that we don’t want to know. Although he never explicitly equates “concentrated animal feeding operations” with the Final Solution, the German model of at once seeing and not seeing clearly informs Foer’s thinking. The book is framed by tales of his grandmother, a Holocaust survivor whose culinary repertoire consists of a single dish: roast chicken with carrots.<br /></blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/11/09/091109crat_atlarge_lepore">Rap Sheet (by Jill Lepore)<br /></a>Why is the rate of homicide higher in the US than in Europe? There isn't a clear answer to this, but Lepore's article offers an interesting window into the history or murder in America.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-7660116894215680982009-10-31T20:15:00.000-07:002009-10-31T21:01:46.979-07:00Review: August: Osage County<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August:_Osage_County">August: Osage County</a> is a very good play. It won both the Pulitzer Prize and a Tony, it has received <a href="http://theater.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/theater/reviews/05august.html">great reviews</a>, and is the rare play with a successful national tour. The tour, staring <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estelle_Parsons">Estelle Parsons</a> as family matriarch Violet Weston, is really top notch. The Saturday afternoon performance I attended at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Theatre_%28Seattle,_Washington%29">Paramount Theatre</a> was packed (to my regret, as I had a partially obstructed view) and filled with laughter. It's cliched to say, but the 3 hour play (two intermissions!) seemed to fly by. The pacing seemed nearly perfect.<br /><br />In some ways there is not really anything very special about this play. The topic--a dysfunctional family, with secretes and affairs and drug problems brought together and torn apart by some tragedy--doesn't exactly break novel ground.<br /><br />But, the execution is spot on. The dialogue is snappy yet realistic enough featuring angered and hurt and vulnerable characters spewing forth the lines we wished we could ourselves say. The subject matter is rather dark, with some revelations at the end appearing without support. Despite this, the play is deeply funny without seeming cheap. A real audience-pleaser<br /><br />When simply diagrammed out the plot seems one step above a sitcom. Yet it is hard to imagine a better representation of the form. This treatment of the American family and the changing of generations will be read and performed and written about for many years to come.<br /><br />One can already imagine the English class essays to be written by future generations of students analyzing what this play says about the Greatest Generation, of Native American's and the white middle class of the 1990s, of parents' relationships to drugs and alcohol and their children's use of the same, of the peoples perceptions about the nature of love and affairs and sex and age and childhood, and what, exactly, it means to be from the great plains of the central United States.<br /><br />The problem is not that those course essays will be written, but that they will be too easy to write. The themes and symbols and references of the play are systematically laid out for all to see without nuance or real introspection.<br /><br />I'll reiterate: this play doesn't break new artistic or thematic ground. It didn't even make me think deeply about anything. But, that is ok. Better than ok, really. It is an excellently crafted example of a familiar form. Perhaps a real modern-classic. If this tour happens to be nearby then definitely go see it.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-77023253977299149152009-10-25T22:05:00.000-07:002009-10-26T00:40:52.356-07:00Selected Thoughts on The Atlantic November 2009Selected thoughts on the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911">November 2009 issue of The Atlantic</a>:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/augmented-reality">Seeing Too Much (by Jamais Cascio)<br /></a>Cascio discusses "augmented reality" technologies and worries that such technologies will lead to increased cultural tribalism: only interacting with people with similar political beliefs or only going to restaurants or places highly rated by your "group". I'm not sure that technology is really playing a role in driving this. Much has been written elsewhere about <a href="http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php">The Big Sort</a> in American life. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1">Shots In The Dark (by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer)</a><br />Brownlee and Lenzer take a contrarian position on a contentious topic. The release of <span style="font-style: italic;">Superfreakonomics</span> has provoked a lot of discussion about contrarianism recently (see, eg, <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2009/10/22/rules-for-contrarians-1-dont-whine-that-is-all/">here</a>, <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/a-counterintuitive-train-wreck/">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/10/contrarianisms_end_1.cfm">here</a> for three takes on the issue). Instead of climate change or drunk-driving, Brownlee and Lenzer take on the efficacy of the influenza vaccine. They begin their article with the breathless prose that is emblematic of calculated contrarian analysis:<br /><blockquote>But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized? The U.S. government—with the support of leaders in the public-health and medical communities—has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Other plans to contain the pandemic seem anemic by comparison. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And that unless we are willing to ask fundamental questions about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, we could find ourselves, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.</blockquote>There are some good points raised in the article, but I'm not sure they are as revolutionary as made out. For example, vaccines work by inducing an immune response in the recipient so that if, in the future, the individual is exposed to the real pathogen their body is set up to fight it off. This, of course, means that for the vaccine to work the individual being vaccinated must have a robust enough immune system for this response to be initiated. To confirm this, in some cases (such as among health workers), an analysis is done after vaccine administration to determine the person's antibody titer and confirm that a sufficient immune response was initatied. This means, of course, that those individual most at risk for the flu--people with weakened immune systems--are also those individuals for whom the vaccine is least likely to be completly effective. This is why those who work or live with individuals at risk are themselves encouraged to get the seasonal flu shot in an effort to limit risk of passing the infection on.<br /><br />An strong critique of the article has been offered over <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/10/journalists_sink_in_the_atlant.php">at the Effect Measure blog.</a> In the comments, there is long response from Brownlee and Lenzer. This is worth checking out, I think it illustrates one of the main problems: the conflation of shallow evidence of vaccine efficacy in the elderly with the usefulness of a general vaccination program in the face of a global pandemic. This stance is unfortunate. <br /><br />Additionally, I am slightly disappointed that Brownlee and Lenzer did not put their article in the context of the growing opt-out rate for childhood vaccines--a problem which is starting to lead to out-breaks for such old fashioned ailments as Measles. I fear that the anti-Vaccine movement will be fortified by this article.<br /><br />There is a detailed discussion of additional flu vaccine issues <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040"> at Science-Based Medicine</a>. It is worth reading.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brave-thinkers">Brave Thinkers<br /></a>The cover feature this month is a brief profile of 27 people who may be responsible for ideas which will 'upend the established order.' I find such list-based articles rather unsatisfying. The article does not really tell you enough about any of the ideas promulgated by these people to form an opinion. Plus, the colored backgrounds used in the magazine for this piece made the text hard to read in the low-light environments I often end up trying to read in (a bit nit-picky, yes I admit).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/schwarz-mad-men">The Devil's in the Details (by Benjamin Schwarz)<br /></a>I have been watching Mad Men recently, so Schwarz's piece on the show to be very timely. Schwarz's includes a thoughtful discussion of the trend toward more literary, 'megamovie' television series. The review points out the glaring errors in the otherwise nearly-fetish level realism of the show, and I feel correctly points out Betty Draper as the most problematic of the characters.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-42694266985996865392009-10-25T21:43:00.000-07:002009-10-25T22:05:07.224-07:00Review: The BelieversThe Believers, written and directed by Jim Bovino and currently playing at the <a href="http://www.annextheatre.org/home_page/">ANNEX Theatre</a>, is a flawed play. It tries to say something high-minded about the nature of our own control over our lives. In stead, is just sort of shuffles along from one unconnected scene to another. That could work, but in this case it doesn't. At times, the actors are speaking directly to the audience, but it is never made clear what is really going on. Later, some of hidden meaning are illustrated in a heavy-handed way with a literal roll of the dice.<br /><br />I think this play is trying too hard. My advice: master the basics first. Then experiment.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-59535669031556701332009-10-21T22:32:00.001-07:002009-10-21T22:41:01.811-07:00Review: The House of Mirth<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_Mirth">The House of Mirth</a>, by Edith Wharton, is not a Victorian novel. It was written in 1905. By an American. I continue to be surprised by how quickly Victorian social norms appear to have changed. Wharton's novel focuses on the life and loves of Lily Bart, a New Yorker socialite who has manged to get married yet. She is beautiful. And graceful, with a keen sense of style. And, mostly vacuous with out any real skills or ability to get by own her own. Of course, that is the way she was brought up, so it is unfair to blame her to much. Mostly, though, this struck me us a book for about women and their relationships. This is particularly so in the descriptions of Bart's own awareness of her tactical flirtations.