I am usually an early adopter, and typically I bridle at uninformed critiques of cool new tech (I spent a long time telling clients, yes, this “Web” thing was going to be really, really big). But Twitter has come on so fast and so… shallowly… that it’s taken me a while to conceptualize the why. I get it (I think), but I found this critique to be, ah, very well executed.
Working on some important deadlines/projects (end of quarter, journal submission, increasing kale consumption), but I have a massive backlog of sublimely awesome links and I will dispense them intermittently in… the future. Here’s a sample:
Mardi Weenie (ht Lynn): Tilt shift big easy.
New comedy from the Bluth boys (not the movie).
Night at the Pong Museum.
Your brain, and how to use it.
And because the fun really never ends…
Mr. Kafka will see you now:
Froomkin: Zubaida was the first detainee to be tortured at the direct instruction of the White House. Then he was President George W. Bush’s Exhibit A in defense of the “enhanced interrogation” procedures that constituted torture. And he continues to be held up as a justification for torture by its most ardent defenders.
But as author Ron Suskind reported almost three years ago — and as The Post now confirms — almost all the key assertions the Bush administration made about Zubaida were wrong.
Zubaida wasn’t a major al Qaeda figure. He wasn’t holding back critical information. His torture didn’t produce valuable intelligence — and it certainly didn’t save lives.
All the calculations the Bush White House claims to have made in its decision to abandon long-held moral and legal strictures against abusive interrogation turn out to have been profoundly flawed, not just on a moral basis but on a coldly practical one as well.
Indeed, the Post article raises the even further disquieting possibility that intentional cruelty was part of the White House’s motive.
Can’t you just smell the freedom?
Perhaps the best thing I’ve ever seen on the Internet.
It starts with The Mother of All Funk Chords, and it just goes from there.
Joss at Maxim:
Finally, we need to set the record straight: Are you, in fact, also J.J. Abrams?
Yes. Thank you for finally bringing that to light. I am. And let me tell you something: I’m fuckin’ tired. I’m tired all the time. I’m doing everything. Yeah. Watch Fringe.
Nathan Alderman at teevee has the right idea here. To my thinking, the professional critics who see Whedon’s new show “Dollhouse” as nothing but scorn-bait are showboating, puffing themselves up to show they’re more insightful than a rabid fan base. Okay, gramps, have your fun.
I can admit the premiere episode was perhaps less than flawless in execution (and Joss would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for you meddling producers!), BUT, anyone who actually cares about storytelling can see that it was positively teeming with ideas and possibilities. It’s structured that way; given a chance, it will unfold into a complex, beautiful thing. Why must some vaunted professional critic be pleased by some criteria of his or her own concoction for this to be a “success”? Personally, I always thought the critic’s job should be to look for and find what is possible and what is immanent in a narrative, and explain how it might be good, rather than why this sucks. Alas, this is part of why I’m not a critic (except from my sofa, where I am demanding but forgiving… up to a point; I’m looking at you Alias).
Anyway, let me knock down one of the shallowest “criticisms” of the show, the supposed “problem” with why someone would chose a Dollhouse active to be a hostage negotiator (or whatever) when they could get a real negotiator. Apart from the justification actually offered in, you know, the show, no one who makes this complaint is considering the benefit of having someone incredibly competent enter a scenario, perform exceptionally… and then forget all about it. There have to be plenty of bankers and at least one former governor today who might fantasize about that kind of impunity.
The whole “business we call show” is shot through with perils and problems, but audiences and critics alike should do the work to understand what’s behind what they are seeing. “I don’t get it” is not a valid critique, even if you dress it up in professional jargon. These are stories, and stories don’t need to conform to one individual’s sense of ideal television. Come on, folks, use your imagination! You remember imagination, right?
UPDATE: Aha! So it’s all on purpose!
According to Whedon, this is far and away the darkest premise he’s ever attempted. Some of the elements of the show and situations Echo will find herself in – such as sleeping with certain men and not remembering anything – he expects to raise controversy.
Dollhouse is something that is so tricky that I expect some backlash, some disappointment. I’m scared witless by how some people will react to this, but I’ve found that when I’m scared I do my best work’ Whedon said.
“My hope is that the audience comes across as unclean as the characters…everyone is compromised.”
Don’t believe the hate! These are not the snark you’re looking for.
Holy smokes! After 20 years, the Simpsons get a revamped introduction!
Mostly the same, but some nice new touches. Marge finally looks herself. (And bonus don’t-blink-or-you’ll-miss-it cameo by Spider-Pig!)
Hey, share some love!
The best customizable candy hearts and V-Day cards ever are right here at BreakupGirl.net, of course.
But this year, Rachel Maddow fans are in the running! Nice!
And what’s this? Even the Fish and Wildlife Service is representing? All right!
Happy Pitchers and Catchers, y’all! (Now there’s a reason to celebrate!)
Love this Flickr set (thanks!) and some of the associated info from the NYTimes.
Happy birthday, man.
And don’t miss this h/t from another lanktastic Illinoisan:
[Lincoln] recognized that while each of us must do our part, work as hard as we can, and be as responsible as we can – in the end, there are certain things we cannot do on our own. There are certain things we can only do together. There are certain things only a union can do.
Only a union could harness the courage of our pioneers to settle the American west, which is why he passed a Homestead Act giving a tract of land to anyone seeking a stake in our growing economy.
Only a union could foster the ingenuity of our farmers, which is why he set up land-grant colleges that taught them how to make the most of their land while giving their children an education that let them dream the American dream.
Only a union could speed our expansion and connect our coasts with a transcontinental railroad, and so, even in the midst of civil war, he built one. He fueled new enterprises with a national currency, spurred innovation, and ignited America’s imagination with a national academy of sciences, believing we must, as he put it, add “the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery…of new and useful things.” And on this day, that is also the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth, let us renew that commitment to science and innovation once more
Only a union could serve the hopes of every citizen – to knock down the barriers to opportunity and give each and every person the chance to pursue the American dream. Lincoln understood what Washington understood when he led farmers, craftsmen, and shopkeepers to rise up against an empire. What Roosevelt understood when he lifted us from Depression, built an arsenal of democracy, and created the largest middle-class in history with the GI Bill. It’s what Kennedy understood when he sent us to the moon.
All these presidents recognized that America is – and always has been – more than a band of thirteen colonies, more than a bunch of Yankees and Confederates, more than a collection of Red States and Blue States. We are the United States of America and there isn’t any dream beyond our reach, any obstacle that can stand in our way, when we recognize that our individual liberty is served, not negated, by a recognition of the common good. …
Wow. Miss May Whitley can throw me around 1920s London all she wants.
