Month: January 2012

Frum labels a moon colony a colossal waste of resources:

Most of the research purpose of sending human beings into space is to test the effects of sending human beings into space. The missions exist to test whether the missions can continue. This seems the very definition of futility.

Tim Cavanaugh skips past the moon and considers colonization of Mars. He argues that humans will have to undergo major genetic engineering if they are going to survive such a trip:

“Terraforming” remains a popular concept in science fiction, where other worlds usually come with pressurized, breathable atmospheres and so many “desert planets” and “ice planets” have weather suspiciously close to that of Terran countries with low film production costs. In reality it’s not easy to effect climate change even on Earth, and settlers on an alien body will need to adapt themselves to the planet before they can adapt the planet to themselves. 

(Kaczynski's tweet links to a newspaper article from 1997)

"The recent release of President Barack Obama's 'Defense Strategic Review' is a positive step forward in addressing the post-9/11 security environment, establishing priorities, and evolving beyond the Cold War legacy we largely still have today. However, it is too narrow in focus and disappoints in a fundamental way by continuing to embrace the concept of positioning our armed forces around the world. This is the wrong approach for a Republic. Maintaining permanent land bases overseas is costly and adds little, if anything, to our national security," Congressman and former Army soldier Chris Gibson (R-NY).

A reader writes:

That shot with the bear guy and the tux guy from The Shining is my single favorite weird moment in all of cinema. No explanation, no context, over in less than ten seconds. Too racy and absurd to even get mentioned in the otherwise flawless Simpsons spoof, "The Shinning". Thanks for busting it out on a Monday.

A reader asks a great question:

Who says it's a "guy"? At no point in the film does the person in the bear suit remove the costume. Why does the NYT assume that the person in there is a man?

Update from a reader:

"Who says it's a 'guy'?" Easy answer: It's in the book.

From what I recall, the older man was a wealthy businessman. The man in the dog suit – not bear – was his younger lover. Jack is told during one of his flashbacks that in order to win back the affections of the businessman, the younger man was told he had to act like a dog at one of the hotel parties. This is one example of a plot point from the book that Kubrick gave only hints of in the film.

Another elaborates by pointing to a passage from IMDB:

At one point in the novel, Jack is dancing with a woman at a masque ball during the 1920s, and he notices a young man wearing a dog mask and behaving like a dog for the amusement of a tall, bald man. This bald man is the man in the tuxedo later seen by Wendy. The woman explains to Jack that his name is Horace Derwent, a former owner of the hotel, and an eccentric Howard Hughes type figure who poured over three million into restoring it after WWII. The young man acting like a dog is Roger, a former lover of the bisexual Derwent, with whom he is still in love. According to the woman, Derwent told Roger that "if he came to the masked ball as a doggy, a cute little doggy, he might reconsider;" that is, he might have sex with Roger. Although no actual sex scene between Roger and Derwent is described in the book, such a scene does seem to take place in Kubrick's film, albeit obliquely.

(Video: Scenes from Kubrick's classic set to DJ Koze von Okarola's remix of Radiohead's "Creep", via Nerdcore)

Steve Walt counters Drezner and Beckley:

The United States remains very powerful — especially when compared with some putative opponents like Iran — but its capacity to lead security and economic orders in every corner of the world has been diminished by failures in Iraq (and eventually, Afghanistan), by the burden of debt accumulated over the past decade, by the economic melt-down in 2007-2008, and by the emergence of somewhat stronger and independent actors in Brazil, Turkey, India, and elsewhere. … If it the United States remains far and away the world's strongest state, its ability to get its way in world affairs is declining.

Drezner fires back:

It Walt overestimates America's influence during the Cold War, he also underestimates American influence now.  The funny thing about the "stronger and independent actors in Brazil, Turkey, India, and elsewhere" is that they're siding with the United States on multiple important issues.  Coordination between Turkey and the United States on the Arab Spring has increased over time, and their policy positions on Iran are converging more than diverging.  Brazil has turned a cold shoulder to Iran and has been warier about China's currency manipulation and rising influence in Latin America.  India seems perfectly comfortable to be a partner in America's Pacific Rim pivot, as are Australia, Japan and South Korea.  

A year of back-flips:

Rob Tisinai refuses to ridicule the looks of marriage equality opponents:

Mocking Maggie Gallagher for her weight is like handing her a stick to beat us with.  I bet she loves this sort of thing, from a professional perspective at least.  I bet she wishes we’d take this low road in a televised confrontation.  It’s an automatic win for her side. It also kills our credibility.  Right now we’re trying to reach that undecided 20% of America who just don’t think that much about marriage equality.  If I were part of that group and I saw gays insulting Maggie for her weight, I’d figure they had nothing else to offer, nothing of substance anyway.  That’s why this is different from mocking our opponents for factual errors, mistakes in logic, and hateful homophobia.  That kind of mockery, at least, stays on relevant ground.

Plus, such ad hominem attacks are just dickish by themselves.

It makes for a better story:

Though some ultracon conspiracists believe that the press is attempting to take down Romney and elevate Gingrich because of their relative strengths as opponents to Obama, the truth is less nefarious. "The tone of the coverage depends less on the candidates than on the overall dynamic of the race," says [Center for Media and Public Affairs] director Robert ­Lichter. "Journalists love a horse race and hate a front-runner."

Josh Barro advances it:

[A] Buffett Rule would not simply mark a return to a time when tax burdens were higher on people with high incomes. It would entail enacting a new form of tax policy not used in other major countries and not used for any sustained period in the United States. It is very cavalier to contend that such a policy would not discourage investment.

Reihan guesses that "the Obama administration has no intention of actually implementing something like a Buffett Rule" and thinks "it has the trappings of an idea that is meant only for the campaign trail."

Oakland, California, 7.30 am