I suspect most people remember their first experience driving in San Francisco, probably for the same reason they remember scary scenes in The Shining. Some hills are so steep you wonder how your car is holding onto the road. Walking uphill on those steep streets is less scary but a lot more work. The following short video has fun with tilting the camera to match the street so people appear to walking or dancing at odd angles.
by 
As a title card at the start of the film says, “More of this is true than you would believe.” Indeed, back in the late 1970s and the early 1980s an eccentric Army lieutenant colonel convinced his superiors to let him investigate a number of New Age ideas ranging from nonviolent conflict resolution to remote viewing to the ability to kill with the mind and eventually to form a multicultural, internationalist First Earth Battalion of supposed warrior monks at Fort Bragg. Really.
All this was explored in the book of the same title Jon Ronson and in a BBC documentary by John Sergeant, whose research Ronson drew on.
In the fictionalized movie set in the early 2000s, Ewan McGregor plays a hapless reporter for the Ann Arbor Daily Telegram whose wife has just left him for his editor and who decides (partly in the hope of impressing her) to become an Iraq war correspondent. He ends up stuck in Kuwait until he runs into George Clooney, formerly one of those Army warrior monks, who helps him get into the war zone and proves to be an odd mixture of skilled soldier, borderline superman, and incompetent raving loon. The film tells in flashback the mostly true history of the First Earth Battalion. Clooney likes MacGregor because he senses, he says, that MacGregor might a Jedi. Eventually they run into Jeff Bridges, founder of the First Earth Battalion, and his nemesis Kevin Spacey. A poster for the film gives equal billing to all five stars: McGregor, Clooney, Bridges, Spacey, and Goat.
It’s a rather understated dark comedy without many major laughs, but it’s still entertaining.
by Last week’s New York Times Magazine had an article (link) by Adrian Chen about a strange new Russian plot. It seems that Russia has, no kidding, deployed an army of Internet trolls tasked among other things with making Putin look good and striking fear into the hearts of Americans.
For example, last September 11 a bunch of Twitter tweets and other messages suggested that St Mary Parish in Louisiana was endangered by toxic fumes from an accident at a chemical plant. There were eyewitness accounts and even surveillance footage showing the explosion and a supposed screen captures from the CNN website. Terrorists were said to have taken credit for it. But it was all fake.
The Columbian Chemicals hoax was not some simple prank by a bored sadist. It was a highly coordinated disinformation campaign, involving dozens of fake accounts that posted hundreds of tweets for hours, targeting a list of figures precisely chosen to generate maximum attention. The perpetrators didn’t just doctor screenshots from CNN; they also created fully functional clones of the websites of Louisiana TV stations and newspapers. The YouTube video of the man watching TV had been tailor-made for the project. A Wikipedia page was even created for the Columbian Chemicals disaster, which cited the fake YouTube video. As the virtual assault unfolded, it was complemented by text messages to actual residents in St. Mary Parish. It must have taken a team of programmers and content producers to pull off.
The article offers reasons to think that a Russian agency based in St Petersburg is behind this an other elaborate pranks as well as more mundane examples of trolling. Anyone who has spent time on line is aware that a lot of commenting seems organized. Sometimes the commenters are simply loose networks of enthusiasts for some cause or other, sometimes more seriously organized volunteers, and sometimes hired PR people or outright propagandists. It’s hard to tell which is which.
(Fortunately my blog seems way too far under the radar to be affected by this sort of thing. Automated comment spam is another matter. I routinely delete over a hundred attempts at comment spam a day.)
While I object to pranks and hoaxes that might really hurt people, being a Russian Internet troll sounds like a better than a lot of things. If people ever catch on that Ann Coulter says insane crap not because she believes it but in order to get publicity and sell books to the pathetic, she could always find work as a Russian Internet troll.
by This stop-motion film based on a children’s book by Roald Dahl shows what happens with the title character (voiced by George Clooney), a bit bored by his new career as a newspaper columnist, decides for old time’s sake to return briefly to his previous life of crime as a chicken thief, which unfortunately earns him the mortal wrath of a trio of wealthy farmers named Boggis, Bunce, and Bean, one fat, one short, one lean. These horrible crooks, so different in looks, were nonetheless equally mean. Or so we’re told at the start of the film.
Instead of having the actors record their lines separately in a studio, as is the usual practice for animated films, the voices were recorded on location, with the actors all present together and often acting out the scenes. When the characters were digging, for example, the actors got down on all fours and dug. I’m not sure this made all that great a difference to their performances, but I gather they had a ball.
It’s a fun film, especially for kids, who will especially enjoy the use of “cuss” as a generic obscenity, as in “You’re not gonna cuss with me, you little cuss!”
by I’m strongly tempted to offer this up as a legitimate science video, but there’s always the risk you’d watch it at work or show it to an elementary school class or something without checking it first, so I’ll chicken out and warn you that it contains naughty words of the sort children hear everywhere except from a subset of adults who still hope children never hear these words.
