A lunar eclipse is occurring right now. Just before we put her to bed, we showed it to our four-year-old. c00L!
Update: Added a photo courtesy MSNBC/AP. I took some pix with my digital camera, but it was too dark; they turned out solid black. Here's more on the eclipse from Space.com and NASA, plus a c00L infrared photo of the eclipsed moon from NASA's invaluable (and newly permalinked) Astronomy Photo of the Day. More pix here.
This is cool: The official time of the United States, provided for each time zone by a nifty Java interface. Just the thing for setting your watch or your computer's clock. And all paid for by our tax dollars -- sw33t!
The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers.
The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual -- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
The director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, sent an e-mail titled "congressional questions" to majority and minority staff on the House and Senate Appropriations panels. Expressing "the need to add a bit of structure to the Q&A process," he wrote: "Given the increase in the number and types of requests we are beginning to receive from the House and Senate, and in deference to the various committee chairmen and our desire to better coordinate these requests, I am asking that all requests for information and materials be coordinated through the committee chairmen and be put in writing from the committee."
He said this would limit "duplicate requests" and help answer questions "in a timely fashion."
It would also do another thing: prevent Democrats from getting questions answered without the blessing of the GOP committee chairmen.
"It's saying we're not going to allow the opposition party to ask questions about the way we use tax money," said R. Scott Lilly, Democratic staff director for the House committee. "As far as I know, this is without modern precedent."
Norman Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed. "I have not heard of anything like that happening before," he said. "This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for."
Bush's desire to avoid accountability is on full display here. And notice how it was sparked by an embarrassing incident Team Bush has no one to blame -- though not for lack of trying -- but themselves. By shielding himself from uncomfortable questions, Bush seeks to conceal from the American people the miserable failure that is the inevitable result of his policies. How disgusting.
Possibly most disturbing about Bush's reprehensible action is that he's obviously banking on his party holding the White House and Congress pretty much in perpetuity, because these rules could just as easily be used to the detriment of Republicans. And, of course, if so we'll hear howls of outrage from the now-quiescent and utterly unprincipled right. But that's just the problem -- regardless of one's political affiliation, Bush's action is bad for American democracy and the political process.
The film's overall story arc is masterfully done; I love the way the mechanics of the sinking are explained right at the beginning of the movie, so that when we get to that point in the flashback, two hours later, we know exactly what's happening the whole way. The effects are wonderful, the pacing is good, and really, the love story isn't that bad -- unoriginal and clunky at times, yes, but it's not bad. Plus, given that Titanic is the most wildly successful film ever, doesn't its placement on a list like this imply that the masses who propelled it to that status (and let's not pretend it attained that status solely on the backs of preteen girls in need of a Leonardo DiCaprio fix) are a bunch of dolts?
While the film didn't make it into my Top 20, I did enjoy it very much, and I don't at all share the opinion of those who revile the film. I stated to leave the following comments in his discussion thread, but they grew so long I decided to share them here.
As faithful readers (all three of them) of this blog know, I'm a Titanic (the ship) buff. I was predisposed to like Titanic for much the same reason I was for the much-more-flawed Jurassic Park. I wanted from the latter to see Dinosaurs Eat People, and it delivered; I wanted from the former to see the ship in all its former glory, and Titanic delivered in spades. Come on, people; the first scene in which the sad, sunken wreck transforms into its pristine, magnificent old self is nothing short of breathtaking.
Since I am a Titanic (the ship) buff, I could compare Cameron's movie to an earlier effort: the pleasing 1958 adaptation of Walter Lord's A Night to Remember. Like Cameron's film, it was a lasvishly expensive (for its time) production that made every effort to adhere to the known historical facts of the sinking (several Titanic survivors even visited the set).
In its efforts to hew closely to history, director Roy Ward Baker and screenwriter Eric Ambler elected not to invent fictitious main characters, as Cameron would do. Rather, the film's hero is Second Officer Charles Lightoller. (A Night to Remember did employ "composite" characters, fictitous figures intended to represent, for example, a typical Second Class family. Titanic did the same, of course.) The film is gripping and entertaining and the sinking -- re-created by a highly detailed 30-foot model of the ship -- is tragic indeed, albeit necessarily depicted from fairly far away. But in order to portray the events of the sinking, the film skips around quite a bit, following Lightoller and several other characters in their attempt to survive the disaster.
