February 2004

Putting gay marriage into perspective

An article in today’s NY Times does a good job of putting the debate on gay marriage into more productive terms, and comes to the same conclusions I do, but gets there by different means.

The writer, Nathaniel Frank, helpfully clarifies that the “for” and “against” sides are talking past each other–the against side pitches its argument in terms of marriage’s social role, the for side in terms of individual rights–and he points out that both aspects are relevant.

My main disagreement with Frank is brought into sharpest relief by this paragraph:

The argument is not so much that individual straight couples are threatened by gay marriage, but that the collective rules that define marriage are being undermined. Instead of feeling part of a greater social project that demands respect, people will feel that breaking their vows offends only their spouse, not the whole community. Knowing that their friends and neighbors no longer hold marriage sacred can make it easier for people to wander.

The problem with Frank’s argument here is that he fails to acknowledge that this dread is ultimately rooted in bigotry: if the “greater social project” is somehow debased by gay marriage, it is because some feel that homosexuality is icky, and do not want to be forced to acknowledge the legitimacy of a gay relationship.

For a long time, I was ambivalent about gay marriage: on the one hand, I was inclined to be tolerant, on the other, the idea inspired cognitive dissonance–it didn’t fit my notion of marriage. Then, about ten years ago, the Economist published a cover story (as they are doing again this week) making the case for gay marriage–“Let them wed” the headline read. And I realized that my objections were hollow.

The Dreamers

Another Bernado Bertolucci movie that tries to document a pivotal moment in history and tell a story of psychosexual drama, I just don’t quite get the Dreamers. The historical setting is Paris in 1968, during student uprisings, and the characters are an American exchange student who hooks up with a brother-sister who seem joined at the hip.

Perhaps it’s because I don’t know enough about Paris in 1968 that the historical angle leaves me cold–a bunch of students marching in the streets and venerating Mao, clashes with police, etc–it’s not clear what they really thought they would achieve, if anything, or if they were just being rebellious and blowing off steam. The movie sort of muddles along for the first three quarters, occasionally punctuated by significant moments, and in the last quarter has several momentous but completely ambiguous moments that leave the audience wondering not only what is happening but why the characters did what they did. The cinematography is quite good, but the content could be condensed down to less than an hour.

The Triplets of Belleville, Destino

Saw the Triplets of Belleville along with Destino at the Dobie.

Destino is an animated short that finishes off an unfinished collaboration between Walt Disney and Salvador Dali; it has all the melting clocks and visual imagination you’d expect from a duo like that. Here in town, it’s only playing at the Dobie, but it’s worth it. Apparently the original project didn’t get beyond conceptual sketches–what we saw was all computer-generated.

The Triplets of Belleville is another animated movie, and it’s wonderful. It has no dialogue, very much like Mr Hulot’s Holiday, and in fact, it made a couple of explicit references to that. The characters are (pardon the pun) two-dimensional, but there’s so much visual and auditory inventiveness I just didn’t care. The movie rewards careful viewing, and demands a pretty good visual vocabulary to get much out of it. It also, I have to point out, was made by someone who loves bikes and bike racing, and he gets right a lot of little details that only another bike person would notice.

Why does John Ashcroft hate America?

A pirate posting of a recent Vanity Fair profile of John Ashcroft makes for an interesting read (it’s long but worth reading–you might want to print it out). It doesn’t have a lot of profound insights, but it does have numerous alarming anecdotes from people who have worked closely with the man.

One point in particular jumped off the page at me, though:

He has supported an additional 10 amendments to the Constitution (including one to make it easier to amend).

Here’s the thing: America is an unusual country in that at its root, it is founded on a document, the Constitution. Older countries–France or Japan, for example–are at root basically big tribes: they are countries because there are more-or-less cohesive ethnic/linguistic groups within their borders. France and Japan have been through any number of different forms of government–monarchy, military dictatorship, republic, etc–but nobody would ever dispute that each was the same country throughout. Many newer countries, for better or worse, are artifacts of colonialism or European tussles, with artificially drawn borders that artificially group together nationalities that probably wouldn’t choose to share citizenship with each other. We saw that with Yugoslavia before, and we’re seeing this in Iraq right now.

The idea behind the USA is that people are made American by their choice to accept a certain set of rules for what it means to be American, and that set of rules is expressed in the Constitution. Change the Constitution and you change the country. Right now there are 7 articles and 27 amendments to the Constitution and Ashcroft would add 10 more? Clearly, he is not happy with this country as it is constituted and wants it to be something very different. Rather than radically change the country to suit his tastes, he’d be better off finding a country that’s closer to his liking and moving there. The rest of us would be better off, too.

