We Feel Fine

Ken AshfordScience & TechnologyLeave a Comment

This has to be one of the most interesting uses of the Internet I’ve seen in a long while!!

Maybe I’m attracted to it because of my social psychology background.  As well as my attraction to new art forms.

The website is called "We Feel Fine" and its a psychometric graphical representation of how we, as a human race, feel at this particular moment.

Or, as the website creators say, it is "an exploration of human emotion on a global scale".

How do they determine how we, the human race, feel right now?

Every few minutes, the system searches the world’s newly posted blog entries for occurrences of the phrases "I feel" and "I am feeling". When it finds such a phrase, it records the full sentence, up to the period…

Once saved, the sentence is scanned to see if it includes one of about 5,000 pre-identified "feelings". This list of valid feelings was constructed by hand, but basically consists of adjectives and some adverbs. The full list of valid feelings, along with the total count of each feeling, and the color assigned to each feeling, is here.

If a valid feeling is found, the sentence is said to represent one person who feels that way.

If an image is found in the post, the image is saved along with the sentence, and the image is said to represent one person who feels the feeling expressed in the sentence.

Because a high percentage of all blogs are hosted by one of several large blogging companies (Blogger, MySpace, MSN Spaces, LiveJournal, etc), the URL format of many blog posts can be used to extract the username of the post’s author. Given the author’s username, we can automatically traverse the given blogging site to find that user’s profile page. From the profile page, we can often extract the age, gender, country, state, and city of the blog’s owner. Given the country, state, and city, we can then retrieve the local weather conditions for that city at the time the post was written. We extract and save as much of this information as we can, along with the post.

This process is repeated automatically every ten minutes, generally identifying and saving between 15,000 and 20,000 feelings per day.

And here’s the coolest part…. the entries are searchable by feeling, date, weather, location, blogger’s age, and blogger’s gender to help you answer questions like:

Do Europeans feel sad more often than Americans?

What are the most representative feelings of female New Yorkers in their 20s?

What do people feel like in Baghdad right now?

How many people have felt "obtuse" in Richmond, Virginia this year?

The presentation of the results is both informative and artful, and comes in a variety of forms.  Unfortunately, it is in the style of a graphic applet, so I can’t copy and paste an example.

But I ran the applet to find out how people in Greensboro North Carolina have felt in 2008 (to date).   It’s a bit slow to load and run, but it was worth it.

The overall impression result?

Bad.  15.4% reported feeling this way, which is 3.1 times the normal level.

Here are some random Greensboro "murmers" (lifted blog quotes about feelings) from my search:

I feel like Julia Roberts in Mona Lisa Smile — from July 6, 2008, a 24 year old in Gboro when it was sunny

I feel bad for my mom and dad as they’ve had horrible luck with transportation this year — from June 22, 2008, a 32 year old in Gboro when it was sunny

I feel like Charlie, holding on to the chocolate bar, admiring it, just waiting for the right time to open it up and enjoy. — from June 18, 2008, a 36 year old in Gboro when it was sunny

There are dozens more.

But like I said, getting the results is one thing.  The way the results are represented is… well… art.

UPDATE:  Ahh…. some screenshots I did of my search (click to enlarge)

"Murmers" — A screenshot of scrolling snippets from Greensboro bloggers describing how they "feel" (in 2008) [in the actual site, you can click on the quote and be taken to that person’s site]

Gborofeel1

"Mobs" — Breakdown of feelings from people in Greensboro (in 2008) by adjective

Gborofeel2

"Metrics" — The most representative feelings of people (worldwide) in the past few hours

Metricsrecent

Have fun playing with this!

A Place In Heaven, Guaranteed, Or Your Money Back

Ken AshfordGodstuffLeave a Comment

Dammit.  WHY didn’t I think of this?

A good business idea.  These guys have been making a lot of money since their website has been featured in the news (Washington Post, etc)

What is it?  Reserve A Spot In Heaven

What do you get?

ProductsideThis basic travel package includes everything needed to transport one individual to Heaven. No more worrying about whether you will get in or not. This kit guarantees that you will.

Includes:

* Heavenly issued certificate of reservation registered in the Book of Light™ (with printed name)

* A First class ticket to Heaven. Why walk those stairs when you can fly?

* The Official Heaven Identification Card (laminated) so you can get around without getting hassled.

* Heaven 101 mini informational guide. Don’t be a victim of culture shock. Get acquainted with the land.

It only costs $12.79.  (For $15.95, they throw in an all access VIP pass (laminated). This pass will grant you access to “VIP exclusive areas” including the Land of Milk and Honey and Thug Mansion, where all the elite get together and kick it.)

And….

For your ememies, there’s a similar website.

You guessed it: Reserve A Spot In Hell

Interesting, the prices are the same ($12.79 and $15.95).

McCain Intent On Reminding Voters That He Is Doddering

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

The Bad McCain Week express rolls on:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said “Iraq” when he apparently meant “Afghanistan” on Monday, adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition.

McCain was talking about how we will face a "hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border."  (Video here).

Yyyyyeah.

One prob:  Iraq and Pakistan don’t have a border. 

Or maybe, maybe… McCain in his expertise has a super special secret map:

Middleeastmap

A slip of the tongue?  Probably.  But as Drum notes:

"Even we partisans can get a little tired of pointing out John McCain’s constant verbal flubs and, um, moments of confusion. But Jesus. The question was about Afghanistan in the first place, which was an obvious invitation to talk about its ongoing border problems with the tribal areas of Pakistan. So what does McCain do? He deliberately pivots away to mention the nonexistent Iraq/Pakistan border. Does he even know what a map of central Asia looks like? Isn’t this supposed to be his strong suit?"