Much scorn has been heaped upon Cameron's central romance, and not without some justification. But the thing to remember about Jack and Rose is that they're not so much characters as a plot device intended to give the audience a perspective on the sinking. Jack and Rose manage to be, at various points in the film, everywhere an important event occurs during the disaster, from the striking of the iceberg to the flooding First Class staircase to the stern of the ship as it slipped benenath the waves. (Trivia: The man in a baker's uniform who shares the stern with Jack and Rose was real, and he survived: He apparently consumed a quantity of brandy, and it enabled him to endure the frigid water until picked up by a lifeboat. He never eve got his head wet.)
Jack and Rose are an excuse to let Cameron roam around the ship and display crucial moments in the sinking, and the script is, necessarily, full of contrivances to allow him to do just that. We experience the sinking of the Titanic through them. In my book, it's a powerful experience. The massive stern of the ship lifting helplessly out of the water -- absolutely dwarfing swimmers in the water below -- is among the many memorable images the film left with me. Perhaps this purpose is why the maudlin fate of Jack after the ship sink -- and his usefulness to the story is therefore at an end -- doesn't sit well with some.
Jaquandor's observation of the clever way in which the film explains the mechanics of the sinking up front is, of course, spot-on.
Trivia courtesy the IMDb: The actor playing lookout Frederick Fleet in A Night To Remember, Bernard Fox, played Col. Archibald Gracie in the Cameron production.
That said, while I very much wanted to like 1998's The Avengers, it genuinely sux0rzed.
Here's a nifty little tool that should prove a big help with HTML coding chores: An automated online list generator. I didn't use it with the previous entry, but it's still pretty cool!
A number of bloggers have taken to listing their favorite movies since 1980. I'm a little late getting on board, but for what it's worth, here goes (no order). My criteria for this list is not just sheer greatness, but how often I go back to these movies to watch again, or would like to. As a result, the list is influenced heavily, but far from exclusively, by my DVD collection.
Wild Zero (2000) If you've read my review -- and I would hope you have! -- you know I love this film. I watched it twice practically back-to-back the day I got it. This film is, quite frankly, the coolest flick ever made. And like Dead Alive, the true heart of the film is a sweet love story that's complicated by flesh-hungry ghouls. And, of course, rock and roll saves the day.
GoodFellas (1990) As far back as I can remember, I've always loved movies about gangsters. But Martin Scorsese's tour de force is remarkable not only in its technical excellence and casting triumvirate of Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Ray Liotta (not to mention the ever-reliable Paul Sorvino), but also in that, while the superb Godfather protrayed mobsters as honorable men, the protagonists in this films are unrepentant crooks.
Spirited Away (2002) As so many other bloggers have observesd, all of master animator Hayao Miyazaki's work deserves mention. But Sen To Chihiro noteworthy both for its impressive American success (it won a richly deserved Best Animated Feature Oscar, the first anime movie to do so) and the fact that Miyazaki emerged from retirement to create this masterpiece. The spirit world he creates out of both Eastern and Western mythological components is richly detailed and simply stunning. But it's the rock-solid appeal and spot-on realization of the young heroine Chihiro that propels this movie's success. The ultimate triumph of this young girl through perserverance and a good heart appeals to me infinitely more than an action hero mowing down enemies in a hail of improbably accurate automatic weapons fire. I have further comment in my review at Destroy All Monsters.
Repo Man (1984) Alex Cox's debut and the definitive '80s punk movie, Repo Man packs more anarchy, satire, strangeness and quotability into 92 minutes than any other flick. Among its endless parade of best moments is when punk-turned-repo-man Otto (Emilio Estevez, in the performance of his career) endures a pretentious speech by a mortally wounded would-be robber in which he blames society, and retorts, "You're a white suburban punk just like me." A superb punk soundtrack is the icing on the cake.
Dead Alive (1992) -- A truly unusual zombie film that combines a level of violence and gore so over-the-top as to become a live-action cartoon, and an incredibly sweet love story. In fact, I tell a lie by calling it a zombie movie. It's a love story in which the complications to the romance between mama's boy Lionel and über-cutie Paquita are the flesh-hungry zombies of Lionel's mother and her victims, rather than contrived situations and misunderstanding cleared up by an emotional denoument.
Say Anything... (1989). Cameron Crowe's directorial debut is a romance movie for people who despair at the idiot-plot claptrap that passes as modern romance movies. It's emotional, intelligent, and populated with sharply drawn and supebly acted characters, even in the minor roles. It's a film that dares treat recent high school graduates as real human beings, not a pack of cynical or sex-mad charicatures, and so utterly wins the viewer's fondness. With his Clash T-shirt and overcoat -- and studious courtesy, honesty, and passion -- John Cusak's Lloyd Dobler is a character I've aspired to emulate. Here's Roger Ebert's Great Movies review of this fine flick.