Turkish Star Wars in Magnificent Foleyvision!

I’m somewhat amazed at myself for having sat through this movie twice now, but last night I saw Alamo’s foleyvision production of Turkish Star Wars (op cit). The key difference this time being the English voiceovers. “Now I’ll know what that movie was actually about” I thought when I bought my ticket.

Two hours later, I was sadder, poorer, but wiser. The movie is so profoundly nonsensical that it defies comprehension in any language. This is not to criticize the translation, and I must say, the entire audience–a packed house–cheered when the translator’s name scrolled up in the Alamo’s homemade credits, which made my heart swell.

The foleyvision crew did a fine job, and took well-earned poetic license on occasion. Kudos.

Something to hide?

A recent Metafilter discussion on the rumor that dare not speak its name led to a helpful link to the Texas State Republican Party platform. What’s perhaps most interesting about this is that it is hosted at the Texas Democrats website; apparently the state Republicans have not made it public. One can only speculate as to the reason why.

It’s an interesting grab-bag. Following is my grab-bag from their grab-bag. These quotes are in no particular order and are not contiguous in the original.

Here are a few things that jumped out at me where I agree with them (at least with what they’re saying, if not the intent behind it).

A perpetual state of national emergency allows unrestricted growth of government. The Party charges the President to cancel the state of national emergency and charges Congress to repeal the War Powers Act and declare an end to the previously declared states of emergency.

We support regulations based on proven science and support congressional oversight over administrative edicts.[though something tells me they want to the arbiters of what’s “proven.”]

support…prohibition of internet voting and any touch screen voting or other electronic voting which lacks a paper trail

But the hateful, weird stuff is so much more plentiful. This is hardly complete–just the stuff that struck me as particularly interesting or evil.

We believe that human life is sacred because each person is created in the image of God, that life begins at the moment of conception and ends at the point of natural death, and that all innocent human life must be protected. [Note that all life is sacred, but only innocent life must be protected.]

The Party supports needed legislation to restore integrity to the voter registration rolls and to reduce voter fraud. Furthermore, we support the repeal of all Motor Voter laws [translation: we want fewer voters, especially black ones]

The Party opposes any so-called “campaign finance reform” [don’t you love the disdain?]

The Party urges repeal of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law.

The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United States of America is a Christian nation [This makes me feel ever so welcome]

The Party acknowledges that the church is a God-ordained institution with a sphere of authority separate from that of civil government; thus, churches, synagogues and other places of worship, including home Bible study groups, should not be regulated, controlled, or taxed by any level of civil government, including the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. We reclaim freedom of religious expression in public on government property, and freedom from governmental interference. [go ahead, put your megachurch in my neighborhood!]

Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State. [yeah, where did that crazy idea come from?]

The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

We also believe; that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be limited to supervised periods. [note how gays get lumped together with child-abusers]

Because of the personal and social pain causes by abortions, the Party calls for the protection of both women and their unborn children from pressure for unwanted abortions. [pressure?]

Corporal punishment should be used when appropriate and we encourage the legislature to strengthen existing immunity laws respecting corporal punishment.

The Party believes that scientific topics, such as the question of universe and life origins and environmental theories, should not be constrained to one opinion or viewpoint. We support the teaching equally of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories – as Texas now requires (but has yet to enforce) in public school science course standards. We urge revising all environmental education standards to require this also. We support individual teachers’ right to teach creation science in Texas public schools. [somebody needs to clue these guys in as to what is science and what is not]

A one world government is in direct opposition to the basic principles of the United States of America eroding our sovereignty and our goals for leadership in world affairs. [Funny, I thought Lyndon LaRouche was a Democrat]

Kevin Drum has a helpful shorter version of the platform

Usability assessment: gift registries

I’m not very thing-oriented, but apparently some family members feel obliged to buy gifts for the upcoming nuptials and made a point of asking my mother whether Gwen and I were registered anywhere.

So we duly registered at Linens ‘n Things (note the lonely apostrophe) and Target. What a mess, particularly at LnT.

Setup

At LnT, you sit down at a computer in the middle of the store with one of the few employees who’s been trained up on the process. He takes your information and plugs it into a computer (a process that takes much too long, and involved a couple of false-starts on his part). You could also do the initial setup online, but I suspect most people will do this in the store, if only because of instinct. The clerk then gives you a barcode scanner keyed to your registry number and you start scanning away.

