On death and obscurity

I was drawn to the NY Times obituary page this morning because I just found out about the death of Kim Peek earlier in the week. He will forever be known as the pseudo-inspiration for the movie 'Rainman', but his intellectual ability absolutely dwarfed even this impressive portrayal. It is amazing to think that after decades of undoubted progress and breakthroughs in neuroscience, we have nothing short of terribly inadequate explanations for describing both the tremendous feats and tragic limitations of the human brain. With his passing, the world loses one of the most quizzical cases that will surely challenge scientists theories on the nature of memory for decades if not centuries to come. I strongly encourage you to take a few moments to read about his phenomenal life and, if you get the chance, search through the plethora of articles and documentaries that have chronicled his accomplishments and struggles.

While this initially drew me to the Times, I found myself reading more and more obituaries and as macabre as it may sound, will continue doing so in the future. I'm not in the slightest way schilling for the NY Times (from which I read articlesfairly infrequently, Paul Krugman aside), but they have a prolific obituary department that as best as I can tell is an industry anchor. As a subscriber, I had heretofore been reading the Economists lone obituary on a weekly basis, and found it to be a quite pleasurable and informative experience.

A couple of hundred words can do little justice to anyones life, but it certainly can act as a springboard into more intensive historical and cultural reading endeavors. Famed quadrapalegic singer-songwriter Vic Chestnutt, ex-Venezuelan President Rafael Caldera, and burlesque pioneer/entrepreneur Alice Schiller are just a few of the fascinating characters who have passed away within the last week.

As I find it increasingly difficult to navigate the plethora of media content available and develop my daily 'must-read' blogs and new sources, I'd like to pay homage to this increasingly obscure journalistic art. Fortunately, the giants of politics, sports, business, and culture rarely go out with a proverbial 'bang' that suits mainstream news coverage, but instead do so with a whimper while surrounded by family and friends. We should recognize their incredible stories, accomplishments and contributions to the world that we live in nevertheless.

On Olbermanns and Becks

I'm writing this in light of a recent observation that coincided nicely with a podcast I listened to today.

Karl Rove did much of his damage to this nation long before I cared about politics so I quite frankly don't know enough to judge his character and decisions from the bygone Bush days. I have however read several of his columns in the Wall Street Journal and while I've yet to agree with any of his opinions or find any cogency behind his arguments, I can at least say that I'd continue to read his pieces in the future with a guarded but open mind.

That's all really neither here nor there because my observation comes in light of his announced divorce (his 2nd might I add). I must say that I stand firmly behind the outrage of gay rights advocates (of whom I proudly count myself) in blasting this public figure who has stood firmly in opposition to equal rights on such standard frivolous bases such as the sanctity of marriage.

Home base, the Wall Street Journal, has no mention of this story. It's more popular brother at News Corp, FOX News mentions it in passing on its home page and links to Politico (another slightly rightward slanting outfit) that states the facts of his divorce yet fails to give mention to the discordant policies that he has promoted. Meanwhile, Salon.com has the story front and center in all its hypocritical glory.

Whether the story is deserving of any real recognition is beyond me, and the NY Times and Washington Post both fail to mention it on their current home pages. Truthfully I could care a less about what he does, but I do certainly understand the outrage that many are dying to express. After all, few would argue that his controversial policy decisions are news worthy so when we see the straw foundation that these policies are built on I think it's at very least justifiable, if not earth shattering news.

The idea differential reporting (read: bias) by different news outlets is highly intriguing. Its not entirely clear that Rove is a good case in action, but the circus side show that was the 23rd congressional race in NY state was however flabbergasting. I was able to close my eyes and know which sites would report the democratic victor and which wouldn't. Weeks later it was clear which sites would report on the conservative candidate withdrawing his concession, and which ones would report on his eventual failure.

