Opening Day

Today is baseball's official opening day (despite the Red Sox and A's playing a couple games in Japan already a couple of days ago). A bunch of teams kicked off their seasons- the Yankees have to wait an extra day because of a rain out. This means the last season opener at Yankee Stadium will be a night game- that's a little strange. Let me talk a little about the Yankees this year.

ESPN seems to hate the Yankees- no one predicts that the Yankees will win it all, only one person predicts that the Yankees will win the division. This is contrary to almost every SABRmetic prediction estimating that the Yankees will win about 94 games over Boston's 92- assuming the Blue Jays and Rays (no more "Devil") remain who they are, that would mean the Yankees are predicted to win the division by most "SABRmatricians". To further shame ESPN and their predictions, only one of 4 analysts correctly guessed the total average number of wins per team in 2008: 81. How do you not know that? Isn't that just basic math? Each team plays 162 games, there must be a winner and loser in each game, thus the average number of wins per team should be exactly half of 162- 81.

I'm particulaly excited about the Yankees this year. First, we have three young and promising pitches in Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlin and Ian Kennedy. As a Yankee fan, you have to be excited- this group can potentially end up as a Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz for us. Second, a we have a new intelligent manager in Joe Giardi- no longer will I have to wonder if the manager is asleep during the game. He'll manage the bullpen much better, using more than the 3 people Torre seemed to abuse. Third, the future is so bright I need sunglasses, but the present ain't all that bad in itself.

Like I mentioned, most SABRmatricians predict a very Yankee season out of these Yankees. At the very least, our starting pitching will be better. Wang and Pettite will be about the same, Mussina can't be as bad as he was last year (it was statistically a ridiculously unlucky year for the guy), and the combination of Hughes, Kennedy and Chamberlin in the back end of the rotation has to be better than the parade of mediocre-at-best pitchers filling in the 4 and 5 spots last year. Our bench is quite solid as well- Wilson Betemit, Morgan Endsburg, Shelly Duncan, Jose Mollina could all easily be starting on another team. Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Bobby Abreu are all in good shape and seemed promising in the spring.

It's good to be a Yankee fan.

In the end, screw baseball, when's the NFL draft?

I support terrorism?

Our Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, says that terrorists groups "view IP crime as a lucrative business and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities." (Source) So the copy of Photoshop CS3 that I downloaded instead of paying a ridiculous $650 somehow supports terrorism? Someone please explain this to me- seriously. I thought I was only screwing over Adobe (and their ridiculously crappy .pdf file readers and their overpriced software).

He's magical!

Mr. T might be magic. We already know a number of new facts we know about Mr. T (my favorite is "Mr. T isn't black, the sun's just afraid to shine on him"). Well, Mr. T might really be magical after all- in real life. He brought a boy out of a coma.

Seems like Laurence Tureaud has come a long way since B.A. Baracus.

Song of the Week- 3/29/08

This week I give to you, "Dreaming of You" by The Coral.

The Coral is a part of the new Brit rock scene. Although they aren't the most popular (that's the Arctic Monkeys) or the most resounded (also the Arctic Moneys), they are great in themselves. I first heard "Dreaming of You" on Scrubs last year. That summer, I got hooked on Scrubs, rewatched all 6 seasons and this song just stood out as one of their more memorable musical montages. What makes this song great? First, it's full of hooks everywhere, left to right, up and down. The bouncing bass part drives the song while being accented by drums, the electric organ (that somehow got lost in the 60s and finally found its way back into mainstream rock), and the jangly guitar. In front of all of this, we have lead singer James Skelly's great voice singing very simple lyrics. The song as a whole, after summing up all the parts, is a great pop-rock song that sounds like it was lifted straight from the 60s.

That's it for this week, enjoy.

Include Rap Music in Your Next Presentation!

To the left is a graphical representation of the Wu-Tang Clan's "Wu-Tang Ain't Nuttin to Fuck With." There's this website that has this huge collection of a large number of graphical representations of rap songs. There are some fairly contemporary songs as well as some classics. Here's the link, enjoy.