Just in the past three weeks, McCain has also mistaken "Somalia" for "Sudan," and even football’s Green Bay Packers for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Ironically, the errors have been concentrated in what should be his area of expertise: foreign affairs.

Not good, especially during the same week when Obama is pulling a foreign affairs expertise showcase of stellar proportions.

McCain aides point out that he spends much more time than Obama talking extemporaneously, taking questions from voters and reporters. "Being human and tripping over your tongue occasionally doesn’t mean a thing," a top McCain official said.

But McCain’s mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office?

Voters, thinking about their own relatives, can be expected to scrutinize McCain’s debate performances for signs of slippage.

Every voter has a parent, grandparent or a friend whose mental acuity declined as they grew older. It happens at different times for different people — and there is ample evidence many in their 70s are as sharp and fit as ever.

Oh, good!

There’s "ample evidence" that McCain won’t be wandering around the White House in his boxer shorts, yelling at the squirrels in the front lawn, and repeatedly asking for peanut butter.

He’s got my vote!

UPDATE:  More on Obama’s unprecedented trip:

A veteran of former president Clinton’s administration, someone who understands both politics and foreign policy, described this week’s seven-nation trip as one of the four most important events for Obama between now and Election Day — the others being his selection of a vice presidential running mate, his convention and his debates with McCain.

What struck this person was the boldness of Obama’s decision to spend more than a week abroad in the middle of a campaign. Not, of course, for the reasons Obama outlined, but no less an example of Obama’s self-confidence. "This is a big-league move to directly address a concern that the American people are going to have" about his candidacy, he said.

What is striking is how Obama’s campaign differs from past Democratic campaigns. In earlier years, Democratic candidates couldn’t wait to move off of foreign policy and onto domestic issues, aware that their party more or less owned the domestic debate, while Republicans generally held the high ground on national security. The more time they could spend focusing the contest on domestic issues, the better their chances of winning.

That was true certainly for John F. Kerry against President Bush four years ago, and it’s clear that the polls currently show that national security issues are McCain’s one key area of strength against Obama. Obama’s advisers believe the economy will dominate the fall campaign, but the candidate shows no indication that he will try to avoid engagement with McCain over foreign policy.

The journey Obama began when he left Washington last Thursday is one wholly unique in the annals of presidential politics. Everything smacks of a presidential trip. The credentials issued to the traveling press corps on Sunday in Chicago — reporters will catch up with Obama in Jordan later this week — say "The visit of Senator Obama to the Middle East and Europe," mimicking the language of a presidential sojourn.

Once he is out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama will join up with the press and travel on his newly configured campaign charter, a Boeing 757 that carries the words "Change We Can Believe In" along the fuselage and the distinctive Obama logo on the tail. Never has a presidential candidate been overseas with such visibility.

It’s winning admiration from unexpected quarters:

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, is watching with some fascination as Obama travels this week. He may disagree with Obama but nonetheless called him "one of the smartest people we’ve ever seen run for president." Obama may have "huge structural challenges on cultural and other issues," he added, "but I think he’s very smart … very formidable."

You’re 40, and Nobody Likes You

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

But happy birthday anyway, cubicle:

143cubiclestandaloneprod_affiliate8The cubicle celebrates its 40th birthday this month. A party is unlikely.

What’s to celebrate? The cubicle office system is one of the most derided realities of modern work life.

Somehow, the spaces that white-collar worker bees unlovingly refer to as “cubes” have become an icon for all that is confining, uninspiring, soulless and humdrum in our workaday lives.

Warrens. Honeycombs. Cube farms. Even “veal-fattening pens.”

The sarcasm — cynicism — wrapped around those fabric-covered panels is remarkable for a system marketed back in 1968 as the Action Office.

Bad rap?

“This was a wonderful concept,” Joe Schwartz said. He was the marketing director at Herman Miller in Michigan when the furniture company shopped a new office system concept around the country.

Schwartz, now 82, retired and living in Scottsdale, Ariz., spent a fair amount of time in Kansas City back then because Hallmark Cards was one of the first adopters of the Action Office.

The late Robert Propst at Herman Miller gets credit for the design, although some of his ideas were lost in translation, Schwartz said.

The basic idea of movable walls was a beautiful thing for employers and employees. For management, reconfiguring space could be accomplished without costly and messy drywall work. Employees gained storage, some privacy, even shelves.

In the initial design, Schwartz said, workers could have desks at two levels, one for sitting and one for standing.

“Propst had the idea that sitting wasn’t good for you and that people could both sit and stand at work and that would improve their health,” Schwartz said.

The Action Office met with some resistance. Managers wondered if privacy was such a good idea. Cost, as always, was an issue. Desks on two levels?

But the biggest alteration was that the cubicles shrunk in response to demands on office space, Schwartz said.

Still, said Leonard Kruk, co-author of Complete Office Handbook, the cubicle was a great improvement over what came before: row after row of free-standing desks or vast bullpens.

Pat Boone vs. The Apes (The Loser? Comedy)

Ken AshfordEnvironment & Global Warming & Energy, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

I can’t tell if Pat Boone is (a) trying to be funny and failing; or (b) being totally serious and failing. 

Anyway, the crooner is on his (white) soapbox about — I am not making this up — "ape rights".  Judge for yourself:

Well, if it weren’t for the close quarters and the sad deterioration of his bones and other body parts, Charles Darwin would be spinning madly in his sarcophagus.

Close quarters?  Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey in London.  Pretty nice digs from what I hear.  But please, evoking the decaying body of a scientist?  Where are we going with this?

Spinning with hilarious joy, that is.

O.K.  So this must be good news for Darwin, whatever Pat is talking about.

