Two things bring our exciting Futurian Existence into focus:
1.) My TV round-up below was linked to by both Warren Ellis, angry ideaspace god of transhumanism and Red Bull, and the Maclean's magazine website. Macleans is essentially the Time magazine of Canada.
Pageviews inbound from Warren are running 3 to 1 over inbound from Macleans.
2.) I was watching this video of Scott Kurtz -- who is producing his own animated show based on his own very popular webcomic -- in his animation studio in Montreal, talking to his Quebecois clean-up artist who doesn't speak English. I was interrupted by an IM from the Portugese-speaking artist of my DC comic book, published in New York. He's emailing me issue #11's pages from his studio in Sao Paolo.
This isn't what my guidance counselor in high school talked about.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
TV Fall Season - Post-game
Just updating the calls I made earlier. Your opinions and special finds should make the Comments far more interesting than the post.
BSG -- Not part of the original post, but Jesus Haploid Christ, that is some damn fine televisioning that deserves remarking upon. Consider it remarked. Watch the box sets, catch the new eps. That's how you go about the business of televising.
UGLY BETTY / STUDIO 60 / 30 ROCK -- In order: good for them, I'm still not watching/ if you think it's gotten better, you're high / Only for Baldwin, but worth it. Now, onto the essay questions.
DEXTER -- the very sales model for doing high-concept in 13 episodes. The sister character shows symptoms of irrational bitchiness usually reserved for network TV women (see JERICHO, below), but not to a fatal effect for the show. The stand-alones were all good, the meta-story is both intriguing and being closed off in a satisfactory way ... not making me giddy like LIFE ON MARS, but hey -- trust the Gene Genie. All told, a good investment of entertainment attention.
HEROES -- somehow got cheesier and better, which is no mean feat. Downside: I can not summon even the slightest interest in evil-stripper mom storyline. And that's saying something, considering anything described by the phrase "evil stripper mom" gets spotted ten yards. Upside: why yes, those are old-school cliffhangers. Why yes, you did manage to advance the meta-story in satisfying ways, consistently giving us answers without jerking us around. Bonus points -- the cheerleader can act, Glasses Guy does good ambivalent villain, Peter turned out to be much more interesting than I anticipated, and ... Hiro's. Fucking. Sword. First storyline closed off, but with some hanging threads, new storyline initiated for the winter return. Tick and tick, HEROES shows mastery of what all television will look like very soon, even if the networks are doing this new scheduling solely by accident.
JERICHO -- a conundrum. On a structural level, another excellent example of the new balance in TV. Are there big mysteries, such as "Who dropped the bomb?", "Who is the Magical Negro working for?", and "Where was Skeet Ulrich for those five years?" -- and no, not where was the actual Skeet Ulrich, I mean his character, but hey, I understand your confusion. Why yes, there are such mysteries. At the same time, each week clocks in with serial perfection. We need medicine/we find medicine. The bad guys come/we send the bad guys away. There's been a murder/we catch the murderer. Worth watching for this mastery. The web supplements are nicely done, too.
Bonus for Brad Beyer, playing Stanley, who now has a job on any show I work on, ever. What a find. They're not using him as much in conjunction with the Ulrich, as Beyer really works the "best friend you wish you had" vibe to its full extent, while Skeet's Jake doesn't seem to really deserve that kind of pal. Yet.
On the other hand, JERICHO's starting to show the seams of being on CBS. The female characters are really, really awful.
I kind of like Pamela Reed as the nosy, judgmental mom, as she's playing precisely the small-town mom who motivates you to move away. She's nails on a chalkboard, and that's a valid choice. But the best example of the sort of standard "moms/girlfriends or dysfunctional crimefighters" vibe all CBS women fall into was the ep where the Blackwater-style mercenaries were coming. While the heroic caucasian menfolk were having a stand-off on the bridge, the girlfolk were getting hammered in the bar, dreaming about one of the girls' missed wedding. Now, that's a valid storyline, but that juxtaposition was miserable. The women even comment that "something's happening". Yeah, there's a squad of heavily armed men who are going to come in here, shoot all of you in the face and take your penicillin. That's a bit distracting from mooning over the hope chest, no?
