Massively Negligent Rundown

  • Stranger Danger. Wonder of all wonders, miracle of all miracles, children stay inside because they’re afraid of the outside world; I wonder how they got that way? Not only that, but (also unsurprisingly), most of their fears—and their parents’ fears—are based on “an unrealistic estimate assessment… of the risks of the outside world.” Writes Amelia Hill:

    “These fears are compounded by the anxieties of parents, who, as well has having realistic fears about the dangers their children face in their external environment, also have completely unrealistic fears based around modern folk tales of the likelihood that their children will fall victim to stranger danger.”

    Curiously, one of the major ‘producers’ of these fears, TV (and other media such as magazines, movies, etc.), is mentioned only in passing. It’s something Barry Glassner (in his book, Culture of Fear1) calls an accessibility heuristic. Which, in short, means that we tend to unconsciously associate the incidence of an issue in discussion (i.e., on TV news, talk-shows, movies, etc.) with its occurrence in real life. Thus—to use a simplistic example—if a kid hears in the news about five murders for every single mention of accidental drowning, she’s reasonably going to think (whether she knows it or not) that murder is more common in real life. A more concrete example is the radical increase in crime-reporting in newspapers, which has led many people to think that violent crime is on the rise, when, generally speaking, the opposite is true. Anyway, the Observer article is worth a read. (Observer: “Stranger danger drive harms kids” by Amelia Hill [May 23, 2004])

  • PrisonPrisonPrison. Speaking of crime, did you know that the U.S. is basically #1 in terms of the proportion of people incarcerated? With 715 per 100,000, the U.S. easily beats out Russia (a mere 584 per 100k), and leaves Japan trailing in the dust (at 54 per 100k). In the timeless words of Homer Simpson, we’re number one! We’re number one! And it’s not a pretty sight. (AP: “Report: 1 of Every 75 U.S. Men in Prison” by Connie Cass [May 28, 2004])
  • Dino Cook-out. Not that you necessarily care, but new research suggests that the dinosaurs were wiped out in a matter of hours by the heat pulse generated by that fateful asteroid. Anything not sheltered in burrows and whatnot would have been pretty much burned to a crisp, these researchers think. Even stranger, the friendly blue sky we all know and love would have turned red hot for hours. Not to mention everything else catching on fire. Fun. (Universe Today: “Asteroid Wiped Out the Dinosaurs in Hours” [May 25, 2004])
  • Wild Sheep, Hopes & Dreams. Remember this?

    No, I didn’t think so. But don’t worry about it. I’d splashed the picture around in an earlier post, back in the bronze age of NMB. What I neglected to mention—largely due to the fact that I didn’t know anything about it—was that the picture was taken as part of a larger project, Travels in a Beautiful World, which is interesting in its own right. TiaBW states that its goal is “to record and convey the hopes and aspirations of young people that have experienced conflict.” To that end, there are lots of interesting images on the site, not to mention other resources. If you’d like, you can also delve into the world of sheep-photographer & TiaBW participant Steven Langdon here.
  • Recondite Suicide Attempt. You’ve probably already stumbled across this oddity of news, but if not, be informed that an excessively strange plot was indeed afoot, though plot’s probably not the right word:

    “A teenager created an ‘elaborate matrix of deceit’ on the internet to persuade another boy he had fallen in love with to murder him, a court has heard.

    “The 14-year-old boy, dubbed Boy B in court, created a series of fictional characters in chatrooms, one of which ordered Boy A to murder him.”

