What's Wiki-able?

From time to time I like to keep tabs on how users of the Internet (especially those in positions of power in the non-virtual world) interact with and manage content on Wikipedia. Obviously a popular site relied upon by many for public knowledge is intriguing enough, lest we forget that anyone with web access can edit it as they see fit.

I noticed today that someone by the alias 'Aurorapio' had gone through and done a substantial amount of editing on the Wikipedia entry for the city of Aurora, Colorado. They were good edits that provided a wider understanding of the city, its neighborhoods, its history and much more. [EDIT: I had a nice chat with Julie Patterson at the city, who confirmed she spent the time adding to the city's page. I'll tell you what I told her: Having a photo of Buckley AFB is probably a better representation of Aurora than the decades-old photo of Fitzsimons that previously inhabited that space.]

It was some good housekeeping on what is usually one of the top three search-engine results that pop up when people search for information on Aurora. In fact, it's good to think someone on the municipal payroll thinks about the city's online presence beyond the official website. Visitors of the Wiki page will be better off for those edits.

But then there's the other side of that coin: What's fair game regarding less-than-flattering information on Wikipedia?

Take, for example, former state Rep. Michael Garcia, who served Colorado's 42nd House district from 2001 to 2008. His Wikipedia page includes plenty of biographical information about his education and public service, including measures he sponsored and supported during various legislative sessions.

Former Rep. Garcia is also notable for why he left office: Garcia resigned in 2008 following accusations made by a female lobbyist that Garcia had exposed himself to her at a Denver bar. Garcia disputed the media reports at the time but did not deny that the incident happened (in a press release (PDF), Garcia stated "the other party and I engaged in consensual conduct that was inappropriate given my position in the legislature").

So the question is: Is it pertinent for the online encyclopedia to contain information about Garcia's exit from the legislature? For the time being, Garcia is a private citizen; whether he decides to return to a public profile on scale with what he once had remains to be seen.

According to Wikipedia user 'Repgarica,' the answer is no.

In June 2009 and December 2009, user 'Repgarcia' took great care to edit or delete references to the scandal and Garcia's subsequent resignation.

Lots of people (especially elected officials) are haunted for years by tales of misdeeds, alleged or assured. That's not necessarily the main issue here. The bigger issue at hand is our general reliance on information like that found on Wikipedia. We can have extremely detailed examinations of the lives of public figures (take the gargantuan Wiki page for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for example) alongside pages for people like Garcia, which you could argue contain a few sins of omission.

In the end, there is still need for independent voices that check facts and vet sources before publishing. Wikipedia would not exist without them (the online encyclopedia's own guidelines state various standards must be met for a citation to be considered reliable).

Read more...

You say you want a revolution...

The Tea Party movement is good for America and democracy worldwide.

I think that statement probably comes as a bit of a shock to some of my acquaintances, but I’d like to think people who have a rudimentary understanding of how my mind works would read this, think for two seconds and slowly begin nodding their heads as they piece together the reasoning.

For those of you not as in tune with my intellectual wrangling, let me explain:

For starters, let’s make a clear distinction between the Tea Party movement as a whole and various sub-sects (such as Glenn Beck’s 9.12 Project, which I’ve previously lambasted for co-opting the harrowing imagery of the Sept. 11 terror attacks). Every political cause will have its extremists, demagogues and “bomb-throwers.” For every Tax Day protesters waving an illustration of Barack Obama as a Nazi, there’s undoubtedly someone on the far left who thinks every single last Republican in Congress is a closet member of the Ku Klux Klan.

And I hold out no hope that I’ll ever find a political candidate or group with whom I agree 100 percent; suffice it to say, this is no endorsement of the specific tenets of the Tea Party movement’s platform.

What I wholeheartedly endorse is the sense of personal empowerment that these people have found and how the vast majority of them are operating within the proper channels to bring about real change.

Case in point: Joseph Andrew Stack flew a plane into a building, in part an act of protest. He took the life of an innocent person in the process. That is unjustifiable.