Not a single woman with a gun? Not a single Hispanic American living in KANSAS for chrissake? Meanwhile, the women have a very thin trigger on the "fly off the handle" setting. Constantly hurt, angry, resentful to well-meaning guys, except for the fun little Science Girl (GO, SCIENCE GIRL!) who suddenly disappeared for three weeks while Ulrich weaved his Skeet-alicious magic over Bad-Extensions Girl. I must give full credit to Mrs. Kung Fu Monkey for calling out this constant bullshit shrill characterization. I am generally clueless about such things, wrapped up in metastory and Beyer-crush as I am. But when you take the time to parse it out, it's a serious and serial problem in television, and a particular weakness of CBS.
Also, the shmaltz is climbing. At first it was reserved to that magnificently awful "feelings" music that kicked in whenever Pamela Reed decided to talk to anyone. But the return in the finale of a missing character, at precisely the moment he did so, was not just deus ex machina, it's like the machina was a frikkin' robot who was in charge of running the universe according to specs designed by an omnisicent parallel universe bastard OCD son of Newton and Copernicus.
It feels like some bit of arc-planning went awry in the middle of those first 11, something went out of balance and certain elements sloshed to one end of the arc. No idea how it happened, but I damn near quit the show right then and there despite my affection for it. Status: on probation.
LOST: ... oy. And I say this with friends on the show. But oy. Unlike many people, I think the flashback structure is still useful. But look at what we got for flashbacks so far:
1.) Jack's marriage fell apart, and he was obsessive. No new information, or even anything different from previous flashbacks. Really nothing to do with the mystery of the island.
2.) Turns out Jin knew a lot more about Sun's infidelities than he let on, some Sun responsibility issues ... pretty good, and new information. Although his mastery of tactics reveals why Sayid was an interrogator and code-breaker in the Iraqi army as opposed to, say, a combat officer.
3.) Locke worked on a commune, accidentally screwed the potgrowers there, and then couldn't kill a day player. Which is not all that surprising. Him not killing people. As he's a good guy.
4.) Sawyer's a con man with a heart of gold. REALLY?!
5.) Eko once broke his vow as a priest and killed some day players. Which is not all that surprising. Him killing people. As he's a killer.
Oh, and then in the episode proper, one of the top three coolest humans on the island dies. And there are other hatches. Which we already know. And more characters are introduced! Yay!
6.) Kate, the emotionally unstable criminal who can't commit to nice guy Jack, couldn't commit to nice-guy sheriff back in the day, either. Now, looking at her pattern with the childhood-boyfriend doc, and the sheriff, I can see the arc there. But .. jeebus.
The weird thing is, all these episodes were very, very well-written. Seriously, LOST has one of the best staffs currently working in television. But the decision to start in the Others' camp (regardless of a very cool reveal vis-a-vis the original crash) is like ... the audience is being told that this goddam story is interesting whether they like it or not, or regardless of whether it's interesting or revelatory or not. You like Hurley, a character we spent two years getting you to invest in? Tough glass titties, prole.* He'll be back in May. Look, more unnecessarily cryptic white folk!
At the moment I found myself thinking "Hey Jack, they want you to do spinal surgery on their evil leader. How about making a deal where they have to explain ONE SINGLE SOLITARY GODDAM THING ABOUT THIS ISLAND, and then you'll do it? Huh? Who on EARTH wouldn't bargain that?" I started to die a little inside. I understand that the castaways are in over their head, but it's like they've developed some sort of bizarre learned helplessness (as have we. Wait a minute, is this all part of the experiment --?).
You can stall on the A-story, or blow a flashback on straight characterization, but both? I have full faith that the back half of the season will set my retinas on fire. But at this point it's straight faith, a situation I'm never comfortable with.
Your kvetches, recommendations, etc. in the Comments. I'm psyched about the return of ROME. I'm already pantless. Err, in a toga. You know what I mean.
* heh. that one's just for me.
BSG -- Not part of the original post, but Jesus Haploid Christ, that is some damn fine televisioning that deserves remarking upon. Consider it remarked. Watch the box sets, catch the new eps. That's how you go about the business of televising.
UGLY BETTY / STUDIO 60 / 30 ROCK -- In order: good for them, I'm still not watching/ if you think it's gotten better, you're high / Only for Baldwin, but worth it. Now, onto the essay questions.
