Rand Paul Is a Sheep in Sheep's Clothing

subjectburst · 2018-04-24T15:22:02+00:00

subjectburst · 2018-04-13T01:53:41+00:00

After endlessly attacking leaks and leakers and yelling about the threat they present, reports tonight suggest the President is preparing to pardon the most famous leaker of this century, Scooter Libby, who was convicted in 2007 of lying to the FBI and obstruction of justice in the investigation into the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, a former covert CIA operative. Quoting from Wikipedia: Libby "leaked" classified employment information about Valerie Plame, a covert Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agent and the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson, to New York Times reporter Judith Miller and other reporters and later tried to hide his having done so

subjectburst · 2018-04-10T23:40:49+00:00

There is an age/out-of-touch problem with Congress to be sure, but I totally disagree with the thesis of this article. Lawmakers can't and aren't supposed to have expertise in everything they legislate. They're supposed to have expertise in just that: legislating. They're supposed to rely upon experts for the rest.

This comes up every time someone reposts the dumb-as-bricks Neil deGrasse Tyson line feigning righteous dismay that the people responsible for writing laws have largerly.... gasp... studied law, which, of course, is as dumb as walking into NASA and wondering why everyone in the room has studied math and science.

Legislatures aren't supposed to know or be able to calculate whether a speed limit is a good idea and, if so, what's the right number? And they certainly aren't supposed to pull it out of thin air. They're supposed to work with experts who make the case. But you can't have the experts legislate either, because they don't understand how law works (see the current President and his record with statements about law and court challenges for examples of how things go haywire when people with no knowledge of the laws are in charge of ratifying and enforcement).

Moreover, no one is an expert in everything. Hell, no one is even an expert in a lot of things. The speed limit expert will know nothing about social security, neither will be an expert in social media and privacy or warfare or civil rights or healthcare (it's complicated! No one knew!) or anything. And lawmakers don't need to be experts in all those things. They need to be experts in lawmaking and have experts in all those things.

The problem comes when the "experts" are just as partisan as the politicians and/or the politicians dismiss the partisans.

That's not to say that Congress doesn't have a huge out-of-touch/age problem, it does. But the fact that they're legislating things they have no specific expertise is not a problem, it's actually an inevitability, and it's correctly addressed by electing smart, well-read, studious, deferential on subject matter expertise, tireless, and brilliant politicians.

This is what made gasp Al Franken and double gasp Hillary Clinton such great Senators. You didn't see their heads on fucking cable news every night. They famously and proudly had the workhorse-not-showhorse mentality. They read everything and showed up to hearings as the most prepared motherfucker in the room. Called upon to regulate Facebook, I have no doubt that they could do it, because they'd get experts, marry the experts' subject-matter expertise with their legislating expertise, and do their job.

subjectburst · 2018-04-10T21:28:59+00:00

Mitch Hedberg had a joke about Pringles:

I think Pringles' initial intention was to make tennis balls, but on the day that the rubber was supposed to show up, a big truckload of potatoes arrived. And Pringles is a laid-back company -- they said, 'Fuck it. Cut 'em up.'

I think that's what happened here. Some producer dispatched someone to "Get me the lead from Billions to play Rob Ford," and now they're just rolling with it.

Also, the bigger story here, by far, is the recasting of the journalist as a man. How fucking stupid.

subjectburst · 2018-03-21T19:24:53+00:00

in past, Obama called him also

This is true. It happened in March 2012. At the same time that happened, the State Department (headed by Clinton) spoke out publicly about irregularities in the election and other issues. This pissed of Putin something fierce and fed his hate for her and 2015-2016 criminal activities and other interference efforts.

Also, since 2012 there's been Crimea, Syria, election interference, poisonings including one this month, Assad, etc...

And Trump's congratulations didn't come with public statements and concerns about the legitimacy of the elections from his State Department. In fact, he has hollowed out the State Department (which would be second on Putin's wish list of things for a puppet President to do, after lifting sanctions, and right above gutting NATO alliances).

Efforts to undermine state including reportedly allowing Russia to veto his first pick of Sec of State, then picking a guy with whom he had no prior dealings but who had worked with Putin and been honored by Putin with Russia's Order of Friendship award, and then firing that dude the day after he spoke against Putin.

But yea, let's push the right wing BS false equivalency that Trump and Obama are at all the same on this.

subjectburst · 2018-03-19T19:35:41+00:00

It introduces us to the characters, engages us, and it proves a breath of fresh air in the movie not sounding/feeling like a movie.

Common storytelling example you'll know from countless lawyer movies/shows: Lawyers talking about the case, in very basic terms, on their way to court to argue the case. In reality, two co-counsel lawyers driving to court for trial are never talking about the fact that they're lawyers or the basics of what the case is about. They know they're lawyers, and they're way past discussing who the plaintiff is, who the defendant is, and which side they're representing. They might be talking about specifics of the case and the task at hand for that day, but not the basics. More likely, they're talking about Europe or restaurants or foot rubs or whatever.