    It’s stunningly confusing. (originally via MeFi, but a million other places as well; BBC News: “Web friend conned into murder bid” [May 28, 2004] and BBC News: “Boy created chatroom murder plot” [May 28, 2004] and Guardian: “Bizarre tale of boy who used internet to plot his own murder” by Helen Carter [May 29, 2004])

  • Got Gas? Shell‘s been, as they say, dogged by scandal, cutting its reserves figures and profits estimates and whatnot left and right. I’ve been following the whole thing very casually, as someone who doesn’t quite understand the numerous financial subtleties involved, but who’s at least a little bit curious what it all means. E.g., is it The End Of The World? Not really what I’ve been thinking, but I have been wondering. In a nutshell, Shell’s had to downgrade its reserves estimates four times in the past four months (the first downgrade the most severe, at like 1/5 of its proven reserves). The latest spate of reportage seems to indicate that all this involves what ‘proven reserves’ means, technically speaking. So, in other words, nothing that really distills well into a single sentence. But if you’re curious, here are two recent articles that deal with it fairly comprehensively (at least as far as this latest huff is concerned):

    Just FYI.

  • On Silence.

    “TWO WORDS — ‘never again’ — sum up the most important lesson that civilized men and women were supposed to have learned from the 20th century. It is forbidden to keep silent, forbidden to look the other way, when tyrants embark on genocide and slaughter — if Auschwitz and Kolyma and the Cambodian killing fields taught us nothing else, they taught us that.

    “Or so, at any rate, we like to tell ourselves.”

    (BoGlo: “An Auschwitz in Korea” by Jeff Jacoby [February 8, 2004])

Notes:
1 Culture of Fear is also worth a read, if you’re interested. It’s a book on which Michael Moore relied heavily in making his documentary, Bowling for Columbine.

Whispering Vultures

  • Whispering Windows. As if Advertising weren’t already obnoxious enough, some company’s decided to go an invent a store window that talks to passers-by, coaxing them to enter the store, buy the product, etcetera. Yes, so talking shop windows will undoubtedly lure more people into stores, at least until everyone’s accustomed to the chatterpanes. But at what cost? My guess is, another significant (or maybe not-so-significant) chunk of our sanity, gone down the toilet. Alas. (Whispering Windows web site; Reuters: “Talking Windows?” [May 12, 2004])
  • National Geographic has an update, sort of, on the vultures of South Asia. If you missed the first time I brought it up (ahem), the Nat’l Geo article is a good backgrounder, though it doesn’t paint a particularly bright picture—unless you consider the fact that these vultures aren’t already extinct a bright spot, or the positioning of various groups to plan for captive breeding better than nothing at all. (National Geographic News: “Can Captive Breeding Rescue Vultures from Extinction?” by John Roach [May 11, 2004])

Fledgling Conspiracy Theorists

There are some strange things floating around surrounding the death of Nick Berg. Questions about who really killed him, what the video really showed, etc. While none of this quite pinpoints anything resembling a massive conspiracy, it does raise some questions that need to linger a while longer.

(For the impatient [and for anyone who doesn’t want to bother sifting through the allegations and questions], one of the most glaring inconsistencies w/r/t the video seems to be the lack of blood in Nick Berg’s apparent beheading—speculation regarding this being that he was potentially already dead when the “beheading” was filmed. But there’s more to read about, if you’re wondering.)

Further Reading:

How to Try a Murder

book coverHow To Try A Murder (by Michael Kurland) is a lightning-quick overview of general courtroom conventions and the like. You got yer elements of th’ crime, yer arrest/indictment, yer trial preparations, and so on and so forth, on through to the verdict. Along the way you get general procedural info, neat anecdotal facts and historical tidbits, and a fictional story that’s supposed to help make things more clear. Also provided are excerpts from official court papers of famous trials (e.g., Timothy McVeigh, Menendez brothers, etc.). Its interesting, if you’re interested in that sort of thing. It’s mostly nothing you wouldn’t get from watching Law&Order or Court TV (I’m assuming) or reading crime fiction (as long as said fiction involves more than vigilante justice). It’s only about 150 pages, and—like I said—a very quick read. I’m not going to disrecommend it, since it was mildly interesting and might be something you’d like to read, but I wouldn’t recommend it as a you-gotta-run-out-and-buy-it-right-now sort of book.