It’s annoying but perhaps also in some sense reassuring that there exist people shallower than those who seek divine intercession in the outcomes of high school sporting events.
by Last November 2001: A Space Odyssey was re-released theatrically in the United Kingdom, and in this clip stars Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood (who played astronauts David Bowman and Frank Poole in the 1968 film) talk about the film’s importance:
(If you’re an old-time fan of science fiction, please overlook the use of the annoying expression “sci-fi.”)
by As noted a couple of days ago (link), Bill Maher recently poked fun at the notion that members of the dominant religion in the U.S. are being persecuted. This provoked a response from Sean Hannity and his guests Monday night on Fox News. Mediaite has the segment, headlined “Christians Under Attack,” here.
One of Hannity’s guests, Pastor Robert Jeffress, said the persecution is real, giving as examples unnamed Christians who had lost their business simply because they believed in traditional marriage and a Marine had been court-martialed for having a Bible verse on her desk. The former probably refers to the Oregon bakery that closed in December of 2013 after being investigated for violating a non-discrimination law. The Marine was actually court-martialed for some pretty serious insubordination (see this report from Military Times). It started with her insistence on posting multiple copies of a paraphrased Bible verse, but that wasn’t the basis for the court-martial.
Jeffress said that such incidents reflected “the same attitude” that allows for ISIS beheadings and compared the treatment of Christians in the U.S. to that of Jews in Nazi Germany prior to the Holocaust.
In a blog post on Saturday (link) Steve Benen cited a number of examples of Republican presidential candidates claiming Christians are under attack, though I suspect most of them don’t seriously believe this but are simply trying to excite support among conservative primary voters.
For example, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has based his (not yet formally announced) presidential campaign to a large extent on appeals to the religious right. In the current issue of Decision magazine from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Jindal is quoted as saying that liberals are attempting “to essentially outlaw firmly held religious beliefs that they do not agree with.” He also insisted that “The left is now in full battle mode against the right to religious freedom that is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and we’re seeing it firsthand in my state,” a reference to a bill rejected by a Republican-controlled committee of the Louisiana House of Representatives. (That Decision article isn’t available on the the magazine’s website, but it’s summarized here.)
The same issue of Decision has an article by Charles Chandler titled “Marriage in the Balance” (this one available on line here) that makes similarly overblown claims in connection with Obergefell v Hodges, the same-sex-marriage case the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on this month. According to Chandler, “A decision in favor of same-sex marriage would set off an unprecedented avalanche of threats on religious liberties, potentially affecting virtually every church, pastor, ministry and Christian-owned business.” He continues,
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warns that it could even lead to the “criminalization of Christianity.”
“When you elevate a lifestyle to the status of a civil right, I don’t think a lot of believers fully understand or comprehend that once it’s risen to that level and our government accepts it, then anyone who disagrees with it could be at least civilly liable, but more than likely would be criminally liable,” Huckabee, a Republican presidential candidate, told Decision during a recent visit to the Billy Graham Library.
“The impact is this: A pastor getting up in the pulpit and proclaiming God’s Word that marriage is the act of one man and woman joining together for life would violate the civil rights of a same-sex couple. … That would make it a criminal act.”
In the same vein, the article quotes Kelly Shackelford, head of the conservative Liberty Institute, as saying that if the Court rules in favor of marriage equality, “holding the sincerely held religious view that marriage is the sacred union of one man and one woman will be equal with racial discrimination, and what you cannot do legally regarding race today, you may not be able to do legally with regard to same-sex unions or sexual behavior.”
Actually, while it may no longer be as socially acceptable as in the past to express racist views, it’s still legal to do so, and as anyone familiar with the Internet is well aware, it goes on all the time without fear of the thought police.
Moreover, same-sex marriage is already legal in most of the United States, in many of them based on federal district or appellate rulings of the sort expected from the the Supreme Court, and Christians in those jurisdictions who are opposed to the practice continue to speak out without any fear of being hauled away in shackles. Yes, a few businesses have been sued for violating state and local rules against discrimination, but no one is being prosecuted for expressing an opinion.
Six of the nine justices on the Supreme Court are Catholics, and while one can hope that they rule on the basis of law rather than religion, it’s highly unlikely that they would do anything to damage the First Amendment rights of their own faith.
by This sequel is clearly aimed at kids and even sillier than the original (reviewed elsewhere on this blog) and without the previous film’s novelty and much of its charm, and it makes even less sense.
There are two saving graces. First, there are some comic bits that are genuinely funny, especially Ben Stiller’s encounter early on with a self-important young Smithsonian security guard. Maybe it’s just me, but it cracked me up. Then there’s Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart. I don’t know enough about the real Earhart to judge the accuracy of the portrayal, but I also don’t care, because to the extent the original differs from the movie version, so much the worse for the original. Amy Adams would be perfect to play a grown-up Margaret Dashwood from the Emma Thompson’s adaptation of Sense and Sensibility (reviewed here). And her flying suit is quite nicely form-fitting.