At Target, you go to an automated kiosk (or you could do it online), and enter pretty much the same information through a touchscreen; even allowing for the annoyance of typing on a touchscreen with ABCDE layout instead of QWERTY, this was much faster than the equivalent at LnT. The kiosk prints out a slip, which you take to customer service, where they key a scanner to your registry number, and then you start scanning away.

In both cases, they inevitably asked for data that will be valuable for reselling, such as e-mail and phone. We declined to give phone numbers, and I gave them a temporary e-mail address that I will delete when the whole process is complete.

Scanning

Though I was reluctant to admit it at first, there’s no question in my mind that walking through a store with a scanner is more efficient and effective than picking out items on the web for most items. Some items that involve more background research (say, a computer) are probably better purchased online, as are some that you can identify beforehand (for example, a particular CD or DVD that you know you want). But when you have a general idea that you want a new coffeemaker, it’s hard to beat picking them up and looking at them–even helpful amazon reviews can only augment this, not replace it.

At LnT, the scanner seems pretty industrial–I’m guessing it’s the same one the staff uses for taking inventory and the like–and it’s not especially friendly. It’s an awkward, blocky shape to hold and the scanning element faces the side. It did allow us to plug in a quantity after scanning, rather than repeatedly scanning the same item. I asked if it was possible to delete something that we scanned accidentally; apparently it isn’t–instead, one would have to go onto the Internet or use the computer in-store, which has a touchscreen kiosk mode that is truly awful–slow, with a significant alignment error between the actual spot touched and the cursor position.

At Target, our printout had a special “delete” barcode on it; to delete a previously scanned item, scan that and then scan the item. But there was no way to key in multiples of an item–we had to scan something twice to buy two of them. The scanner itself had a better design–quite a lot like a phaser from Star Trek–easier to hold and to point accurately, and fewer buttons to confuse the user (though even the buttons that were there were pretty much unnecessary).

Neither scanner confirmed the name of the item after we scanned it. It shouldn’t be difficult to store a lookup table of UPCs and product names in the scanner, and it would be helpful to be able to see a list of what we’ve scanned and make immediate changes.

Online

The real value in these registries is in that they make it easier for other people to shop for you online. LnT’s website is so bad, however, that I feel a bit guilty asking anyone to use it. When I first visited the site on Gwen’s machine (running Internet Explorer 5), each page-load took about two minutes, waiting for a javascript to construct the dynamic department-navigation bar. The only way to use the site without going batty was to disable javascript entirely. It is ironic that when I viewed the site in Safari and Camino that some of the top navigation links (including, crucially, “gift registry” and “help”) were made invisible by ad-blocking settings I’ve got on those browsers. They also have a few cosmetic problems, but nothing serious. I took a glance at the HTML code behind LnT’s website, and it’s awful: there is no BODY element on the pages; all the content is crammed into javascripts in the HEAD, and is filled with table-hacks and non-breaking spaces for position.

Trying to access the registry at the Target website was initially crazy-making. I tried to sign in as a customer with an existing account (having set one up at the kiosk), but apparently there’s a difference between a kiosk account and an online account: I had to create a new account and then link it to the kiosk account. I was concerned that I’d overwrite the existing kiosk account, though in fairness, the instructions make clear that this will not happen, and I just wasn’t paying careful attention. The HTML at the Target site isn’t as pathologically weird as LnT’s, it’s not exactly clean either.

How can they improve?

Let me sit down somewhere a little out of the way and type the information on a real keyboard. Don’t insult me with a touchscreen keyboard, especially in ABCDE order. Not everybody will be comfortable with a keyboard, so have a clerk help them. There’s enough money in a registry that the store can afford to allocate five minutes to setting it up.

Redesign the scanner. There should be a tenkey pad for quantities or manually keying in UPCs, plus buttons to confirm, delete, and change previous scans. There should be a display that can show at least ten lines of text, so that the customer can scroll through and see names and quantities of items. These functions should be clearly labelled The device should be easy to hold and to aim.

Once you get in, both LnT’s and Target’s websites are easy enough to use, the previous problems aside. They both helpfully break up registry items by department.