Smoking, Citing, Growing, Mangling

Nothing of particularly great import, but a few zany facts and oddities for you to file away in that spongy gray filing cabinet of yours.

  • Less is more:

    “Smokers who pride themselves on successfully cutting back as a step toward quitting tobacco altogether may be caught in a haze of self-deception. New research shows smokers who slash their cigarette use by half quickly change the way they smoke to compensate for less exposure — ironically, in the process, often boosting their consumption of smoke, carbon monoxide, nicotine and other cancer-causing agents.”

    (via EurekAlert: “Cutting back on cigarettes: when less is more” [May 20, 2004])

  • Two intrepid engineers explore the question of just how many people actually read the papers they cite (PDF File). Their area of focus is scientific journal literature, though its ramifications certainly aren’t limited to that. The title of their article, Read before you cite!, should give you an idea of their perspective. The paper’s a bit heavy (though short), but the gist of it is, only about 20% of people actually read what they cite. (I’m guessing it’s probably even lower for less formal forums, such as blogs, though the ease of following links might make the percentages about equal.) Anyway, it’s kinda intriguing and reemphasizes (though not so directly) the danger of spreading information without first checking it out. (“Read before you cite!” by M.V. Simkin and V.P. Roychowdhury)
  • Hair acts like Artic ice cores. No, really! (Reuters: “Hair Is a Dead Giveaway, Scientists Say” by Jeremy Lovell [May 26, 2004])
  • In a speech at the War College in Carlisle, PA, Bush thrice mangled his pronunciation of Abu Ghraib:

    “But the Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, stumbled on the first try, calling it abugah-rayp. The second version came out abu-garon, the third attempt sounded like abu-garah.”

    (Reuters: “Bush trips over Abu Ghraib pronunciation” [May 25, 200])

Quote of the Day

I don’t think she really means it:

“You have to admit if you saw one, two, three, four or more people dressed in traditional Goth, it would be discerning,” she said.

(via AP: “$132K of Grant to Combat Goth Returned” [May 21, 2004])

New Feature

Not that it’s really a feature, or all that interesting, but it is new: the recent links section in the sidebar on the right-hand side of the page.

It’s slated to house all sorts of fascinating stuff—breaking news, quirky stories and information, unusual resources, etc. Crap like that.

Start at the top of the bar and work your way down; you can’t miss it.

Hint: it looks like this:


(except that it’s to the right, and not in the center of the page)

Confidence (***)

(2003) dir. James Foley – w/ Edward Burns, Rachel Weisz, Paul Giamatti, Brian Van Holt, Andy Garcia and Dustin Hoffman

Synopsis: Confidence games, you gotta love ’em. Unless you’re the one getting conned. ‘Confidence’ features a tight-knit group of con-men (led by Ed Burns as ‘Jake’) who, in pulling the wool over the eyes of an unfortunate mark, inadvertently con a major crime figure (Dustin Hoffman) out of several hundred thousand dollars. (Well, $150,000, if I remember correctly.) Their choices are: 1) somehow repay the money [through, wonder of all wonders, another con!] or 2) wind up dead. Unsurprisingly, they opt for the first choice, and that’s where things start to get complicated. Throw in a super-rich, ultra-corrupt banker/lawyer mark, a couple corrupt police officers, a secret agent, and you get ‘Confidence.’