I’ve read his “suicide note.” Within his writing, you hear many of the same frustrations concerning the U.S. government and its tax code from myriad members of groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement. As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather not see taxpayer-owned federal buildings go up in a jet-fueled blaze. I’m for peace. I’m for life. As far as I’m concerned, Stack’s actions do constitute a terrorist attack. Stack is no hero for destroying property and taking lives (including his own) toward an ideological end.

I think I already met my quota of “nice things to say about right-wing politics” this year with the first sentence of this post, but I’ll go ahead and get next year’s out of the way with something Sean Hannity would certainly agree with: The United States of America is the greatest experiment in democracy our modern world has seen.

As untenable as reform may be in Washington, D.C., the power of the individual is often forgotten when incumbents, parties, corporations and other interests seem to dictate so much of how our government and our lives are run. We’re a nation where Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, for better or worse, can be considered political heavyweights. We’re a nation where Ned Lamont can wreak as much havoc as he can in the political establishment on behalf of the progressive voices of Connecticut. Even you – yes, YOU – can make your case for why you’re the best person for whatever elected office you feel best-suited for (barring residency and age restrictions; no rain checks).

You get the picture.

If you pay any attention to politics or law in this country, you should be angry or frustrated – and that applies to people of every political persuasion. Where you go with those feelings and beliefs is what separates the true agents of change and the terrorists.

So let’s hear what you have to say, whatever it is. I’ll gladly take another Glenn Beck type on TV than another Timothy McVeigh at a Ryder truck rental.

Let’s flood the marketplace of ideas and let the people decide with their ballots, their petitions and, yes, even their pocketbooks. Is there anything more democratic than that?

It may be far too idealistic to be realistic, but as so many of these grassroots movements have proven, doing and saying nothing on your behalf does nothing to achieve your goals – and as far as I’m concerned, I don’t want the Joe Stacks of the world speaking on my behalf.

Read more...

Reality and revelry

Late last week I decided that I would finally start catching up on the year in film 2009. I didn't actually see a single film in a theater the entire year, and I'm not proud of that fact — not one bit.
However, I do take heart in the fact that I managed to see two great films in the comfort of my home via Redbox at a cost of $2 and change. (On a side note, I have little sympathy for the closing Blockbuster brick-and-mortar locations; in the few times I was a patron, the most-popular titles were always sold out, and the harder-to-find titles were very rarely found.)
I started with "The Hurt Locker." In retrospect, this probably should have come later in my schedule of screenings. I'm pretty sure the bar has been set tremendously high for all films that follow.
What struck me the most about "The Hurt Locker" was the complete and utter lack of pretense. While there is manufactured drama and other thematics in any work of fiction, the dialogue and its delivery reminds us that this story comes from a very real place. There are a number of good documentaries on the Iraq war (including Michael Tucker's excellent "Gunner Palace"), and this film — more so than any other fictionalized accounting of the soldier's mission in Iraq — reminds me of them in the sense that the quiet scenes and booming action sequences alike draw me into the moment and never feel like I'm witnessing the product of a scripted, financed Hollywood spectacle.
Too many modern films about the military are too quick to concoct an emotional breakdown to serve the purpose of humanizing the trained killers we see on screen (Count the 2005 Sam Mendes film "Jarhead" among them, despite the absolute brilliance and reality in Swofford's published memoir). In nearly any other film, Staff Sgt. James' showering with his armor on would seem contrived or cliché. For such a powerful character to react in such a way — the only other time he unravels to such a level is his off-base excursion to find those responsible for the DVD-hocking "base rat" Beckham — is incredibly telling. We know that no person's resolve can be so steely that it never breaks; we know James is troubled on some levels. We know it will be shown in some way — but the way it comes across to the audience is not so much subtle and nuanced as it is logical, reasoned and seemingly real.
But as the opening quote and closing scene remind us, the conflict between the quiet intensity of defusing bombs and the violent outbursts both within and beyond the characters' minds and mouths is not the issue here. "War is a drug," as journalist Chris Hedges put it. James isn't so much surviving each day in Bravo Company to return home to his family; he knows that "one thing" that he loves.
As the greatest film critic of our times, Roger Ebert, pointed out: This film is not about action; it is about suspense. I'm hard-pressed to think of another film focusing on the military that includes so much suspense. The levels to which it rises in "The Hurt Locker" are top-notch. Think Gene Hackman's best works ("The Conversation," "The French Connection"). Think Alfred Hitchcock.
I'm not sure if "The Hurt Locker" is the best film of 2009; I'm not in a position of authority on the matter having seen only two films released since January 2009. But the part of my life that's been spent enjoying cinema is better for this film.
On a much lighter note, I followed the critically acclaimed "Hurt Locker" with a film that engendered equal amounts of praise for vastly different reasons: "The Hangover."
I've always found it very difficult to put good comedy into words. Good comedy is far too nuanced to try and explain with an alphabet. It's the indescribable look on John Belushi's face as he tries to smooth things over with the vengeful Carrie Fisher while on his knees in the last hour of "Blues Brothers." It's the wheelchair-bound Dr. Strangelove grappling with his diagnostic apraxia, trying to maintain some decorum while his uncontrollable hand tries to salute the Führer.
"The Hangover" isn't as good as those classic comedic moments, but it executes so many jokes so well, it gets a tip of my hat, even as I admonish myself for a guffaw over a poor, innocent baby being it by the door of a police car.
Both of these films have flaws, to be sure. "The Hurt Locker" could have done without the slow-motion shot (I tried to understand what purpose it served; I still haven't found it). The superfluous pop music throughout "The Hangover" will certainly be very dated in four years' time (Look back to Todd Phillips' "Old School" for a better score and use of a soundtrack — "Master of Puppets" and "Dust in the Wind" are now forever linked, in my mind, to that film instead of the respective albums they appear on).
I know I've seen better films in the last decade, and I've been privy to a decent amount of press screenings in my time, but I'm pretty sure the $2 I spent to rent these films on DVD gave me the best entertainment value I can remember in quite some time.

