Obama wins

Well, it's done with. I mean, as of this moment, Obama has not yet taken the stage, but John McCain has given an amazing conciliatory speech. It was a reminder that despite the sturm und drang of the election cycle that McCain was more than worthy of his party's nomination and the nation's consideration for leadership.

It's not a secret that I've been no fan of the administration that's been in place for eight years. I've felt that we made a lot of mistakes and much of the recent past doesn't reflect the principles of the America in which I wanted to live.

Whether McCain or Obama, tomorrow would have meant a moment for change to what I believe would have been a better America.

Obama campaigned on more issues upon which I agreed than any other candidate from his first days on the trail. I can only hope that he is able to carry out some of his planned policies. I am truly happy he won.

Well, I just took a break from blogging to watch Obama's speech. Transcript here.

As Obama said (and I'm paraphrasing here) the campaign victory isn't the real victory. Perhaps its a cliche, but now the real work of the next few years begins. Obama himself outlined the challenges ahead for the nation and for himself as the torch is passed. Here's to hoping we're (all of us) up to the challenge.

Perhaps appropriately, while I had just seen Obama crest 297 electoral votes on my laptop, the first person I saw on television announce Obama's victory was Jon Stewart (if you missed this evening's Daily Show/ Colbert Report broadcast, it was by-and-large very good).

That's enough for tonight. I'm tired. You're tired.

Tomorrow is a new and different day.

Here's that line:

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

This Moment in History - Financial Armageddon

At least nobody is panicking

To Infinity, and Beyond...!

Sweeeeeet.

Sure, financial news is dire... but just as the Depression brought us aerial circuses and barn stormers, so should be turn our eyes to the fellow who just strapped a kerosene powered jet-wing to his back and crossed the English Channel.

Here's the article.

This Moment in History - Watching the Financial Crisis

It's always odd to live through a moment in the news that you realize is becoming a moment in history. I've been around the block long enough to recognize them when they crop up, I think (and getting the history degree doesn't hurt, especially once you see how these things cook up when using primary source documents in research). And, Leaguers, this story is picking up enough steam to maybe be one of those events.

And while the events of the current financial collapse won't be recognized in the same manner as, say, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc... it could be recognized in much the same way as Black Thursday. And you know what the big difference is between those events (aside from loss of life and the road to war)? The mistakes made along the way are amazingly clear in hindsight.

I am unsure what to make of the bailout. We're getting a plea from a government that has made a lot of claims over the years insisting that the public rush to get behind them, but its a governments whose credibility has been tragically diminished thanks to requests for blind faith (and this isn't just opinion here. I'm going off well known polls, Sunday morning show consensus, etc...) and then finding their goodwill has been taken advantage of.

Add in the idea that the government hasn't ever really reacted this way before to financial crisis, and the American public surely isn't too excited about finding themselves holding the bag (taxwise) for what's seen as nothing less than an act of hubris by people who would as soon step on them as speak to them.

The American public seems to have a feeling in their gut that the bailout plan is the wrong way to go, and you can't blame them. After all, where's the bailout for the people losing their homes? Why are CEO's for failing companies regularly receiving "golden parachutes" after driving their companies into the ground and losing their jobs? Why were the financial policies of the past few years ever allowed if anyone was aware of the potential risk? And whys hould we be expected to pay for their risk? When so many people have already lost so much thanks to participating in their risky behaviors? And it seems hopelessly mired in the notion that the financial well being of the country should be based in propping up the wealthy (and wealthy institutions) to support the trickle down effect theory of economics.

That's not to say I believe that $700 Billion should be set aside for people who took loans they couldn't afford, but I don't see the value in putting your $700 billion in fewer baskets over spreading the wealth when the institutions seem to lack the discipline to handle the money they have/ had. (Either way seems to be a dud. I wonder how historians and economists of the future will see the economic stimulus checks we got this summer. FYI: Mine was spent in Costa Rica. Viva America!)

Economists will be studying the past six years for the next fifty. And, I assure you, we'll do it all over again in my lifetime when another generation is running things, doesn't know their history and believes the people in their same jobs of a few decades back were merely fools who couldn't handle things the way THEY can.

In a way, we sort of know what will happen if the bailout doesn't happen. We have a major financial crisis and have to hit the reset button. And while it will surely hurt many, many people, its something that may serve to force our economy into a natural equilibrium. Joe Average on the street has no faith in the companies who have failed in the first place, so why would we give them $700 Billion again (whether that's how the administration looks at it or not, it's our dough...)? In short, if we think we're about to bottom out, anyway, why go further into national debt throwing good money after bad?

Frankly, I'm a bit stunned that this plan came from the White House. But if I were an outgoing President, I wouldn't be too keen on letting the end result of eight years of my economic policy being financial collapse of the US, either, I guess. So I'd be looking for some stopgap to try to keep that from happening. Nobody wants to be remembered as going down in flames in the same manner as Hoover.

Whether right or wrong on this bailout request, unfortunately the current administration has burned through its goodwill and claims of wise leadership (I guess they call it political capital). Which is another lesson in government to you future leaders of America. Sooner or later you might actually need for people to get behind you on something, so you better not waste and/ or drop the ball on the first two or three requests.