Haiku- 7

Bones in my closet
Grow heavier as days pass
Running out of space

John Adams

Recently I've been hooked by HBO's new mini series, John Adams. It's a period piece that's been painstakingly constructed for material realism- of course there are some artistic liberties taken, but it's noting like say The Patriot or The 300. At least the liberties taken turn John Adams into a more interesting character than what I remember from American History class: the most uninteresting founding father. Freakanomics does a good job at pointing out all the little historical incongruencies so far in this post.

I'm not so thrilled about the choice of Paul Giamatti playing John Adams- I still have memories of him being completely blue in Big Fat Liar. I'm also not much of a fan for the weird camera shots- why are half the shots canted? why are the canted shots not canted in the same direction? is there a meaning or reasons to these canted shots? why is the camera doing a quick pull in during the scene entering Liberty Hall? There mere fact that I have to ask these questions make the camera work suspect in my opinion- the camera work should add to the story, not distract.

However I will say that I am impressed by the choices of David Morse as George Washington and Tom Wilkinson as Ben Franklin- they're great! I have no idea who plays Thomas Jefferson, but he's great too. Also, is it just me or are the women of the Adams family uncompromisingly beautiful? The make-up (or lack-there-of) is great and the dialog is amazing.

Whatever the case is, I encourage anyone to watch it. HBO films does not fool around.

It's hard to fit in when.....

You're the WORLD'S TALLEST MAN!!

Song of the Week- 3/22/08

Sorry it was late a day- busy. This week, I present to you one of my favorite cover song: "I Will Survive" as done by CAKE.

"I Will Survive" was originally done by Gloria Gaynor in its most famous version. CAKE, in their 1996 album Fashion Nugget, recorded a cover of Gaynor's classic disco song. When Gaynor sang it, the sense of betrayal and feminine empowerment rang clear. When CAKE's John McCrea sings it, you get the sense of a lovable hopeless romantic. The original song is such a part of the collective consciousness of society that it's hard to associate CAKE's version of the song before the lyrics are sung. Once the first line is sung by McCrea, you immediately recognize the song- a second later, it hits you. You chuckle to yourself because you recognize it and the irony of the cover. But it's not necessarily ironic, it could be just as serious and righteous as Gaynor's original.

This version of the song includes its own charms on top of the clever change of musical context. The single trumpet, almost sounding like a lost trumpet from a mariachi band, plays the famous melody of the song. McCrea add his signature distant yelps, the guitar solo is aggressive and cuts through the song as it enters in the chorus and the solos, the jangling acoustic guitar gives the song a new coy character, and the funky bass is highlighted to maintain some semblance of the song's original disco roots.

Great song. Enjoy.

Haiku- 6

It seems to me that these little haikus are all you guys (my readers- all 3.5 of you) get in terms of what's going in on my life. I'm not so on-the-ball with diary-like blog posts so I encrypt my current emotional state and/or what's going on in my life with these little haikus. Maybe I'll start using normal blog posts to do the above and keep these haikus for their artistic values instead. I kinda like how I have to force myself to adhere to the form of a haiku to express what I have to say on a given one- feels more real in some strange way. Without further adieu, here's the haiku.

Slipping away slow
Before you know it- it's gone
Is it yet too late?

Five years laters....

In a couple days, we will come to mark the fifth year since the United States' invasion of Iraq (March 20). The Iraq "War" has turned out quite differently from from what most Americans expected. Within those 5 years, we've seen a very premature declaration of "mission accomplished," the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, his subsequent flight, capture and execution, the gross mistreatment of prisoners of war in Guantanamo, allegations of torture, a completely deteriorating public opinion of the war, increased instability within Iraq, new evidence that the popular justification of the invasion (Iraqi weapons of mass destruction) were false, perhaps even fabricated (source), deterioration of Iraqi democracy, nearly 4000 confirmed American Military deaths, about 30,000 confirmed non-fatal American casualties (source for both numbers), scores of non-American deaths and casualties, and more than half a trillion dollars spent so far. Quite a laundry list eh?