Read more...

Power to the petition

There must be something wrong when a United States Senator, who has the power to vote on a piece of legislation to address an issue, turns to the Internet and asks constituents to sign an online petition urging action on the very issue at hand in the legislation.

Thanks, Mark Udall.

Read more...

Damn Yankees

I really tried to not hate the Yankees this year.
That task seems to run counter to the inclinations of most American sports fans born and raised outside the Empire State... but I truly gave it my best effort.
Somewhere around the top of the eighth inning, as Mariano Rivera trotted out to the mound and there was absolutely no question that New York would secure its 27th championship, something happened.
I wouldn't call it anger or rage; I've seen enough of that from other sports fans (and heck, even just people who instinctively know they're *supposed* to hate the Yankees).
I went as far as to call out my fellow fans for laying on the hate a little too thick on the Bronx Bombers; I somehow rationalized that being a Yankees fan could be a contrarian's delight, almost punk in a way.
No, when my better beliefs kicked back in, I didn't hate the Yankees again out of anger — the sight of the 2009 New York Yankees winning it all brought with me a profound sense of sadness.
Despite despising anything in pinstripes for much of my sports-conscious existence (and before you ask, the only thing in baseball I hate more than the Yankees are the Red Sox), it still seems so wrong that the old Yankees Stadium is not the home of the New York Yankees. To me, the old Monument Park seemed like the most hallowed ground in the holiest site in all of sport; I can't imagine how much reverence the true Yankee diehards have for it.
They're demolishing The House That Ruth Built; it seems so wrong, but the prospect sits a little easier in the hearts and minds of those who care now that the highest-paid team in all of professional sport has christened its inaugural season in the new stadium with a championship.
I'd be a little less bitter if they had to wait for it; to work and play in a place with no history for another season or two before they inevitably got the formula perfect and conquered the Fall Classic.
This was too perfect.
They already held onto the "core four" of Posada, Pettite, Jeter and Rivera. The hip didn't hold A-Rod back. They added A.J. Burnett, C.C. Sabathia and Mark Teixeira to this stacked lineup.
Was this fate's way of making up the loss to Arizona back in 2001? The 37-year-old Pettitte getting the victory in the new stadium as Rivera closes out yet another big game?
The only way it could have been better would be the presence of one George Steinbrenner; at least then we would not be subject to player after player after player repeating the talking point: "We won this for the boss."
As Ozzie Guillen would say, "Pssh, please."
Every last person in the Yankee organization who wears a jersey to work can rest a little easier this offseason knowing they can point to this championship as proof (legitimate or not) they earned their paychecks.
Maybe they're a little afraid that the big paychecks will stop once "the boss" is out of the picture, but for now there's no indication that Steinbrenner the Younger will deviate at all from the style and method of ownership set forward by Steinbrenner the Elder.
No.... A-Rod, Jeter and the other veterans who have been on the roster for a few years have to be happy they finally went out and secured a title despite having the best team on paper for the better part of a decade.
And let me be clear: This has nothing to do with Yankee fans. Many others will deride the New York fan (be they Yankees, Mets, Ranger, Giants, Jets, Knicks or otherwise), but they're OK in my book. At the very least, the New York fan is the most entertaining of all. At least they're not Sox fans (Can you honestly say you hate the "Evil Empire" more than the myriad idiots who lay claim to citizenship in "Red Sox Nation" these days now that the "lovable losers" have two World Series titles in the past five years?).
No, my beef is with the sense of history lost in all of this and how easy it will be for so many to forget the way things were. And until the game institutes a salary cap, nothing will stop the insane spending that allows this all-too-perfect scenario from happening. The Yankees don't need anymore storybook endings; 26 world championship trophies in the bag is plenty. I know 27 was inevitable, but damn it, I wanted them to have to wait for it and remember they were playing in a place with no soul and no history for a year or two before they started chanting Sinatra in the streets while drunk on victory.
The only solace I find now consists of the following:
• There's always next year.
• The best team on paper still can't guarantee a championship year in, year out.
• I can quickly put all thoughts of baseball away for the next three or four months and go back to hating the Raiders on a full-time basis.