The whole concept of buying items off of someone else’s list could be taken farther. It may be a bit crass, but rather than letting friends check off a specific item they want to give as a gift, let them simply spend a certain amount of money towards the gifts on the list. There are some things that Gwen and I registered for that are too expensive for most friends to consider giving as gifts. Friends already go in together to buy one big gift, and this would make that easier. And some people registering for gifts are known to register for many cheap items that they don’t really want, but that their friends can afford; once the gifts come in, they exchange a bunch of cheaper gifts for the more expensive item they really wanted: the cheap gifts are intermediate units of account and nothing more. For that matter, I’d like a bank to have a gift registry, so I could register for some hundred-dollar bills.

Talk about scandalous

In case you need any help decoding this story, the governor being mentioned is our own Rick Perry, who, as rumor has it, was caught by his wife in flagrante delicto with a young man.

Now what?

So Dean has dropped out. I think it’s a damn shame–I didn’t even get a chance to vote for him. Some people are pinning the blame on Joe Trippi for being out of his depth, others on other Democrat muckety-mucks to smack down the non-annointed and over-popular candidate. Both these arguments seem to have merit.

But Dean’s Internet-oriented organizing and fundraising approach has paid off for Ben Chandler of Kentucky.

The Wired article in the second link quotes the guy behind the Daily Kos as saying “What I fear is that candidates will see blog readers as ATM machines.”

It could happen, but I’m hopeful that it won’t. Implicit in making a pitch to bloggers is being responsive to them; bloggers are happy to say what they like and don’t like, and are accustomed to immediate feedback. So politicians start putting the touch on the blog community, I predict they’ll be held up to pretty close scrutiny, and will have to give something back.

The more interesting lesson here is that the Internet makes it a lot easier for a local candidate to raise funds from everyday people who aren’t in that location, but feel they have a stake in the outcome. I keep meaning to donate money to the guy running against Tom Delay…

Scandalous

I suppose I should be used to it by now, but I’m not.

When it comes to policy matters, the mainstream media will sit on its thumbs indefinitely, taking a position that purports to be objective but is in fact a form of cowardly post-modernism–that there is no true and false, no right and wrong, but that there are simply two sides to every story.

But when a juicy personal scandal comes along–one that is tangential or irrelevant to policy, then the press extends its claws.

I speak, of course, about Bush’s history in the “champagne unit” of the Texas Air National Guard, his, uh, undocumented presence for duty, and the newfound interest in it.

It’s a bit of a mystery to me why this wasn’t an issue in 2000, or before for that matter. It’s been known, and it’s been covered intermittently since then, with some interesting angles. Something–I don’t know what–poked the press in the side and whetted their interest in this. Which is fine in and of itself: as a bellicose president, Bush of all people should be held up for close scrutiny when it comes to his own military service. But there have been so many issues of more immediate concern during the past four years that went underreported that the renewed interest in investigative journalism comes across as tawdry.

Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer

Yesterday, Gwen and I saw Aileen, a documentary about the eponymous woman immortalized in Monster (which I also want to see).

It is unfortunate that this story is in the hands of Nick Broomfield, the documentarist. He’s just not very good at his job. He’s clearly wrapped up in his subject, he asks leading questions and occasionally, he practically answers his own questions for the interviewee. He fails to follow up on potentially interesting points that his subjects bring up. He has too much face-time and is too much a part of the story. To some extent, this is inevitable: he made a previous documentary about Aileen Wournos, which was introduced as evidence at a hearing shown in this film, and he was deposed as a witness in it as well. Setting that aside, though, he’s still too much in the movie. Though he clearly takes a dim view of other people who exploited Wournos’ story for money (a group that included several cops who were on her case), he’s in the same boat, and we see him onscreen paying $25,000 to her onetime lawyer for the right to film her. The camera work is also shoddy (not that the camera is necessarily his hands).

But Wournos herself is the real story, and she’s plenty interesting to make the movie worth seeing. Like some other documentaries that focus on crimes, we are left unsure of what really happened. Wournos, a hooker, killed seven men in the space of one year. The first had a history of sex crimes, and her initial defense was that he had brutalized her, so she was acting in self-defense. By the time this film was being made, she had been sentenced to death, and had publicly recanted her earlier story, saying she killed all of them for the money and no other reason. When she thought she was off-camera, however, she whispered that it was her original story that was true–that each of the men she killed had brutalized her–and she just recanted to get her execution over with. She couldn’t stand being in prison anymore, and she knew she’d never get out.