Raising Arizona (1987) Although I admire the Coen Brothers' work immensely, this early flick remains one of my favorites -- not the least because it's proven an indispensible sanity aid in adjusting to parenthood. Like Repo Man, it's quirky, funny, and relentlessly quotable. Speaking of which, it's rare that I dsagree with Roger Ebert, but I think he misses the point in his review: One of the things that makes Raising Arizona absolutely brilliant is that Nicholas Cage's character H.I. is indeed improbably eloquent in the voice-over -- but he's laconic almost to the point of parody in his speech. Minus the voice-over, H.I. would seem like a parody of an ignorant hick, like several other characters in the film. But listening in to his thoughts, the viewer realizes that this quiet-spoken man is intelligent and imaginative.
Strictly Ballroom (1992) I was tempted to list the insanely kaleidoscopic Moulin Rouge, but I've found myself turning more and more to Baz Luhrman's directorial debut. This modest but charming picture celebrates the joy and freedom of dance, thanks in no small part to the remarkable casting of two talented dancers who also prove highly competent actors. Among the many interesting aspects of this film is its almost offhand transformation of the ugly-duckling female lead into a total babe as a sidenote to her dance rehearsals with the leading man in the film's first act. And if you enjoy this film, don't miss a different take on the same theme in the superb 1996 Japanese flick Shall We Dance?.
This is Spinal Tap (1984) One of the progenitors of the "mockumentary," This Is Spinal Tap a sharply witty satire that nevertheless retains genuine affection for the subject of its mockery. It manages to goof on just about every half-baked musical trend from 1965 to 1982. (Watch for the moment when guitarist Nigel Huffnel plays his guitar with a violin -- not the bow, the violin itself!) And, of course, it's quotable as hell ("There's a fine line between stipid and clever," "these go to 11," "You can't exactly dust for vomit"). Back in the day, I listend to the soundtrack album more than nay other heavy metal save Led Zeppelin. Plus, Fred Willard's in it!
Hard Boiled (1992) As with the work of superb anime director Miyazaki, you could pretty much insert one of several of Woo's Hong Kong films -- A Better Tomorrow, its sequel, The Killer, Bullet in the Head, Once A Thief -- here. But Hard Boiled -- aka Hot-Handed God of Cops -- was Woo's Hong Kong swan song, and what a way to go. The film combines superb performances by Chow Yun-Fat, Tony Leung, Teresa Mo, Philip Chan, Philip Kwok (one of the Five Deadly Venoms!) and Anthony Wong with a trio of absolutely stunning set pieces that mark each of the film's three acts.
Pulp Fiction (1994) A film that wouldn't exist if not for the work of John Woo, Quentin Tarantino's pop culutre masterpiece gets the nod over the equally superb Reservior Dogs because the latter features Michael Madsen dancing, while John Travolta and Uma Thurman do the "Batusi" in the former. No contest.
Toy Story 2 (1999) A rare example of a sequel that surpasses the original, Toy Story 2 takes the original's theme of what it means to be a toy and turns it on its head, this time with Woody's crisis upon discovering he's a rare collectible. Plus a song by Riders in the Sky!
Spider-Man (2002) Sam Raimi gets it very nearly perfect in a pleasing entry among a recent series of high-quality films based on comic book heroes. Upon further watching and reflection, the film's climax -- with its imperfect parallel of a very important chapter in Spidey's life -- fails to please. While there's no way audiences would have tolerated the film reflecting the fate of Gwen Stacy, invoking that memory, and yet failing to come through, leaves a sour aftertaste. (Hey, the comic-book Goblin did zap the Roosevelt Island ferry; Raimi could have just stuck with that.) Still, the film's first two acts are, to coin a phrase, amazing, and it's sufficiently true to the beloved character -- at least Peter Parker does not end up with the girl at the end -- that it remains a favorite despite my growing dissatisfaction with the ending.
Aliens (1986) James Cameron pulls off the impressive stunt of making a sequel to a movie whose ending seems to preclude a sequel. Even better, he quite clearly sets his film in the same universe (the production design is marvelous) as the first, with all the appropriate parallels, yet proceeds to make an entirely differnet movie. Where the original Alien is essentially a haunted house picture set in outer space -- they're Trapped With Something Nasty and The Can't Get Out -- Cameron basically does a war picture with the savagely hostile Aliens standing in for Nazis or whatever. Another nice touch is the development of Ripley's character -- having survived her initial ordeal, she's understandably reluctant to go back, but her relationship with the young Newt (although she shows concern for the Marines, she refuses to risk her own neck for them at first -- a nice touch!) motivates her to confront the Aliens and even their fiendish Queen. And Paul Reiser plays the bad guy!