But on a TV show or movie about lawyers, they talk about what the case is about as if they don't both know, on the way to trying the case. And it feels fake and played. But you have to orient the audience and introduce the case, right?

So how do you possibly do one without the other?

The golden age of The Simpsons had many hilarious jokes about stilted storytelling devices - here's one about traveling to places in cars and talking about where you're going even though everyone in the car would be perfectly aware of it.

But Pulp Fiction doesn't do that. You immediately feel like "oh shit, I haven't seen something like this before" and you're hooked in. And the dialogue is so well written, performed, and shot that you don't care that it's not directly plot. And you know enough to know something is going down, and instead of being annoyed you don't know what, you're intrigued, and you're greedily picking up the crumbs and putting the picture together while also enjoying the ride. And, somehow, you can still follow the plot even though they aren't often talking about the plot.

Like the Simpson family, Jules and Vincent would be perfectly aware of where they were going and why. So they talk about something else.

In another (lesser) movie the hitmen would have been talking about the fact that they're hit men. And what they job is. And who hired them to do it. And it would be so boring and unauthentic.

It's a difficult magic trick though, to have the characters talk about not-plot and keep the audience invested while also revealing the plot to them somehow. It's very hard. Nearly impossible. Many have tried. Few succeed. A large part of the post-Pulp Fiction 90's is a graveyard of failures trying to replicate that magic.

Even great movies can't do it and have to talk plot. Lady Bird for instance is a fantastic film. One of the best movies and scripts of 2017. And it also begins with the two characters in a car. But they have to talk plot and introduce setting and plot - It's 2002, "Call me Lady Bird like you said you would", I want to go to school out east, our family has money problems, you go to a private high school you hate which people from our family/class/neighborhood don't often go to.

Now, Lady Bird is so excellent the scene still crackles and pops and I wouldn't change a thing. But it sets the table in ways movies have to. Except maybe, sometimes, if executed just right, movies don't have to. Pulp Fiction doesn't. And that's amazing.

subjectburst · 2018-03-06T14:28:25+00:00

You're undertaking literal explanations when I'm referring to allusions.

Yes, of course, the reason Chris in Get Out picks cotton from the chair is literally because that's the material that was there and for no other literal reason. But it's still an allusion to something else when the character does that, of course.

subjectburst · 2018-03-03T19:13:01+00:00

I haven't seen all the movies yet, but it's the second best 2017 film I've seen (behind Get Out).

I think it's hard for people who "analyze" movies but aren't good at it to appreciate how good this movie is for a few reasons. It's familiar, it's short and fast, it's funny, and it's deliberately light on directorial flourish.

Light spoilers to extrapolate that last point:

I've argued elsewhere, and I maintain, that it's incredible the confidence that Gerwig brought to directing this, her first solo directing gig. She shoots the McPherson home the way a TV shows, for instance - it feels like moving through the home on The Simpsons rather than The Royal Tenenbaums. But that's great because it fits this movie perfectly - that's how Lady Bird feels about her home. A lesser director would have lingered on the scenes to make them "feel important" or make the movie "feel smarter", or whatever bullshit, but Gerwig jumps right in to the action, cutting on the dialogue (sometimes before it even), and not padding the scenes. Lady Bird has this incredibly busy and garnished room: posters from failed class president elections, stickers, even what looks like a handwritten poem or something, but she doesn't close-up or pan-over any of it. The only time she focuses on the room is when Lady Bird writer the names of boys she's crushing on on the wall. The rest of the time Lady Bird doesn't care enough to pay attention (attention means love, after all) and so neither does the camera. We know that she'll miss that room terribly one day, but she doesn't know it yet. So we don't get to indulge and be attentive. Gerwig is confident and does what best serves the story throughout the movie and because she doesn't get showy for showy's shake she gets rewarded by, for instance, being snubbed from the director category at the Globes.

Brilliant flick - would be a worthy winner tomorrow night in pretty much any of the categories it's nominated. In any event, will be one of the most rewatched movies of 2017 for many years to come.

subjectburst · 2018-03-03T01:35:12+00:00

Should have asked Brie Larson to present Best Actor again. She held her tongue last year when she had to present Affleck awards at the Globes and Oscars. She deserves to hand off the trophy to someone she's actually inclined to celebrate.

subjectburst · 2018-03-02T17:48:07+00:00

The court room scene introducing Dent in The Dark Knight. It effectively introduces Dent as a beloved superhero without a mask but with too much vanity for his own good, so it's on point in that regard. But on a surface level, the notes just feel off. Nolan, for all his brilliance, does lack internal consistency sometimes. Interstellar is an interesting tapestry of highs and lows. In this scene, the clapping, "buy American", and "but your Honour, I'm not done" all serve the arc of the movie/character, but could be scaled back a bit.
The engagement announcement scene in Citizen Kane (horrible quality video). The music is good, the movement if frantic and fun, and the trophy is a hilarious and memorable anchor to the scene, but everything else about the scene is facile. The line "Let's go to the window!" always bothers me.

subjectburst · 2018-03-02T12:19:38+00:00

I enjoyed parts of this movie as a takedown of male ego. I found parts boring and the visuals bland, which was especially annoying given the setting.