Let me remind you that the general reasons for invading Iraq were in the first place. Iraq was targeted because it was marked as a threat to conduct a terrorist strike on the United Sates. It was officially a preemptive war on our part- this was the only time a liberal democracy has taken part in a preemptive war (source: G. John Ikenberry). Yea, the United States hasn't been hit by a terrorist attack directly since the start of the "War" in Iraq, but do you realize how domestic society has changed since 9-11 in general? Before 9-11, I probably wouldn't have gotten a background check before applying for a flight school. Now, the government can see what books I've taken out from the library without a warrant (thank you USA PATRIOT act). Society has become fundamentally restructured- the lack of a terrorist attack isn't a result of us getting rid of Saddam Hussein, it's us becoming more paranoid at home. Dick Cheney still swears that invading Iraq has made the US more secure and that Iraq had direct ties to 9-11.

You can probably judge by my tone by now that I really don't like the "War" in Iraq. At the ripe age of 15 (Jesus, I was young back then!) I couldn't understand why we were invading Iraq in the first place. As I understood it, the 9-11 attacks were ideologically driven. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked the United States, not because they 'fundamentally hate our way of life,' because they want to scare us out of our obligations in the Middle East so they can reestablish the old Caliphate. Saddam Husein's Iraq, as I understood it, was a totalitarian dictatorship but a westernized one. Husein actively captured and slaughtered 'Muslim extremists' because he had his own ideological idiosyncrasies with people like Osama Bin Laden- in other words, Husein would have rather killed himself than collaborate with Bin Laden. So you can imagine how surprised I was when I heard we were going to invade Iraq and take down Husein. Why? We didn't even find Osama Bin Laden yet, the man we can directly place the blame of the 9-11 attacks.

There were other reasons given to why Iraq was invaded outside of this possible collusion as well, each one was just as ignorant of reality as the Husein-Bin Laden cooperation angle we were thrown. I already alluded to the claim that the preemptive strike on Iraq was to stop it before it became a real threat to the United States. This claim was on the basis that Husein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. This doesn't make sense on so many levels. First off, UN inspectors didn't find anything before and after the invasion. Second, even if Iraq acquired weapons of mass destruction, how would they threaten the United States itself? At the height of the Cold War, the USSR never had a warhead able to transverse half the globe and strike the United States. The bottom line is that it's a very difficult thing to do- how would a developing dictatorial state acquire military resources that all states outside of one (the United States) did not have?

Don't bother telling me about biological weapons. Ever take a bio lab in high school or college? Yes. Remember how hard and annoying it was to culture bacteria for those labs? It's very hard. Do you suppose culturing smallpox is any easier? No, not at all. How do you suppose you can support smallpox to a potent degree long enough for it to be snuck into the United States? Umm... Can smallpox be engineered to only attack Americans? Oh, that means it'd probably kill Iraqis or other terrorists as well.

The last justification given for the invasion of Iraq is that the United States was bringing democracy to Iraq. Yay neo-conservatism! How's that working out by the way? There are so many things wrong with the notion of literally "bringing democracy" to non-democratic states just on a purely theoretical standpoint. I could literally write a thesis about the theoretical impossibilities itself (I am actually).

So given these, I wondered: why are we really in Iraq? I came up with a few theories, some of which are on the verge of conspiracy theories. Is it for oil? Judging by record oil prices and our seemingly apparent non-control of Iraqi oil fields- no. Was it a personal vendetta by George W. Bush to finish a job that he felt was left unfinished by his father? Along this line and neo-conservative thought I say a strong maybe. Most horrifying of all, was this war fought for the sake of a war; for the sake of having an excuse to control the masses? Was George Orwell's prediction twenty years too premature? Given the USA PATRIOT act and its tag-along legislation, I wouldn't be to surprised if this were the case. It's horrifying to even consider that the case isn't it?

The consequences of this "war" is tremendous. I probably mentioned this before somewhere on this blog. We decided to act unilaterally in this particular endeavor. By doing so, we've turned off many-a-close allies. For the first time in the post WWII era, we've had disputes with ideologically similar states as a result of this "war" (France, Germany and Japan to some extent are a few states in mind). Through our stubborn unilateral action, we've managed to further alienate other great powers we were trying so desperately to incorporate into international lattice of institutions and cooperation(China and Russia are the two that come to mind here). This "war" has essentially reset a lot of the progress made in the post Cold War years achieved by George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Russia and China, along with Iran, are a part of the first non-NATO military alliance since the end of the Cold War. This is what realists would call "hard balancing against the hegemonic power." So much for the great new world order and a culture of cooperation.