UPDATE: One of my favorite sportswriters, Joe Posnanski, says there's no way to define what happened other than "it was just their year."

UPDATE #2: Notice how I didn't pick on Joe Girardi. That's because he's a good guy.

Read more...

The phrase of the day

It's "empty suit."
A colleague of mine used it before I could get around to spitting it out today.
I think it's a very underrated phrase, although it can be overused.

Read more...

Fighting Over Peace

At this point, I think most people have developed an opinion on the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Barack Obama. I've got my own, but I don't think that's what important to mention.
Whether he deserved the award or not (as many have argued), that's inconsequential.
What does matter is how individuals have used their power within the media or their own political circles to bash the president for this turn of events.
Now, if it turns out President Obama lobbied as hard for this award as he did for Chicago to host the 2016 Summer Olympics, there'd be plenty of criticism to levy at his feet. But that has yet to be proven, nor is there any indication as to whether there's an ounce of truth to that suggestion.
I'm much more concerned about the bashing of Obama because a committee of foreign interests deciding that he should receive this honor. Let's turn the focus to the Nobel committee if we must, but even then it's widely known that they have made some dubious choices for their peace laureates over the years.
I'm all for debating the job Obama has done as President thus far, but it seems a bit ridiculous to use "He doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize" as an indictment of his work overall; only two other sitting U.S. presidents (Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and only one other person to serve as President (Jimmy Carter) has received the honor outside of his time in office.
And since you've stayed with me to this point, I'll let you know how I feel: Obama is making the right decision to donate the prize money to charity. It might have been an even better decision to decline the honor outright, as there are MANY deserving people in the world (like Hu Jia).

Read more...

The Immaculate Deflection: Tecmo Style

Read more...

Dear Mark Whicker:

What in God's name were you thinking?

So how do you follow that up?

A. Release an "apology" in which you express regret for the people who got offended without doing the two things you should have done, which are (1) say you were wrong and (2) say you are sorry.

B. Have your employers also accept culpability for your idiocy.

C. Make flippant remarks while being interviewed about your idiocy.

D. Continue to be employed as a professional writer.

E. All of the above.

(By the way, a busy Labor Day schedule at a newspaper is why you see dangling participles and misspelled words in your print edition; that's no excuse for running a horrific piece of words jumbled together that makes light of quite possibly the worst thing short of death I can think of happening to a young woman like Jaycee Dugard.)

