Planet Utah

Republican debate

I was struck by a few things during the Republican debate.

First, by and large, Americans are probably too ill-informed to ask good questions of the candidates. I've thought this since 1992, which is the first time I remember the town hall-style forums occurring. Whenever I see these things, and the media-assembled focus group discussions afterwards, I think, "Wow, these people aren't very sophisticated." That's okay...I'm not suggesting they should be denied the franchise or anything. I am suggesting, however, that building a whole debate around their questions is a mistake.

Second, I think Rudy's speech impediment might get a little annoying after a term or two. I know that's not a charitable thing to say, but it's true.

Third, McCain made a damn good point: he was right about the surge, and he was right at a time when his position was extremely unpopular. That's the kind of thing I look for when I'm shopping for a president (also, good hair).

Fourth, who decides who gets to participate in these debates? I mean, I've got a better chance of hooking up with Paz Vega  than Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter have of being president (or hooking up with Paz Vega). Same thing goes on the Democratic side; I don't think I would know Mike Gravel if he kicked me in the liver with a ski boot. I'd say his odds of being president are slightly less than this guy's.

Fifth, Republicans have a very strong field of candidates, but I think Rudy would probably be the most effective president. So there. (I should note, however, that we haven't elected a bald president since Eisenhower.)

Your body WAS a wonderland

Seen these pictures?

News story or op-ed piece: you decide!

Here's an excerpt from an AP story--a plain old news story, not one of those bogus "news analysis" things--on Mike Huckabee:

The Republican presidential candidate has plenty to champion from his 10 1/2 years as governor -- including school improvements and health insurance for the children of the working poor. But his record has rough edges, and Huckabee has a habit of playing fast and loose with it.

Since when is a reporter permitted to write something like, "...(he) has a habit of playing fast and loose with it"?

Rudy Giuliani can't shut up

I watched a Giuliani speech on C-Span tonight, followed by a Q&A session. Initially, I was quite impressed. He spoke without notes for 25 or 30 minutes, clearly, cogently, articulately, and in a manner that seemed fresh. That's no easy trick when you've given the same basic speech a billion times.

It was a confident, convincing, natural performance.

Then came the questions. Giuliani spent between five and fifteen minutes answering each one. In other words, he gave a mini-speech in response to each question. Basically, he couldn't shut up...not in an endearing, "I-love-talking-about-this-stuff" way, but in a way that suggested--both in the length of his responses and in the content--that he needs you to know that he's the smartest guy in the room, that there is no facet of your question that he has not thought about before, that he has not just thought about your question but actually worked on it in his professional life, that his experience in working on it was one of unprecedented success, that any suggestion that he might be lying or mistaken or that another approach might work just as well is ridiculous, and that, in the end, if he talks long enough and in enough detail about his essential Rudy-ness, you will marvel at his intellect, his confidence, his competence, and his courage, and you will smile at the genius of a Creator who blessed us with this man, Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, at this critical time in the history of the greatest country that is, the greatest country that ever was.

P.S. If Rudy gets the Republican nomination and Joe Biden gets the Democratic nomination...can you imagine the sheer volume of narcissistic blather?

"The Mist"

I'm perplexed by the generally positive reviews for this movie. It may be that most horror films are so rotten, so dominated by gore and the conventions that were lampooned in "Scream," that when something a bit different comes along people will heap praise on it.

There is something different about this movie, but it's not the threat. In fact, the threat is pretty conventional -- man-eating monsters from another world that arrive in town under cover of a creepy mist. Here's what is different: the human stories and interactions spawned by the threat. They are much more complicated than in your standard horror film, and much, much, MUCH stupider. Characters actually debate human nature as they size up their prospects for survival. (Does that sort of thing ever happen outside of movies?). One character thinks the whole thing about man-eating monsters is just a put-on to make him look foolish, and therefore refuses to consider the evidence (pools of blood, a severed tentacle, a missing stock boy, eyewitness accounts). Other characters revert to a "Lord of the Flies"-style state of nature, engaging in ruthless acts of violence -- not to survive, but just to satisfy their newly-discovered blood lust. (They go from civilized to savage in the span of about 36 hours.)

And so on.

You may have heard about the ending, and about how shocking it is. It's far too stupid to be shocking. It's entirely consistent with the examples I've given above, that is, it's based on an absurd caricature of human nature.

There are, however, three good reasons to see this movie: 1) Thomas Jane, who deserves to be a bigger star than he is; 2) Toby Jones, who is great in everything; and 3) Laurie Holden, who is unconventionally gorgeous.

When did "Man vs. Wild" become "Fear Factor"?

I used to really enjoy "Man vs. Wild," even with the scandals (e.g., Bear Grylls spending the night in hotels, the camera crew staging certain situations, etc.) But in the second half of last season, and then again in the beginning of the new season, it seems to be less about survival and more about watching Bear do, and eat, disgusting things. He jumps into a stinky peat bog (ostensibly to show you how to get out of one if you fall in, but really just to make you say "ewwwww...") He squeezes fluid out of elephant dung and into his mouth. He drinks his own pee. He crawls inside a camel carcass. Etc.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm beginning to prefer "Survivor Man..."

Can't wait

I'm a little behind on my newspaper reading, so it was only today that I learned the Supreme Court was going to take a critical 2nd amendment case. We should have a decision by next June. I fully expect the "individual rights" interpretation to prevail.

So naive...

Do you remember a few weeks back when James Watson said that Africans, on average, were less intelligent than non-Africans? He got in a lot of trouble for that, and ultimately ended up retiring because of the controversy. (Not that he needed a reason to retire -- he was almost 80.)

Well, here's a guy who says Watson was right. He's not a crank, either. He's a professional journalist who obviously doesn't fear for his job or reputation, even though he's saying essentially the same things that got Watson condemned by his fellow scientists in scathing terms ("racist, vicious..."). In other words, he's a guy who believes that the evidence for what Watson said is undeniable.

Apparently there are still some things you just can't talk about in polite society, even among people who have dedicated themselves (ostensibly) to "science." Larry Summers got chased out of Harvard for the same sort of thing. And I've got first-hand experience with it as well: "Screw your data...this is much more important than whatever your data might show."

On the one hand, this is extremely disappointing to me. On the other, I guess it's naive to think that the world might work otherwise. It reminds me a bit of an exchange I had with a good friend -- super smart, Harvard-educated lawyer, Democrat, liberal. I had been reading a bunch of stuff about the Supreme Court. Something finally dawned on me, "You know," I said to my friend, "it seems like these guys are basically politicians. They're just politicians who dress up their own preferences in the language of the law." My friend said, "And you were expecting...?"

My kind of story

Did you see this story in the Republic? It's about troupes of bullfighting dwarfs in Mexico. I love this quote, from one of Original Bullfighting Dwarfs (that's really their name): "You can't deny the attraction of a dwarf fighting bulls."

No, you can't.

I like this, too (not a quote, but just a line from the article): "Although some activists worry that (the troupes) propagate stereotypes..."

Uh, what stereotypes are we talking about, exactly? That old chestnut about how dwarfs are always getting into fights with farm animals? Or the one about how bulls have it in for dwarfs?

Maddening

The Republic has an A1 story today with this headline: "Ordinary life is returning to Iraqi capital." Here's how the story begins: "Since the last soldiers of the 'surge' deployed in May, Baghdad has undergone a remarkable transformation."

You get the idea: more troops = more security.

Why is it that our former Secretary of Defense was the last guy in the country to figure this out?