Spider-Linking - Jesse Walker weighs in with some spoiler-dependent political subtext mixed into an actual review. It's worth noting that Jesse was at best lukewarm on the first film, so his very positive assessment of this one gains significance.
By No Means All Engineers Are Stupid but they do seem to have a poor immune response to crankery sometimes. The latest?
Italian engineer Felicce Vinci proposes an interesting hypothesis in his book "Homer in the Baltic." According to him, Odysseus was not Greek but Dutch and all events portrayed in the Homeric epic stories in reality took place around Scandinavia instead of the Mediterranean region.
That's from our good friends at Pravda. The "evidence" appears to be the usual insistence on an over-literal reading of the source story and a hunt for enough coincidental place names and geographical features to argue that the story "really" took place somewhere other than is commonly supposed. As I recall, Odysseus' Ithaka was full of vinyards. Clearly we have much to learn about the ancient viniculture of the North Sea!
(Via The Owner's Manual.)
The Media Really Does Suck, the Continuing Story - Virginia Postrel explains why what Brad DeLong calls "the big store about the economy during the last four years" doesn't get covered. The story? "--the rapid growth in productivity because of underlying structural changes."
Spider-Blogging Teaser - Steven Grant complains that
And all this is part of the problem: much of the story hinges on Peter's unwillingness to declare his love for Mary Jane and drag her into his dangerous life, because he'll always have enemies and they'll try to get to him through her. But there's not the slightest sense that anything of consequence (aside from Peter's inability to hold a job) has even happened in two years. Where are all these villains who are going to threaten Mary Jane, how will they know she has anything to do with Spider-Man, and what does it matter since the only two villains who have apparently appeared in two years go after her anyway?!
Italics in original. Actually, there are a lot more italics in the original. I couldn't face reproducing them all.
Regarding the very last bit, I think Nate brought it up when we saw the film, too, but more in a "Heh, he might as well" than a "What were they thinking?" way.
Here's the thing: that Peter Parker? He don't make such good decisions sometimes. That's the point of the movie. He spends most of it failing to successfully integrate his various responsibilities and desires. Smart boy, good heart, but he ain't got a lick of sense.
Much. More. Later.
Grant's bit about nothing of consequence having happened in two years strikes me as simple uncharitability on the reviewer's part. It's clear that Spider-Man is a prominent figure whose picture sells papers and that he's actively pursuing crimefighting, which is why Peter Parker's personal life is teh suck. He is no longer living with Harry Osborn and his relationship with Harry is, from early in the movie, strained. We can infer a certain change there, and the movie even makes it pretty clear what causes the estrangement. Mary Jane has made progress on her career. Peter is - but wait. This is supposed to be a teaser.
Spider-Blogging Weekend - I intend to blog in detail about Spider-Man 2 until you're sick of it, I'm sick of it and even Avi Arad, if he dropped by, would be sick of it. The heavy stuff will start after UO Viewing Number Two (aka Mrs. O. Viewing Number One) tomorrow. In the meantime, Nate has a good review, and I can vouch for the fact that he has seen the movie. Contains a few spoilers. Dave Fiore offers a fascinating linkage of the two Spider-Man movies so far to a tradition of romantic comedy whose very name constitutes a spoiler, so click at your own risk if you haven't seen the movie. All I'll say for the time being is that two years ago I wrote
Among the things Spiderman is is a coming-of-age movie. But not just Peter Parker's coming of age: it's also about the maturation of Mary Jane Watson.
The extent to which that continues to be the case in the second movie is worth some spoiler-rich blogging. ALL this site's Spider-blogging will be spoiler-rich as of Sunday morning, on the theory that Come on, people! What's taking you so long to see this thing?
A Specter is Haunting Matthew Yglesias, the specter of libertarianism. Anti-libertarian kvetching and more congenial topics now on offer at his new, maybe-temporary, maybe-permanent Typepad site.
FCBD3! - Tomorrow!
Yes, tomorrow you can walk into any participating comic book store in America and walk out with one or more comic books for no money. If you're not sure where the closest comic book shop is to you, click the logo and use the handy store locator. I plan to do a little tour of Montgomery County's emporia - we have three or four stores, two of them excellent.
If you're wondering what to pick up, you'll have quite a selection, encompassing pretty much any genre you care to name: humor, horror, social commentary, superheroes, science fiction and more. If you'd like to have some idea of what to grab ahead of time, let Laura Gjovaag and Johanna Draper Carlson be your guides. In each case, start with the offered link and scroll down.
Dear Liberal Readers, Commenters, Bloggers - Let me explain something. I am not saying that the problem with Eugene Volokh is that he's a libertarian. I'm saying I think he's not libertarian enough.
I'm glad we got that straight.
Slightly Longer Spider-Man 2 Reaction - It's as if the movie were my response to Steven Grant. Naturally, Grant himself is hot and cold on the movie.