Read more...

"The Immaculate Deflection"

Read more...

Beck to the future

If you watched or read enough news today to be properly informed on the happenings of the day, you likely saw coverage of the conservative and libertarian tea parties in the nation's capital and other cities across the country.
Today happens to be Sept. 12, the namesake of the 9-12 Project -- an effort fronted by Fox News commentator Glenn Beck -- whose members range from the basic anti-Obama crowd to the populist "vote out the incumbents" movement that is ready for 100-percent turnover in Congress based on issues such as the stimulus bills, the auto bailouts, et al.

But at the heart of the project are the nine principles and 12 values used as a framework for moving forward. The values? Honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility and friendship (Note that civility is not one of them; I'm looking at you, Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina).
You can read the entire manifesto on the project's web site. My issue isn't with what they're putting in words for the public; I have an issue with the invisible subtext they're playing with here.
Take this passage, for example:

"The 9-12 Project is designed to bring us all back to the place we were on Sept. 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the values and principles of the greatest nation ever created."

That sounds nice on the surface, but think about it. First of all, I still don't understand why anyone needs to invoke the Sept. 11 attacks for any political purpose. It's important to remember what happened to our country on that day and how the United States changed as a result, but even issues such as counter-terrorism and national security can be debated without using the Sept. 11 terror attacks as a basis for any policy or platform. Eight years have passed, and while the lives of thousands of people have been changed because of the attacks, the reality of America's fight against terrorism and struggle to secure our borders, interests and livelihoods have changed. Rudy Giuliani was exposed as a presidential candidate (beyond his failure to campaign in the early caucus and primary states) thanks in part to Joe Biden's "noun, verb and 9/11" jab, calling out a politician's reliance on appealing to our fears and the nationalist, xenophobic leanings of many to gain favor. Again, we will always remember; for that reason, let's leave Sept. 11 out of the debates, as it serves no purpose.
Furthermore, I'm not sure who is still "obsessed with Red States (and) Blue States." Did they not pay attention to Barack Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention? He ascended to national prominence (and eventually the White House) based on the resonance his message had with Americans sick of partisan divisions. And if anything, the actions of 9-12 Project members and their affiliated causes have escalated tensions regarding politics in America. Do you remember anyone bringing weapons to President Bush's rallies? (And don't tell me these people are doing so just because it's within their rights... these people may not be wannabe assassins, but they most certainly are provocateurs. Sound like anyone you know, Glenn Beck?)
Which brings me to my biggest concern: The real feelings being stirred by conjuring images of Sept. 12 (and Sept. 11, considering Sept. 12 is bereft of meaning without it). People were scared on Sept. 12. They were angry. They were in the early stages of shock that eventually allowed the Bush administration launch a war in Iraq that never should have occurred. It's that brand of fear, angst and blind loyalty that gave George W. Bush a second term (well, that and a tremendously weak campaign by John Kerry) and put America in position to overspend on fighting an unnecessary war while maxing out its credit, pushing the housing bubble into a position to burst and starting the downward spiral that led to the worst economic strain since the Great Depression.

Is that what we should be doing? Inciting those kinds of emotions is not the way to cultivate civil discourse over the future of our democratic republic. We are so close to moving past the idea that the loudest, angriest voices are correct without giving thought to the substance of what is being said. I can also guarantee that any use of the iconography of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in comparison to any politician's ideas immediately disqualifies you from being taken seriously in my eyes.
Bill Maher says we're a stupid nation. I disagree; we've just become accustomed to accepting the worst in others as the status quo. I don't make a point of quoting President Obama, but at least on face value, we must "choose our better history."

Read more...

Beyond 140

Was it really all the way back in February that I wrote about becoming a twittering nabob of negativity? Well, almost 2,500 tweets later, I've realized that the blog is in need of a comeback, and here it is.
The design has drastically changed, and it likely will continue to do so until I'm satisfied with all the possibilities. Please to enjoy the new Digg widget and updated Twitter widget in the far-right column (I lovingly refer to it as "Glenn Becktria").
If there's anything you thing should be added to Sliced Bread (or if you want to tell me to shut the hell up about whatever I'm rambling on about), just e-mail or tweet me.

