To the Grand Ol’ Opry.
Why Hollywood Continues To Lose Money
Mark Steyn explains that it’s political correctness:
…I stopped to buy the third boxed set in the ”Looney Tunes Golden Collection.” Loved the first two: Daffy, Bugs, Porky, beautifully restored, tons of special features. But, for some reason, this new set begins with a special announcement by Whoopi Goldberg explaining what it is we’re not meant to find funny: ”Unfortunately at that time racial and ethnic differences were caricatured in ways that may have embarrassed and even hurt people of color, women and ethnic groups,” she tells us sternly. ”These jokes were wrong then and they’re wrong today” — unlike, say, Whoopi Goldberg’s most memorable joke of recent years, the one at that 2004 all-star Democratic Party gala in New York where she compared President Bush to her, um, private parts. There’s a gag for the ages…
…”Stealth” was a high-tech action thriller about USAF pilots zapping about the skies in which the bad guy is the plane.
That’s right: An unmanned computer-flown plane goes rogue and starts attacking things. The money shot is — stop me if this rings a vague bell — a big downtown skyscraper with a jet heading toward it. Only there are no terrorists aboard the jet. The jet itself is the terrorist.
This is the pitiful state Hollywood’s been reduced to. Safer not to have any bad guys. Let’s make the plane the bad guy. No wonder it’s 20th century Britlit — ”Harry Potter,” ”Lord of the Rings,” ”Narnia” — keeping those Monday morning numbers up. It’s Hollywood’s yarn-spinning that’s really out of focus, and in the end even home entertainment revenue won’t save a storytelling business that no longer knows how to tell any.
Life Imitates…Advertising
Ronald McDonald was nabbed stealing from Wendy’s. No, really.
Well, now we know the identity of the Hamburgler. I guess.
[Update]
And of course, the inevitable related thread at Free Republic, in which he is righteously mocked:
Nothing like swift justice to deal with these clowns…
Good News On The Infection Front
Carl Zimmer writes about the discovery of powerful new antibiotics from frogs. The best thing about them is that they may be impervious to the development of resistance on the part of bacteria.
Science At Work
How hard is it to shoot off a lock? A lot harder than it looks in the movies.
[via Geek Press]
The Truth Is Out There
I haven’t written anything about the former Canadian defense minister’s recent descent into (literally) loonytunes madness, but Thomas James has a good roundup.
More Iraq Urban Legends
More Space Plans From “China”
Via Mark Whittington, an article in which he (as usual) takes false hope, with a misleading title: “China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020.”
But if you read the article, it’s clear that “China” has no such “aims.” The only person with such “aims” is the “deputy commander of the Chinese manned spaceflight program.” He himself makes clear in the paragraph following that this is not (yet) a national goal:
But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country’s overall development.
If Mike Griffin’s deputy said, “I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter,” would Mark then agree with the headline “US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020”? Would he say that there are “indications” that this is a US goal?
Well, given his apparent gullibility, perhaps he would.
[Monday morning update]
Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:
Of course landing a man on Jupiter and landing one on the Moon are exactly analogous. At least it seems Rand thinks so.
First of all, I didn’t say “land a man on Jupiter.” But then, reading comprehension has never been Mark’s strong suit, either, at least when it comes to reading me. But ignoring that (non-trivial) distinction, for the purpose of this discussion, they are in fact analogous. The point is that a statement of technological capability (and we could in fact send a man to Jupiter if we so chose in that time period, not that it would be a sensible thing to do) is not a statement of intent, or a declaration of a national goal. Even Mark might realize this, if he actually read the article he cites with such misplaced hope, and thinks about it a little.
More Space Plans From “China”
Via Mark Whittington, an article in which he (as usual) takes false hope, with a misleading title: “China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020.”
But if you read the article, it’s clear that “China” has no such “aims.” The only person with such “aims” is the “deputy commander of the Chinese manned spaceflight program.” He himself makes clear in the paragraph following that this is not (yet) a national goal:
But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country’s overall development.
If Mike Griffin’s deputy said, “I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter,” would Mark then agree with the headline “US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020”? Would he say that there are “indications” that this is a US goal?
Well, given his apparent gullibility, perhaps he would.
[Monday morning update]
Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:
Of course landing a man on Jupiter and landing one on the Moon are exactly analogous. At least it seems Rand thinks so.
First of all, I didn’t say “land a man on Jupiter.” But then, reading comprehension has never been Mark’s strong suit, either, at least when it comes to reading me. But ignoring that (non-trivial) distinction, for the purpose of this discussion, they are in fact analogous. The point is that a statement of technological capability (and we could in fact send a man to Jupiter if we so chose in that time period, not that it would be a sensible thing to do) is not a statement of intent, or a declaration of a national goal. Even Mark might realize this, if he actually read the article he cites with such misplaced hope, and thinks about it a little.
More Space Plans From “China”
Via Mark Whittington, an article in which he (as usual) takes false hope, with a misleading title: “China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020.”
But if you read the article, it’s clear that “China” has no such “aims.” The only person with such “aims” is the “deputy commander of the Chinese manned spaceflight program.” He himself makes clear in the paragraph following that this is not (yet) a national goal:
But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country’s overall development.
If Mike Griffin’s deputy said, “I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter,” would Mark then agree with the headline “US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020”? Would he say that there are “indications” that this is a US goal?
Well, given his apparent gullibility, perhaps he would.
[Monday morning update]
Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:
Of course landing a man on Jupiter and landing one on the Moon are exactly analogous. At least it seems Rand thinks so.
First of all, I didn’t say “land a man on Jupiter.” But then, reading comprehension has never been Mark’s strong suit, either, at least when it comes to reading me. But ignoring that (non-trivial) distinction, for the purpose of this discussion, they are in fact analogous. The point is that a statement of technological capability (and we could in fact send a man to Jupiter if we so chose in that time period, not that it would be a sensible thing to do) is not a statement of intent, or a declaration of a national goal. Even Mark might realize this, if he actually read the article he cites with such misplaced hope, and thinks about it a little.