DEXTER -- the very sales model for doing high-concept in 13 episodes. The sister character shows symptoms of irrational bitchiness usually reserved for network TV women (see JERICHO, below), but not to a fatal effect for the show. The stand-alones were all good, the meta-story is both intriguing and being closed off in a satisfactory way ... not making me giddy like LIFE ON MARS, but hey -- trust the Gene Genie. All told, a good investment of entertainment attention.
HEROES -- somehow got cheesier and better, which is no mean feat. Downside: I can not summon even the slightest interest in evil-stripper mom storyline. And that's saying something, considering anything described by the phrase "evil stripper mom" gets spotted ten yards. Upside: why yes, those are old-school cliffhangers. Why yes, you did manage to advance the meta-story in satisfying ways, consistently giving us answers without jerking us around. Bonus points -- the cheerleader can act, Glasses Guy does good ambivalent villain, Peter turned out to be much more interesting than I anticipated, and ... Hiro's. Fucking. Sword. First storyline closed off, but with some hanging threads, new storyline initiated for the winter return. Tick and tick, HEROES shows mastery of what all television will look like very soon, even if the networks are doing this new scheduling solely by accident.
JERICHO -- a conundrum. On a structural level, another excellent example of the new balance in TV. Are there big mysteries, such as "Who dropped the bomb?", "Who is the Magical Negro working for?", and "Where was Skeet Ulrich for those five years?" -- and no, not where was the actual Skeet Ulrich, I mean his character, but hey, I understand your confusion. Why yes, there are such mysteries. At the same time, each week clocks in with serial perfection. We need medicine/we find medicine. The bad guys come/we send the bad guys away. There's been a murder/we catch the murderer. Worth watching for this mastery. The web supplements are nicely done, too.
Bonus for Brad Beyer, playing Stanley, who now has a job on any show I work on, ever. What a find. They're not using him as much in conjunction with the Ulrich, as Beyer really works the "best friend you wish you had" vibe to its full extent, while Skeet's Jake doesn't seem to really deserve that kind of pal. Yet.
On the other hand, JERICHO's starting to show the seams of being on CBS. The female characters are really, really awful.
I kind of like Pamela Reed as the nosy, judgmental mom, as she's playing precisely the small-town mom who motivates you to move away. She's nails on a chalkboard, and that's a valid choice. But the best example of the sort of standard "moms/girlfriends or dysfunctional crimefighters" vibe all CBS women fall into was the ep where the Blackwater-style mercenaries were coming. While the heroic caucasian menfolk were having a stand-off on the bridge, the girlfolk were getting hammered in the bar, dreaming about one of the girls' missed wedding. Now, that's a valid storyline, but that juxtaposition was miserable. The women even comment that "something's happening". Yeah, there's a squad of heavily armed men who are going to come in here, shoot all of you in the face and take your penicillin. That's a bit distracting from mooning over the hope chest, no?
Not a single woman with a gun? Not a single Hispanic American living in KANSAS for chrissake? Meanwhile, the women have a very thin trigger on the "fly off the handle" setting. Constantly hurt, angry, resentful to well-meaning guys, except for the fun little Science Girl (GO, SCIENCE GIRL!) who suddenly disappeared for three weeks while Ulrich weaved his Skeet-alicious magic over Bad-Extensions Girl. I must give full credit to Mrs. Kung Fu Monkey for calling out this constant bullshit shrill characterization. I am generally clueless about such things, wrapped up in metastory and Beyer-crush as I am. But when you take the time to parse it out, it's a serious and serial problem in television, and a particular weakness of CBS.
Also, the shmaltz is climbing. At first it was reserved to that magnificently awful "feelings" music that kicked in whenever Pamela Reed decided to talk to anyone. But the return in the finale of a missing character, at precisely the moment he did so, was not just deus ex machina, it's like the machina was a frikkin' robot who was in charge of running the universe according to specs designed by an omnisicent parallel universe bastard OCD son of Newton and Copernicus.
It feels like some bit of arc-planning went awry in the middle of those first 11, something went out of balance and certain elements sloshed to one end of the arc. No idea how it happened, but I damn near quit the show right then and there despite my affection for it. Status: on probation.