On this topic of impartiality, a podcast from Planet Money raised an interesting observation. In talking about journalism at the turn of the century, they described a system of highly partisan newspapers that were funded by politicians and political parties of the day. It seems sacrilegious to us now, but Martin Gentzkow analogized this system to current legal proceedings in this country. The prosecution gives their side of the argument and the defense in turn pleads their case. Presumably, the jury is able to see the facts and make a (hopefully) rational decision on culpability.

Unbeknownst to me, this is how journalism once was conducted. Whether or not this system produced better results in terms of informed citizenry is debatable, but at very least it is debatable. Modern journalism has become obsessed with impartiality, and it can be legitimately argued whether or not this is a reasonable goal. Everyone knows that FOX news is right wing and MSNBC is left wing, but there is a gray Grand Canyon in between. I highly advocate Slate's stance of publishing their authors political leanings down to their electoral choices. Whether or not they try to let it leak into their writing, the way authors and editors feel about the world certainly influences their publications.

The danger of giving up on the impartiality dream is that people can choose to read only one side of a story where as no jury member would be permitted to step out of the courtroom until the defense gives their statements. I'd love to see how a legitimate news agency would fare by always having two sides of the story together. I suppose Hannity and Colmes is a terribly failed case of this in action whereby political leanings can just influence the relative strengths of the opponents.

Nevertheless, there are facts which should be told, and lies which should not be. Yet through emphasis, omission, selective experts, and a variety of other means a politicized case can be made out of almost any story. I'd love to choose the winner even if it means reading more than one story. As it is, I spend time reading several articles and am constantly establishing an encyclopedia of the leanings of various authors/papers in an attempt to see which news source is more impartial than the next. It might just be easier if FOX and MSNBC combined forces, and while I'm at it I'd also like it if my cell phone could make Oreo's and iron my clothes...

On my year in television

In my latest year end wrap up, I must preface by again warning you that I'm presenting nothing earth shattering here in the least. Rather, writing these provides a nice opportunity to give you an idea of my weekly news and entertainment sources so that you might be able to better understand where some of my views in the future stem from. I say 'television' loosely given the fact that I haven't turned my television on in months. But thankfully Hulu makes that all okay and I'm able to kill some time with the latest tv programs.

Let's start with the new additions:
Community and Modern Family are both hilarious; there I said it. I urge you to give them a try. I'm not looking for deep social commentary from my television time, and as relatively pure comedyies with just the right amount of 'cutsey'ness these shows are no exception. I suppose arguments could be made about the nature of the american educational system displayed in the former, and the diverse family portrayed in the latter, but when it comes down to it I refrain from taking prime time television too seriously. The mockumentary style is surely getting a bit trite, but Modern Family pulls it off wonderfully. And who among you isn't thankful to finally get to see Chevy Chase on a weekly basis?

Oldies but Goodies:
30 Rock continues to impress on an almost weekly basis, which seems like a given these days. And although I'm reluctant to say it, I just blazed my way through Parks and Recreation and found myself enjoying it as well. Again with the mockumentaries, I know. I didn't have high hopes for this one given that the star is from the much maligned SNL, but I've heard that this season is so much better then the first and I must say that I've been pleasantly surprised with this.

They're dead to me:
Once the NBC anchor, I'm inching ever closer to cutting the cord and quitting the office for good. I maintain a dwindling interest based solely off the characters who I have spent countless hours with over the years, and I keep my fingers crossed that some new plot lines will return it to its rightful place in my heart. Yet my patience is dwindling... it's just not that funny. My dwindling interest for the office, is no match for my complete and utter disgust towards It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Again, I once loved this show but this season has continued the disturbing trend of pushing each character to their absolute extremes. The mere sound of Charlie's voice just drills into my skull, and I can't even remember the last time that an episode passed without someone vomiting. It always was a gritty take on the path blazed by Seinfeld, but what was once grit has ebbed closer and closer to the sludge that collects in stagnant pools along the Delaware River.

Let me know what shows I'm missing out on by not having a television. Or better yet, let me know about some good shows that I can watch online. I greatly appreciate any and all recommendations that don't start with a 'J' and end with an 'ersey Shore'.