Wournos was also clearly mad. She said the prison was using “sonic pressure” on her brain. That the police knew about her after her first killing, but that they let her continue to kill six more men to create a more sensational case, and that the subsequent killings were really, somehow, the fault of the cops. Despite this, she passed a psych evaluation to determine her competence a few days before her execution. The evaluation lasted all of 15 minutes. Certainly, as long as the evaluation was carefully constructed of questions like “do you know what day it is?” (ie, the kinds of questions they ask to determine whether you’ve suffered recent brain trauma) she would pass.

We were unsure what really happened, but we speculated anyhow. Wournos had a shockingly awful upbringing–her mother running away at 6 months, losing her virginity at 9, having a child at the age of 13 (probably by a pederast), her father dying, her grandfather throwing her out of the house, and her living in the Michigan woods until she hitchhiked down to Florida at 16. It is not hard to imagine this putting a person in a fragile state of sanity. And it is not hard to believe that she really was brutalized by the first man she killed. Perhaps that’s what pushed her over the edge.

After this, we needed something to clear our heads out, so we rented The Magic Christian, the sixties anti-war/anti-capitalism/anti-authority semi-linear hippy freakout starring Peter Sellers and Ringo Starr.

My Architect

Saw My Architect last night with Gwen and a bunch of her co-workers. This is a documentary about the architect Louis Kahn by his son.

Kahn’s family life was complex, to put it gently. He was married and had two mistresses, and had one child by each of the ladies in his life–the filmmaker’s mother was the second of his mistresses, and to this day entertains the fantasy that he would have left his wife to live with her. Apparently all of the women knew of each other, but (unsurprisingly) had nothing to do with each other. Kahn’s cousin (who was interviewed in the film) disbelieved that the filmmaker could be Kahn’s son, since Kahn didn’t have a son, legitimately–apparently he wasn’t in on the whole story, though almost everyone else was.

The filmmaker didn’t know his father very well, since Kahn was rarely around–not only did he have a legit family, he apparently spent most of his time either at the office or travelling. So the movie is not just to document Kahn’s life: it’s a more personal project for the filmmaker to learn about his father, and inevitably, it winds up being a little self-regarding as a result.

Despite this, and despite the fact that it drags in spots, it’s a fascinating movie. Interviews with other leading architects of his generation (I.M. Pei, Philip Johnson, etc) give us the sense that Kahn was “an architect’s architect” even though he had far fewer completed commissions than his peers. Kahn’s work is interesting to learn about: his schtick was monumental architecture. Some of his buildings are just plain ugly. Others, like the Salk Library, are beautiful but don’t seem to work well on a human scale–in that sense, they are monumental, but formalized, abstract, and not entirely functional.

At the end of the movie, however, we see Kahn’s last big project, which wasn’t completed until a decade after his death in 1974: the parliament and capital complex for Bangladesh. It is enormous, sprawling, and wonderful. A deliberative chamber is like a giant cylinder capped by a skylight, with a constellation of lights underneath. There is little to distract the eye, and it is easy to imagine being in that room removes you from petty everyday concerns and subconsciously reminds you of the importance of what happens there. The filmmaker interviews the Bangladeshi architect Shamsul Wares, who openly cries at what Kahn did for Bangladesh: by giving them this building, he says, Kahn gave them the institutions for democracy. Putting Kahn’s legacy in human terms as well as academic terms.

Tread lightly and fly under the radar

Yesterday, I paid my property taxes. Close to $7000, and rising. I can’t afford this.

Yesterday, I also ran across the Fab Prefab website, which carries news about avant-garde prefab housing.

Growing up in Chicago–and then leaving–gave me an appreciation for good architecture. There’s so much good architecture in Chicago, and so little around Austin, that it became conspicuous by its absence. I’ve always loved the traditional townhouses around Chicago, but Buckminster Fuller’s Wichita House, which I first learned of back in college, has always struck me as something special, and the stuff featured at Fab Prefab is in that same spirit.

Another interesting aspect of many of the projects featured there is that they qualify as mobile homes. The way property tax works, some of the tax is on the land itself, but in most cases, more than half is on the “improvements” (ie, fixed structures). A mobile home doesn’t count as an improvement–I’m not sure what the make-or-break criterion is, but my guess is that it would be a fixed foundation.

I’m very attracted to the idea of a futuristic pod-home that lets me avoid perhaps two-thirds of my property taxes. Obviously there’s an ethics question here. I will let Socrates and Achilles debate this for me:

Socrates Is it ethical to work the system this way when most schmucks are paying their fair share?

Achilles When you put it that way, no. Then again, there’s nothing stopping other people from doing the same.