LOST: ... oy. And I say this with friends on the show. But oy. Unlike many people, I think the flashback structure is still useful. But look at what we got for flashbacks so far:
1.) Jack's marriage fell apart, and he was obsessive. No new information, or even anything different from previous flashbacks. Really nothing to do with the mystery of the island.
2.) Turns out Jin knew a lot more about Sun's infidelities than he let on, some Sun responsibility issues ... pretty good, and new information. Although his mastery of tactics reveals why Sayid was an interrogator and code-breaker in the Iraqi army as opposed to, say, a combat officer.
3.) Locke worked on a commune, accidentally screwed the potgrowers there, and then couldn't kill a day player. Which is not all that surprising. Him not killing people. As he's a good guy.
4.) Sawyer's a con man with a heart of gold. REALLY?!
5.) Eko once broke his vow as a priest and killed some day players. Which is not all that surprising. Him killing people. As he's a killer.
Oh, and then in the episode proper, one of the top three coolest humans on the island dies. And there are other hatches. Which we already know. And more characters are introduced! Yay!
6.) Kate, the emotionally unstable criminal who can't commit to nice guy Jack, couldn't commit to nice-guy sheriff back in the day, either. Now, looking at her pattern with the childhood-boyfriend doc, and the sheriff, I can see the arc there. But .. jeebus.
The weird thing is, all these episodes were very, very well-written. Seriously, LOST has one of the best staffs currently working in television. But the decision to start in the Others' camp (regardless of a very cool reveal vis-a-vis the original crash) is like ... the audience is being told that this goddam story is interesting whether they like it or not, or regardless of whether it's interesting or revelatory or not. You like Hurley, a character we spent two years getting you to invest in? Tough glass titties, prole.* He'll be back in May. Look, more unnecessarily cryptic white folk!
At the moment I found myself thinking "Hey Jack, they want you to do spinal surgery on their evil leader. How about making a deal where they have to explain ONE SINGLE SOLITARY GODDAM THING ABOUT THIS ISLAND, and then you'll do it? Huh? Who on EARTH wouldn't bargain that?" I started to die a little inside. I understand that the castaways are in over their head, but it's like they've developed some sort of bizarre learned helplessness (as have we. Wait a minute, is this all part of the experiment --?).
You can stall on the A-story, or blow a flashback on straight characterization, but both? I have full faith that the back half of the season will set my retinas on fire. But at this point it's straight faith, a situation I'm never comfortable with.
Your kvetches, recommendations, etc. in the Comments. I'm psyched about the return of ROME. I'm already pantless. Err, in a toga. You know what I mean.
* heh. that one's just for me.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Apocalypto
You know, in screenwriting we say that an ending should be "unexpected yet inevitable", but this may be the first time in almost a decade I can say I actually got the "unexpected" part. (No spoilers in the Comments.) Apocalypto is magnificent. It's visionary in the old-school sense of "one film-maker's consistent vision.". So simple, but simplicity exercised with ruthless emotional efficiency.
It's not a masterpiece but a masterwork. A must-see on the big screen, and the script's got some subtleties in it, a narrative simple, yet rich ... just go. It may not be the best movie of the year, but it's the greatest if that makes any sense.
The only odd thing is, if you stick around for the credits, the evil bloodthirsty Aztec priest is identified as "Rabbi Liebowitz" and the rapacious immoral Aztec Royal Family are "King and Queen Goldman." Minor points.
It's not a masterpiece but a masterwork. A must-see on the big screen, and the script's got some subtleties in it, a narrative simple, yet rich ... just go. It may not be the best movie of the year, but it's the greatest if that makes any sense.
The only odd thing is, if you stick around for the credits, the evil bloodthirsty Aztec priest is identified as "Rabbi Liebowitz" and the rapacious immoral Aztec Royal Family are "King and Queen Goldman." Minor points.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Making Hit Shows
Like I'd know. My only hit show was the one that never aired. Go figure.
Anyway, while Ken Levine is off on vacation he's got Peter Casey explaining
how
Frasier
was created.
This is very spiffy, and seeing as I'm in the pre-Christmas draft sprint, I direct you toward it in lieu of any of my own paltry words. That said, we may have some interesting things to discuss in the New Year, as one of these movies I'm working on is the sequel to a much beloved film, and I'm sure you'll have questions about exactly how I ran it into the ground (preview answer: drunk, and cackling).