<br /><br />I enjoyed the story, but I'm not sure it left any deep or lasting impressions. It does offer a great sense of the society of the time, and the changing nature of the era. I see the points that Wharton was trying to make about social mores and the circumscribed roles for women, but think those lessons are better described elsewhere.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-57995845103484311262009-10-21T21:51:00.000-07:002009-10-21T22:27:54.988-07:00Selected thoughts on The New Yorker October 19 2009Selected thoughts on the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2009/10/19/toc_20091012">19 October 2009 edition of The New Yorker</a>:<br /><br />The Mail<br />(<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/letters/2009/10/19/091019mama_mail1">Susan Butler</a>)<br />In regards to the previous story about Amelia Earhart, Butler offers a reminder not to impose our modern prejudices onto the past. Butler argues against over-interpretation of Earhart's sexuality.<br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2009/10/19/091019ta_talk_widdicombe"><br />Talk of The Town: You've Got Mail (by Lizzie Widdicombe)</a><br />Widdicombe jumps off from the Letterman blackmail story to raise an interesting point: why is it illegal to threaten to do something that is, itself, legal. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2009/10/19/091019ta_talk_frazier">Talk of The Town: Scratch and Sniff (by Ian Frazier)</a><br />Frazier writes an interesting report on the New Jersey Department of Correction's use of dogs trained to smell and detect cell phones. Interesting that there is, apparently, such a specific smell.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_finnegan">The Secret Keeper (by William Finnegan)<br /></a>This article is an interesting example of a great New Yorker archetype: a detailed, intriguing, largely complimentary profile of an individual which, at the end, drops some less than complimentary information about the subject that leaves you wondering who the real person is. The subject this time is Jules Kroll, the former head of a detective agency focused on corporate intelligence. The offers a peak into a world that I generally don't give a lot of thought to. Kroll comes across very positively. Then, about 2/3 of the way through the piece, Finnegan relates the involvement of Kroll's firm with R. Allen Stanford (<a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/six_degrees_of_allen_stanford.php">recall this from TPM</a>).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell">Offensive Play (by Malcolm Gladwell)<br /></a>Say what you will about Gladwell (and lots of people have much to say), but his articles don't fail to be engaging and interesting. This time, Gladwell discusses the risks of football to the long-term health of its players, particularly in terms of brain damage caused by repeated head trauma. Gladwell's narrative alternates back and forth with a discussion of dog-fighting. The reason for this inclusion is clear, but not really necessary. There is a lot to recommend in this piece. I was also heartened to read about the protein Tau in the New Yorker, and to learn what former Brown's coach Butch Davis is up to now.<br /><br />The main thrust of the claim is that brain damage is not an unfortunate, and potentially avoidable, risk for football players. Rather, it is an intrinsic, expected, and routine result of the game. Is this true? It seems that a case could be made, and the importance of the adjacency of individual players choosing to play must be considered. This is piece if freely available online. The dog-fighting comparison may be a little too easy, but I recommend reading it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_mead">The Gossip Mill (by Rebecca Mead)</a><br />This piece is a very good depiction of Alloy Entertainment and how novels for teens are manufactured. Manufactured is the right word--ideas and plots are fleshed out in conference rooms. The writing is farmed out (sometimes without credit to the 'real' author). Commercial concerns are paramount. The method doesn't produce groundbreaking literature. But, they know how to give readers what they want. Worth thinking about for anyone with thoughts about producing art or other cultural products.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/10/19/091019crat_atlarge_zalewski">The Defiant Ones (by Daniel Zalewski)<br /></a>A New Yorker article about the nature of contemporary parenting, and the mores reflected in popular children's picture books. It is hard to imagine a more rarefied target audience. I found this article undefinably interesting.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4975686750593666558.post-74876813587838178972009-10-12T22:09:00.000-07:002009-10-12T22:55:43.619-07:00Selected thoughts on The New Yorker October 12 2009Selected thoughts on the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2009/10/12/toc_20091005">12 October 2009 edition of The New Yorker</a>:<br /><br />The Mail: Crime and Punishment<br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/letters/2009/10/12/091012mama_mail1">(by Adam David Cole)<br /></a>Cole, a former public defender, writes in about the recent story about the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. His frank account is jarring; I hope it isn't true:<br /><blockquote>It touches on things most people find hard to believe: once you’re accused of a crime, you are actually guilty until proved innocent (and sometimes the presumption of guilt is so strong that it actually overrides compelling evidence of innocence); police, witnesses, and experts often lie, fudge, cover up, or do an inexcusably poor job (as do even some defense attorneys, sadly); prosecutors routinely vilify a defendant just to get a conviction; even family members turn away in shame. Maybe Willingham’s case is easy to write off as exceptional, but those of us who have worked in criminal defense know that it has elements similar to every case we’ve worked on.