Part of me wonders if Bush did more harm than good in going begging to the public for their support instead of leaving the idea of the bailout as more of an abstraction without a face.

Part of why I'm writing this post is that LoM might be your daily bit of goofiness, but it's also got a multi-year archive at this point. So it seems a shame to not mark some of this stuff for posterity for myself. Especially if I suspect that events as they unfold will be part of our national narrative. So I can see if I was right or wrong in my predictions, and see how what I was thinking about the news as it unfolded.

So, yes, perhaps a bit selfish, but I hope it'll have some value for me in the future.

Kid Invents New Solar Cell

This kid William Yuan, has invented an all-new solar cell. Something PhD's and eggheads are no doubt working on.

Read the article here.

What I was doing at 12:

-raiding Peabo's Mom's cabinet for Dr. Pepper and Teddy Grahams
-Reading Batman and X-Men
-Sitting second chair tuba (in a section of 2)
-worrying about if Sophia Chiang "liked" me
-Growing twice as fast as the other kids (6'3" by 8th grade, suckahs!)
-Working on my free throws
-watching "Aliens" for, literally, the 23rd time
-getting lectured by The Admiral about my most recent infraction
-getting a black eye at the bus stop from Steanso laying me out with a single punch
-Social Studies homework
-Getting a "C" in Talented and Gifted math and getting booted down to plain 'ol "honors" math because of a ScanTron mishap

I was not:
-revolutionizing energy collection

Ike (and: I am right. Occasionally. About the weather)

Ike in my High School Hood

Some of you (Meredith) have been to my folks' neighborhood. Here's some Admiral-approved photos of damage in Cypresswood.

No idea how your old house held up, Mere. The Admiral mostly stuck to that end of the neighborhood where he lives, back by Mirror Lake.





This is actually a somewhat familiar site from my childhood. Hurricanes. Tornadoes. It's bizarre anyone lives in Houston, let alone its now the 4th largest city in the US.

September weather change

I always say "we get our first break in the heat around September 15th". And, sure enough, Austinites... when did we first see a dip in the warm air that had hung over Austin since July?

September 15th.

This week is in the 80's. Fall has begun to fall. Yes, as everyone tries to tell me, it will probably heat up again for a while in October. And, yeah, sometimes the cool front comes earlier. Sometimes later. But, as a rule of thumb, we get the first days when you can comfortably wear jeans outside and the air is in the 60's at night around September 15th.

yes, sometimes its hot as hell on Halloween. And sometimes it has literally hit freezing on Halloween (1993), but in general...

I'm just saying. September 15th.

Last night I got Jason to put out his Halloween jack-o-lanterns. And that is just awesome.

A Dry, Clear Sunday

Today I woke up late after condemning Jamie to wake up and feed the dogs.

We cleaned up the house a bit more to accommodate my dad, who was driving in from Ike-damaged Spring, TX to take part in our electricity and air conditioning. His office in Houston apparently has power, but water is still iffy. The house I lived in back in high school has water, but no power. And no power for the foreseeable future. So I'm discouraging him from going home, but The Admiral is not one who believes in the creature comforts. He's been using a kerosene lamp for his light.

We met up off 2222 and headed out to Steiner Ranch to go see the progress on Rancho Relaxo, my folks' soon-to-be house. I have to say, if you're going to build a house for my folks, Rancho Relaxo really fits the bill. Lot of space for them to spread out, big windows, a lovely (unobstructed) view of a preserve. And The Admiral has included a workshop area, which he has, unfortunately, dubbed "Daddy's Playhouse", which was deemed creepy by all.

I am a bit at a loss as to what I should be doing, as per helping out in the wake of Ike. With Katrina, I was pretty far away, and so I sent money. Well, with my recent employment status, I am not exactly Rich Uncle Pennybags, and I'm pretty close to Houston... so after The Admiral leaves and I'm done putting my my token evacuee... I need to figure out some way in which I can help.

I've been pondering Austin's identity as the go-to destination for evacuees.

Austin is 1/5th the size of Houston. It raises a lot of questions about the assumed ability of the city to absorb and support over a sustained period (Houston could be without power for up to two weeks, provided it DOESN'T get hit with any more hurricanes). Hospitals, etc... get stretched to their limit during these emergencies... and one wonders what can be done to make these resources more expandable. (I heard a story of someone being turned away from receiving medical help at the ER because Ike evacuees meant that the ER was beyond capacity. Understandable, but... where do you go when the ER is full and you need help?)

All of that said, I hope we Austinites CAN be the sort of people we hope we are, and that we can continue to be the default place for evacuations in years to come.

We might need to rethink some our practices to make it work. We're using schools as shelters can't mean disruption of school... looks like we got that one figured out by Monday this time. Other resources, like the Austin Food pantry, are being quickly drained to serve the evacuees, rather than serving its normal purpose. Which is a great resource, but what happens when the evacuees go home and the pantry is bare?

There are a million little things that will, no doubt, be brought up in the wake of Ike. But I give credit to the Red Cross for their response, Austin, San Antonio, etc... for opening their doors. FEMA has responded much, much better than during Katrina and Rita. And it seems whatever plans were put into place since Katrina are working to the extent that people will follow instructions and leave when told "you will otherwise die".