Anyway, while Ken Levine is off on vacation he's got Peter Casey explaining
how
Frasier
was created.
This is very spiffy, and seeing as I'm in the pre-Christmas draft sprint, I direct you toward it in lieu of any of my own paltry words. That said, we may have some interesting things to discuss in the New Year, as one of these movies I'm working on is the sequel to a much beloved film, and I'm sure you'll have questions about exactly how I ran it into the ground (preview answer: drunk, and cackling).
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Freebies
Putting the final shine on a draft in a lovely hotel room. Meanwhile, Lifehacker has the 30 Essential Free Downloads for you, if you don't want to be Microsoft's bitch.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Bond, James BoooOOAAAGHHH!!
Hollywood moment: Talking to my agent, who's British, about the new Bond. Turns out he'd seen it at the Royal Premiere in London.
John: Well, that must have been cool.
Agent: It was fantastic, but ...
John: But what?
Agent: You know the scene where Bond's being interrogated by being ... you know. With the rope.
John: You mean the gayest interrogation scene in mainstream film?
Agent: Exactly. I realize, as this guy is whipping Daniel Craig's crotch with tarred rope, that this is the Royal Premiere. That right now the Queen of England is watching Daniel Craig get whipped in the balls.
John: That's surreal.
Agent: I can't imagine anything stranger.
John: Only if you heard the Queen say 'Hit him again.'
Agent: That would do it.
John: (queen voice) "Ahem! We demand you hit him again! Thrash him!"
Agent: Stop now.
John: (queen voice) "Have Daniel Craig washed and brought to my --"
Agent: Hanging up.
I can do no more than issue the standard review -- liked Craig, movie's thirty minutes too long. Nice to see Sebastien Foucan getting a little love. My favorite part of Jump Britain s watching Sebastien explain how parkour is an immigrant, working-class sport, how it changes the way you look at whatever shitty environment you're stuck in.
Go look up "parkour" on YouTube and prepare to blow an afternoon. This one's a good overall survey. in the mainstream, District B13 did a nice job of integrating the sport. Trailer here:
Gripes, compliments, comments on the latest Bond, feel free to post 'em below.
John: Well, that must have been cool.
Agent: It was fantastic, but ...
John: But what?
Agent: You know the scene where Bond's being interrogated by being ... you know. With the rope.
John: You mean the gayest interrogation scene in mainstream film?
Agent: Exactly. I realize, as this guy is whipping Daniel Craig's crotch with tarred rope, that this is the Royal Premiere. That right now the Queen of England is watching Daniel Craig get whipped in the balls.
John: That's surreal.
Agent: I can't imagine anything stranger.
John: Only if you heard the Queen say 'Hit him again.'
Agent: That would do it.
John: (queen voice) "Ahem! We demand you hit him again! Thrash him!"
Agent: Stop now.
John: (queen voice) "Have Daniel Craig washed and brought to my --"
Agent: Hanging up.
I can do no more than issue the standard review -- liked Craig, movie's thirty minutes too long. Nice to see Sebastien Foucan getting a little love. My favorite part of Jump Britain s watching Sebastien explain how parkour is an immigrant, working-class sport, how it changes the way you look at whatever shitty environment you're stuck in.
Go look up "parkour" on YouTube and prepare to blow an afternoon. This one's a good overall survey. in the mainstream, District B13 did a nice job of integrating the sport. Trailer here:
Gripes, compliments, comments on the latest Bond, feel free to post 'em below.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
On a side note -- Lawyers.
I try not to get involved in the blog wars, but something has been bugging me. The worst offenders on the conservative side at the shitty logic, hyperbolic arguments, sloppy thinking and general innumeracy -- Instapundit, Ann Althouse, the Powerline guys -- are all lawyers or more specifically law professors. Whenever I get into a Comments spat with somebody who's just quote-farming and spitting circular arguments -- almost always the "I'm a lawyer" or "law professor" comes up.
I mean, is it in the nature of the profession, the training in constructing arguments to serve a purpose rather than discern a truth (oo, I can feel the flame war coming from that one), is it just that lawyers have more spare time, or are there just so many damn lawyers in the world that statistically, some asshat on the web is going to wind up being one?