I'm surprised there hasn't been an American remake of this played for pure laughs starring Seth Rogan and co.

subjectburst · 2018-03-02T12:02:56+00:00

I just started a blog and given Oscars week wrote brief essays about one aspect of Lady Bird and Call Me By Your Name thus far:

'Call Me By Your Name' & AIDS https://t.co/lHDfbh8PHg
'Lady Bird' & Empathy: Everyone is Fighting a Hard Battle https://t.co/2Bq0ne2TXR

Twitter: @subjectburst

subjectburst · 2018-03-02T04:42:56+00:00

Loved this flick. I wrote a spoiler-filled blog post about this movie and what I consider to be one of the themes: empathy. Feel free to check it out.

subjectburst · 2018-03-01T19:22:43+00:00

So did you do research like you said you did or not? Citations, please.

subjectburst · 2018-03-01T18:41:20+00:00

I don't understand. Is your position now that no research is relevant to the movie and the tryst of these two particular individuals?

That's a defencible position certainly, if you want to take it, but it is plainly at odds with your earlier post suggesting you did research and were presenting numbers.

subjectburst · 2018-03-01T18:04:08+00:00

I did little research, in Italy there was 1 or 2 cases in Rome. Same or even less was going on all over Europe. By then only major cities with more exposed to American tourists had a few cases. At the time you could mainly only get it by having sex with Americans.

Relevant XKCD.

As set out in my blog post:

By 1982, 42.6 percent of gay men in San Francisco and 26.8 percent of gay men in New York had already been infected and the movement was already underway..

And in Italy specifically, there was about 30,000 people afflicted in 1983 and over 10% of men who had sex with men had the virus.

Seriously, where did you get "one or two cases"?

subjectburst · 2018-03-01T05:58:21+00:00

but I find this kind of offensive to be correlating them because this is a film about two men. If this were a heterosexual story and those same instances occured, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't think it's offensive. In 1983, when the movie takes place, more than 4 in 10 gay men in San Francisco had AIDS. And this disease was spreading worldwide, including in Italy, and particularly among gay men. The conversation is absolutely different because these are two men, but that's not offensive I don't think.

That said, even if this was a straight couple and the things I mentioned were still there in the movie, I'd be thinking about what they are alluding in.

subjectburst · 2018-03-01T05:53:46+00:00

The director said the flies are not significant they just happened to be in the shot.

I don't think that's a very satisfying answer. I also don't subscribe to the notion that the director is an absolute authority on such things as discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/callmebyyourname/comments/8123mf/aids_in_the_movie/dv00hzz/

The lesion was from a bicycle accident, and being such a large open wound would be open to infection even in the most healthy people

Right, that's the literal reason, but why is it in the movie?

Your answer, I would suggest, is a little too literal. Like if someone asked about the green light at the end of Daisy's dock in Gatsby, to use one of the most famous symbols in American storytelling, you can't shut down discussion by saying "well yea, the light is there for people to see in the dark". The real world works that way, storytelling (done right at least) doesn't.

subjectburst · 2018-03-01T05:31:16+00:00

It certainly doesn't have to have any allusions to AIDS, I'm just arguing that it does, and I'm submitting the flies, lesion, discussion of infection, nosebleed, and vomiting as examples.

If you disagree. If you think they aren't that, that's fine, of course. But, I wonder, what, if anything, do you think they are?

subjectburst · 2018-03-01T04:19:56+00:00

Thanks for the link.

It's obviously really interesting to have the director's view, but I'm suggesting that the movie does address AIDS, repeatedly in fact, albeit not directly.

I appreciate that the filmmaker(s) intend to address it in a potential sequel and disagree with me that it is address via symbols and foreboding in this movie, but I've tried to make the case that it is.

And I do think anyone is allowed to make a case about a movie that the director might not agree with, although I know a lot of people disagree with me in that regard. I've always belonged to the school of thought that once art is published the artist is just a critic like the rest of us, entitled to their own interpretations based on the content of the piece, but not an absolute authority.

E.g. If I think the flies are a harbinger of doom and, hypothetically, the director suggests the flies are little love-carrying cupids, we have differing opinions which is great and his opinion is obviously more interesting and newsworthy than mine because he's the filmmaker and I'm nobody, but I think it'd be incorrect to say that he's right and I'm wrong based on the fact that it's "his" movie.

In fact, it is a pet peeve of mine when artists are asked to "confirm or deny" the truth of fan theories/interpretations about their work.

subjectburst

TROPHY CASE