Clustered friends

via nexus.ludios.net

12 o'clock: Pittsford Mendon HIgh School
3 o'clock: Yale University/Calhoun College
6 o'clock: Yale School of Management
9 o'clock: Katzenbach

Go business school networking -- look how dense that cluster is.

Posted via web from Sitings and Soundings

Clap your hands

via nytimes.com

At this point our economy is Tinkerbell. Let's all clap our hands to show that we do believe in wealth!

Posted via web from Sitings and Soundings

Dr. Manhattan's Empire State Building

Outrage: Watchmen Movie’s Doctor Manhattan to Have Large Penis

2/19/09 at 6:00 PM

Comment 9Comment 9Comments

Photo: Courtesy of DC Comics

If you cried sacrilege when you found out that Watchmen director, Zack Snyder, had altered the ending of Alan Moore's graphic novel, just wait until you hear what else he's changed. The film screened for press in Los Angeles last night, and a source tells Defamer that the faraway glimpse of pantsless superhero Doctor Manhattan's blue wiener in an early preview has indeed made the final cut. In fact, the movie contains several shots of said wang — not that fans of the original comic would ever recognize it.

Says Defamer's tipster:

There is indeed shitloads of blue wang. And it's huge. In the comic book, it's very average, and uncut, but the film is completely the opposite. Massive and circumcised. Given that it's digital, was it [Billy] Crudup or his agent that insisted on the impressive cut cock?

In the graphic novel, Doctor Manhattan's peen is modest and understated (do a Google Image Search), symbolizing the character's impotence in the face of human evil. Adding inches to its length or circumference undermines everything Alan Moore was trying to say about politics, society, and the human condition. At this point, the best we can hope for is that Snyder was more faithful with respect to testicle size.

via nymag.com

He could presumably take any physical form he'd like ... be happy it wasn't the World Trade Center.

Posted via web from Sitings and Soundings

New project

Hello loyal readers. You can find my political writings from now on at: www.whyroots.org. Check out the prompts, the other bloggers, and yours truly. This space will continue to exist for posterity's sake, and for the occasional poem.

John McCain "declined to take a stand"

On the single most important issue of our time, scuttling the agreement that would have bailed out our markets. From the New York Times:

But once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan to allow the government to buy distressed mortgage assets from ailing financial companies.

Mr. Boehner pressed an alternative that involved a smaller role for the government, and Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand.

As WaMu collapses, and Wall Street burns, McCain sat silent at one end of a long table. Also from the Times:

The meeting opened with Mr. Paulson, the chief architect of the bailout plan, “giving a status report on the condition of the market,” Tony Fratto, Mr. Bush’s deputy press secretary, said. Mr. Fratto said Mr. Paulson warned in particular of the tightening of credit markets overnight, adding, “that is something very much on his mind.”

Mr. McCain was at one end of the long conference table, Mr. Obama at the other, with the president and senior Congressional leaders between them. Participants said Mr. Obama peppered Mr. Paulson with questions, while Mr. McCain said little. Outside the West Wing, a huge crowd of reporters gathered in the driveway, anxiously awaiting an appearance by either presidential candidate, with expectations running high.

This was McCain's meeting. He wanted it. And what did he do with it? He sat silently, refusing to signal his intentions, and in so doing let the deal collapse. Not all the blame belongs with the McCain, but when Jim Boehner raised his objections to the only plan that anyone in the room had seen -- a bipartisan effort, McCain was the only one in the room who could have turned the situation around. A time to lead and he "declined to take a stand." 

Interview? Or word association game?

Watch an amazing feat, as Sarah Palin plays a word association game ... with herself! Katie Couric gets the party started by asking her a fairly innocuous question about the bailout, and then Palin lays out her five point plan for shoring up the economy (in <1min):

Using my consulting skillz, I have recreated Palin's logic as a "boat chart," as we say in the profession:

Woman's Advocate?

Let's take it as a given that, given two equally qualified candidates of identical ideological bent, one man and one woman, women on average will prefer the woman. (Who knows if this true ... seems like people accept it as a given these days.) I can think of a few reasons for this to be the case:

1. Role modeling -- Nice to have someone who you can admire, whose identity you share in some way, who your daughters can aspire to be.
2. Advocacy -- A woman is uniquely qualified to advocate for women's issues because she is a woman. She understands the unique threats and opportunities concomitant with being a woman in the world.
3. Proof of thesis effect -- The success of the female candidate proves that all women can be successful and improves the standing of all women.

Now, to me, Sarah Palin fails pretty spectacularly on the second two counts, especially advocacy. Take sexual assault. It's an especially pressing issue in Alaska. Check it out:

Select population on the vertical axis, and the forcible rape rate on the horizontal axis. See that little dot all the way out to the right? That's Alaska. Clearly, Alaska is something of an outlier when it comes to rates of forcible rape. The next highest state is New Mexico, and Alaska is two standard deviations away. Fair to say, then, that Alaskan women are uniquely vulnerable to forcible rape. What is Sarah Palin's record on this critical issue to the women of her state?

