Rest in Geek

Maybe it's a sign of the times, but I'm unsurprised to find that even my pursuit of escapism seems to lead back to the topic of death. One death is real and the other imaginary, but both are noteworthy in their own way.

British actor Nicholas Courtney, who died February 22nd at age 81, had a long career in television, with roles in everything from All Creatures Great and Small to The Avengers. To geeks of my generation, though, Courtney will be best remembered from his work in Doctor Who as Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, a role he originated in 1968 and would continue to play in various media for over forty years. Though the character ultimately appeared opposite most of the actors to play the Doctor, the majority of Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart's appearances were in the 1970s during Jon Pertwee's tenure, mainly during the Doctor's exile to Earth.

As a leader of U.N.I.T., an international organization dedicated to protecting Earth from alien threats, the Brigadier was regularly thrown into situations that defied by-the-book solutions but somehow never lost his dignity. And though he sometimes made choices the Doctor found morally questionable, his good intentions were always apparent, which might be the aspect of the character that most endeared him to fans. He was one of us - or at least what we might like to be.

If past history is any guide, the other death will be as short-lived as it is fictional. The Human Torch is at least the second member of the Fantastic Four to die and almost certainly will be at least the second to be resurrected. That's how it goes in comics, where the operative question is not if a given character will come back but rather when.

Though some fans hate this practice, I'm fine with it - as long as the writers deliver a good story. When Marvel decided to kill Captain America and pass the mantle to his former sidekick (who had himself been believed dead for forty years), we knew it was just a matter of time before the inevitable resurrection. That time-frame ended up being just a couple years, which was fine because it produced an intriguing story-line, as the death of one of comics' most iconic characters produced ripples on intrigue across the Marvel universe.

The Human Torch's death, or rather its aftermath, isn't quite up to that level. Making most of the final issue of The Fantastic Four wordless provided was a good effort to avoid cliches and let the events speak for themselves, but overall it was underwhelming. While there were some truly affecting moments, too much if it felt like vamping until a final scene that sets the stage for the team's next stage.

Still, the death of the Human Torch resonates, because the Fantastic Four isn't just a superhero team but also a family, and most of us can relate to the story on that level. The family dynamics have been a key part of their appeal since they debuted nearly 50 years ago, so it seems fitting they come into play at the end of their run. Of course, I don't really think it is the end of their run, but that will be another story.

The Differences Between a Tiger Mother & a Tiger Moth Begin With the Fact That One of Them Makes You Want to Say, "Er, that doesn't seem right to me."

Since biology precludes me from becoming a "tiger mother", at least in the technical sense, perhaps I shouldn't pass any judgments on this style of parenting. That said, there is at least one particular element of Amy Chua's Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother that demonstrates that she's a failure as a parent, her disappointment over the handmade birthday card she received from her children. If Chua's methods are so successful, her children would have found a way to earn the money to buy a card. All they would have needed to do is make a recording of the musical pieces they were expected by their mother to master and post them on iTunes. Since iTunes shares 70% of revenue with the content provider, each download would net them about 70-cents. At that rate, they would need to sell only four or five downloads to buy a card. Surely, the children of a "tiger mother" have the ability...er, maybe that's crazy.

Really, Texas?

In case anyone thinks that Republican nonsense about matters pertaining to human reproduction is limited to the federal level, I offer the following. During last year's governor's race, Republican Governor Rick Perry was interviewed by Evan Smith from the Texas Tribune. Among the topics was the Governor's support of abstinence-only sex-education.


Governor Perry: Abstinence works.

Evan Smith: But we have the third highest teen pregnancy rate among all states in the country.

Governor Perry: It works.

Evan Smith: Can you give me a statistic suggesting it works?

Governor Perry: I’m just going to tell you from my own personal life. Abstinence works.


Apparently, Perry's personal life does not intersect with the part of his state that ranks among the highest in the nation in teen pregnancies.

Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of Political Gain

During the push to pass the healthcare reform bill, one element that kept some lawmakers from supporting it was concern about federal funds being used for abortion. In order to allay those concerns, President Obama issued an executive order declaring that federal funds only could be used for abortion in cases if rape, incest or where the mother's life is at risk. The fact that this executive order was unnecessary due to the so-called "Hyde Amendment" makes the GOP's attack on Planned Parenthood all the more offensive.

Despite the fact that both a 34 year-old law and a year-old executive order kept them from Using federal money for abortion outside of the extreme cases, Republican congressmen shamelessly claimed that their move to kill funding for Planned Parenthood in the federal budget, which passed 240-185, was needed to keep tax-payers from paying for abortions. The budget amendment's sponsor Mike Pence who, despite knowing full well about the restrictions already in place, had the gall to say, "Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood can't be the leading advocate of abortion on demand, but why do I have to pay for it?" I accept that there are people with sincere and principled objections to abortion, even if I don't think they should get to decide policy on the matter unless they have a uterus, but Pence's political performance art is the opposite of principled.

Because the rules were already so strict, the budget amendment won't have any impact on abortion, except perhaps to make it harder on women who've been victims of rape or other terrible circumstance. What it will do is compromise access to basic healthcare for women. Putting aside the question of why any sane woman would ever vote Republican, let alone run for office as one, the real issue is what happens next. Thankfully, the Senate is still in the hands of the largely reasonable and if they don't go along with it, it doesn't become law. Even with the March 4th deadline to pass the budget (or at least new temporary budget measure), I don't think the Senate will go along with this, but it doesn't hurt to remind your senators that you don't think that either (www.senate.gov).

Old Father Hubbert

In the mid 1950s, a geophysicist named M. King Hubbert published a paper that predicted that US oil production would reach its peak in the late-60s or early-70s and decline thereafter. Hubbert's premise that oil is a finite resource whose availability is similarly limited by our ability to effectively extract it was one with global implications that have only increased over the past half-century. Though some of the specifics as to when global production will peak and how steep the declines will be are debatable, the basics of Hubbert's theory (popularly known as Hubbert Peak Theory) largely seem to hold true, as shown by the decline in US oil production since the 1970s.

Hubbert Peak Theory seems poised to return to the news in the wake of fresh reports about the long-standing concern that estimates of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves may be overstated. As the country with the largest reserves of oil in the world, the question of when that country will see its production of oil peak and decline is literally of global importance.

Of course, only time will tell whether Saudi oil production peaks a year, a decade, or a century from now. In the meantime, this brings to mind an aspect of the debate over "global warming" that zealots on both sides of the debate seem unwilling to pursue.

Whether or not you believe carbon emissions are detrimentally affecting Earth's climate, why isn't it a good idea to find ways to reduce them and the pollution that often accompanies them? In the same way, and indeed related to the climate change debate, whether you believe global oil reserves are overstated or not, petroleum is still a finite resource that should be used wisely and conserved.

Some may dismiss this talk as somehow anti-capitalist or un-American. I prefer to think of it as pro-future. It's not about red states and blue states, it's about what kind of world we pass on to future generations. To think otherwise is far more questionable than any application of Hubbert Peak Theory ever could be.

Snooki Money

Usually when I attend conferences for work, I'm too involved in meetings to find the time to go to any of the speeches or panel discussions, even when they involve personal musical heroes like William Shatner. The exception is an annual event here in DC devoted to non-fiction programming called the Realscreen Summit. As non-scripted programs increasingly dominate TV schedules, even on channels that once prided themselves on quality dramas, it's fascinating to hear how the network programmers perceive themselves, their televised progeny and their industry in general.

At this year's event, perhaps the most fascinating panel was called "The Rights War". In the course of an hour the panel's moderator prodded programming executives with increasingly awkward questions about the equitability of the financial model in which virtually all rights go to the networks footing the bill for the production.

With some justification, the network people maintained that, as the party taking on the risk, it was reasonable that their company would see most of the reward. At the same time, they conceded that there were legitimate questions about how to "monetize success" for the minority of programs that actually make a lot of money for the broadcasters.