I’ve just read that animal rights activists in several countries are campaigning diligently for apes and chimps to receive virtually all the same legal rights as their supposed human descendants.

Wait a second.  Is Pat suggesting that Darwin was an animal rights advocate?  Where does that come from?

Yeah, yeah, Pat.  Animal rights advocate, evolutionary theorist.  They BOTH have to do with animals, so they’re BOTH the SAME THING.

By the way, I’m just guessing here, but I don’t think anybody is talking about giving legal rights to our simian ancestors.  They are, after all, dead.  I think we’re just talking about LIVING apes, from whom we most assuredly did NOT descend.

Yes, the Great Ape Project International, based in Atlanta, and other devoted simian lovers around the world, have rallied around a case in the European Court of Human Rights in Austria involving a 28-year-old chimp named Matthew Hiasi Pan.

And they’re cheered on by a resolution, adopted just last month by a Spanish parliamentary committee, that would give great apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas, the right to life, freedom from arbitrary captivity and protection from torture.

Pat is mocking this?  What’s his problem?  Does he think chimpanzees should be arbitrarily killed, captured and tortured?

What kind of a sick fuck is Pat Boone, anyway?

If the Spanish court approves the resolution, as it’s expected to do, Spain will be the first nation to extend human rights to mankind’s closest "genetic relatives." If the European Court in Austria follows suit, it may declare Matthew the chimp a person, and entitled to a legal guardian and funds for upkeep. He already has a lawyer, Eberhart Theuer of Vienna.

Oh, Pat.  Can you read?  Or do you get your info from retarded email spam?

The theory behind GAP is a simple one: great apes differ from us in DNA by only 0.5% difference. The difference between a chimpanzee and us is only 1.23%. Human blood and chimpanzee blood, with compatible blood groups, can be exchanged through transfusion.  We use chimps and other great apes to cure diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus erythematosis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, Crohn’s disease and asthma. Chimpanzees also contain unique advantages in evaluating new Hepatitis B and C vaccines, and treatments for malaria, again because of the similarity in their response to these antigens to humans.

But on a psychological level, the great apes are capable of rudimentary communication skills, feelings, rationality and self-consciousness.  The typical great ape is, to put in bluntly, more "advanced" emotionally and mentally than thousands of mentally-impaired humans.

Even then, nobody is advocating that a chimp be "declared" a person.  That would be stupid.  The whole object is to acknowledge that they should be offered some of the same rights as a mentally-retarded person — like the right to life, freedom from torture and imprisonment, etc.  Is that so silly?

[I can only imagine Pat’s response: "Yeah, but they’re monkeys.  They throw their own shit excrement!"  To which I respond, "Well, I’m sure many mentally retared people would, or do, too."]

And you thought we had problems with illegal aliens?

Get it?  Monkeys?  Dark-skinned illegal aliens?  Making the connection?   It’s okay if you didn’t; Pat just made it for you.

Matthew’s lawyer says he only wants his client to be treated like a human child, to be declared a person, and granted four of about 50 rights enjoyed by Europeans: the right to life, limited freedom of movement, personal safety and the right to claim property. And of course, a legal guardian.

"Four of about 50 rights"?  So in your earlier paragraph when you wrote "I’ve just read that animal rights activists in several countries are campaigning diligently for apes and chimps to receive virtually all the same legal rights as their supposed human descendants", you were lying, Pat?  Pulling something out of your arse there?

Or perhaps you lack basic reading comprehension, like our monkey brethren?

In this country, he’d be lining up for food stamps, health care, a driver’s license, unemployment insurance, registration to vote (Democrat) – and, maybe later, application for citizenship.

Okay.  I think Pat is being tongue-in-cheek about a monkey getting a driver’s license in this country and voting for Obama.  Well, maybe just the driver’s license part.  So, let’s give him a hearty "Har har.  Good reposte, old spot"

But underlying Pat’s sarcasm, he’s STILL making the racist connection between MONKEYS and ILLEGAL ALIENS (not to mention MONKEYS and OBAMA).  Why is nobody calling him on this?

Why not run for public office? According to the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Atlanta’s Emory University, chimps share 98.5 percent of human DNA – roughly the same as some career politicians!

And roughly the same as washed up 1950’s singers who got famous stealing music from monkeys dark-skinned people.  Ain’t that right, Pat?

The same study claims the ape family shares many of the same characteristics as humans, but not capacity for written language or complex emotions, such as guilt or shame. Sounds perfect for some congressional seats, some court benches and chairmanship of some big oil companies.

*rim shot*.  Thanks, ladies and gentleman.  Pat is playing the Sands all week!

Of course, there’s still a bamboo ceiling; he couldn’t run for president if he weren’t born in this country. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been governor of California for two terms, and that’s as far up the food chain as he can go. But some chimps have already been movie and TV stars; over 50 years ago, Cheetah starred with Tarzan, Clint Eastwood co-starred with one, and J. Fred Muggs was a big-hit regular with Dave Garaway on NBC.

Don’t quite get the comparison there, Pat.  Are you saying that Cheetah and J. Fred Muggs are higher up the food chain because they’ve been on TV, compared to Schwarzenegger, who has only been governor?

Are you just trying to show off your vast knowledge of monkeys-in-Hollywood trivia?  And if so, why?

Still, some legal analysts warn of a danger in giving apes equal legal status because an animal’s rights could conflict or even supersede a human’s rights in future court rulings, says USA Today. Richard Cupp, at Pepperdine University’s School of Law, having written extensively on animal vs. human rights, says, "I’d call it a slippery-slope-plus."