You know what's the best part of all this? There's no way out- none. We're stuck there. By getting rid of Husein's Iraq, we've left a power vacuum in that region of the world. Yes, Iraq threatened Israel, but it balanced against Iran. Now Iran will have free reign and who knows what can happen in the Middle East. We've taken over the role of literally balancing against Iran now. Unless Iraq miraculously becomes a stable liberal democracy immediately (read: it's not happening), we'll make Iraq into a resource-sucking proxy state to desperately maintain the balance of power in the Middle East (yes folks, we're talking about states and realism can be applied). We have to stay there now. There's the chance that leaving Iraq high and dry like we did Vietnam will result in benign consequences, but there's also the chance that Iraq becomes overrun by our ideological enemies (read: organizations like the Taliban and Al Qaeda) and that, in coordination with other states in the region becomes even more of a threat to US security than it already is. Of course, it's only a problem if the US maintains relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia and consumes oil. Remember, the terrorists want the US out of the Middle East in every sense of that phrase. That's no oil, no trade relations with anyone there- and that's not going to happen with a pull out of Iraq- they'll remain hostile against the US.

Great things folks. This is quite the little mess we have to work out.

St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day for all you Irish and Nigerians today. Yea, St. Patrick was also the patron saint for Nigeria. So everyone should pop open a Guiness and have a piece of flatbread. Have a safe one.

Oh, here's a video.

He killed the Little Prince?

An 88 year old German pilot believes he killed Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Saint-Exupery wrote The Little Prince (Le Petit Prince) amongst many other children's books. Besides being an author, he was an experienced aviator. Saint-Exupery returned to France during World War II to serve in the Free French Air Force. He was believed to be shot down in the Mediterrainian in 1944- his body was never found.

The pilot, Horst Rippert, was a part of Germany's Luftwaffe and believes he shot down Saint-Exuprey's plane. He was a fan of Saint-Exuprey's work since he was a child.

Well so much for all that.

Haiku- 5

Lightening in bottles
The timing, the skill, the luck
Yes, impossible

Song of the week- 3/15/08

For this week, I give you Spoon's "Don't You Evah." Spoon's coming to Baltimore on April 11 if you want to check that out. Find out more about that here.

"Don't You Evah" is actually a cover song originally done by a band called Natural History. It's off of Spoon's latest album Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga. Why is this song the song of the week? Well for one, it's really catchy. That bass groove is exactly what it's supposed to be: a groove. The song as an entirety is really simple. All we hear are vocals, bass, drums, hand claps, and guitar but it's still full of hooks and incredibly catchy. Unlike last week, I don't have any real analysis to why this song's so awesome- it just is. Appreciate the simplicity and sheer catchiness.

Well, until next week.

Watching the waiver wires....

This is a bad, bad move. Why are the Yankees doing this? Why? He has so much promise! If you don't know what I'm talking about, the Yankees released this prospect today. I mean, c'mon! One bad at-bat- that's it! Sure he struck out, but the Yankees never gave the guy a chance to show what he could do. He was DHing for Christssakes! I'm sure he could have flashed some leather to win at least the utility infielder spot away from former Attorney General of the United States Alberto Gonzalez.

Goin' home

So I'm going home today. Gonna take a Chinatown bus but this one scares me a little. The bus stop is a few blocks north of Penn Station, right where the ghetto begins in Baltimore. I hope I don't get mugged, raped, robbed, etc. in the 20 minutes or so I have to wait there. That'd be very unfortunate.

Have a good spring break- we all need this week for the sake of our sanities.

Mike McConnell @ JHU

Admiral Mike McConnell was appointed as the Director of National Intelligence this past February. He came to Hopkins today to have a question and answer session. For such a high-profile figure in Government, the event was all it was expected to be. There was the very flat political line-giving typical of talks by those involved in politics, there was sidestepping questions deftly, there was a bleeding heart liberal doing his best to make the government-man eat crow, and there was also bland questions from the student populous.