Read more...

From coast to coast

I discovered this video by way of Logan Adams' "Good To Be in N.D." blog.... Makes me want to take a road trip:

Read more...

Reminder: Scanlon to take Buckley command

Passing along this blurb from the folks at Buckley AFB here in Aurora:

The 566 Intelligence Squadron will be holding a Change of Command ceremony at the Learning Development Center, Bldg 1032, on Buckley Air Force Base 30 June at 1000.

Lt Col Jonathan Snowden will relinquish command after two years to Lt Col David Scanlon, currently the Chief of Special Technical Operations for US Pacific Command’s Standing Joint Force Headquarters, Camp Smith, Hawaii.

Lt Col Snowden is scheduled to report as Deputy Commander of the 692nd Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group, Hickam AFB, Hawaii.

Looks to me like a straight-up trade between Colorado and Hawaii. I tend to like the climate here in Aurora better, but their beaches might be a tad nicer.

Read more...

Critiquing Conan

In case you missed it, the "Tonight Show" torch has been passed from Jay Leno to Conan O'Brien, and while there will be plenty of episodes to follow for me to evaluate the status of NBC's top late-night offering, I'm compelled to break down the first offering from the comedy mind of Conan since his "Late Night" gig ended in February. WARNING: I will be using words such as "California-ish" and "Oprah-esque," and I'll also be referencing The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Hide your children and tread lightly. Here be dragons.



OPENING BIT: I'm very glad they started getting the "move to L.A." jokes out of the way early, although I enjoyed the running across America sketch (I'll watch just about anything set to "Surrender" by Cheap Trick). It made me realize that beyond the Rocky Mountains, there aren't many nationally recognized monuments or landmarks between the St. Louis Arch and the Welcome to Las Vegas sign (perhaps a dash across the Hoover Dam was in order).

TITLE & THEME: Great reworking of the old "Late Night" theme, set against some glitzy nighttime shots of a lit-up, neon Los Angeles. Having Andy Richter back as "the voice" of the show will take time getting used to -- I'm glad he's there, but I really think he ought to migrate into a true sidekick instead of the goofy announcer.

THE SET: Amazing color scheme going on with lots of blue and California-ish hues, some heavy art deco influence here and there. The band's podiums are the worst offenders, and I kinda like them, so they're doing a number of things right, in my mind.

THE MONOLOGUE: Conan busted out a quick string dance to appease the loyal fans from "Late Night." It'll be interesting to see if that continues. The best line was one of the first: "I think I timed this moment perfectly, if you think about it: I'm on a last-place network, I moved to a state that's bankrupt, and tonight's show is sponsored by General Motors." He poked fun at Vice President Joe Biden's propensity for inappropriate remarks, the status boost of being seen at a Lakers game and -- in a bit that went on a little too long -- leading a tram tour of Universal Studios (The Oprah-esque showering of gifts on tourists, but this time from a dollar store). And how could we escape the episode without an octo-mom joke? It's an absolute necessity.

THE VIBE: Conan's biggest concern could be how his hardcore "Late Night" fans in the studio audience conduct themselves. For me, "Conan" was an institution of my adolescence, a must-watch tradition of my high school years that carried over slightly into college and waned into adulthood. Having him back on an hour earlier makes it easier to watch my new favorite late-night host (CBS' Craig Ferguson), but I don't know if other fans will acclimate themselves to this new show as well as I think I will. "Tonight" is not the madhouse that "Late Night" was, and a few extra seconds of the crowd going wild at the opening could ruffle some feathers with The Powers That Be, the ones who were used to Jay coming out, shaking a couple dozen hands with the front rows and then everyone sitting back and delivering the laughter exactly when they want it. For now we see through a comedy glass, darkly: when Conan became a man, did he put away childish things (i.e. Pimpbot 5000, Holiday Pictures, The Bear)?