I thought I would factcheck Pat’s last paragraph, and found the USA Today article in question.  Here is how the relevant paragraph in USA Today reads, verbatim:

Some legal analysts warn of a danger in giving apes equal legal status because an animal’s rights could conflict or supersede a human’s rights in future court rulings. "I’d call it a slippery slope-plus," says Richard Cupp, associate dean for research at California’s Pepperdine University School of Law, who has written extensively on animal vs. human rights.

Why, Pat’s paragraph is almost word-for-word the same as the USA Today paragraph!  It’s almost as if he’s aping the USA Today article in a monkey-see-monkey-do kind of way.

Or, as we humans call it, plagerism.  Guess old habits (e.g., stealing songs from other people) die hard.

I guess so …next thing you know, the flaky California Supreme Court, already declaring that marriage no longer has to be defined as a covenant between one man and one woman, may quickly grant that status with all its benefits to a man and his chimp, a woman and her ape, or – God forbid – two male gorillas!

Okay.  Evolutionists?  Check.  Illegal immigrants?  Check.  Gays?  Check.  Bestiality?  Check. 

What other rightwing bugaboos can milk off this lame topic?

Landlords and business owners, watch out! You may soon have no right to forbid occupancy or employment to simians, no matter your religious convictions, or even allergies.

Desegregation?  Check.

Many researchers believe the AIDS virus mutated and originated in a certain type of African monkey, so hospitals may have a lot more to worry about than staph infections.

Because… huh?  Ape rights will result in an increase in AIDS?  I realize — well, I think — this is intended to be funny, but one wonders how Pat’s mind works sometimes.

And talk about that "slippery slope" – if primates are ceded human rights, why not cats and dogs? And other pets like hamsters and iguanas and snakes and birds? What if George Clooney’s pet porker sues him for alienation of affection?

*rim shot*   ha ha ha ha… huh?  Pat is not only suggesting that George Clooney fucks a pig, but that George Clooney cheats on the pig he’s been fucking.

Pat, that’s cooooold.

Hey, that great humanitarian Leona Helmsley not only left $12 million to her beloved white Maltese, Trouble, but it now turns out she earmarked virtually her entire estate, between 5 and 8 billion, for a charitable trust dedicated to "the care and welfare of dogs"! And not even she demanded that pooches be declared human and granted the same status as American citizens. Obviously, in her view, that would devalue them.

I’m not comedy writer, but somehow "in her view, that would devalue them" just doesn’t sound like a workable punchline, no matter how lengthy the set-up.

It occurs to me, at the risk of being shouted down by Matthew’s legal supporters, that a novel solution to all this might be: Leave all primates in their natural habitat, where they’ve always flourished, and quit dragging them into the confusion and turmoil of modern society! It didn’t work for Tarzan, and it sure didn’t for Cheetah!

Pssst, Pat!  I think that’s what Matthew’s legal supporters are trying to achieve.  So this whole time, you’ve been having fun at the expense of people with whom you actually agree.

I know this all sounds ridiculous, and it is. As ridiculous as former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s serious suggestion that we ought to look to Europe for some of our legal precedents and judgments.

Liberal judges?  Check.

As if our unique and precious Constitution with its Bill of Rights didn’t provide Americans with the best and highest form of jurisprudence ever devised on this planet, creating the best and freest society in history.

Shhhyuh, dude.  As IF.

Look to Europe?

That’s for the dogs. And now, the apes.

So sayeth Pat Boone, adding "I mean. Come ON!  If pigs could fly!  But that’s a horse of a different color!  Hahahahaha!  I crack myself up sometimes!  Hahahahahah!  Beeeern-a-diiiine…."

In_a_metal_mood_no_more_mr_nice_guy

Pictured above: Pat Boone, Concerned About Monkeys and Illegal Aliens Driving Cars, Mixing with General Population

“The Mediator Of The Head And The Heart”

Ken AshfordHistory, Popular Culture, TheatreLeave a Comment

200511metropolisposterbigIf you consider yourself a science fiction movie fan, and have never heard of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, then you are no science fiction movie fan.

Metropolis is widely-considered the first serious science fiction film (the Georges Méliès’ 1902 short A Trip to the Moon cannot be considered high science fiction), and most science fiction classics, from Blade Runner to Star Wars to The Matrix all are derived, whether they realize it or not, from this 1927 German work.

At the time is was made, Metropolis was the most expensive silent film of the time, costing approximately 7 million Reichsmark (equivalent, by some estimate to about $200 million U.S. dollars) to make.

The movie is a strange mixture of political speculation political parable, apocalyptic fantasy, and religious allegory.

Basically, the film is set in the year 2026, a world marked by extraordinary Gothic skyscrapers of a corporate city-state, known as Metropolis. Set designer Erich Kettlehut’s designs for the city Golden Age science fiction, with a characteristically pre-Nazi German architectural flavor.

The society of Metropolis has been divided into two rigid groups: one of planners or thinkers, who live high above the earth in luxury, and another of workers who live underground toiling to sustain the lives of the privileged. The city is run by Johann ‘Joh’ Fredersen (Alfred Abel).

The beautiful and evangelical figure Maria (Brigitte Helm — who was 17 when the film was made) takes up the cause of the workers. She advises the desperate workers not to start a revolution, and instead wait for the arrival of "The Mediator", who, she says, will unite the two halves of society.

Clock3The son of Joh, Freder (Gustav Fröhlich), becomes infatuated with Maria, and follows her down into the working underworld. In the underworld, he experiences firsthand the toiling lifestyle of the workers, and observes the casual attitude of their employers (he is disgusted after seeing an explosion at the "M-Machine", when the employers bring in new workers to keep the machine running before taking care of the men wounded or killed in the accident). Shocked at the workers’ living conditions, he joins her cause.