I mean, is it in the nature of the profession, the training in constructing arguments to serve a purpose rather than discern a truth (oo, I can feel the flame war coming from that one), is it just that lawyers have more spare time, or are there just so many damn lawyers in the world that statistically, some asshat on the web is going to wind up being one?
The Murder Rate in Baghdad
Hi there!
(Note: Sadly, No! beat me to this punch by about an hour or two. They have nicely enough saved me some math. You should read them. They are very funny. I'm still doing this post as opposed to simply linking, because I want to slap that title into the Google algorithm)
Welcome to Kung Fu Monkey! Don't be alarmed by all the swearing and such, we're quite friendly.
Now, you've been sent this link because you sent somebody you love a piece of e-mail about how the murder rate in Baghdad or Iraq is no worse than the murder rate in Washington DC back in 1991 or so. That is very funny and ironic, I know. I myself am chuckling over the third such missive I've received, the latest just this morning.
Your friend would like to help you correct this misapprehension, so he or she sent you here.
What follows is the nice version:
The annual murder rate for urban Washington DC in 1991 was 482 murders for 598,000 inhabitants; roughly 80 per 100,000 people. You see that number used a lot. That is because it is the absolutely highest per capita murder rate in modern American history one can dig up. (The 2005 murder rate is about 35 per 100,000. Good job, D.C. law enforcement! We should make them a state.)
The murder rate in Iraq in October 2006 was, according to UN sources (pdf so no link, but you can find it easily enough), 3709 in total. That number's probably a little low, as counting dead folk is tricky in a culture that buries people quickly out of both tradition and fear of reprisal. But it's a good lower bar.
You may wish to use the US Army's estimates, which tend to be even lower. However, the US Army has admitted it doesn't count bombs, mortars or rocket attacks in its estimates. Personally, if I die in a mortar attack launched by my Sunni/Shia neighbor with the explicit intent on killing me, I count that as "violent death". We're going to stick with the UN estimate, thank you.
Now, what someone has done, when they sent YOU the very neat little letter you sent ME (or your concerned love one) was then figure out that ...
3709 murders/month for roughly 26,000,000 Iraqis works out to , ooooh ...
171 murders per 100,000 annually in Iraq.
Okay, bad, but not too bad. However, those numbers are comparing the murder rates of a city to the murder rates of a country.
A city and a country are two entirely different things. You do not compare the murder rates of cities and countries. It is just generally ... wrong. When someone does that, they are either stupid or lying to you. Feel free to look back on who cooked up the numbers in the letter you forwarded and draw your own conclusions.
More specifically, large swaths of Kurd-controlled territory are relatively peaceful (have been for a decade). Large sections of the south are both sparsely populated and got their ethnic cleansing out of the way early. Those aren't where we have most of our troops, and aren't where the fighting is. When the civil war comes, it will be in the urban areas.
But let's do the math thew way its supposed to be done, eh? Compare a city to a city.
According to the same UN sources, 2722 of those murders occurred in Baghdad. Hmm. Okay, and there are about 6,000,000 people in Baghdad ...
2722 murders/month/6000000 people times x/100,000 = ... carry the two ...
544 murders per 100,000 in Baghdad.
Ah. Now THAT is an unpleasant place. Is it civil-war levels? I don't know. But that's not my job. The person who sent you the letter was implying something with their flawed numbers. All I'm doing is pointing out that if these numbers are significant, the above number is the one you should be looking at.
Bonus round for the other e-mail meme going around: average 130,000 US troops in Iraq, 2872 dead, 44 months ...
"murder" rate of 602 US soldiers per 100,000 per year.
Is that a bad number? Again, not my job to say. But if somebody sends you a "US troops are safer than in Washington DC" e-mail, then you now know that this person is, again, either stupid or lying. For this particular statistic, I would add "flaming asshole." But that's just me.
Glad to help. You may wish to go now. Seriously, you should leave. Because here comes the ...