THE TAURUS: Fabio with dark hair was a nice addition to the sketch, but I could go without ever seeing Conan's old Ford standby ever again. The whole "getting used to LA's car culture" concept was forever broken when Joe Torre started doing commercials from a surf board for State Farm.

THE GUEST: Will Ferrell isn't a bad choice for a first guest, but it's hard to gauge how hard he'll work at making his appearance be more than just what you'd usually expect from him. In this case, he made a great entrance, sang a song and helped us get through the requisite 4 hours of "moving to L.A." jokes we're bound to hear this week. It seems that Conan really wants to recapture the essence of what made Johnny Carson such an institution, and Ferrell at times strikes me as the closest modern society will get to recapturing the brilliance of Steve Martin, who always was classic on the old Carson show. Ferrell wasn't his best here, but if Conan sticks in this role, he'll have plenty of opportunities to produce the kinds of classic moments that were the hallmark of the Carson show.

THE MUSIC: It's true that Pearl Jam often doesn't get the credit it is due. I think most of the public regards them as one of those bands who just got incredibly popular in the 90s and that's how they'll always be remembered. But despite the fact that Eddie Vedder is slowly morphing into Russell Crowe, his band comfortably inhabits the space between seminal rock gods and above-average alt-rock outfit. Choosing Pearl Jam may be more of a reflection of Conan's musical tastes than the desire to put a "legendary" act out there; in fact, it may have been a measured move. How could you ever top your first show if the musical act were The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen or the likes of Elton John, U2, David Bowie or Prince? Pearl Jam is a solid choice.

FINAL GRADE: A good show that won't be particularly memorable except that it sets a good level of expectations for future shows. It wasn't awkward. It didn't strive to be more than it is. The jokes weren't all gems despite having months to prepare for this moment, but you get the feeling that every second of this first outing was not scripted, and that spontaneous nature likely will provide more laughs in the episodes to come than it will detract from its entertainment value. No one is expecting Jay Leno's "Tonight Show," and Conan certainly isn't going to deliver anything other than what he's been doing for the past 16 years. 7 out of 10

Read more...

Save Dewey

One of the cornerstones of American culture — a tradition unrivaled by most accounts — is under attack.
That’s right — I’m talking about the Dewey Decimal Classification system.
Old Melvil must be spinning in his grave.
Citing a “Customers First” movement to simplify life for its patrons, Perl Mack Library, nestled away in the Sherrelwood neighborhood of northwestern Denver, is ditching the standby method for hunting down what you want in favor of a “word-based cataloging system.”
The need for this new way, compared to how books might be organized in a retail store, completely escapes me.
Are there enough people who didn’t pay attention in elementary school during library orientation to justify the abandonment of the closest we’ll ever get to a perfect method for organizing books by category, discipline, author and more?
Let’s ignore the fact that every library worth its salt not only lists the Dewey decimal range at the beginning of each row of books, but it also gives hints as to what one might find. Germanic languages? You want 033. Metaphysics? That’s 110. Looking for Ephemerides? They’re still collecting dust over in 528.
My favorite section as a youngster? They used to keep the Hunter S. Thompson over in 813 (American fiction), but nowadays it’s stored in 070.92 (News media, journalism and publishing).
And don’t tell me there’s no room for growth! 040 to 049 is still unassigned, as are dozens of other numerical spots within the system.
This is a uniquely and profoundly simple system — flexible, nearly limitless and able to take anything you or I could possibly know and codify its place in this world.

Read more...

Why we remember

I hesitate somewhat to even mention this, but it has nagged at my mind too long this holiday weekend to not opine:
Memorial Day is for the commemoration of the American men and women who died in the military service, including U.S. casualties of any military action.
We pause on this day to honor their service to this nation.
And while it's a shame that it is no longer observed on each May 30 (as it originally was intended), it is a brilliant reminder each year — as much of modern American life becomes further and further removed from the notions of self-sacrifice and service of one's country — that some paid the ultimate price for this nation, its security and its interests.
While it is more than worthy to pay tribute to our living veterans, this is not their day. They are joining those of us outside of the service in remembering their fallen brothers and sisters.
While it is certainly important to remember the tragedy of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, this day was not meant as a catchall observation of all lives lost.
Far be it for me to suggest anyone taking the time to do either of these things on the last Monday in May is doing so incorrectly, but I think it's worth a reminder that today means something very specific, and as the son of one veteran and grandson to two others, it should not be overlooked.