Meanwhile Freder’s father, Joh, consults with a scientist named Rotwang (Rudolf Klein-Rogge).  Rotwang is an old companion and rival of Joh.  Years ago we learn, they both pursued a woman named Hel.  Joe won over Hel and went on to run Metropolis, while Rotwang languished in anonymity.  Hel, we learn, died while giving birth to Freder.

From Rotwang, Joh learns that the papers found with dead workers are plans of the catacombs and witnesses a speech by Maria. Maria has given the workers hope by preaching about the coming of a "mediator" who would be the "heart" between the "head" (i.e., Joh, the conceiver of the city) and the "hands" (or the people who labor to make it a reality).

Joh also learns that Rotwang has built a femaile robot. Rotwang wants to give the robot the appearance of Hel, his former lover who left him for Joh and died giving birth to Freder. Joh persuades him instead to give the robot Maria’s appearance, as he wants to use the robot to tighten his control over the workers. Rotwang complies out of ulterior motives: he knows of Freder’s and Maria’s love and wants to use the robot to deprive Joh of his son.

MetropolisroboTo complete the transformation of his robot, Rotwang enters the catacombs and captures Maria.  Maria is imprisoned in Rotwang’s house in Metropolis, while the now-transformed robot Maria is first showcast as an exotic dancer in the upper city’s Yoshiwara nightclub, fomenting discord among the rich young men of Metropolis.

Freder catches his father and the mechanical Maria together, is shocked into sickness and hallucinations.

Eventually, Rotwang relents, he wants to back out of the plan. He and Joh fight; Rotwang is knocked unconscious while Maria escapes. She runs to the underground city which is now deserted, except for its children; the workers, in full revolt under the robot’s leadership, are demolishing machinery—some of which controls reservoirs above.

After descending to the worker’s city, the robot Maria encourages the workers into a full-scale rebellion, and they destroy the "Heart Machine", the power station of the city. Neither Freder nor Grot, the foreman of the Heart Machine, can stop them. As the machine is destroyed, the city’s reservoirs overflow, flooding the workers’ underground city and seemingly drowning the children, who were left behind in the riot.

But the children have not drowned.  Freder and Maria have saved them in a heroic rescue, without the workers’ knowledge. (It’s not clear how Freder showed up after his hallucinations; much of this part of the print as been lost — more on that below)

When the workers realize the damage they have done and that their children are lost, they attack the upper city. Under the leadership of Grot, they chase the human Maria, whom they hold responsible for their riot. As they break into the city’s entertainment district, they run into the Yoshiwara crowd and capture the robot Maria, while the human Maria manages to escape. The workers burn the captured (robot) Maria at the stake; Freder, believing this to be the human Maria, despairs.

But then he and the workers realize that the burned Maria is in fact a robot.

Meanwhile, the human Maria is chased by Rotwang along the battlements of the city’s cathedral. Freder chases after Rotwang, resulting in a climactic scene in which Joh watches in terror as his son struggles with Rotwang on the cathedral’s roof. Rotwang falls to his death, and Maria and Freder return to the street, where Freder unites Joh (the "head") and Grot (the "hands"), fulfilling his role as the "Mediator" (the "heart").

That’s it in a nutshell.  Here’s a montage of scenes from the original film, so you can get a sense, if nothing else, of its style.

The appeal of Metropolis comes as a piece of film history, not as a film itself.  Lang’s cut of Metropolis premiered in Berlin at more than three and a half hours; the studio cut it drastically soon after its release (almost in half), and much of the cut material has been thought to be lost for good. Over the years different versions of the film exhibiting varying degrees of quality have circulated (often with new soundtracks), with some versions coming in at less than 90 minutes.  [When discussing the running time of Metropolis – the original or subsequent versions – one must use caution; nobody can agree on what speed the film was intended to be shown at, and that makes a difference]

So the problem, you see, is that there are so many cuts of the film, that even my above plot synopsis may not be accurate… and certainly not complete.  Many of the cuts made over the years are simply baffling: the entire subplot concerning the man Fredersen sends to spy on his son; the scenes explaining the origin of Rotwang’s enmity toward the city’s ruler; and the struggle between the rival geniuses that allows the real Maria to escape from Rotwang’s clutches.

This makes Metropolis an excruciating film to watch.  The half-explained plot twists (in incomplete versions), plus the very non-Hollywood style of story-telling, coupled with religious and iconic imagery, all combine to send the typical viewer into fits of apoplexy, as they wonder aloud "WTF am I watching?!?"  I suspect that even without cuts, the film is pretty inaccessible (but at least, one hopes, there aren’t gaps).

I happen to own four DVDs of the movie.  Why four?

Well, the first one I bought shortly after DVDs came out.  Cost a couple of bucks.  It’s a scratchy, public domain version.

The second one I bought was a "restored" version.  Pretty much the same as my earlier version, but cleaner.  With 1927 orchestrations played by a contemporary orchestra.

The third version I bought was the 1984 "restoration" of Metropolis, a re-edit of the film that was compiled by Giorgio Moroder.   Moroder’s version of the film introduced a new modern rock-and-roll soundtrack for the film. Although it restored a number of previously missing scenes and plot details from the original release, his version of the film runs to only 80 minutes in length.  The 1984 re-edit also attempted to fill in plot gaps by using publicity still photos from the original Lang movie to create montages.  Morodor also used color overlays for different scenes, getting away from the black & white/sepia look.  Here’s a clip:

I can’t say that the I enjoyed the Morodor remake very much.  The pop soundtrack was bizarre.  The whole thing still suffered from being uneven.  But it was, well, interesting.

Finally, the 4th version I bought was a recent re-release by Kino, containing recently discovered footage, a documentary, and some film historians guessing at the plot holes based on archival material (still photos, working scripts, etc.).   It is the most definitive version — the closest to the original — that has been mass-marketed to date.