Bull Durham (1988) If you believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days, you gotta love this movie.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) An absolutely stunning and lavish wu xia pian that distills the essence of kung fu flicks for Western audiences while remaining true to its roots. It features superb performances by Chow Yun-Fat, Michelle Yeoh, Zhang Ziyi and Chen Chang, along with The Matrix, showcased the incredible action choreography of Hong Kong master Yuen Woo Ping. Everything works perfectly in this flick, from the acting to the practically non-stop action to the gorgeous scenery and cinematography to the excellent score featuring cellist Yo-Yo Ma.
Heathers (1989) Wickedly funny, and sporting the dubious honor of Christian Slater's most overt Jack Nicholson impression.
The Princess Bride (1987) Let's see: Romantic, swashbuckling, satirical, quotable. I'm sensing a pattern here...
The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Undoubtedly my favorite of the post-1977 Star Wars movie, and a darn fine film in its own right. What's struck me as particularly impressive about Empire is the superb manner in which it holds up despite its unenviable position as the third chapter in a trilogy. The sophomore entry in the Indiana Jones films is widely considered the weakest of the lot, and although I adore its opening sequence, the rest of the flick fails to live up to its promise. The Matrix, like Star Wars before it, holds up admirably as a self-contained unit -- which is why it gets the nod for this list -- but the second chapter of makes no pretense of not being two-of-three, even ending with "to be continued." And the best thing that can be said about the well-meaning but mediocre Jaws 2 is that the rest of the movies were so much worse that it looks fairly decent in comparison. Trilogy-itis is also why I'm not including any of the Lord of the Rings films; while I found them both entertaining so far, I have to withhold judgement until I can evaluate the series as a whole.
Looking over the list, I'm surprised how many comedies and romances get the nod. I also wonder what would happen if I did two lists for Asian and Western films, but that's a project for another time.
Honorable mention: Galaxy Quest, Amadeus, Dark City, Shaolin Soccer, Unforgiven, Project A-ko, The Silence of the Lambs, The Big Chill, Groundhog Day.
The Economist weight in with a disturbing analysys if the trends in Bush's deficit-ridden economic plan: Front-loaded with enough goodies to ensure re-election, and stuffed with economic poison in the long term that Bush won't have to deal with.
The combination of a sharp economic slowdown, tax cuts and higher spending has transformed America's budget. When Mr Bush ran for office, the fiscal surplus was 2.4% of GDP, one of the highest among big rich countries. By fiscal 2003, the budget deficit had reached 3.5% of GDP. Next year, by official forecasts, it is expected to reach 4.3%
According to the Bush folk, this shift is unfortunate but hardly worrying. America, they claim, was hit by an unprecedented combination of economic slowdown, terrorist attacks and stockmarket collapse. But now, boosted by tax cuts,buoyant growth coupled with disciplined spending will soon stem the red ink.
Not everyone shares this nonchalance. A poll by ABC News and the Washington Post, published on November 2nd, showed that 53% of respondents disapproved of Mr Bush's tax policy. The large cast of Democratic presidential hopefuls claim Mr Bush's tax cuts have been a giveaway to the rich, wrecking the economy and mortgaging the future for America's children.
More sober analysts are also worried. In their most recent poll, members of the National Association of Business Economists described the federal deficit as the biggest problem facing America's economy. A bipartisan coalition of three economic think-tanks—the Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition and the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities—recently declared that, without a change in course, the next decade might be the “most fiscally irresponsible” in the country's history.
...America's budget outlook is far worse than the official forecasts suggest. Among Washington's independent budget experts, the consensus is that the official figures understate the cumulative deficit by about $5 trillion. Rather than a budget that returns to surplus by 2012, America is more likely to see deficits that average 3% of GDP over the next decade.
All these projections assume a healthy average rate of real GDP growth, at 3% a year. Faster growth would improve the outlook, but would not eliminate the spectre of deficits. Contrary to the Bush team's rhetoric, America does not have a small, temporary fiscal problem. It has a large and growing one.
The economic consequences are indisputably negative. Big budget deficits reduce America's already abysmally low saving rate. As the economy's slack is worked off, Uncle Sam's demand for dollars is likely to crowd out private investment and reduce long-term economic growth. Even if the global capital market helps out, America is already enormously reliant on foreigners to fund its spending: the current-account deficit, the measure of annual borrowing from foreigners, is at an historic high of 5.1% of GDP. Big budget deficits will aggravate these external imbalances and so raise the risk of financial volatility, even a dollar crisis. Over the next few years, that is perhaps the biggest risk that Mr Bush's fiscal policies pose for the world economy.