... not-so-nice version:
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND? In what major American city do people get set on fire while soldiers stand around and do nothing? In what major American city do they find a hundred or so bodies a day with FUCKING DRILLHOLES IN THEIR NECK? In what major American city do car bombs go off killing 200 hundred people, in what major American city are there FUCKING MORTAR ATTACKS FOR CHRISSAKE!!! They seized the media today, people. Remember when the Crips took over Channel 10 and spent the day rallying Compton to declare war on its neighbors?
I don't know what shattered pathetic character defect keeps some people denying reality, but it's NOT HELPING. Whether it was wrong or right to go into Iraq, whether the Administration shagged it, or this was Plan A just a shitty Plan A, or things just went off the rails, denying reality Is. Not. Helping. We can't have a conversation about what to do next as long as a chunk of this country keeps clapping its hands and wishing hard. Hey, somebody wants to argue we need to stay for ten years, fine, lay it out. I'm open to the idea (I'm a Powell guy, what can I say). But how am I supposed to take this seriously when some people in the same breath try a bunch of statistical shell-games to show everything's just hunky-dory?
We're supposed to be tolerant, but the great Achilles Heel of this idea is that we're too tolerant of people who should just be, based on their track record of wrong-ness, laughed out of public discourse forever.
I call shenanigans!
... pant ... pant .. pant ...
Ahem. Sorry about that. Anyway, John over at Ezra's joint has an interesting point as well. Something similar to an argument I've made before: this country is crippled by the fact that a large percentage of the largest demographic group can't get its head out of its own ass and realize that It's Just. Not. 1968. Anymore. Let it go. How you felt about the hippies and Vietnam and whether we won or lost or were stabbed in the -- gaaaahhh, let it goooo.
(Note: Sadly, No! beat me to this punch by about an hour or two. They have nicely enough saved me some math. You should read them. They are very funny. I'm still doing this post as opposed to simply linking, because I want to slap that title into the Google algorithm)
Welcome to Kung Fu Monkey! Don't be alarmed by all the swearing and such, we're quite friendly.
Now, you've been sent this link because you sent somebody you love a piece of e-mail about how the murder rate in Baghdad or Iraq is no worse than the murder rate in Washington DC back in 1991 or so. That is very funny and ironic, I know. I myself am chuckling over the third such missive I've received, the latest just this morning.
Your friend would like to help you correct this misapprehension, so he or she sent you here.
What follows is the nice version:
The annual murder rate for urban Washington DC in 1991 was 482 murders for 598,000 inhabitants; roughly 80 per 100,000 people. You see that number used a lot. That is because it is the absolutely highest per capita murder rate in modern American history one can dig up. (The 2005 murder rate is about 35 per 100,000. Good job, D.C. law enforcement! We should make them a state.)
The murder rate in Iraq in October 2006 was, according to UN sources (pdf so no link, but you can find it easily enough), 3709 in total. That number's probably a little low, as counting dead folk is tricky in a culture that buries people quickly out of both tradition and fear of reprisal. But it's a good lower bar.
You may wish to use the US Army's estimates, which tend to be even lower. However, the US Army has admitted it doesn't count bombs, mortars or rocket attacks in its estimates. Personally, if I die in a mortar attack launched by my Sunni/Shia neighbor with the explicit intent on killing me, I count that as "violent death". We're going to stick with the UN estimate, thank you.
Now, what someone has done, when they sent YOU the very neat little letter you sent ME (or your concerned love one) was then figure out that ...
3709 murders/month for roughly 26,000,000 Iraqis works out to , ooooh ...
171 murders per 100,000 annually in Iraq.
Okay, bad, but not too bad. However, those numbers are comparing the murder rates of a city to the murder rates of a country.
A city and a country are two entirely different things. You do not compare the murder rates of cities and countries. It is just generally ... wrong. When someone does that, they are either stupid or lying to you. Feel free to look back on who cooked up the numbers in the letter you forwarded and draw your own conclusions.
More specifically, large swaths of Kurd-controlled territory are relatively peaceful (have been for a decade). Large sections of the south are both sparsely populated and got their ethnic cleansing out of the way early. Those aren't where we have most of our troops, and aren't where the fighting is. When the civil war comes, it will be in the urban areas.
But let's do the math thew way its supposed to be done, eh? Compare a city to a city.
According to the same UN sources, 2722 of those murders occurred in Baghdad. Hmm. Okay, and there are about 6,000,000 people in Baghdad ...