Some points (paraphrased):

• Despite McConnell's insistence that this particular paraphrased point wasn't the case, he "agrees that water-boarding is justified in some situations and that it's a useful means to gather information." (The quote is the best approximation of Prof. Davis' sum up of McConnell on water-boarding.)
• McConnell wants to overhaul how the Intelligence department recruits college graduates- make it more efficient (take much less time).
• It doesn't matter that the intelligence community never predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union- "all that matters is that we won." (Quote is his.) Intelligence, nor President Regan, had little to do with the Soviet collapse- it was capitalism that should be responsible for the USSR's collapse.
• Iran is not a threat for nuclear weapons because, although it is developing fissionable material for civil purposes, it has abandoned its development of delivery weapons.
  
• The above point was a declassified key judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate- these, the declassified key judgments, will no longer be made in future NIEs.
  
• Al Qaeda's goal is to create a pan-Arabic state and uses terrorism to force Europe and the United States out from the reigons that would comprise this pan-Arab state.

There are a bunch of things he said that I obviously disagree with or beg to differ. The most interesting point to me is the last one I noted. He went on record (the event was being taped by CNN) on saying that Al Qaeda's goal was to force the US and Europe out of a potential pan-Arab state. If this truly is the government stance on Al Qaeda's motive, then there's a really quick fix to the insecurity caused by terrorism on US soil.

If Al Qaeda's trying to force the United States out of the Middle East, why not comply? They have said numerous times that that's what they wanted. They've also said that if we comply, then they'll leave us alone. Why not just leave the Middle East and ignore it like we've ignored Cuba for the last 50 years?

Aren't there problems with just leaving the Middle East high and dry, you ask? Yes, most of it includes how we're going to meet our needs for energy without dealing with the Middle East for oil. But we forget that there are alternative energy sources that are already available. Making the entire country adapt to these new changes (like buying more plug in hybrids, more renewable resources for electricity, taking advantage of ethanol from organic waste, and generally moving completely away from oil) is the hardest part logistically. But with gas prices heading towards 4 bucks a gallon and the cost of oil being at an all time high, wouldn't the cost be a moot point? If the peak oil hypothesis is true (which it seems to be) we're going to have to make these changes either way.

Now truth-be-told, I don't think this is the correct thing to do. As the sole superpower of the world, the United States maintains a measure of unspoken responsibility in regards to international affairs, especially within the Middle East. What I think should happen is another editorial for another day. But just there mere admission of that last point- I don't understand why more people aren't making the argument I've just made.

Haiku- 4

Questions about time:
Wasn't that just yesterday?
Why such a hurry?

Too bad I'm not a good stand up comedian....

This is the first story on Yahoo! News. "If Spitzer quits, U.S. would have first blind governor."

Does anyone else see the great irony of a blind politician?

SCANDAL!

Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York was liked to a prostitution ring yesterday. Now, the GOP is calling for his resignation or impeachment.

It's unfortunate because Spitzer has been such a model for liberalism in domestic politics in his career. He has combated white-collar crime, fraud, stood up for consumers' rights, is for pro-choice in abortion, supports gay marriage- he's the whole package when it comes to modern liberal ideals in domestic politics. All this marred by a sex scandal. Kind of reminds me of another prominent politician- especially if there are impeachment proceedings.

Now I have a question: given the strong reaction against Gov. Spitzer and President Clinton about 10 years ago, where was the public moral outrage against figures like Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Bob Allen (R-Florida) for their solicitation of gay sex with a police officer? Where's the moral uproar against the corruption unearthed by the Jack Abramoff scandal? Where's the outrage over David Ritters' (R-Louisiana) and Randall Tobias' (President Bush's "AIDS Czar") connection to a prostitution ring in Washington DC? Where was the outrage over Mark Foley's (R-Florida) gay pedophilia? Notice something? Those letters and states- more particularly the letters. The GOP is full of hypocrites.

If they do get to impeachment in New York over this thing, I hope it turns out that James Tedisco (New York's Republican Minority Leader) and Peter King (R-NY) were having monthly gay orgies together involving prostitutes and drugs. (Disclaimer: I'm not implying that Representatives Tedisco and King are gay and/or immoral. I'm merely implying that they are incredibly myopic and superficial and do not give two shits about real issues.)