FYI:  Metropolis was also adapted to a stage musical which took the theme and story of "Metropolis"> It was produced as a contemporary piece, while suggesting much of the mood of the original 1920’s vision of the future.  From what I understand, it was not well-received.

OKAY.  SO WHY AM I TALKING ABOUT METROPOLIS?

Because of the news, which, I confess, I cannot believe I missed a few weeks ago.  Earlier this month, they found what appears to be the full uncut original as intended by Fritz Lang:

A long-lost original cut of the classic sci-fi film Metropolis, with extra scenes, has recently been unearthed and screened for the first time in decades.

Bad journalistic writing here.  If it’s the original, then those scenes aren’t "extra".  Know what I mean?

The original version of the 1927 film by Austrian-born director Fritz Lang was parked for 80 years, first in a private collection and then at the Museum of Cinema in Buenos Aires. That’s where it was re-discovered in April with images that hadn’t been seen since 1927.

"We no longer believed we’d see this. Time and again we had had calls about supposed footage but were disappointed," said Helmut Possmann, head of the Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau Foundation in Wiesbaden, Germany, which owns the rights to to the film.

Possmann said up to 25 minutes of extra scenes help flesh out secondary characters as well as the plot.

The cinema museum’s director, Paula Felix-Didier, said theirs is the only copy of Lang’s complete film and it is being guarded very carefully.

***

The cinema museum’s director, Paula Felix-Didier, said theirs is the only copy of Lang’s complete film and it is being guarded very carefully.

Metropolis was written by Lang and his actress wife, Thea von Harbou.

The film depicts a 21st-century dystopic world split into a class of underworld workers and an elite who control them.

Soon after its initial release, distributors cut Lang’s masterpiece into a 114-minute version.

According to Felix-Didier, a private collector carried an original version to Argentina in 1928.

In the 1980s, Argentine film fan Fernando Pena heard rumours about a man who used to spend hours screening a version of Metropolis.

It took many years of begging by Pena, but employees at the Buenos Aires museum finally decided to check their archives this year to see whether they had a version of the film. In April, researchers uncovered the reels in the museum’s archive.

In June, Felix-Didier carried a DVD copy of the long version to the Murnau foundation in Germany, where researchers confirmed its authenticity.

As for a cinematic distribution, it’s too soon to say whether the original will be re-issued.

No, I expect it won’t be released theatrically.  Maybe at museums.  But I would like to see that sucker on DVD.

The BBC adds this:

Around 20 to 25 minutes of footage that fleshes out secondary characters and sheds light on the plot would be added to the film pending restoration, Possmann said, but around 5 minutes of the original was probably still missing.

Eh… five minutes?  I’ll live.

[FYI:  What’s my real interest in Metropolis?  I have a confession.  I’ve been working on a stage musical version of this — for grins and giggles — for a number of years.  Employing the discography of The Thompson Twins which, remarkably, fits in stylistically and lyrically with the plot.  Don’t tell anybody.]

That’s Got To Leave A Mark (GOP Response: “We’re Fucked”)

Ken AshfordElection 2008, Iraq1 Comment

The Prime Minister of Iraq has endorsed U.S. plans for an withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Well, not Bush’s plan. And not McCain’s plan (McCain doesn’t really have one).

Nope, the Bush-backed Iraqi PM supports Senator Obama’s plan:

BERLIN (Reuters) – Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

Obama has called for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and wants to pull out troops within 16 months, instead adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan.

Asked if he supported Obama’s ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

And with that, the notion of Obama being "inexperienced" and green about matter of foreign policy disappear.  After all, it was Bush who repeatedly said that when we are asked to leave Iraq, we will (only to backpedal when it looks like we’ve been asked).

Marc Ambinder provides why this is a big deal:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq’s Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there’s no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what’s left to argue? To argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren’t equivalent to Iraq’s, but… Maliki isn’t listening to the generals on the ground…but the "hasn’t been to Iraq" line doesn’t work here.

So how will the McCain campaign respond?

The problem for McCain is that there is no good response.  He’ll either have to agree that Obama’s plan was right all along, OR explain why Maliki’s opinion about events in his own country don’t matter.

And according to Ambinder, Republicans know McCain is in a tight spot:

(Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We’re fucked." No response yet from the McCain campaign, although here’s what McCain said the last time Maliki mentioned withdrawal: "Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And I’m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we’ve had.")

Obama’s campaign, however, was quick to issue this statement (from an email):

There are two problems with John McCain’s political attacks on Barack Obama’s foreign policy. First, on the biggest foreign policy questions of the last eight years, Barack Obama has made the right judgment and John McCain has sided with George Bush in making the wrong one. Second, the failure of the McCain-Bush foreign policy has forced John McCain to change his position, and to embrace the very same Obama approaches that he once attacked.

Just this week, Senator McCain has been forced by events to switch to Barack Obama’s position on two fundamental issues: more troops in Afghanistan, and more diplomacy with Iran. On both issues, Obama took stands that weren’t politically popular at the time – opposing the war in Iraq as a diversion from the critical mission in Afghanistan, and standing up for direct diplomacy with Iran – while John McCain lined up with George Bush. Time has proven Obama’s judgment right and McCain wrong.

The next shift appears to be Iraq. For months, Senator McCain has called any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq “surrender” – even though we’d be leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government. Now, the Bush Administration is embracing the negotiation of troop withdrawals with the Iraqi government – a position that Senator Obama called for last September, and reiterated on Monday in the New York Times. And now, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports Barack Obama’s timeline, telling Der Speigel that, “Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months.”