**posted on Fingerprints.and.Snowflakes**

On healthcare

Where do I even begin with this clusterfuck? I could have written several pages every week about the different aspects of this health care bill that have ever so slowly trudged their way through the house and senate, but now that this process is hopefully nearing its close I can hardly expect to hook anyone with a track record of insightful analysis.

Nevertheless, I've been unable to keep a straight face against arguments to date that the US health care system does not need some sort of overhaul so if you think you have one I'd love to hear it. I'm sure you've all heard the arguments that we as a nation spend more money per capita on health care and have far worse health outcomes than many developed countries. One of the few reasonable justifications that I've heard for this is that American ingenuity in health care technology and pharmaceuticals benefits the entire world but comes at a heavy cost. It's an often cited sink for our exorbitant health care expenditures, but I've struggled to understand the line of reasoning that requires this entire financial burden to fall on U.S. shoulders. It's entirely possible to shift some of these development costs on to citizens of other countries but this requires a change from the current way of doing things. Any type of sea change in the field will surely require some legislative kick start to reincentivize business models.

I accept that we don't want to curtail American supremacy in medical innovation, because it benefits us as much as the rest of the world. But there are still clear problems in the U.S. with respect to costs, incentives, access to and quality of care. In short, the U.S. system is fraught with frivolous lawsuits against doctors, free riders who receive treatment but don't pay, ridiculous administrative costs, perverse financial incentives for doctors to run expensive and unnecessary tests, legions of individuals who have been priced out of the insurance system, and zero transparency for patients and doctors to see the costs associated with their care much less be able to maximize their return on a cost-benefit curve.

These are serious issues that absolutely require reform, and while I have many reservations about the current bill that is under debate, I do sadly think that it is the best that we are currently able to get (I'll spare you my vitriol for the senate until a later date). Therefore its clear inadequacies and greatly reduced scope should not get in the way of legislators passing it and trying to take a deep breath before tackling these issues again and hopefully passing the serious reform which this bill clearly is not.

As a side note, I highly recommend the collection of articles from Timothy Noah and Planet Money about health care, and urge you to start with this one if you're even the least bit sympathetic to republican cries for fiscal conservatism which I admittedly am... or was.


**posted on Fingerprints.and.Snowflakes**

On my year in podcasts

Some year in recommendations are surely in order. So in my first installment: podcasts. It has been ages since I actually listened to the radio, that is, until I started my current job which affords me loads of listening time. And while I don't think I'm presenting anything ground breaking here, I really hope that if you have never listened to any podcasts or talk radio, perhaps I can convince a few of you to give one or two of these a try.

This American Life - The classic radio program that virtually defines the medium. I'd be greatly amiss to not mention this. Yet, I hope that most of you know it.

Wait! Wait! Don't Tell Me! - Another NPR staple, it's the weekly news quiz that's both hilarious and informative, albeit in a highly esoteric manner. Is it an acquired taste? I hope so.

Slate's Political Gabfest, Slate's Culture Gabfest, and Hang Up and Listen (Slate's Sports Gabfest) - Finally a break from NPR, I find these gabfests with the editors of my favorite news site (Slate) to be so informative. While the political gabfest is what I personally look forward to every week, I must say that I'm extraordinarily thankful to the culture and sports gabfests for keeping me up to date on the latest stories from those realms which would otherwise fly under my radar. While I do feel a bit elitist getting my sports knowledge from Slate employees, I get over it pretty quick.

RadioLab - Just an absolutely fantastic radio program on par with This American Life. I urge you to download the old episodes as well (which are all free) and enjoy some educational *gasp* radio bliss.

Planet Money - A great economics podcast that also has an extensive blog. Or is it the other way around? Either way, they do some great work and continue to find their niche in the world of economics. They cover the entire spectrum from international finance down to quizzical economic conundrums which feels way too broad in scope sometimes, but just right at others.