Song of the Week- 3/8/08

This week, I keep the indie tour de force going with "Me and Mia" by Ted Leo and the Pharmacists. (Jesus, I've chosen LCD Soundsystem, Vampire Weekend, Gogol Bordello, and Ted Leo and the Pharmacists so far- am I turning into one of them?)

Ted Leo is a wise veteran of the independent music scene has been the very definition of Indie Rock the last two decades (at least according to Wikipedia and Allmusic.com). His music is marked by its simplicity and by its catchy hooks all over the place. It has gotten to the point where Ted Leo may have mastered at formulating pop songs and that's not a bad thing at all. In "Me and Mia" we get a nice little introduction to what Ted Leo and the Pharmacists are all about. Lots of power chords in a major key on a very clean, heavy-gain, guitar matched up with upbeat drumming and high, but unstrained, singing. The song doesn't slow at all and maintains an energy that's rarely founds in mainstream popular rock. About half way into the song, the verse and chorus chord progressions are replaced by the brighter chord progressions of the chorus and bridge to make the mood even brighter and more optimistic. All the while, the lyrics churned out by Ted Leo only help add to this bright mood despite some of Leo's own editorializing about life ("Fighting for the smallest goal: to gain a little self-control").

In the end, it's just a really good song- that's all that matters. Enjoy

Haiku- 3

When does a man cry?
When the hurt is beyond words?
No- in emptiness.

Global warming? Global warming!

Global warming is occurring- it's a fact. The argument was, and always has been, the extent of the human impact on global warming. Everyone is familiar with the An Inconvenient Truth version of the story: the human impact of (among other things) deforestation, emission of greenhouse gases and over-exploitation of natural resources is contributing to accelerating global warming. We, according to this argument, can reverse our input if proactive action is used. The consequences can be as drastic as a change in society as we know it.

The other side of the coin is the argument that global warming is a part of an natural oscillation in mean global temperature that can be seen in ice records- there's nothing humans can do to reverse it and the human impact on this process is negligible.

Most scientists (economists are not scientists!) are on board with the first half of the argument. They generally acknowledge the natural oscillations of mean global temperature but they stress the human impact in accelerating this process. This is the mainstream point of view.

Unfortunately, there are many people who completely reject the first and the popular opinions. One of these is the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman. He's bought into the second opinion (humans have a negligible effect on global warming).

***

Okay, my turn to talk.

Let’s just think for a second. We can think of the costs and the benefits of acting and not acting against global warming- a cost-benefit analysis if you will. We have four possible outcomes of global warming generally speaking, two for the extent of the effects of global warming and two for the measures (the costs) against global warming. It's only worth looking at the best and worst case scenarios for both because everything else will be in-between.

For the effects of global warming, the best case scenario is nothing happens. Global warming was, was hysterical paranoia, nothing happens; the climate remains the same for the next 1000 years. We'll call this "minimal global warming."

The worst case scenario for the effects of global warming ends with the end of society as we know it. Increasing global temperatures lead to the melting of the ice caps, which, in-turn, leads to major flooding- perhaps as far as wiping islands (like Manhattan or Long Island) off the map altogether. These changes in turn affect climate and weather patters around the world, making traditional staple-grain producing plains unsuitable. These interact together killing off billions of people world wide from flooding and hunger leading to a massive crisis and fundamentally changes in how society is structured from then on. We'll call this "maximum global warming."

For measures taken against global warming, the minimum is not changing anything- the status quo. No extra costs for making America more 'green.' Will call this "minimum cost."

The worse case scenario for measures taken against global warming is a complete overhaul in making everything 'green.' Taxes go up, billions of dollars (say 15% of GDP) are redirected towards researching energy resources that do not contribute greenhouse gases (like renewable energy, 'clean' coal and nuclear), funding subsidies to help consumers ease the transitions (perhaps offering a very large tax deduction for installing personal solar panels or something), and provide aide funding and research to developing nations that contribute vast amounts of greenhouse gases (like China and India). We'll call this "maximum cost."

The best case scenario in the end is “minimal global warming” with “minimum cost” – the status quo is maintained at no extra cost to anyone. The absolute worst case scenario is “maximum global warming” with “minimum cost” – here nothing is done as society itself may crumble as we know it.