• While mayor, victims of rape were charged for the rape kits used to collect evidence. Charging someone for something reduces consumption, so, aside from the psychological damage to victims, this policy almost certainly reduced the number of rapes reported and kept rapists out of prison. (It should be noted that until Alaska passed a law preventing Wasilla from charging for the kits the state was not elligible to receive federal funding under the Violence Against Women Act -- authored by Joe Biden and opposed by John McCain.)
• Palin's lawyers have said that while governor, she decided that the "last straw" in her relationship with Walt Monegan, the head of the state troopers, was when he went over her head to seek federal funding for anti-sexual assault programs that she had vetoed. (A shame Palin couldn't find room in those millions of dollars to research seal DNA and crab mating rituals for some funding to reduce Alaska's incredibly high sexual assault rate.)

I'm no expert on Palin's record, so she might have performed as an advocate for women in other ways. But it's shocking that she failed so badly to protect the women of Wasilla, and then the women of Alaska, from sexual predators. If women are looking for advocates in government, might be worth taking a look at Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the coauthor of the Violence Against Women Act.

A birthday; an anniversary

11/4/2020

Dear Grandma,

Thanks for sending me this beautiful scarf. It looks great on me! Such a wonderful way to celebrate my 15th birthday. Goodness knows when I'll wear it, since it never gets that cold anymore, lol. Oh well. Maybe I will wrap little Anna in it once she arrives in just a few weeks. I'm sure you've seen the pictures by now -- I'm huge! I mean, wow. I didn't know you could even get this pregnant. But here I am.

High school's going well. Me and the other "special" girls are enjoying classes. Sometimes we joke around and call ourselves twofers -- get it? Two for the price of one? "You get to date this beauty, but wait, that's not all! You can hang out with her baby, too!" Mom says I shouldn't joke like that, but I think it's funny. Honestly, I don't know how women dealt with this pregnancy thing back when you were growing up. What would I do without my other pregnant friends, or all of those helpful articles on teen pregnancy in Seventeen magazine ...?

But I guess you didn't have to worry about it as much. Since you had contraception and all. That reminds me grandma -- I'd really love for you to tell me the story of the 2008 election again. It's just so inspiring the way you didn't vote for Barack Obama. You stuck to your guns and sat on your hands! That primary was totally stolen from Hillary. O-bama? More like O-verrated. I can't wait to tell Anna how brave you were.

I just wish the story had a happier ending, you know? I just wish I had some of the things you did when you were my age. Like the pill. And choice. And not the 7-2 conservative majority in the Supreme Court! :P Anyway. Just wanted to write to say thanks for the scarf, and for the legacy. Can you believe you're going to be a great grandmother already??

Love, ...

God knows I'm no theologian

But a recent conversation I had about the nature of love versus the nature of infatuation made me think about how the way people have conceptualized their relationships with God has changed over time. In this conversation about love versus infatuation, I argued that infatuation is when someone will willingly do anything for someone -- subjugate her own will to that of another, happily and be fulfilled in the subjugation. Love, on the other hand, is when someone will willingly not do something she'd very much like to for the sake of the person she loves. To put a finer point on the distinction, in the infatuation case, one's own will is completely aligned with that of another so that is no difference between fulfilling one's own desires and obeying the will of another person. In the love case, there's a recognition of two distinct agendas, and a very real sense of self-sacrifice. I further argued that at some stages of life, especially when one is young, infatuation is the only possible romantic relationship, whereas later, as one matures, love becomes possible.

Then I thought, this is kind of the case with some people's relationship with the Judeo-Christian God, from a time when Abraham would kill his own son, to a time now of progressive Protestantism when departures from God's will are forgiven entirely, indeed entirely accepted. Of course, this parallelism implies a nonexistent moral judgment on my part of these different relationships with God. I just thought it was akin to Hegel's ideas about the evolution of the collective human spirit, since he saw God as the manifestation of that collective, and here I've just drawn a parallel between the maturing of a person allowing infatuation to become love with the rise of progressive Protestantism allowing pure sacrifice to God to become tolerance for freedom. There's a linear, normative narrative beast hiding somewhere at the back of my head, and it's making me see and say the darndest things.

Para-joy-a?

There will be millions and millions of words written about Radiohead's In Rainbows. But a day after listening to the album for the first time (and many more times after that), I feel like this is an album of joyful paranoia (para-joy-a?) -- the culmination of a paranoid (android) journey from apocalypse (OK Computer), to the words that come after from a digital grave (Kid A & Amnesiac), to a tremulous re-engagement with a broken world (Hail to the Thief), to this: A transcendent acceptance of brokenness and a desire to find love and happiness in the ruins. I can imagine this album being the soundtrack to the lives of those lonely few that we meet at the end of Cormac McCarthy's The Road, loving and living in the midst of post-apocalyptic horrors. This is the album you listen to while contemplating bringing a child into this world (or conceiving that child) in the face of everything that's so undeniably fucked. For these reasons, this album might be the most necessary Radiohead album; there is no way forward without the thesis that there is a good life to be lived in the face of (or shortly after) catastrophe.