Do evacuees have anywhere to return to? What will happen in the weeks and months ahead? Can the evacuation destination cities sustain themselves as evacuation destinations?

I do not envy Chertoff or whomever replaced Brownie as head of FEMA. Because I have no idea how to answer these questions without coming to some uncomfortable conclusions.

World Does Not End

Here's the article.

But we already knew that.

More on LHC. Once again, in song.

Press arrests at Convention

My old college pal Robb was one of the protesters arrested in New York at the 2004 Republican Convention. For those of us who assume that we're living in a country of a fairly solid system, and where the cops are there as servants of the community (as well as lawyers, etc...) Robb's story is a reminder how quickly that can turn on a dime. But, it's also one of how little dissent is tolerated.

Robb was never injured, by the way, or anything like that. But he did get the good cop/ bad cop interrogation room treatment. And for those of you who know Robb, in some ways, I feel almost sorry for the cops in trying to get him to play along (or even get what they were up to.).

This morning on PBS's "Now", they had a story on Amy Goodman, a reporter for "Democracy Now". It didn't get too much play during the Republican Convention, but St. Paul saw some significant protests last week.

Now, I don't want for readers to assume I agree with the protesters, or think that smashing windows is, in any way, a good idea. I know those protesters have no idea how badly their message plays when they take things that direction, and don't really get "it".

But I don't care what your slant is as a reporter. The story surrounding Goodman's arrest and the arrest of her crew should be shocking to everyone.

Unfortunately, "Democracy Now!" is not a mainstream news organization. That doesn't indicate they are an illegitimate organization, or that the political leanings of their organization were even known or the press status of the crew was acknowledged by the police. They could have been working for "The Christian Science Monitor" for all the cops noticed.

Goodman was texted from her post on the floor of the Convention that her team had been arrested while covering a protest. The footage is her rushing out to the police line to see what's going on.



Here's the producer getting arrested. Note, she is wearing press credentials and shouting "Press" repeatedly.



Apparently after this the cops, dissatisfied with her prone position, put a knee in her back and dragged her across the asphalt, getting her face cut up.

Curiously, the St. Paul police are "investigating" the incident, not to see if the police in question acted out of turn, but whether or not they should drop the charges against the "Democracy Now!" team.

All of this was preceded, I should note, by the iWitness video team being arrested BEFORE the convention even started. iWitness video is a watchdog organization that records police action in potentially volatile situations (such as the RNC 2004). They were raided before the convention for, essentially, the potential trouble the St. Paul/ Minneapolis police felt they could create. The charge? The cops claim that there was a reported "hostage" situation they were investigating...

I know some Leaguers will believe that Goodman and the iWitness folks aren't any different from any other hippie protesters. And, of course, protesters get what they deserve. But, keep in mind, "Democracy Now!" was a credentialed, accredited, badge-wearing crew. Goodman also states that a Secret Service agent came by AFTER she was in cuffs and took her credentials off her neck without her permission.

I'm not pointing at the RNC for culpability, instead I would point toward recent trends in how protesters are being handled, and how the St. Paul police is being instructed to handle protesters by the FBI, Secret Service, etc... And how that's spread now, indiscriminately, to the press.

Leaguers, this is seriously, seriously messed up. I don't really know why NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, etc... aren't covering the "Democracy Now!" story, but I would guess they're far more focused right now on the actual candidates and enjoying the comforts those candidates extend to the press corps.

But if reporters now have to worry about not just getting arrested (and getting roughed up despite no signs of resisting arrest), is that something we're comfortable with...?

Washington Post

Seattle Post Intelligencer

USA Today

iWitness video

For how not to stage a protest (you dingbats) read here

The Sasquatch Corpse Saga Continues!

...now I just wonder exactly how far this is going to go!

Here's an article from Yahoo!

These dudes are sticking to their guns in the face of mounting evidence, logic and common sense. And you have to respect that. The technique is what I would call "The Jason Alternate Reality Technique", where you insist your cockamamie story is true way past the point of reason, and refuse to let the story go 20 years later (you are not secretly 5th grade math teacher, Mr. Glowka, in a clever disguise).

CNN covered the story. Unfortunately, in doing so, there was a technical gaffe that led to the following:


When things go wrong at the CNN master control.

Bigfoot press conference - covered by Fox


Bigfoot press conference (spoof)


Classic Bigfoot

More Cryptozoological Hoo-Hah

El Chupacabra runs amok in Cuero

Reed sent this article along: You know its summer when chupacabra shows up

Note that you can link over to some video from that page, caught from the dashcam of a police cruiser.

It looks like some sort of dog that's managed to breed with little hair, or else suffers from mange. Natural selection choosing to greatly decrease hair on a dog living in Texas kind of makes sense, so I really don't know what we're looking at. And I don't know if this is the same nasty thing that's been attacking small livestock for generations. But it certainly doesn't seem like a domesticated house pet with no interest in your pygmy goats.

The last one that turned up, though, turned out to be nothing spookier than a coyote.