Review: ‘Confidence’ suffers from, among other things, overconfidence; it’s good, but not as good, clever, or original as it thinks it is. It’s an entertaining movie, but it has its problems. Lots of them, actually. One problem has to do with a flaw that’s present in almost any confidence movie where the movie’s end goal is to trick the audience: actions that make sense as you’re watching the movie, but which (once you understand what’s going on) make absolutely no sense whatsoever. It’s difficult to explain, but I’ll try. What I’m complaining about—bitterly—are the kind of things that serve no purpose other than to trick the audience. I know, I know, that’s kinda the point. BUT suppose, for a moment, that you’re watching a movie that you think takes place in prehistoric times, in times when dinosaurs roamed the earth. (I don’t know, it’s a time-travel movie or something.) Anyway, you see people (the time travelers) and you see a dinosaur. A real-life, honest-to-goodness dinosaur. Not a person wearing a dinosaur costume, not a robot dinosaur, a real, live dinosaur. Which, reasonably, is one of your main reasons for thinking the movie takes place during prehistoric times. Then you get to the end of the movie and you find out, it was really 1949 all along! Ha! Boy, we sure fooled you.

“Okay, so what about the dinosaur?” you ask.
“What dinosaur?”
“The dinosaur? Remember? The one that trampled Fred Dorminey?”
Blank stares.

(The point being, how the hell did the dinosaur get there? It’s never explained, and, in fact, it’s not possible given the logical framework of the movie, but it’s there nonetheless.)

Admittedly, it’s a very bad analogy. An extremely bad analogy. But there’s a chance, however slim, that it might help explain what I’m talking about. Another one of the movie’s problems is that it suffers from some poor editing at spots: fragments of conversations that were left in the movie and that don’t really make sense until (and only if) you watch the “deleted scenes” segment on the DVD. (“Did you kill him?” WTF?) Taking this into consideration, I guess it’s really a testament to the actors and writers that in spite of these flaws, ‘Confidence’ manages to be halfway decent. (Either that or low standards. Probably a combination of the two.) Basically, it’s a decent movie, but doesn’t add particularly much to the genre.

Rating: [••• out of •••••]

Etc.: Mamet’s House of Games and The Spanish Prisoner are both much better at confidence games than Confidence is.

David Dellinger, 1915-2004

THE COURT: I direct the marshal to have this man sit down.

MR. KUNSTLER: Every time I make a motion am I going to be thrown in my seat when I argue it?

MR. DELLINGER: Force and violence. The judge is inciting a riot by asking the marshal to have him sit down.

THE COURT: That man’s name is Dellinger?

MARSHAL JONESON: Will you be quiet, Mr. Dellinger?

MR. DELLINGER: After such hypocrisy I don’t particularly feel like being quiet. I said before the judge was the chief prosecutor, and he’s proved the point.

THE COURT: Will you remain quiet? Will you remain quiet, sir?

MR. DELLINGER: You let Foran give a foreign policy speech, but when he tries to answer it, you interrupt him and won’t let him speak.
There’s no pretense of fairness in this court. All you’re doing is employing a riot–employing force and violence to try to keep me quiet. Just like you gagged Bobby Seale because you couldn’t afford to listen to the truth that he was saying to you. You’re accusing me. I’m a pacifist.

MARSHAL JONESON: Sit down, please, and be quiet.

MR. DELLINGER: I am employing nonviolence, and you’re accusing me of violence, and you have a man right here, backed up by guns, jails, and force and violence. That is the difference between us.

MARSHAL JONESON: Will you sit down?

(applause)

THE COURT: Will you continue, please, with the direct examination of this witness?

MR. DELLINGER: There goes the violence right there.

Further Reading:

(transcript excerpt from “Famous American Trials, ‘The Chicago Seven’ Trial 1969 – 1970”)

Voting Gloss off the Island

Falling into the “You Could Make This Up, But People Would Think You Were A Bit Slow In The Head” category:

“Billed as the ‘ultimate reality TV show,’ British pay-channel UKTV Style promises a wall, some brushes and different types of paint in its program ‘Watching Paint Dry.’

“[P]eople watching paint drying on www.uktvstyle.co.uk will be able to vote for their favorite wall-covering, such as gloss, satin or matte, with the least favorite being voted out each week before the nation’s choice is revealed.”

(Reuters: “Watching Paint Dry Is Latest Reality TV Gimmick” [May 28, 2004])