Runcible Blog

I saw Girl With a Pearl Earring Friday night. Critics have praised the film's beauty, and I think the praises are deserved, for the most part. But I can't help but nitpick a movie I just spent $9.25 to see:

• The setting is Holland, 1665, yet the characters all have British accents (and it's an American movie). I know it's a common trick to give all foreign people British accents in American movies, but it does seem silly.
• The foley artists went a little overboard with the minute sound effects. It sounded like the actors were wearing tap shoes.
• The film gets a little sloppy during the candle lit scenes. Either they pushed the film or used higher speed film for those parts. The shadows become grainier and grayer.
• Possibly related to the previous nit: the color balance/film characteristics changed somewhat between the outdoor and indoor scenes in a noticeable-yet-not-pronounced-enough-to-be-deliberate way. I don't know if it was Kendall Theater's copy or the original negative that looked a little off.

Those are my only nits, and they're very picky at that. I can't comment on the plot because I don't even know how much truth there is to the story. I know it's based on a novel by Tracy Chevalier. The plot isn't fleshed out very much; the film is more of a "character based" story -- which is to say, it's a chick flick. But that's alright. I liked it, overall (though unfortunately, I didn't have a chick to bring along to the flick).

I might see it again when it comes out on DVD but only to spend another 2 hours staring at Scarlett Johansson. Gaa-gaa.

The Iowa caucus is rapping up by now, and it looks like Kerry will win (boo! hiss!).

That whole caucus concept is so archaic. Watching it on CSPAN is about as much fun as watching little kids choose teams for a kickball game. I thought I was bad for not being able to outline adequately Dean's platform for undecided voters; these caucus-goers seem surprisingly superficial. One Dean supporter said, "Join us. Governors are natural presidents." (paraphrased). Most of the people at the caucuses on TV seemed motivated more by gut than reason, which I suppose isn't a bad thing. But it doesn't bode well.

I support Dean for some superficial reasons too: I don't trust Kerry because he's a Skull and Bones member (and won't talk about it); I can't support Clark because I'd rather not vote for someone from the military industrial complex; Edwards doesn't impress me (talk about a superficial reason!) and just doesn't seem interesting enough. Kucinich has some good ideas, but he wouldn't stand a chance against Bush attack ads. No, I still think Dean can take the nomination and put up a good fight against Bush. He's certainly not the radical liberal many pundits have tried to paint him as (I disagree with some of Dean's opinions -- for instance, his support of the Afghanistan war). And he doesn't seem like the angry, pessimistic candidate everyone's harping about. It's called standing up for something -- Washington insiders could learn a thing or two.

As an aside, I just heard Chris Matthews ask, "DO YOU THINK THE PERCEPTION THAT DEAN IS ANGRY HAS HURT HIM IN IOWA? DOES IT SEEM THAT HE'S YELLING AT PEOPLE?" Gee, I don't know, Chris, but the yelling bit seems to have worked for you!

---

Getting back to that sweaty caucus, I propose that instead of having each candidate's supporters try to sway each other to join one camp or another, they should fight to the death for their candidate. They should paint their faces with goat's blood, dress in their candidate's traditional tartan colors, and wield battle axes and spears. Whichever group survives claims all of Iowa's delegates for their candidate...and gets to rape and pillage the nearest metropolis.

All I'm saying is that if you're going to use archaic systems like caucuses, why not go all out and get medieval on the electorate?

Bush's plan for manned missions to Mars and the moon has been receiving a fair amount of criticism already. It's surprising to see the Tribune come out against a Bush policy. That can't be a good sign.

I think criticism of the policy is warranted, but not for the same reasons most people are using. According to the Tribune, "the public is evenly split on the wisdom of sending humans back to the moon and beyond; and if forced to choose, a majority (55 percent) would rather see the money spent on domestic programs." It looks like the Op-Ed's are focusing on the financial aspect of the policy rather than the scientific worth. Now, as ever, there are plenty of people calling for the dismantlement of the entire space program, claiming it is a waste of money that could be spent on schools or other social programs. Those critics do have a point -- space exploration is expensive, but unfortunately I think NASA is unjustly being treated as the whipping boy of the government, as usual.

Any time there is a major story about a NASA proposal or anything dealing with tax money, critics come out of the woodwork to propose massive cuts in the already drastically cut NASA budget. I did a quick search for the budget numbers, and here's what I found, for comparison:
NASA Fiscal Year 2003 Budget: $15.0 billion
NASA Fiscal Year 2004 Budget: $15.47 billion
2% of the discretionary budget
---
Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2003 Budget: $364.6 billion
Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2004 Budget: $379.9 billion
Nearly 50% of the discretionary budget
---
Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2004 Budget $41.3 (or $26.7 if you use fuzzy math) billion

I chose to pick on the Defense Department's budget, but nearly every other department of the government has a larger budget than NASA. The fact is that Americans pay at least 25 times as much tax money for developing weapons of mass destruction than we do for space exploration, and 7 times as much as we spend on education. Yet where are the public debates about whether we should spend $12.2 billion this year for building ships, or $8 billion for a missile defense system which has been a huge boondoggle to date and which probably won't protect America at all? When will Americans start writing letters complaining that we already have enough F-22 fighters and that $5.2 billion can be better used improving infrastructure?

There was much controversy about the Big Dig's budget overruns. I think at last count the project has cost upwards of $15 billion dollars over 20 (?) years. The Department of Defense has already spent that amount in the first two weeks of January (if you average the money out over time). Think about that for a second. Talk about misplaced priorities.