With this summer's earlier, and far more bizarre find of the Montauk Monster, one expects the Moth Man to be found drinking Schlitz at some bar in West Virginia.


More on Georgia Freezer Sasquatch

I found a site that had nabbed the pictures from Cryptomundo of that Bigfoot in a Freezer. Sorry that took so long.

I want to say that while the thought didn't pop into my head until I saw it online, but I suspect that this isn't just a hoax, but some sort of viral marketing campaign. Maybe for Jack Link's Beef Jerky. Or maybe an ARG spun out of control or something.


You just hope that nobody wanted those Otter Pops they left on the bottom of the freezer

here's a part of a Press Release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2008

BIGFOOT BODY FOUND

DNA evidence and photo evidence to be presented at a PRESS CONFERENCE
to be held on
Date: Friday, August 15, 2008
Time: From 12Noon-1:00pm
Place: Cabana Hotel-Palo Alto (A Crown Plaza Resort) 4290 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California 94306

Searching for Bigfoot, Inc. Menlo Park, California
Tom Biscardi, CEO

BIGFOOT BODY FOUND - EVIDENCE AND DNA DETAILS TO BE PRESENTED AT A PRESS CONFERENCE ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 15th

FROM 12 N00N TO 1:00PM AT THE CABANA HOTEL-PALO ALTO IN PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA

A body that may very well be the body of the creature commonly known as “Bigfoot” has been found in the woods in northern Georgia.

DNA evidence and photo evidence of the creature will be presented in a press conference on Friday, August 15th from 12 Noon to 1:00pm at the Cabana Hotel-Palo Alto at 4290 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California, 94306. The press conference will not be open to the public. It will only be open to credentialed members of the press.
Here are some of the vital statistics on the “Bigfoot” body:
*The creature is seven feet seven inches tall.
*It weighs over five hundred pounds.
*The creature looks like it is part human and part ape-like.
*It is male.
*It has reddish hair and blackish-grey eyes.
*It has two arms and two legs, and five fingers on each hand and
five toes on each foot.
*The feet are flat and similar to human feet.
*Its footprint is sixteen and three-quarters inches long and five and three-quarters inches wide at the heel.
*From the palm of the hand to the tip of the middle finger, its hands are
eleven and three-quarters inches long and six and one-quarter inches wide.
*The creatures walk upright. (Several of them were sighted on the same day that the body was found.)
*The teeth are more human-like than ape-like.
*DNA tests are currently being done and the current DNA and photo evidence will be presented at the press conference on Friday, August 15th.

I won't get into how the holes that are starting to form as part of the story, but I wouldn't expect much by Friday.

Yahoos Claim to Have Corpse of Sasquatch

Hat tip to Occasional Superheroine for locating this story on CryptoMundo (what I assume is the New York Times for all your cryptozoological needs).

I've updated my link to a story where there are photos of the alleged creature.

Jason will surely freak out about all of this, but here we go...

Apparently some guys claim they have the body of a Bigfoot, found in Georgia. They're keeping the body in a freezer somewhere under armed guard until it can be released to the scientific community tomorrow. I, personally, think that this picture could be something, or it could be a latex mask and a costume shoved into a freezer with some deer innards. But I do find it interesting that they're taking it this far if its a hoax.

"But League," you say, "The Bigfoot lives in the Pacific Northwest!"
Oh, my friends... Bigfoots live all over the US. From our friends of the piney woods of Washington to the Bigfoot of Eastern Oklahoma to the Skunk Ape of Florida. Heck, if you turn and look around fast enough right now, there's probably a Bigfoot standing behind you.


The League streaks Zilker Park

Now, The League tends to be a bit cynical when it comes to cryptozoology. We're hopeful, but we mostly think that an undocumented species of 8 foot ape living in the US at this point is as likely as me learning Emmanuel Lewis is secretly living in Jamie's walk in closet.

I say that, but they DID just find several 10's of thousands more gorillas in Africa, so...

Anyway, mostly I'm deeply cynical of hoaxes and peoples' natural inclination to perpetrate hoaxes.

It will be interesting to see what these guys came up with. But it raises a good question.

INTERACTIVITY TIME:
Let us suppose these fellows in Georgia really have the body of a Bigfoot, and their find is confirmed and welcomed by the scientific community.

A) When you learn of the Bigfoot's authenticity, who is the first person you would tell?

B) If Bigfoot is real, what else might be real?

C) How would knowing Bigfoot is real change your outlook on life?

D) A Texas Oil Tycoon has offered a 300 million dollar bounty for finding and bringing back a corpse from another Bigfoot so he can stuff it and put it over his fireplace. A DotCom billionaire has offered 100 million for the first living Sasquatch brought into captivity. He's built a majestic habitat for the Bigfoot in Redmond, Washington. You think you know where a Bigfoot might be.

What do you do?

E) Any other thoughts on the possible reality of a Bigfoot?

The Peabo/ Onion/ Al Gore/ Jor-El/ Superman connection

Last fall, Peabo sent me an e-mail regarding his theory on an Al Gore/ Superman/ Jor-El connection. You can go here for Peabo's thoughts.