The other two possible combinations of outcomes are not as undesirable as the absolute worst case scenario. If “maximum global warming” occurred with “maximum cost,” the hope is that minimizing of greenhouse gases and creating a more ‘green’ society assuaged some of the pressures of global warming – some changes would have occurred due to global warming, but the effects wouldn’t have been as bad had nothing been done - society can go on. If “minimal global warming” occurred with “maximum cost,” the only thing is lost money – this is not as bad as society as we know it crumbling.

Alright, so what’s my point? The extent of the true effects of global warming isn’t something anyone has real control over. What we do have control over is the cost against global warming. Both scenarios where there was a measure of cost against global warming were taken resulted in outcomes that weren’t the most undesirable outcomes. Yes, it was a “minimal cost” scenario that produced the best possible outcome, but it also had the worst possible outcome as well. By not even considering the mere possibility of the effects of global warming, you’re turning the entire thing into a coin flip between best and worst case scenarios. Wouldn’t it be better if you were guaranteed a scenario that didn’t end with the possible dissolution of society as we know it? The only part of this thought experiment we can actually control is the cost of taking measures against global warming.

The absolute worst things that will happen is that spending in the US will increase. It won’t be too much different from the Cold War if we end up spending about 15% of the GDP against climate change. The only difference will be that it’s against climate change instead if communism.

Plus at the very least, such spending should end US dependence on fossil fuels- something that needs to be either way. More on that another day…

It's hard to be funny.

I've got a small stand up gig tomorrow. Just a small five minute set amongst about 12 others. Just five minutes....

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be funny, by yourself, for 5 minutes? It's really hard man. The tendency is that once you get up on stage, you see the audience. They all have the expectation that you'll be funny, that you'll tell jokes. They're all sitting up there silently judging you- the first move you make is the most important.

How will I start this off? Which joke should I start with? Can I really commit now that I'm up here? What- when- who- how?

DANCE, MONKEY, DANCE!!

That's how I feel. Jesus, it's stressful.

To make things worse- I feel like my material for tomorrow sucks. Wish me luck tomorrow.

Here's my first stand up bit- EVER:

Haiku- 2

Solitude abounds
Urgency and desperate thoughts
How irrational!

Ten Best Movies that go well with Coffee

I was bored and I decided to make a top 10 list of something I think I know a little something about. Keep in mind, this is a very limited list due to it's by me- a single person with his own personal biases and limitations (like all those movies I haven't seen- sorry no "Coffee and Cigarettes" in this list).

Without any further adieu, I give you the Ten Best Movies that go well with Coffee.

Generally, I'm going to be choosing a specific type of movie right? I mean, what would go well with a 2-hour long drinking of coffee? A couple of things I think of that are necessary are thought provoking stories, dialogue the way we wish we'd all speak, a defining stylistic ambiance in the film, and other general fodder for conversation- over a cup of joe.

10. "Fight Club" (1999) by Dave Fincher

I had a hard time deciding to put this in here. The theme is thought provoking- an anarchistic rebellion against contemporary consumer culture. There's also that crazy mindfuck of a twist- but I'm not so sure this is such a good thing. The movie is quite intense with the fighting. Will caffeine help you deal with that? I can't say. Well, at least anarchy is still a coffee-cup topic of conversation.

9. "There Will Be Blood" (2007) by PT Anderson

This is all about the dialogue. Daniel Day-Lewis' character is so over-the-top. This film has produced the latest in the long line of cinematic catchphrases. But beyond the dialogue, there's more to be engrossed by. The themes of insanity and Johnny Greenwood's score are things that should put your caffeine buzz to good use.

8. "Withnail and I" (1987) by Bruce Robinson

This is a highly underrated British comedy. Here, it's all about the quick and witty banter between the number of characters we see throughout the film. The best thing about the conversation is that none of it feels contrived (yes, I'm looking right at you Juno). All of it is natural and completely believable coming from the characters. Given a cup of coffee, there'll be enough great lines for you to stew over.