Socrates If everybody did that, then the school system would go bankrupt. After all, it’s property taxes that pay for the schools.

Achilles And why is that, anyhow? I always thought that was unfair, as the level of taxation is not tied to one’s ability to pay. People of modest means get priced out of their homes. (And about those schools–I gotta tell ya, we’re not getting our money’s worth out of them.)

Socrates Well, that’s not very fair either, I guess. But they knew the way the system worked when they bought, so they’ve got nothing to complain about.

Achilles What about renters? Landlords just pass through their property-tax increases, so unless you are a bum, there’s no way to completely escape property taxes.

Socrates I concede the point. Still, where’s the money going to come from if everybody lives in mobile dwellings, even if they’re only nominally mobile?

Achilles Well, the state could pass a state income tax.

Socrates You know that’s not going to happen anytime soon.

Achilles Yeah…

Socrates So in the meantime, do you think you can ethically avoid your tax burden this way?

Achilles Well, yes. If the taxing authorities decide they don’t like it, they can close the loophole. In the meantime, it’s there, and I’m under no obligation to pay as much in taxes as possible.

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

bin Laden caught?

My mother, not known for her tinfoil millinery, mentioned to me that someone official had predicted that the U.S. would nab Osama bin Laden within the year.

She speculates that if this is being publicly predicted, then the government already has him in the bag and is waiting to unveil him at the moment when it will do GW’s poll results the most good (say, November). On the one hand, I don’t put anything past the current administration. On the other, I pointed out to her that a number of people speculated that the U.S. military captured Saddam long before it was made public. This apparently was not the case, but what’s interesting is the number of stories (mostly outside the USA) indicating that the Kurds caught him and then handed him off.

So who knows what the hell is going on. The source of the ObL prediction is a Lt Colonel. I have no idea how I should read that. What to make of the fact that it’s not a senior officer or senior administration official? Clearly senior administration officials are quite happy to stick their feet in their mouths to score political points. So I wouldn’t put it past them to leak this if it were true. Then again, intentionally leaking it via a Lt. Col. would be smart, as it keeps the higher-ups out of the mess, makes it easier to bury the story, and may give it more credibility because the leaker is close to the action. Then again, this may just be an officer being cocky. The military may have some useful intel on him, but his mouth is writing checks that his troops may not be able to cash. Certainly, this is the most plausible scenario. Or perhaps this is an officer being sloppy. ObL really is in the bag, and this guy can’t keep a secret.

You just can’t tell with these guys.

The Cooler

Saw The Cooler with Gwen yesterday. Good movie. William H. Macy has made a good career out of playing the nice-guy schnook, and he does so here in a role that has a little more meat than those roles usually do. Alec Baldwin is perfect as the tough-guy casino operator who is, in his own way, more pathetic than his schnook employee.

The story is a little disjointed–the interlude with the long-lost son is just sort of plunked down without really fitting in, and some of the backstory is never filled in–but it mixes the fantastic and hard-bitten reality in a way that I like, and kept me guessing how it would turn out until the end (which you might say is more because of my suspension of disbelief than anything else).

The movie is about gambling and luck: Macy’s character Bernie Lootz has such impossibly bad luck that any table in a casino he walks past instantly starts losing, making him an asset to the casino that employs him.

After the movie we threw some trout and veggies on the grill. I’ve never been much of a gambler in the customary sense, but I think barbecuing is where I give vent to my gambling urge: there’s always an element of chance with a grill, and every time a meal turns out well, I feel like I’ve beaten the odds.

Museum of Ephemerata

Acting on a tip from Prentiss, Gwen and I saw the amazing and mysterious Museum of Ephemerata.

The Museum is only open to the public rarely, but is chock full of curiosities, many of which are (dare I say) entirely invented and false, such as the “yeti toy.” This itself has a long history dating back to P.T. Barnum’s Dime Museum, as they informed us on the tour. But it is presented with such panache that you enjoy going along for the ride. If the curators were more pretentious, I’d have to call what they’re doing “performance art.” But they aren’t, so I won’t.

Tokyo Godfathers

Catching up on some belated blogging here, I saw Tokyo Godfathers with Jenny a few days ago. Enjoyable, good animation that mixed traditional flat drawing with rotoscoped backgrounds. Very schmaltzy story with an overload of astonishing coincidences (“….Dad??”) that (as Jenny points out) seems to be a sendup of coincidence-laden Japanese dramas.