Well, Mr. Harms made my morning by sending me this article from The Onion. And, later, Jim D sent it as well.

I think The Onion owes Peabo a dollar.

RIP Tim Russert

Tim Russert, host of NBC's "Meet the Press" died today while at work. It was completely unexpected. And, I'd say, a huge loss for modern journalism.

Guys like Russert aren't supposed to die early. They're supposed to be there every Sunday for decades, just like they were the week before. You expect to see them take a dignified retirement, only to pop up again as guest commentators during particularly monumental events when the journalist in their blood refuses to NOT be there to help cover the story. It was certainly what I expected for Tim Russert.

I really like Russert. I might not always have thought he was chasing the right path (like the Clintons after the impeachment. Man, he was nuts for that story), but not only did he get great guests (I mean, seriously... it was like people were afraid NOT to show up for Meet the Press), but Russert had crazy enthusiasm for his job. You could feel it every week, as well as whenever he showed up on another show. One got the feeling he didn't just love being a witness to the mix like so many political journalists, but Tim Russert was always happy to be the one to mix things up with anyone who showed up to talk with him.

I cannot imagine what NBC will do at this point. And, if I may, it seems unfair that a guy like Russert dies at 58 when he seemed to be moving at cruising speed.

We'll miss you at The League, Russert. We may have been spotty in how often we made a point of catching Meet the Press, but it seems inconceivable we'll be finishing the 2008 election without you. Let alone, entering into a new presidency without the staff having to come by your table to explain themselves and pay their dues.

MSNBC
Washington Post 1
Washington Post 2
Buffalo News


So long, Mr. Russert.

Texas Governor's Mansion Burns

Every once in a while, Jamie will wake me up in the morning with a non-sequitur, then leaves the bedroom. This has the effect that I often am unsure if I just dreamed whatever Jamie told me, or if it actually happened. Yesterday was such an occasion.

"The Governor's Mansion burned down."
"Wha-?"
"The Governor's Mansion caught on fire and burned down. Rick Perry wasn't there."
"Huh-?"
"So nobody got hurt."
"That's good."
And then she wanders off.

At this point, usually, Lucy jumps on the bed to get attention and Jeff the Cat starts meowing at me. Every morning is a party when I wake up.

Anyhow, I sat there blinking for a minute, trying to determine if I'd just dreamed the information about the Governor's Mansion, but I hadn't. Why it seemed so impossible for the Governor's Mansion to burn down, I don't know... The building was 150 years old. The fact that it hasn't burned down before is sort of a miracle.

Here's an AP story on the blaze.

Here's the official website.

When I heard that the cause might be arson, that sort of made more sense than a random fire. There's always drunk people and crazy hobos running around downtown. Add in the tinfoil helmet crowd, or even some overzealous activist, and it could be anybody, really.

Of course, there's also a considerable fence and wall around the Mansion... and I would have guessed better security than what must have been present. But... anyway, i don't think criticizing security in this case is particularly useful as I don't know the facts.

As you've no doubt heard, fortunately the Mansion was undergoing renovations, which meant that the antiques and artifacts of the Mansion had all been moved off-site and were not lost. And, Governor Perry had been living elsewhere during the renovation, so the fire did not claim his Wii or extensive Hummel figurine collection.

I am, of course, now kicking myself for never getting off my duff and going for a tour of the mansion at any point in the past, oh, 24 years when I've lived (on and off) in Austin.

People who live in New York don't go to see the Statue of Liberty or the UN building. I doubt Parisians hang out at the Eiffel Tower on the weekends. And I don't often take advantage of the historical artifacts, museums, etc.. that Austin has to offer. Certainly losing one of the buildings sort of puts things in perspective, and is a reminder that those places shouldn't be merely taken for granted.

What's Up

Hey all.

Friday Jamie went to a fashion show of some sort at UT. Jason and I went and grabbed dinner, and then saw "The Forbidden Kingdom", the Jet Li/ Jackie Chan team-up. It's basically a kids' movie, and as such, it doesn't do much to bring anything new to the "quest" movie (which in this case, the quest is to bring a magical staff to the Monkey King). There's hints of "NeverEnding Story" to the thing, but its not necessarily for very small kids. But if I had a 9 year-old at my disposal, this would be a good entry-point for Kung-Fu movies.

Saturday I hit the Barton Springs spill-over with Lucy, Cassidy and Jason. It was a great Austin springtime sort of Saturday, and I got a little sun. Last night we went to dinner with Matt and Nicole at Hyde Park.

This morning and Friday night, typically horrendous spring weather blew through. This morning, in particular, looked pretty nasty out the window when all three pets came to the bedroom around 6:50 looking for moral support. So we finally got some rain. And, these fronts tend to leave the sky clear and blue, with the the swimming holes pretty well filled. So... maybe another day of unemployment tomorrow would be welcome... Many a day I've stepped outside for lunch into beautiful weather and bemoaned the fact I was working on such a day. Hopefully I can make something of the lovely weather.