<br /><br /></blockquote><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/letters/2009/10/12/091012mama_mail2">(by James P.M. Paquette)<br /></a>Paquette, follows up with a reminder that we should not conflate distinct issues by putting the condemned on pedestals. Paquette's opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with a naive understanding of the character of criminals. As <a href="http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/roger_keith_coleman.php">Coates said</a>, opposition does not come from love for the condemned.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2009/10/12/091012ta_talk_surowiecki">Inconspicuous Consumption (by James Surowiecki)<br /></a>Surowiecki doesn't believe that the economic crises will lead to any fundamental change in patterns of savings and consumption. I agree.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/12/091012fa_fact_auletta">Searching for Trouble (by Ken Auletta)<br /></a>The rise of Google to near total dominance when it comes to managing information online is rather remarkable. Here, Auletta explores the nature of how Google makes money (advertising), how the company is managed, and the challenges and opportunities it faces in the future. More interesting, Aueletta offers profiles of the founders and leaders in the company, how they interact and manage.<br /><br />This is an interesting article. One point to highlight: the major advancement that Google's tools provide precise information to advertisers about the effectiveness of their ads. Thus, companies know exactly what those ad's are worth, and pay for them accordingly. The suggestion that the ads that have/continue to sustain other media (print, television) are sold at drastically inflated prices. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/12/091012fa_fact_owen">The Pay Problem (by David Owen)<br /></a>Owen offers his take on the excesses of CEO compensation. The article is mainly a profile of Nell Minow, a co-founder of the research form The Corporate Library. Minow offers up several examples of tells in contracts or compensation packages that indicate trouble at a company.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/12/091012fa_fact_paumgarten">The Secrete Cycle (by Nick Paumgarten)</a><br />Lots of people see patterns that aren't really there in large data sets. This is especially true when it comes to stock prices. Many of the people are crazy, and, based on Paumgarten's profile, it seems that Martin Armstrong fits the bill.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/12/091012fa_fact_lizza">Inside the Crises (by Ryan Lizza)<br /></a>Lizza continues The New Yorker's excellent coverage of the response to the economic crises in this intriguing profile of Lawrence Summers. Summers, of course, is the brilliant economist, former Treasury Secretary, former Harvard president (remember his provocations on the under-representation of women in science and engineering?), and current Obama adviser and director of the National Economic Council.<br /><br />There are several great quotes and anecdotes in here. Summers has a famously abrasive personality. He has fallen asleep in meetings (even in front of Obama). Like many protagonists, it seems like he was almost born to play the role he is currently playing in helping to direct policy and navigate through the economic meltdown. This piece is well worth reading. It offers insight into Summers the man, as well as the nature of government policy and the economic challenges that lie ahead.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/10/12/091012crat_atlarge_lepore">Not So Fast (by Jill Lepore)<br /></a>Lepore relates the interesting history of the birth of "scientific management"--the idea that worker's actions can be measured and timed and plotted to be made more efficient. Apparently "business consultants" have always been selling advice of dubious value. Lepore reviews a recent book on the topic, as well as offering larger context. This paragraph pretty much sums up the whole field:<br /><blockquote>About half of “The Management Myth” is an exposé of management consulting (the emperor has no clothes); the rest is Stewart’s exploration of his erstwhile profession’s checkered past (the emperor never did), although the kind of business book people have been buying for, oh, the past half century is instruction (you, too, can be an emperor!).<br /></blockquote> It is slightly more complicated than that pithy summary suggests. Lepore goes on to describe that there were (and are), in fact, inefficiencies and rooms for improvement. Also, she explores the effect all this had on the quality of life for the workers.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06701014456421086528noreply@blogger.com0