7. "No Country for Old Men" (2007) by the Cohen Brothers

When discussing this movie, make sure your coffee is as dark as you can take it. This movie is so wonderfully dark- it's outlook on life is pessimistic and nihilistic. Doesn't that sound like something hipsters in coffee shops would talk about while flexing their philosophies? Everything about the film only goes to accent this dark and nihilistic outlook- from the soundtrack, the conversation, the acting- everything. Also, it doesn't hurt that it was the best film made last year.

6. "The Lives of Others" (2006) by Florian Henckel von Donnorsmarck

Compared to the previous films, this film has a more positive outlook on things. Themes tackled in this movie contribute to it's agreeable tendencies with coffee. Things like the nature of love, the nature of obedience and duty, the notion between right and wrong, rebelling against a corrupt institution- all such perfect things to discuss over a cup of coffee. The pacing of the film also contrasts nicely with a caffeine buzz- it's very deliberate and gives the viewer enough time to soak the entire scene in.

5. "Amelie" (2001) by Jean Pierre-Jeunet

This is the happiest film on this list. Carefree is the adjective to use here. Between the colors, the soundtrack, the voiceovers, and those little asides that are sprinkled throughout the film, this is quite the charming and carefree film. Of course the big theme of conversation here is love. The Frenchness of this film feeds well into the coffee-shop intellectual culture that spawned from France in the 18th century.

4. "Wild Strawberries" (1957) by Ingmar Bergman

The first Bergman film on this list, this is a very deep introspective film. Dealing with themes like love, loss and nostalgia to tickle the juices in the brain, this film is where it's at. This is one of those films where afterwards, one has the urge to make a new insight into oneself. Considering that's one of the many favorite pasttimes of coffee-drinkers, this film makes the list quite well.

3. "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) by Quentin Tarantino

Want to see an example of great dialogue in a film? This is it. The dialogue is second to none. It's not particularly realistic, but at the same time it's not as contrived as you'd think. Also given the high-strung mood, there's a kind of sick dark humor throughout the film. More than anything else, it's the style of this film that makes it so appealing to coffee. Cheap black suits, thin black ties, and Ray Ban Wayfarer sunglasses- throw that in with some entertaining dialogue and you have something you'll enjoy talking about.

2. "The Seventh Seal" (1957) by Ingmar Bergman

Remember what I said about Bergman's other film? Take that and now throw in the question of "Does God exist?" instead of your boring ol' life. It's existential examination into what the nature of religion, God and salvation is. That's not even mentioning the amazingly classic characters that have been satirized to the point of staleness (like Death). This is one of those films where you always pick up something new about it every time you watch it- it never gets old. The film seems to entice almost a cathartic flow of existential and generally philosophic thought into any viewer's mind. Great to hold over coffee conversations.

1. "Annie Hall" (1977) by Woody Allen

The best film for coffee conversation in my opinion. The film in itself is a coffee conversation by Woody Allen about relationships through his semi-autobiographic character. The little asides throughout the film, literally looking into the memories of Alvy Singer, are captivating. It's funny, the conversation is great, there are memorable characters and lines, unique ways of presenting what's going on (like subtitling what the characters are actually thinking while carrying on a fluffy conversation). The film as a whole has very subtle charms while talking about one of the most vexing human emotions.

And with this list, I enter the ranks of pretentiousness. Thank you. Until next time...

Haiku- 1

I did this for about two weeks on my facebook notes. I think I'll do this every so often.

Can it be described?
Moments of joy in the soul-
Yes, this is laughter!

Song of the Week- 3/1/08

This week I give you "Wonderlust King" by Gogol Bordello.

I figured we all needed a little infusion of Gypsy Punk. Now, I'm not quite sure if Gogol Bordello is an individual or the name of this band. Whatever it is, it's freaking awesome isn't it? Gogol Bordello is fun [period]. Listen to the song carefully and listen to the weird instruments. We have fiddles, an accordion, acoustic nylon-stringed guitars, drums played with brushes- it's an unfamiliar sound to most listeners isn't it? The best is the lead singer's- umm- "singing." That accent is hilarious as well as gloriously epic. Would it surprise you if I also told you that Gogol Bordello's live show is amazing and full of energy? I've never had the glory to see these guys live but I hope I can one day. Until next week, enjoy!