Today we headed to the far north of Austin to see a screening of Superman: The Movie at the Lake Creek Alamo Drafthouse. Jason came along, and we met up with Tania and JAL. Before the screening, they had a trivia contest, and the League is embarrassed to report that he was asked to refrain from answering questions when, after two questions, it became clear I was ready to sweep (I had correctly identified Clark Kent's middle name as "Joseph" when the hammer came down, and the guy who played Darth Vader as Reeve's trainer during filming of Superman).

Look, I have one skill. I should be able to flex it occasionally.

I did win passes.

They also had a costume contest, and there were several elementary-aged Supermans, Batmans and some guy (not a kid) in a phenomenal Spider-Man costume (and he looked pretty buff under the suit, too). The kids were darn excited about Spidey, as were we.

It was actually really cool to see so many kids come out for the movie with their parents, and not to a cartoon full of fart jokes, which is where I usually see the wee ones. The Admiral and KareBear used to take us to adventure movies all the time when Jason and I were kids. The Admiral was always much more into the movies than KareBear (as evidenced by KareBear's tendency to fall asleep), but we all dug a good family adventure movie back in the day. I am aware that I'm not going to the movies targeted at that demographic (the Spiderwick Chronicles, etc...), so I don't know what parents take their kids to see these days, but its a thrill to see Superman still drawing folks in 30 years on.

Good-bye to Headline News

Has anyone been watching Headline News lately? They seem to have handed the keys over to talking head Mike Galanos, who has decided that every minute of the Headline News broadcast day would be better served if he behaved like an abrasive ass.

Let me back up a moment. What they appear to be doing is suggesting that every story has at least two sides (correct) with the following formula:
1) Report very briefly on the story, fitting "who, what, where, when, why" into about, literally, twenty seconds.
2) Have anchor Galanos ask some loaded question about the story
3) Have one or two "experts" discuss the topic while Galanos tells them why they are wrong, usually because he's scripted out the knee jerk reaction one would have using emotional arguments and a complete lack of knowledge about the subtleties and nuances of the topic.

What the @$%#?

I am aware that when Turner sold CNN to Time-Warner, Time-Warner began to muck with the formula, leading to shows like "Nancy Grace" and "Glenn Beck", both of whom seem to be making money by acting like braying donkeys. Apparently a lot of people are watching this stuff, so a lot of people find this form of news a lot more palatable. I find it grating and unwatchable. And apparently, if what I just watched for the last thirty minutes is any indication, the other Headline News reporters are finding the new format a little hard to work in. They all sort of look like they just want their segments over with.

A lot of hay is made over how many ways there are now to get your news, but I guess this is the downside. In competing for marketshare, the people who seem to be winning are (as is so often in life) the one willing to make the most noise.

I've mostly already given up on Headline News, but this is the last nail in the coffin. For the last several years I've screened various news sources to look at the news, and I find it sort of amazing that I'm moving further and further away from TV news and back to print (if that's what you want to call the internet). As per the web: Unfortunately, the CNN internet brand hasn't really been an option for a while thanks to their insistence on "video" for every story (I can read fine, thanks). And then forcing me to watch some 30 second ad, a house ad, and throw in a good twenty seconds for buffering before seeing the actual story. Thanks, CNN, but I was good with the text story.

This is the fate of the news, I suppose. The day of journalistic objectivity will be talked about in classrooms as a quaint and provincial notion that missed the bigger picture of using the news as a sounding board for hacks and carnival barkers to get airtime. All of this, of course, to drive up ad revenue. Mentions of objectivity will be met with the kind of derision one saves for the over-idealistic, when the smart and cynical know how to make a buck.

I'm mostly disappointed that Headline News' insistence on the format change means it must be working. What can it mean but that people want to digest their news in an all-debate, all-jack-ass formula? Is this the spirit of true discourse? One step ahead of a Geraldo Rivera chair toss? Somehow, people MUST feel like Glenn Beck has something to offer. But what I find really creepy is when I hear "Oh, well, he's funny".

The news isn't really supposed to be funny, per se. Debate and discussion over the fate of the Middle East shouldn't really be there to amuse the viewer because Glenn beck just called someone a pink-o as part of his argument. This line of thinking and wanting your news pre-processed to match your pre-defined political/ emotional spectrum is the narrow-casting of the world. Join the Glenn Beck/ Mike Galanos team and feel superior to those the news is actually happening to.

Now, that's not to say that there's not room for comedians. But the comedians are not journalists. The role of the comedian has often been to point out the absurdity of any situation. But that doesn't mean that the comedian has the same place in the media matrix as the politician, the journalist of the partisan hack with airtime.

As mentioned by Jon Stewart:

Sci-Fi getting dumber thanks to super-heroes?

Randy sent me this link. It's worth reading. (editor's note: the link is now fixed. Don't try to watch daytime TV and blog, Leaguers.)

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with one of the author's points, which is: super-hero movies are full of bad science. A rocket-powered dynamo like Iron Man seems unlikely without some yet-untapped energy source. And where would you keep that fusion reactor in the suit, anyway? How does the Hulk grow with no means for gaining mass? Or Isn't Halle Berry's wardrobe in Catwoman a little improbable?

However, I disagree with a few of his points, or at least his accusations.

I think what he's trying to say is that: Science Fiction was once much smarter than what we get today.