The McCain campaign really has no clue what it is doing.  It’s not thinking.  First, they attacked Obama for having little foreign policy experience.  "I mean, he’s never even been to Iraq and Afghanistan", they cried (while touting McCain’s foreign policy experience he gained as… a POW.  I guess.)

So Obama says he’s going to go to Iraq and Afghanistan.  And then, right away, before you know it, the trip becomes a HUGE media event, stealing whatever thing McCain has got going, and giving Obama all kinds of free media attention.  Now desparate for the spotlight that they all but handed to Obama, the McCain people call the trip a political stunt, but nobody pays attention.

And then this.  Before Obama’s foot steps off the plane, al-Maliki gives an interview which, in one full swoop, gives Obama more foreign policy cred than the Bush Administration (and its McCain successor).

Not a good week for McCain.  He just lost his strong suit: foreign policy.

By the way, a sidenote from the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.  Most reporters got the story from a White House email…. by mistake:

The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan – magazine."

The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel that "he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months … ‘U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,’" the prime minister said.

The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.

Of course, they would have found out about al-Maliki’s interview in Der Spiegal anyway, but the whole White House error caused it to come out as a concussive grenade, rather than a slow blog-to-MSM hiss.

UPDATE:  The McCain campaign has just released this weak statement in response:

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, McCain 2008 Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Randy Scheunemann issued the following statement:

"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama’s views had prevailed."

It kind of dodges the issue at hand, and moves the playing field to an irrelevant place.  The problem for McCain, which he dodges, is that he doesn’t believe in withdrawal at all.  So it’s a little hard to see this as somehow vindicating him.

The EPA Has ADD

Ken AshfordEnvironment & Global Warming & Energy6 Comments

News today:

Climate change will pose "substantial" threats to human health in the coming decades, the Environmental Protection Agency said yesterday — issuing its warnings about heat waves, hurricanes and pathogens just days after the agency declined to regulate the pollutants blamed for warming.

That’s reassuring, coming from the federal government.  Unfortunately, the EPA was saying something else only last week:

In a 588-page federal notice, the Environmental Protection Agency made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people’s health, reversing an earlier conclusion at the insistence of the White House and officially kicking any decision on a solution to the next president and Congress.

The bottom line, I think, is that the EPA does believe that global change does threaten human health, but they aren’t going to do anything until Bush gets out of office.

Someone Has To Call Out McCain On This

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

What McCain said yesterday:

"Senator Obama wants to raise taxes; I want to keep them low. [If you’re] somebody who wants higher taxes, I’m not your candidate. Senator Obama is."

What McCain should have said if he wanted to be 100% accurate and the "straight talker" that he supposedly is:

"If you’re somebody making less that $237,040 and wants lower taxes, I’m not your candidate.  Senator Obama is your man."

Because you see  95% of taxpayers will do better under Obama’s plan than McCain’s. See here for details.  Or simply look at this chart, which I’ve posted before, and probably will have to post again many times:

Blog_tpc_obama_mccain_tax_plans

Al Gore, Plagerist, Offers A Convenient Truth

Ken AshfordEnergy and ConservationLeave a Comment

Me, on July 15, 2008, on this very blog, saying how it was possible to remove ourselves from being addicted to oil and gas energy, if we only had the gonads to make such a commitment:

"We put a man on the moon in less than ten years.  When Kennedy proposed doing it in 1960, the materials and technology to put a man on the moon hadn’t been invented yet.  Yet, less than ten years later, there was good ol’ Neil planting the flag on the Sea of Tranquilty."

Al Gore, yesterday:

"Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years….

When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon…

I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes… I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race."

But in all seriousness, Gore’s proposal is exciting.  He seems to think it is possible to totally remove ourselves from the plague of oil and gas dependency IN TEN YEARS. 

You can read the full transcript here.  Ah, screw it.  I’ll put the whole thing below the fold….

Or watch the video:

He plagerizes my Kennedy reference at 16:40.

UPDATE: The Oil Drum has some thoughts on whether or not Gore’s plan this is realistic:

The short answer is: while 100% is probably unrealistic, it’s not unreasonable to expect to be able to get pretty close to that number (say, in the 50-90% range) in that timeframe, and it is very likely that it makes a LOT of sense economically.

Well, that alone makes it worth it.  Shoot high.

Read the post. It’s a little technical, and it’s a lot to get your head around, but it’s comprehensive and addresses three things:

1) is it technically feasible to build the requisite capacity within 12 years?
2) what will it cost, and what will it mean for power prices?
3) how can the intermittency issue be dealt with?

Read More

Greenwald Is Good Today

Ken AshfordAttorney Firings, Bush & Co., Courts/LawLeave a Comment

He’s on a rant about the Justice Department under the Bush Adminsitration — people who seem to think they work for the President and not for the people of the United States:

The core attribute of the Justice Department is independence, not allegiance to the President as "client." The President has his own lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office. The Attorney General is not and never was one of those lawyers. To the contrary, the Attorney General represents the people of the United States — if he has any "client," that’s who it is — and is often required to take positions and actions adverse to the President. Few things could subvert — and have subverted — the American justice system more than thinking of the President as being the "client" of the Attorney General.

This all used to be so basic. But the belief that the DOJ exists to advance the interests and wishes of the President has become a central premise of how our Government now works. The Justice Department has been transformed into but another cog in the instruments of Government that protect and serve the President. And that transformation isn’t unique to Alberto Gonzales (who, during a CNN interview while Attorney General, actually referred to Bush as "my client"), as The Washington Post‘s Dan Froomkin pointed out yesterday:

Michael Mukasey has President Bush’s back.

Mukasey succeeded toady Alberto Gonzales as attorney general last fall. But the notion that he would restore independence to that post took a big hit yesterday when he refused to turn over to a House committee key documents related to the CIA leak investigation.