Buzzwords aside, it was apparent this applied not just for the networks and producers but also those in front of the cameras. As is the way with discussions of reality TV talent, it wasn't long before they evoked the cast of MTV's Jersey Shore, specifically the one and only Snooki.

Apparently, rising reality stars now want what is called "Snooki money", referring to the quantum leap in salary the annoyance formerly known as Nicole Polizzi received between Jersey Shore's first and second seasons. Sticking with their theme of how to monetize success appropriately, one panel member pointed out that the try to make cast members appreciate that if it wasn't for them being on the shows in question they wouldn't be getting money for appearance fees and other sources. This is, of course, a sensible argument - except for one thing. The personalities likely to embrace reality show fame don't seem like the type overflowing self-awareness needed to appreciate that logic. And so, as networks and producers fight their ongoing rights war, the quest for "Snooki money" continues.

Political Voodoo - 30 Years Later

As we careen toward the centenary of former President Reagan's birth, we should take a moment to remember one of our 40th President's greatest hits, "trickle-down economics." Rather than trying to explain it myself, I'll defer to noted economist and Reagan advisor Arthur Laffer, as quoted in an upcoming HBO documentary. "Trickle-down economics is if you feed the horse enough oats, the sparrow will survive on the highway."

I'd Like to Use the Nook for Kindling

Despite my old-fashioned love of equally old-fashioned printed books, I decided to take the e-reader plunge. Despite reading and researching, not to mention enlisting the input of someone more tech-savvy than me, I still couldn't decide whether to get a Nook or a Kindle, as both seemed to have unique virtues. The answer, or so I thought, was to get one of each.

To borrow from Elvis Costello, it was a fine idea at the time now it's a brilliant mistake. Mistake turned out to be the one word description of the Nook purchase, while the brilliant part applies to the Kindle, whose popularity is easily understood after a short time using it. Though the navigation takes some getting used to, it's fundamentally user-friendly both to read and to search. Having gotten the 3G equipped version, that searching process works very well and I haven't had a single problem downloading a book or periodical without the need for WiFi.

Sadly, the same was not true for the 3G version of the Nook. While the reading experience compares well to the Kindle, and the touch-screen controls are in some ways easier than the Kindle's physical keys, the process of getting content from Barnes & Noble via the 3G network was an exercise in repeated frustration. Even when the Nook indicated a strong 3G signal, nearly every attempt to download content, even just sample chapters, yielded no reading material beyond "network unavailable" or similar error messages.

Allowing that it could be just an issue with my specific device, I exchanged it for a new one - which had the same issues. Any doubts about what to do were dispelled after I took the advice of one of the error messages and called B&N's customer service line. After some pointed questions, the B&N rep conceded that they'd had a number of complaints about 3G access problems. She went on to attribute the download problems to AT&T's 3G network not being stable enough to maintain a connection long enough to download a book.

As an iPhone user who's rarely had an issue downloading material (especially apps) much larger than most digital books/periodicals over AT&T's 3G data network, that last point was news to me. Considering that some sources report that the Kindle's (very effective) 3G service also uses AT&T's network, it raised the distinct possibility that she either didn't know what she was talking about or was lying. Taking her at her word is no less troubling, since she basically admitted that her employer is charging an extra $50 for a feature they know doesn't work effectively. While I appreciated her fit of honesty (or delusion, as the case may be), it certainly didn't make me want to own a Nook.

So, back to the store it went. I'll miss the enjoyably frustrating built-in sudoku game, and I liked the touchscreen navigation, which looks cool and compares favorably to the functionality of the iPod Touch and iPhone. Of course, that latter element also contributes to a sense that the the designers of the Nook (or at least this model of it) were more focused on competing with the iPad than making an effective reading device in its own right. Whether that's really the case or not, when an e-reader has trouble executing the fundamental function of providing access to reading material, bells and whistles don't count for much. I might feel differently had I been comparing the Wi-Fi only versions of these devices, as it functioned smoothly on both, but of the versions I compared the Kindle was simply the superior device.