More in-depth stuff about the movie this weekend, after I take Mrs. Offering to see it.
Undue Burden - It's not like Eugene Volokh thinks much of me, either, but I've always considered his specialty to be showy moral handwringing on the way to siding with Power anyway. The further you get from standard Republican issues like guns and university speech codes, the more likely he is to arrive, with exquisite regret, at the conclusion that the State, particularly when helmed by George W. Bush, must have its way. Now he has spun out a lengthy imprecation against the Supreme Court's recent detainee ruling on the grounds that our enemies may use our freedoms against us. This is bog-standard Republican authoritarianism, Kaye Grogan but in well-turned prose. It is fitting that a man who, hypothetically you understand, came out as reluctantly pro-torture, has to torture so many elements of his nightmare scenario into place ("It's like World War II! Only not against governments! But the enemies have generals! And we have allies, but they can't hold their own prisoners! Just like World War II! Even though that WAS against governments! And 50,000 prisoners surrender en masse! Even though we're fighting an insurgency! They do it just to fuck with us!")
As Gene Healy has said, there's nothing like a war to separate the men from the boys ideologically. The "pro-liberty" Volokh has been a purveyor of fear for years now. Fear is not so manly, and not so good a ground in which to nourish liberty. I hope Volokh enjoys his federal judgeship. I hope we don't mind it so much.
For a more considered response see Crooked Timber. For funnier, see the Medium Lobster. Even - gasp! - Brad DeLong has gone funny.
Fat Lady Sings - This just in:
Inspired by the early handover of sovereignty in Iraq, President George W. Bush employed the element of surprise once more last night, holding the U.S. presidential election four months early.The election, about which only top Bush administration officials were notified, went exceedingly well for the president, who carried all fifty states and garnered approximately one hundred percent of the vote.
Mr. Bush's victory speech, which he had originally scheduled for eleven P.M. last night, was at the last minute rescheduled to nine P.M., once again capitalizing on the element of surprise.
In his speech, Mr. Bush admitted that he might have had a more difficult time getting reelected if the American people had actually been notified about the time and date of the voting, but added, "A win's a win, right?"
Mr. Bush's second inauguration is slated to take place on January 20, 2005, but administration officials acknowledged that it could happen "at any time."
"For all I know it has already happened," one aide said.
From the Borowitz Report.
Surprise! - Happy "A Republic if You Can Keep It" Day to our Mesopotamian wards. Mindles H. Dreck makes a plausible argument that keeping to the schedule - okay, the schedule we accelerated in November - is the smartest thing we could do, inevitable problems notwithstanding. From the dovish side, Alan Bock thinks it's a crazy idea, but it just might work.
Oh by the Way - Daniel Drezner points out that, in addition to the headline-grabbing pooh-poohing of any Iraqi role in supporting Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission report also finds evidence for official Saudi support of Al Qaeda wanting. Well, shucks.
There are two casualties here, though on my reading, Drezner stresses only one: Iraq War opponents who criticized the Bush administration for going easy on the Saudi Royal Family for pecuniary reasons (that's you, Michael Moore), and Iraq War enthusiasts who are convinced that Saudi Arabia needs to be regime-changed too (that's you, neo-whatever person).
Blowing Up - The actual journalism version of my old blog item about Steve Englehart's prescient 1973 suicide bomber story in Marvel Comics' Avengers series is online at the American Spectator today. And check out the cool "cover" graphic while it's still there.
The article includes quotes from Englehart and a (qualified) defense of suicide tactics, because I understand readers want controversy.
Drat the Luck - How might history have changed if the first World Trade Center bombers weren't so stupid as to try to get their deposit back on the rental truck? That instantly turned them from fearsome killers to figures of fun in the public eye, and likely some official ones too. It invited us to underestimate Al Qaeda, and we did.
Hey, Why Wouldn't That Work for Me?? - Diana Moon writes of David Brooks that
His success is an affront to all decent hardworking people everywhere. This is a guy who has no particular expertise in his field and by dint of a pleasing personality and modest writing skills and tremendous energy has leveraged his way to prominence.
Hey, I'll take that job! Oh right: pleasing personality and tremendous energy required. Shit!
Also, she offers an even-handed assessment of Farenheit 911. (Scroll down. Look for "Farenheit 411" because typos are like that.)
Wars and Rumors of . . . Whatever - On the radar: Worldnet Daily's Joseph Farah reports that Iraqi insurgents used mustard gas in an attack on Baghdad. So far, the story does not seem to have been confirmed by any less Worldnet Dailyish outlets. It is possible, though, that we will soon have evidence that Saddam's Iraq had some World War I-era weapons around. Ooh. As with the single sarin shell that detonated last month, the story, if confirmed, will divide people reliably in twain: those looking for an excuse (retroactive) to invade Iraq will hug the news like a new, rare beanie baby; those holding out for evidence of a genuine Saddamist threat to the United States will yawn. I of course am in the latter camp. If you really want to kill someone, skip the mustard gas and get a gun.