Read more...

My seat's been empty

One of the aspects of my life that I'm less proud of is this:
I have not seen a movie in theaters since July 2008. I was out to see "The Dark Knight" on opening weekend (not my brightest idea ever), and my wife was suffering from a then-undiagnosed case of double pneumonia (She did her best not to cough through the whole film, I tried my best to not be a butthead about dragging her out to the theater). The film itself was underwhelming despite great visuals, great sound effects, good directing and a truly Oscar-caliber performance from Heath Ledger.
But I don't think that's what scared me off from the cinema.
If anything, I abhor watching a film for the first time on DVD or any other format other than a gigantic screen in a darkened theater. It's hard to explain and yet quite cliché, but NOTHING compares to seeing a film at the theater.
But I can't bring myself to shell out the kind of money they charge to enter the theater and enjoy the show; by all means, in my heart I think it's worth it — but my head says otherwise.
I have yet to find a great theater that shows a good variety of new releases each week within 20 minutes of my house. The whole reason to go out is to have THE MOVIE EXPERIENCE, and some rinky-dink multiplex that was put together with the same amount of love and care as a last-minute term paper DOES NOT provide said experience.
That's truly the first and last issue that keeps me periodically picking up a year-old, used DVD to catch up on what the artists of the moving image have produced. It's truly a shame.
You can say my seat's been empty, but I contend that the seat in that great moviehouse doesn't exist yet -- at least not within a drive shorter than the lengthy procession of trailers and commercials before the feature.

Read more...

Of pageants and piety

Sometimes it doesn't pay to be "biblically correct."
Booed and cheered simultaneously, Miss California Carrie Prejean has soared into the national spotlight for sharing her views on marriage during the Miss USA pageant, where she ultimately finished second.
“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite," Prejean began, obviously ignorant of her home state's passage of Proposition 8, rescinding the right of same-sex couples to marry. "And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
Was that so incendiary?
I don't agree with Ms. Prejean, but I cannot muster the furor others have at her response.
Perez Hilton, the gay blogger who asked her the question during the pageant, went on to call her a "dumb b--ch" on his website when it was over. His criticisms have been joined by a chorus of others.
But why so much fuss over a young woman whose scholarly pursuits extend as far as San Diego Christian College, whose biggest achievement beyond the pageants was being a finalist in a model search for "Deal or No Deal"?
I doubt they were offended that a potential Miss USA actually gave an honest answer during a Q&A, or even a semi-coherent response (a far cry from Caitlin Upton's nonsensical Miss Teen USA 2007 speech on maps). If that were the cause, every pageant contestant with a lick of common sense would eschew anything that could be construed to be the least bit un-PC. Perhaps they could just sing "The Greatest Love Of All" while waving an American flag in one hand and cuddling a puppy in the other in response to any prompt and leave it at that.
The real reason? Our country is no less unified than it was prior to the election and subsequent inauguration of Barack Obama as president.
If anything, we are more partisan and markedly fiercer in that partisanship. Look no further than the Tax Day tea parties for evidence of this on the right end of the political spectrum.
There was no malice in Prejean's response, but there certainly was spite in those who derided her. What happened to accepting our differences and realizing that there are few issues on which the world is in universal agreement?
But don't fret for Miss Prejean. She's survived the cutthroat world of beauty pageants; I imagine she can handle the scorn of the blogosphere. Besides, she may have unwittingly made herself the new darling of the Republican Party — look out, Meghan McCain, you've got competition!

Read more...

Weekend Diversion: Quality Service from the LAPD

If you're like me, you've always wondered what would happen if the Los Angeles Police Department used a song from former Branson, Mo., favorite Ray Stevens to be the soundtrack for an early-90s training video. Well, if that's true, today's a big day for both of us. Enjoy:

Read more...