This isn’t just ranting for the sake of ranting.  The people who think they work for Bush literally have no idea who they seem to actually work for or what their allegience is to, even though it’s spelled out in their oath. 

Exhibit A from last year — former White House official Sara Taylor actually went before the Senate and testified that she understood that she took an oath when she went to the White House that was "an oath to the President":

That’s quite disconcerting…

Bush’s Legacy

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

Yes, I too think it is time we should start naming public buildings after our illustrious president.  A good place to start:

A measure seeking to commemorate President Bush’s years in office by slapping his name on a San Francisco sewage plant has qualified for the November ballot.

The measure certified Thursday would rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

Supporters say the idea is to commemorate the mess they claim Bush has left behind by actions such as the war in Iraq.

They’re pretty funny out there in California.

Tuning In

Ken AshfordRed Sox & Other SportsLeave a Comment

This is usually the time of year when I start to really tune in to the Bosox.  Season being half over and all.

It looks like we’re in first — barely — and that seem largely due to a Tampa Bay impode more than anything else.  (Really?  Tampa Bay?  Why are they even a factor?!?)

Yankees not a serious threat at the moment….

Of course, Papi is out on disability for a while, Youklis and Varitek will probably soon join him on the DL.  And Schilling just is gone.

And, to top it off, Manny is being all grumbly with the front office apparently.  Seriously, I like Manny, but sometimes his attitude…

All this doesn’t bode well for the near future. 

But JD Drew and Mike Lowell are pulling their weight (Drew only has one less homer than Manny); we’ve still got Dice-K and Papelbon on the bench.

So we might survive a rough patch and squeak through…

2008 American League – Standings
EAST W L PCT GB HOME ROAD RS RA DIFF STRK L10 DIV WC POFF
Boston 57 40 .588 36-11 21-29 495 396 +99 Won 2 7-3 61.3 18.6 79.9
Tampa Bay 55 39 .585 .5 36-14 19-25 433 387 +46 Lost 7 3-7 29.7 25.7 55.5
NY Yankees 50 45 .526 6 27-22 23-23 436 412 +24 Lost 1 5-5 6.3 9.1 15.4
Toronto 47 48 .495 9 27-20 20-28 399 376 +23 Won 1 6-4 2.1 2.8 4.9
Baltimore 45 49 .479 10.5 25-17 20-32 441 452 -11 Lost 3 2-8 0.6 1.4 2.0
CENTRAL W L PCT GB HOME ROAD RS RA DIFF STRK L10 DIV WC POFF
Chicago Sox 54 40 .574 32-13 22-27 462 379 +83 Lost 1 5-5 67.8 6.5 74.3
Minnesota 53 42 .558 1.5 32-18 21-24 464 448 +16 Lost 1 6-4 26.8 11.8 38.6
Detroit 48 47 .505 6.5 28-20 20-27 455 449 +6 Won 2 5-5 4.3 2.5 6.8
Kansas City 43 53 .448 12 22-24 21-29 397 458 -61 Lost 1 4-6 0.2 0.1 0.3
Cleveland 41 53 .436 13 26-22 15-31 426 418 +8 Won 4 4-6 0.9 0.4 1.2
WEST W L PCT GB HOME ROAD RS RA DIFF STRK L10 DIV WC POFF
LA Angels 57 38 .600 26-20 31-18 409 388 +21 Won 2 6-4 56.2 7.6 63.8
Oakland 51 44 .537 6 31-24 20-20 410 345 +65 Lost 2 5-5 35.7 10.9 46.5
Texas 50 46 .521 7.5 25-21 25-25 538 559 -21 Won 1 6-4 8.1 2.7 10.8
Seattle 37 58 .389 20 19-27 18-31 374 437 -63 Won 1 4-6 0.1 0.1 0.1

Dear Abby Hijacked: Volume Four

Ken AshfordDear Abby HijackedLeave a Comment

Past installments

From her July 16 column

DEAR ABBY: My 17-year-old niece, "Nicki," was recently diagnosed with an STD. When her mother, my sister-in-law "Cynthia," found out she was horrified. She had ignored several family members — including me — who had tried to warn her that Nicki was sexually active and not taking proper precautions.

Now Nicki’s 14-year-old sister, "Danni," has come to me because she was afraid she was pregnant. I took her to get a pregnancy test done. Thank God, it was negative.

I think Danni should be tested for STDs, and both she and Nicki should be on birth control.

I can’t get this through to my sister-in-law. Cynthia thinks I "don’t understand" because I have sons, and "all I have to do is give them condoms."

Yes, but I have also talked to them about sex, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy and prevention, as well as the importance of acting responsibly.

I just want my nieces to be safe. Cynthia is living in a state of denial. How can I protect my nieces? — CONCERNED AUNT IN NEW YORK

Dear Concerned Aunt:  This is nothing to screw around with (no pun intended).  Talk directly to the two kids yourself.  If they have come to you (as Danni has), it sounds like your responsibility is to, at the very least, point them to some literature and educate them.  Make THEM see how important safe sex is.  And offer to buy them protection.

Signed, Dear Abby Hijacked

DEAR ABBY: Is it rude or inconsiderate for a person to knit, crochet or piece a quilt while attending a meeting or other gathering? — CURIOUS IN THE SUNBELT

Dear Curious:  It certainly *can* be.  It depends on the nature of the gathering.  If, for example, the knitter was the subject of an intervention, she should probably put the knitting down and, you know, listen.  It’s also probably not cool in an office setting (i.e., meeting with clients).

But large school board meetings, or church, or something like that?  That’s probably okay.  As long as the person can multi-task (some people can, some people can’t, and some people *say* they can but actually can’t).

Signed, Dear Abby Hijacked