The other "big" "news" is that the INC has a captured document showing that in the mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein offered to let Osama bin Laden broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda from Iraqi soil and explored the possibility of a more extensive operational relationship than that. A US intelligence task force says the document appears to be authentic. It's an interesting bit of history, and it would be a worthwhile starting point for an investigation - if it came to your intelligence shop and you knew nothing else about the history of Iraqi-al Qaeda contacts, you would, as a responsible analyst or officer, go Hm, and start a probe. It dates from a period before bin Laden's "declaration of war" against the US in 1998, though after early attacks since attributed to him. It dates from well before President Bush's "al Qaeda mulligan," which is not often enough remembered, in his famous speech of September 21 2001:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
The AQ mulligan was designed to let bygones be bygones with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries, conditioned on future behavior. There appears to have been a silent "except Iraq" in the teleprompter text. Cutting that would have saved us a lot of trouble.
Nevertheless, if it were the first thing you saw, it should arouse suspicion and inspire a lot of digging. It's not the first thing we've seen, though. There's been quite a lot of digging. None of it has unearthed persuasive evidence that Iraq helped Al Qaeda attack the United States, either pre-mulligan or post. Everything that turns up is some variant of "we should have lunch sometime," and all of it is old. From the perspective of today or even late 2001, it's like finding old notes in someone's grad school apartment clutter that got passed around about some high school crush. We keep hearing that so-and-so sort of likes so-and-so and is going to ask her out, but we never find the prom corsage, the tux rental slip or the used condoms.
Meanwhile, the new document, if authentic, casts a cold unflattering light on the Mylroie/Woolsey/March Hare thesis that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack. To the extent that that bomb was an Al Qaeda operation, the fact that, two or three years later, Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda are still singing "Getting to Know You . . . " tends to disconfirm Iraqi cooperation in that attack.
Bonus Fitness Blog Item - Joyner surveyed reactions to C2, the new lower-sugar Coke drink the other day. I've now had some myself and, absolutely, it's good. Let me clarify: if, like me, your taste buds are not currently sensitized to high-sugar drinks (okay, high corn-juice drinks), it's good. Nice cola taste and sweet enough. Also tried Pepsi Edge, which, like C2, contains half the sweetener of the regular soda. I liked it well enough too, though I think I give the edge - oops - to the Coke product. Of course, I drank both from plastic bottles, and my rule is: Coke from bottles, Pepsi from cans.
Anyway, I enjoyed it. And yet, it's not . . . water. Since giving up sugared beverages at the end of 2002, I've really come to like drinking H2O, and H2O keeps your palate clear, among all its other benefits. I had a box of blackberries in the car with my Pepsi Edge, and they were the tartest-tasting blackberries in some time. Bad box, or screwed-up taste buds?
It's possible that I liked it because I'm not used to high-sugar beverages any more, and that the bad reports James collected are from people who are used to the sweet stuff. If they can't enjoy it, then it doesn't work as a step down for them as a regular drink. Meanwhile, if you can handle the aspartame and drink Diet Coke or Pepsi as your beverage of choice, switching to the "low-carb product represents not a substantial drop in calories and simple sugars but a substantial increase.
I'll keep it for special occasions. But I'd rather drink it than regular coke or pepsi.
Jealous of the Rhyme and the Rhyme Routine - I've really been getting back into poetry lately, reading and writing both, which is nice. Poetry and I were estranged for some years. There are various reasons, including politics - I started back in looking for Robinson Jeffers after all - but among them is the fruitful nagging that is Aaron Haspel's God of the Machine. Not that I expect Aaron himself to accrue much reward from my return - as a Wintersian, he's destined to dislike most poetry, surely including most of what I'll write, but art is like that.
Meanwhile, he's got a great new entry on grammar and prescriptivism in same. As for grammatical and usage distinctions I would like to save, they include
o hysterical and hilarious
o agitate and irritate
o the use of "me" and "I" rather than "myself" when appropriate, which is almost every frickin' time someone uses "myself"
o actually, now that I've thought of the last one, I'm way too angry to write any further on this topic!
So, back to poetry. Currently reading Jeffers, William Bronk and William Stafford. On deck, Dana Gioia's Interrogations at Noon and some William Carlos Williams. Also I need to finish the newest Brooks Haxton book. Jeffers and Bronk go together in a way: Jeffers effaces man, then Bronk effaces everything else. I suppose Stafford puts everything back in its place. Stafford and Williams are "let there be commerce between us" poets for me - when I was younger I had no use for them, largely because their injunctions about poetry pissed me off.
By the way, Poetry X has an index of last lines, which is always cool.