In an economic slowdown, NASA and other scientific endeavors face budget cuts and irate taxpayers, while the DOD carries on with business as usual. I'm sure real economists and political scientists can explain this phenomenon much better than I can, but just thinking about it from an average citizen's perspective boggles my mind.

So, I think there are good reasons to be skeptical of any manned missions to Mars or the moon at this time (and I'm sure many astrophysicists will agree); I just don't think money should be the primary concern. NASA seems to be doing "more with less" lately, and I think they have a lot of very interesting and useful programs in the planning stages (space telescopes, more unmanned probes/rovers, etc.) which should be encouraged and funded.

I would be happy if people started putting as much pressure on the Defense Department as they nitpick other Departments' budgets.

just my 2¢

It occurs to me that I should reread each entry before posting. I'm not happy with my often awkward phrasing (being an aspiring grammar Nazi doesn't help). Can I get a proofreader?

Slate is running a series of letters this week from "liberal hawks", asking them if hindsight has changed their view of the war. Predictably, no one comes out and says, "I made a big mistake supporting this war.", though the pundits seem to feel uneasy about some things. Overall, I get the impression that the liberal hawks in this discussion haven't changed their minds. Of course they wouldn't! They're pundits! They're never wrong. about anything.

My distaste for pundits in general (with few exceptions) and so-called liberal hawks in particular stems from their cold, calculated view of the world. Reading Thomas Friedman's columns in the New York Times leaves me thinking that he lives in his own bubble of reality, whether it comes to globalization or the Iraq war, Israel, anything. I also get the impression that pundits treat the world like some giant game of Risk (conservatives treat it like Monopoly). To them, waging war comes as easily as rearranging pieces on a game board, even though they claim to be concerned about the human cost. At least conservative pundits don't hesitate to speak, in the most testosterone-filled manner, of destroying countries and looting natural resources; liberal columnists write with a tone that suggests a repugnant flippancy toward the costs of war.

For instance, Ken "The Threatening Storm" Pollack has this to say about the war, in hindsight:

Wow, that's very convincing. The pundits are now trying to rationalize their support for an illegal war in ways that leave them looking correct, while criticizing everything the administration has done wrong. Well I'm sorry, guys; you can't have it both ways. You knew the administration was lying and that there was no plan for an occupation, yet you remained gung-ho all along. You've made your bed. Now we all have to sleep in it.

Of course, people like Tom Friedman are unfazed by any of the wrong turns in Iraq thus far because they live in their own fantasy world. He writes such illuminating things as:

I think someone called that possessive pronoun use "the Imperial 'we'". In truth, the pundits who think of war as an item on a menu are never, never in any danger of fighting in said war, nor do they seem aware of their privileged positions. They talk about the war "we" are fighting against radical Islam as if they themselves were marching on the front lines. Unfortunately, inflated egos and self importance come with the territory of punditry (with the exception of, perhaps, Bob Herbert). Even my favorite columnist, Paul Krugman, bugs me by his refusal at times to admit that he was wrong.

Another sense I get from reading liberal hawks' columns is that the ends justify the means. Even though they knew the WMD issue was exaggerated and that links to Al Qaeda were tenuous at best and nonexistent at worst, they still felt that regime change in Iraq would be a grand idea at this opportunity, when American's were most impressionable. I can't describe in words how disgusting I think that philosophy is. Dean took a lot of flack for saying, "In general I think the ends don't justify the means." To me it sounded like common sense but cold-hearted rational columnists must've taken it as a personal insult. Those pundits were complicit in Bush's deception and deserve a fair helping of scorn. (I feel similarly about certain presidential candidates who try to give the "we were hoodwinked into signing that bill authorizing force! " excuse at this point. either they were very naive at the time or they're lying now.)

And for people who claim to be concerned about liberation and human rights for Iraqi's, why don't these columnists, and for that matter, anyone in the media ever talk about the Iraqi casualty count? They mention the enormous number of dead under Saddam's watch, but the only tally I read from either liberal or conservative columnists is the U.S. soldier body count. I'm sure these cold rationalists will say that the human toll was worth the chance for a free Arab nation. And I'm sure they are quick to call up the Iraqi children's families to tell them that their kids' deaths are for a good cause. Any reasonable Iraqi would understand that, right?

I think this letter writer, George Packer, sums up the liberal hawk mindset very well here:

I think we should stop talking about vast change in the Arab world and focus on doing what we can—even as our influence wanes by the day—to get Iraq right. Sept. 11 made us think about big ideas, global conflicts—inevitably, and rightly. But Iraq should make us think about practical knowledge and nuanced judgment. One problem with liberal hawks is that great moral dramas are always more attractive to us than difficult long-term tasks.

And the problem, although it's a cliché, is that liberal hawks (or really, most "elites" -- conservative or liberal thinkers) look down on the world's problems from their high vantage point. For them, rearranging pieces on a board looks simple; war looks "tidy" from afar and social problems are reduced to moral failure rather than systematic decay.

Do you know what happens to those kids in school who always have an answer for everything (even the rhetorical and trick questions) when they grow up? They become columnists and media whores. It's as if something in their brains is broken. I know that people often say that people my age think we know everything ('specially them college folk), but media personalities seem never to "grow out" of that stage. (in fairness, I'm not sure if I have yet)

When I think of it, kids are constantly taught to create arguments for issues for which they have no opinion. Most of the time the result is BS. Effective BS is rewarded.
Pundits simply are bullshit experts who have been buried in their own fecal matter for so long that they don't notice the stench anymore!