I would not disagree with the merits of Blade Runner being a bit higher than what we're likely to get from Iron Man, as per moral complexity, well-fleshed-out-narrative, etc... But the author has selective perception regarding science fiction, and is ignoring the B-Movie tradition of sci-fi. For every plausible sci-fi movie (the author points to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Terminator, both of which this reader finds to be dubious choices), there were ten "Battle Beyond the Stars" or "Laser Blast".

It seems, really, as if the author is also suggesting that Blade Runner didn't have to share the market with Krull, Beast Master, and a lot of other stuff that wasn't exactly dealing with the steps of the scientific method.

Most of the characters coming to screen are not products of recent scientific development. Iron Man, Spider-Man and the Hulk made their debuts around 1963. Catching a low-budget sci-fi epic was a cheap thrill for a Saturday afternoon, and, of course, this predates most serious cinematic sci-fi by a few years. 2001 would debut a few years after Spidey, and about 30 years after Superman, for example.

He also suggests that comic book movies will somehow keep our kids from dreaming, our science from science-ing. Somehow equating Spider-Man with a lack of American students enrolled in science curricula.

From an historical standpoint, sci-fi comics were the black sheep in the sci-fi family, but there was a direct connection between the guys who were publishing "Amazing Stories" and other science-fiction publications. In fact, DC editor Mort Weisinger had worked for similar publications before coming to National. And Julie Schwartz would be the one who would insist on at least pseudo-scientific explanations for his heroes beyond "mysterious energies", bringing in the Silver-age of science-based heroes. Read more at Men of Tomorrow.

Often the earliest super-heroes, often referred to as "The Golden Age" heroes (circa 1938-1955) reflected the wisdom of the time. Hourman could gain his amazing strength from a pill (with no thought given toa ddiction, etc... but much to the power of modern chemistry). Starman was powered by the strength of his "gravity rod".

However, one of the markers of comics' move from the Golden-Age to the Silver-Age was the post WW-II interest in science and industry which fueled the country. The first Silver-Age sci-fi hero, Barry Allen as The Flash, is a walking textbook of physics issues. I recommend checking out the Showcase Presents: The Flash, which is terribly pseudo-sciency, but does try to make leaps from the textbook to the imagination, in a "look, kids... science is fun and cool!" sort of way (even when it makes no sense, whatsoever).

Further re-imaginings of characters, such as The Atom, explored the possibilities of the textbook as applied to super-hero feats of wackiness.

By 1962ish, when the FF was strapping themselves into an experimental rocket in order to beat The Commies into space, Stan and Jack were mostly concerned with drumming up new ideas to save Timely/ Marvel comics. As mentioned above, the science of the concepts wasn't necessarily rock solid. One was less likely to gain powers from an irradiated spider than one was to, say, get pretty sick. And if genetic traits were passed, Peter Parker did pretty well by not growing extra arms or having weird bug-eyes.

But that wasn't ever really the point of Marvel comics. Marvel was far more invested in the development of the characters behind the powers than in merely showcasing super-feats and displays of the mights of science. Pretty clearly, Stan and Jack were taking a page from the absurd science of movie serials and Saturday matinees. But characters such as The Hulk took also from both Doctor Jekyll & Mister Hyde with a strong shot of Frankenstein.

The point that this guy really misses, I think, is two fold:

1) The 20th century was when science came into the home of the average person. Myth and magic had to give way to the powers of the atom. Interesting ideas for a super-hero possessing the powers of the spider could be attributed to either magic or science. In 1963, science was going to win out, no matter how nonsensical the explanation.


2) Science fiction has long pre-saged actual invention. Laser beams, which are used every day in countless applications, first appeared in a science fiction story. And just because you don't see the path for Tony Stark's incredibly small, incredibly powerful power source, or how repulsors work today, doesn't mean that you won't see it in five years.

How many scientists, engineers, etc... first dreamed of becoming the next Ray Palmer, Reed Richards, Tony Stark? How many kids will look to exoskeletons and the possibilities?

We now live, eat and breath science. To suggest that we aren't surrounded by high-tech developers of cyber-space is bizarre. To lay the blame for a lack of developing science academia at the feet of Tony Stark is crazy when there are so many other factors out there from anti-intellectualism and the now popular attacks on science from politicians and folks looking for camera-time, Spidey isn't really your issue. Especially for those who really know Spidey know that his web-shooters weren't just genetic mutation, but are his own invention.

If anything, this article is somewhat depressing in that the author is suggesting that rather than dream of HOW the feats of Tony Stark or Spider-Man can be achieved, those dreams are too big and should be considered impossible. In a world where we went from a small engine propelling the Wright Bros. through the sky to landing on the moon (and coming back!) within a few decades, how can anything we see Batman, iron Man or any other super-hero doing be considered impossible? Perhaps today's suit of armor has no stabilization control, but tomorrow's might look and behave differently. Its not about the outward package, its about the problem you need to solve to get the basic concept to work.

I'm not writing off the science of super-heroes. I may know that a yellow sun will never make me defy gravity, and bullets will never bounce off my skin, but that doesn't mean we, all of us, can't imagine how that could happen.