(A complaint in passing: The script has Amelia Earhardt refer to eyes as “cheaters,” which makes no sense. As the 1938 song “Jeepers Creepers” suggests (video here), eyes in the slang of the period “cheaters” were eyeglasses. See also the 1920s slang vocabularies here and here.)
by Bill Maher addresses silly claims by a variety of prominent conservatives that Christians are heavily persecuted and Christianity on the verge of being criminalized. Funny but also pretty accurate:
So why is it that some Christians really do feel victimized? I think it’s worth leaving Maher’s (admittedly funny) ridicule aside for a moment and seriously asking why.
Mainly, I think, it’s because a lot of older Americans, especially we Baby Boomers, grew up at a time when Christianity was the de facto established religion of the U.S. (in disregard of the First Amendment). For decades public school children recited government-approved, often clearly Christian prayers. (Jews were free to leave the room.) The Pledge of Allegiance was mangled in 1954 to insert “under God” after “nation,” converting the original “one nation indivisible” into the rather incoherent “one nation under God, indivisible” — making it sound, presumably unintentionally, like an attack on the idea of the Trinity. “In God We Trust” was similarly added to currency in 1957, in defiance not just of the Establishment Clause but the sentiments of deeply religious persons who oppose such casual association of God’s name with mammon, including many devout Jews going back at least as far as Jesus of Nazareth, famed for driving the money changers out of the Temple and advocating separation of Church and State (see Matthew 22:15-22, and Mark 12:13-17, and Luke 20:20-26).
Things have changed a bit. The country remains majority Christian but less overwhelmingly so. There has never been an expressly non-Christian president and there are very few non-Christians in Congress. (The Supreme Court, interestingly enough, is 2/3 Catholic and 1/3 Jewish. The previously dominant Protestants are no longer found on the Court, something that would have shocked the many Americans who voted against JFK in 1960 because he was Catholic.)
(Update 2015 June 18: I originally wrote that “there has never been a non-Christian president,” but there is at least one clear exception: Thomas Jefferson, who in private correspondence made it clear that he was a Deist who greatly admired the teachings of Jesus but rejected Christianity. Other presidents may have been private Deists as well. Washington, for example, was nominally an Episcopalian but reportedly never took Communion or knelt in prayer, and his public religious statements were consistent with Deism. Lincoln similarly referred to God and Providence, but he did not belong to a church and several of his close acquaintances said that he had no religious faith.)
belonged to no church and his speeches sometimes referred to God or Providence but not to Christ, and several of his friends said he had no religion.)
And most recently, of course, same-sex couples have been allowed to marry, a real shock to religious conservatives.
Since some states and localities include sexual orientation in their laws against discrimination in commerce, a tiny handful of businesses (bakeries, florists, and commercial wedding venues) have wound up being sued for refusing to do business with same-sex couples. Meanwhile, other businesses with religious owners have had to tolerate contraceptive coverage in their health insurance. Churches and other religious institutions are exempt, though the new rules do apply to profit and non-profit concerns that happen to be owned by religious persons or organizations. This is basically the same rule that applies in employment discrimination. A church can require all its employees to be members of the faith, for example, but a hospital owned by the church can’t put the same restriction on its doctors or janitors. (The Hobby Lobby decision was intended to require private businesses not publicly traded to be treated like church-owned hospitals, though its practical effect may be broader. Either way, the beliefs of religious business owners apparently count for more than those of mere workers.)
In brief, to many conservative Christians were accustomed to having their values given the force of law, these social changes have come as a shock, and to some their loss of power apparently seems like oppression.
In L Sprague de Camp’s 1941 novel Lest Darkness Fall, an American archaeologist visiting Rome finds himself transported by a lightning flash from the 20th century to the 6th. In one scene he encounters an angry Roman who complains of religious persecution under the tyranny of the Ostrogoth emperor. The archaeologist is puzzled, since he had the impression that the Roman government of the time favored freedom of religion. It turns out that the angry Roman feels persecuted because his sect is no longer allowed to persecute other sects. When I first read that I thought it funny but implausible. It appears it’s plausible after all.
by This sequel to The DaVinci Code (actually based on an earlier novel) has some nice twists and turns, holds the viewer’s interest, and even has scattered comic bits, but the plot makes very little sense.
Once again Tom Hanks has to decode a series of mysterious puzzles, this time connected with the Illuminati, in an effort to prevent a catastrophe—a pretty big one: the threatened destruction of the Vatican by an antimatter bomb. Solving the puzzles requires doing research in the Vatican library, but no other scholars or even librarians are called in to help (or even happen to be hanging around), just a security guard and a scientist present only because she had something to do with the antimatter. Some of the plot twists render earlier parts of the story even more nonsensical than they seemed to at the time.
But despite all the illogic and factual errors, it’s still a reasonably entertaining movie, and the effects are impressive if not always obvious. Since the filmmakers couldn’t shoot in the Vatican City, they had to fake everything from St Peter’s Square to the Sistine Chapel.
by