While that's probably my core weekly listening, some honorable mentions are:
Talk of the Nation
EconTalk
To the Best of Our Knowledge
The Naked Scientists

Please let me know if you have any recommendations. I'm really struggling to find a remotely intelligent 'conservative' news program. The Wall Street Journal has been consistently disappointing over the last year so I'm trying to fill that gap.

**posted on Fingerprints.and.Snowflakes**

On Avatar and 3D

Like many others, I was quite bored after a christmas day spent eating and loafing around the house and I decided to go see Avatar in 3D. There's been tremendous hype surrounding this film and I don't want to get too far behind on my cultural knowledge by boxing myself in with science and politics. This is my take:

I never really see movies in the theatre, it has never been a visceral experience worth paying exorbitant fees for. That being said I like movies. I like cheesy epic action films, art house dramas, judd apatow bromances and self righteous documentaries alike. Few however, are worth paying for, much less in the theatre, but I decided to make an exception last night because I wanted to experience this film it all it's glory. And I'll be damned if I'll be seen wearing 3d goggles in my own home a few months from now.

So in the over all 'spectacle' aspect, the film was whole-heartedly worth it. Plot: fill in pretty much any cheesy epic movie about 2 groups of people fighting one another(think Dances with Wolves, The Patriot, The Last Samurai, etc.). It's really no better than any of those films and in some ways a bit worse. Some lines of the film oozed with so much cheese that it truthfully made me cringe. And there were plenty of token stereotypical characters that just had absolutely no place being there. Normally never one to care in the least about political correctness, I was a bit shocked at some rather overt racial undertones. Considering the fact that the natives in the film are these enormous, blue, cat/human hybrids, it seemed a little bit odd that they would also need to be built around African-American actors. I'm struggling to think of one of the 'earthlings' that was of a non-anglo saxon ethnicity(except for the Indian, who was of course a scientist). Halfway through the film I realized that the Na'vi all seemed to look African and was quite frankly shocked to go home and see that all the main characters were indeed of African or Native American ancestry. It doesn't offend me in the least, but nevertheless seemed a bit odd and unnecessary given the obvious distinctions between the two warring clans.

The film also grossly perpetuates the rather absurd stereotype of the noble savages who are in touch with mother earth and love all creatures. This is unshockingly contrasted with the cut throat capitalist over-agressive americans. However, I never expect a big budget blockbuster to tackle issues of serious weight and hope that most other viewers give little credence to this aspect of the film as well.

Like many reviewers though, I urge you to ignore the trite plot-line and shallow characters and just see the film for the piece of art that is the world of Pandora. The scenery is absolutely beautiful, and as for the 3d... well for better or worse you soon forget that its even there. I kind of liked that though: I don't need to see constant shock factors that are supposed to impress me with the technology of 3d. Instead, I think this film did a great service to the technology by really integrating it into almost every scene but never in such a way that it seems like it was added in without purpose.

As a piece of digital art the film succeeds. It's an piece of art to experience, and a ludicrously expensive one to make, but I must say that I accept the critical arguments about this being a possible niche for the future of film. I don't want to condone spending this amount of money to make a pure entertainment based film, but it was a refreshing way make an experience in the theatre that is so different from one I would have if I waited and rented this film.

You won't get the true experience by sitting at home, and you sure won't experience it by reading a script(*cringe*). If you're going to pay to see a film in the theatre, why not make it one that was made for this medium?

Blogging

So it's been quite a while since I've written anything for fun or relaxation. And it's been longer than quite a while since I've published any such content in a public forum for anyone to see. So, we'll see how it goes. Far too few people in my life seem to share my diverse set of interests, and thus my thoughts rarely leave the confines of my head. Sometimes they are eager to get out, and often times when I view my life in hindsight I'm kind of glad that they don't make it out. So this is an experiment. Below are two stream of consciousness ramblings I wrote in the past few months on some current news stories. They have little relevance now, except to serve as examples on how I write and approach an argument. Plus they make me look far more productive than I am. Thanks for reading.