Anyhoo, that's my two cents.

Nothing to blog about

I have nothing to share. I wish I did.

The weekend was slow. I haven't been feeling particularly great.

Jamie has been playing Mario Galaxies, and is much better at it than I (despite my attempts at coaching). Its interesting to see how two people will attack the same challenge in different ways.

I don't link nearly often enough to Sleestak's site, but here's a little bit of the way, way back machine. Paired with this post today from Occasional Superheroine, in which Valerie tries to figure out what women want in comics... Anyway, it wasn't that long ago that romance comics were being targeted at girls and young women, and a world which would make Betty Friedan's head explode was pretty much what they were selling.

Weird, no?

Way back when I was contributing to Comic Fodder, I posted on the topic of what women want in comics, and I admit... the answers were a little less concrete than what I would want as a market researcher. Could have something to do with women being a wide and diverse readership or something. And then young women getting creeped out when they visit comic shops and have to deal with the He-Man Woman hater's club-house atmosphere. I have no idea.

But at one point, the romance comics and comedy comics were selling. And it's interesting to note that manga brings both, whereas the average modern superhero comic is supposed to be grim'n'gritty for the most part, and therefore devoid of romance or humor, items which once drew in large numbers.

Also, you know, wider distribution channels when you could pick up comics at the drug store.

I've also been pondering a bit about the Warren Jeffs' commune interception by local authorities in West Texas.

For those of you not familiar, Jeffs led a community in Arizona, Colorado City, which was solely occupied by his followers. The community was comprised of a splinter group from the LDS, which still practiced polygamy, and tended to set up marriages between minors and dirty old men. As the minors were raised in the colony and told Jeffs was a prophet, they didn't know any different, and believed themselves to be doing God's bidding.

Colorado City came under fire in the first year or so when we'd moved to Arizona, and it was announced that Jeffs was buying land in West Texas and trying to rebuild his cult fantasy land in the Lone Star State. I had a good laugh at that.

Arizona has a sort of "go along to get along" sort of attitude. I guess its a weird side-effect of Goldwater conservatism, but people tend to stay out of each other's business to a much, much higher degree in AZ than folks tend to do in Texas. At least traditionally.

Jeffs managed to grab some extra media attention last year when he went on the lam and was arrested (and I think, convicted) for arranging marriages between unwilling teenagers and dirty old men. I imagine the folks of West Texas did not cotton to the idea of polygamist statutory rapists living nearby.

Well, it seems things have come to a head.

400 kids have been pulled from the West Texas compound. Whether El Dorado, Texas can absorb 400 kids raised in bizarro-polygamy-cult land into their foster care system remains to be seen.

If I seem uncharacteristically judgmental of the Jeffs followers, its because I consider them to be evil, evil bastards. Essentially Jeffs has found followers who managed to lay claim to the city government of a corner of Arizona, and were able to milk the system for years, use their official power to keep official power out, and had systematically set up a system to keep women/ girls uneducated and, essentially, as breeding stock. Further, I am deeply suspicious of what became of many of the young men of the community. If each man could have many wives, the math doesn't add up. And while some young men were run out of town... I'm just saying.

So if the El Dorado authorities seemingly overstepped their boundaries, in this case, maybe I understand. What was going on behind the walls of the compounds was not a secret. In fact, In Arizona it was very well known thanks to a few women who had escaped. (And I do mean escaped. These women were more or less free to stay and be happy, or... leaving was not really an option when you knew no one outside and were told Satan himself controlled the world outside the city).

I would like to hope that everything that has occured has been "by-the-book". Letting the Jeffs cult have any legal ground to stand on isn't any good for anybody, and many of the 400+ pulled from the community might now actually have a chance to have some say in their lives, not have their lives directed by cult leaders.





Anyhow, I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

Superman Rights go to Siegel Family

Hey Leaguers

I am going to try to wait this one out and see what happens, but this is of no small significance to DC Comics, Warner Bros., Superman fans and the future of the Man of Steel.

As you might know, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, very young men at the time, sold the rights to National Comics for Superman for about $130. Siegel's widow and daughter have apparently successfully sued for rights to the Superman property, plus money going back to 1999 or so.

I really, really do not understand the legality of the situation. Moreover, I have no idea what control this would give to the Siegels and/ or Shusters going forward in regards to control of the property from a creative standpoint. While Siegel might have gone in a different direction with Superman, its tough to say that National and DC have not been good stewards of the character. How many other pulp/ childrens/ sci-fi properties have survived for 70 years?

Unfortunately, WB's inability to share more in the profits from Superman merchandising and licensing may mean the Siegels have some bad blood. No idea what that could mean.

For more, read Heidi's report at The Beat.

In addition, read the story as covered by the New York Times.

The Siegels have everything to gain by playing well with DC/ Warner Bros, and it would be nice if they would be comfortable with a financial deal rather than a creative deal.

I believed Shuster's heirs may have had a stake in this as well, but it seems he might not have any heirs according to this article. So stay tuned...

NASA assists in development of SkyNet

Why not just paint a big, red target on humanity and put a countdown clock on every desktop?

Here.

Of course, as I often say, I welcome our coming robot masters.