Grim as it is, the medium term appears rosy compared with America's long-term fiscal outlook. The retirement of the baby-boomers, increasing life expectancy and inexorably rising medical costs mean that the cost of funding America's commitment to its old people will soar over the next few decades.
The numbers are mindboggling. According to Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters, in a study for the American Enterprise Institute, the gap between America's future tax revenues and future spending commitments for Social Security and Medicare is $44 trillion, or four times America's GDP. Put another way, government spending on entitlements is set to soar from around 7% of GDP today to 11% in 2020 and 15% in 2040.
...This time the turnaround will be much tougher. There will be no “peace dividend” from the end of the cold war (indeed, the pressure on military spending may continue to increase). America is unlikely to see another stockmarket bubble, with its surge in tax revenues. As baby-boomers retire, the pressure from entitlement spending will be more acute. Set against this background, the path back to a sustainable fiscal policy will be extremely painful, even without any dramatic fiscal crisis. Long after Dubya is back on his ranch, Americans will be trying to recover from the mess he created.
For me, the calculus seems obvious. Yes, economic disaster is the inevitable result of Bush's insane economic plan. But who benefits from said disaster? Either Bush defers paying for his war and other priorities for a later Administration -- a cowardly, not to mention dishonest, maneuver -- or the collapse of government finances fulfills the not-so-secret ambitions of the Grover Norquist crowd -- an agenda not supported by the American people, except in vague "taxes are bad" sloganeering. In other words, what's disturbing about Bush's economic policy is that the problems they cause seem calculated to further the agenda of him and his supporters, not the interests of the American people. Therefore, once again, Bush has no choice to bedishonest about the true costs and benefits of his wacky economic policies, as he knows that the American people don't want what he's really selling.
In the last four school years, the Houston district's own police, who patrol its 80 middle and high schools, have entered 3,091 assaults into a database that is shared with the Houston city police but not with the Texas Education Agency in Austin.
In the same period, the Houston district itself has listed just 761 schoolhouse assaults on its annual disciplinary summaries sent to Austin. That means that the school authorities either have not reported or have reclassified 2,330 incidents described as assaults by the district's police.
The district maintains that its reporting has been entirely proper. Those who disagree point to damage they say can be inflicted on the careers of principals who accurately report a high incidence of disciplinary problems, and to the financing sacrificed by schools that lose student population to expulsion.
School violence reports have taken on new importance since President Bush made a national goal of holding schools accountable for test scores and campus crime. At his insistence, a new federal law requires states to use violence data to identify "persistently dangerous" schools, and Education Secretary Rod Paige, former schools superintendent here, is in charge of enforcing that law.
Experts say that Houston is not the only city underreporting its school crime problems. Earlier this year, school-based police officers rocked the Roanoke, Va., system in accusing principals and district officials of hiding incidents of school crime. In Gwinnett County, Ga., an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that thousands of fights and drug, sex and weapons violations had been left out of school crime reports.
Houston, however, has been held up as a pillar of the so-called Texas miracle in education, though it was battered earlier this year by disclosure of false school statistics: a state audit found that the authorities had failed to report properly thousands of school dropouts, giving the district an impressive-looking but fake dropout rate of just 1.5 percent.
Dr. Michael J. Witkowski, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Detroit Mercy, has studied Houston's school violence and crime reporting system and was a witness last year for two parents who filed suit over the fatal stabbing of their child at Deady Middle School here.
"They're cooking the books," Dr. Witkowski said of school officials. "There are dozens of crimes in Houston schools that you will not see on any official document. Teachers are assaulted, students are beaten up, and these things do not make it into the reports."
By all means, read the whole thing.
Once again, there you have it: Officials announce policy successes as inconvenient facts vanish down the memory hole. That isn't "honor and integrity in government;" it's fraud. And these people are now in charge in the White House. 'Nuff said.
For some reason, over the weekend I dug out my copy of the excellent computer game Fallout and started replaying it. It's an excellent role-playing game. Characters are highly customizable, and the player's choices have a genuine effect on the resulting game. The interface, commerce and combat systems are intuitive and function with an easy point-and-click interface.
Best of all, Fallout presents a vivid and highly detailed post-nuclear world to explore. The "retro future" images have an air of failed optimism that lends the entire game a tinge of sadness. The player is trying to find a proce