2722 murders/month/6000000 people times x/100,000 = ... carry the two ...
544 murders per 100,000 in Baghdad.
Ah. Now THAT is an unpleasant place. Is it civil-war levels? I don't know. But that's not my job. The person who sent you the letter was implying something with their flawed numbers. All I'm doing is pointing out that if these numbers are significant, the above number is the one you should be looking at.
Bonus round for the other e-mail meme going around: average 130,000 US troops in Iraq, 2872 dead, 44 months ...
"murder" rate of 602 US soldiers per 100,000 per year.
Is that a bad number? Again, not my job to say. But if somebody sends you a "US troops are safer than in Washington DC" e-mail, then you now know that this person is, again, either stupid or lying. For this particular statistic, I would add "flaming asshole." But that's just me.
Glad to help. You may wish to go now. Seriously, you should leave. Because here comes the ...
... not-so-nice version:
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND? In what major American city do people get set on fire while soldiers stand around and do nothing? In what major American city do they find a hundred or so bodies a day with FUCKING DRILLHOLES IN THEIR NECK? In what major American city do car bombs go off killing 200 hundred people, in what major American city are there FUCKING MORTAR ATTACKS FOR CHRISSAKE!!! They seized the media today, people. Remember when the Crips took over Channel 10 and spent the day rallying Compton to declare war on its neighbors?
I don't know what shattered pathetic character defect keeps some people denying reality, but it's NOT HELPING. Whether it was wrong or right to go into Iraq, whether the Administration shagged it, or this was Plan A just a shitty Plan A, or things just went off the rails, denying reality Is. Not. Helping. We can't have a conversation about what to do next as long as a chunk of this country keeps clapping its hands and wishing hard. Hey, somebody wants to argue we need to stay for ten years, fine, lay it out. I'm open to the idea (I'm a Powell guy, what can I say). But how am I supposed to take this seriously when some people in the same breath try a bunch of statistical shell-games to show everything's just hunky-dory?
We're supposed to be tolerant, but the great Achilles Heel of this idea is that we're too tolerant of people who should just be, based on their track record of wrong-ness, laughed out of public discourse forever.
I call shenanigans!
... pant ... pant .. pant ...
Ahem. Sorry about that. Anyway, John over at Ezra's joint has an interesting point as well. Something similar to an argument I've made before: this country is crippled by the fact that a large percentage of the largest demographic group can't get its head out of its own ass and realize that It's Just. Not. 1968. Anymore. Let it go. How you felt about the hippies and Vietnam and whether we won or lost or were stabbed in the -- gaaaahhh, let it goooo.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
I Played with John August's "Wiki"
But I was drunk, so it doesn't count.
August has started a wiki of screenwriting goodness. It's in beta, but you may enjoy browsing.
August has started a wiki of screenwriting goodness. It's in beta, but you may enjoy browsing.
Happy Thanksgiving
With some day-off reading provided. hey, who says I don't link to conservative writers? This guy was up until recently a trustee of the National Review! (h/t Digby)
In all seriousness, best to you and yours. And please, take a moment from wanting to kill your family to appreciate: if nobody in your neighborhood was found this morning with drill holes in their neck, if you have more than two hours of electricity a day, if you're not sitting in a tent somewhere ten thousand miles from home, hoping those assholes in suits won't get you killed -- you're having a pretty damn fine day despite your Mom's bullshit about when you're getting married or how Dad doesn't believe what you do is a "real job.". Appreciate it. Give thanks for it. Because the awful truth is that there are no guarantees, ever, that your life will stay that way.
Oof, that was a bit grim, eh?
In all seriousness, best to you and yours. And please, take a moment from wanting to kill your family to appreciate: if nobody in your neighborhood was found this morning with drill holes in their neck, if you have more than two hours of electricity a day, if you're not sitting in a tent somewhere ten thousand miles from home, hoping those assholes in suits won't get you killed -- you're having a pretty damn fine day despite your Mom's bullshit about when you're getting married or how Dad doesn't believe what you do is a "real job.". Appreciate it. Give thanks for it. Because the awful truth is that there are no guarantees, ever, that your life will stay that way.
Oof, that was a bit grim, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)