Author: ssw15

The unfortunate situation in London – reminding us that this isn’t the world we’d like to have and of the scary thought of “geez, that could happen to our mass transit.” Hopes and prayers to our fellow major metropolitan.

In NYC, where we’ve been on security level Orange for four years now, we sort of became Orange Plus (more cops in downtown, where I work, not that that’s any surprise; a heightened awareness).

The news media is making me feel weary, because the reality is that there isn’t that much news to provide, since the authorities are still investigating. It gets really annoying watching tv anchorpeople talking to the “experts” early in the day and getting all mawkish – I got a glimpse of Diane Sawyer on ABC’s “Primetime” – she’s talking to a Londoner and his eyes are tearing up and she’s trying to show empathy… but, I felt the need for a more stolid sort of comfort (sorry, Diane). I liked “Nightline” – Ted Koppel giving a good perspective and nicely handling his panel of experts – a former Irish terrorist; a former CIA guy; and Richard Clarke (the USA’s ex-terrorism czar). I may not have necessarily agreed with Clarke, but Koppel kept things smooth, giving everyone a chance to put their views.

Take it a day at a time – irony of seeing the Londoners all happy about the 2012 Olympics on 7/6/05, and then facing the grim reality of 7/7/05. Will the G-8 summit get back to talking about global warming and global poverty, even in the ugly face of current terrorism? So the world turns.

Happy Independence Day. Celebrate America’s birthday, reflect on the troops, and pray that we’ll have a good Supreme Court justice nominee.

And in other news, the NYC 2012 delegation is in Singapore to await the IOC vote for the city selection for the Summer Olympics 2012. I remain agnostic as to whether NYC should have the Olympics (would we have tried for this were it not for 9/11/01? do we really have a shot? when will we ever have an Olympics in South America, forget bringing it back to Asia?). I find the idea of Moscow 2012 to be… not appetizing (umm, apologies to Moscow, but you haven’t casted great an impression in the international press to me).

Sunday – I attended a friend’s wedding. Beautiful weather, perfect for them. So wonderful that they shared their day with us.

And, then I got home in the evening… and watched WB network’s “Beauty and the Geek” marathon. I have to say, for an Ashton Kutcher produced reality show, it’s riotously funny and has some heart. The contestants have their low moments (such as when they’re being mean to each other: the Beauties have their moments as shallow bombshells, looking down at the Geeks that they’re partnered with; or when the Med Student Geek reamed the Stereotypical Nerd Geek in a too-nasty and abrasive manner) and their high moments (when they encourage each other; act positive as teammates and housemates; gain confidence and stop looking at each other as stereotypes: when the girls realize these are great guys and the guys realize that these aren’t total bimbos who wouldn’t give them the time of day).

As much as the show has been funny, I had to visit the website. The Beauty and the Geek website adds in the little biographical details that confirmed for me that these contestants weren’t mere “Beauties” and “Geeks” (even if they sort of were). The Geek who is Asst. VP of the Dukes of Hazard fan club is an engineer (i.e., he has an actual day job). The Asst. Boyscoutmaster’s day job is “landscaper.” Some of the Geeks weren’t bad looking (one or two were not Geeky by appearances; they were kind of cute, which may explain why the Geekier guys picked them for elimination – they weren’t nearly as disadvantaged or possessing similar low self esteem). Some of the Beauties really did seem like dimwits (sorry, they did seem a little foolish), but the Beauty Mindi (paired with Richard, the Stereotypical Geek) seems pretty smart (she’s currently in college and hasn’t dropped out yet to be an actress, according to the website) and apparently one or two other ones were either college graduates or about to be college grads. The lesson of “Beauty and the Geek” is that people are people.

Whether a season 2 of “Beauty and the Geek” will be nearly as much fun remains to be seen. But I’m impressed that I could have so much fun watching a reality show and I tried so hard to resist watching another reality show, really, I did.

Meanwhile, WB’s promos for its upcoming new fall dramatic series turn me off though. I guess I still resent how WB canned “Jack and Bobby,” and seeing promos for shows that feel like they don’t match the quality of “Jack and Bobby”‘s… well, it’s a turn off, it really is.

“The Inside” – FOX’s version of “X-Files”(hold the paranormal/supernatural/alien elements)-meets-“The Profiler”-with a doses of “Silence of Lambs” – is turning interesting. So, yeah, Special Agent Rebecca Locke has some issues to deal with (as a child crime victim who escaped from the kidnapper, she’s clearly still traumatized, and we still don’t know the details). And, so far, her co-workers just make witty quips or else act all self-righteous. But, maybe there’s something to this show. I caught last week’s episode – wherein Rebecca suspects that the murderer is a bossy spoiled 11 year old girl, but her co-worker Paul believes it the skeevy pool man. Rebecca turns out to be not off the mark in believing that the 11 year old is a psychopath after all (although she did a few dubious things to get there that no FBI special agent should do), and the ending had a scary twist. For a show that’s not terribly original, it has good suspense. Rebecca could have been just a blonde dimwit, but she isn’t; she isn’t a superstar rookie, since she makes mistakes and she learns from them. But, she has a spooky edge, since she’s still angry about psychopaths and questioning innocence (perhaps even the loss of her own innocence).

Enjoy what’s left of this holiday weekend…

So, of course, the big news is the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The first reaction was shock (Around noonish yesterday, I received an e-mail at work from a co-worker that “Sandra’s retiring” and I was like, “Sandra? Yeah, so there’s a Sandra at work, how sad she’s retiring and…” and then I check the NY Times’ website and I go: “Oh, shit, O’Connor’s going!!” and I wanted to throttle my co-worker because he meant that Sandra). (pardon the language, but that was the reaction). Shock subsided, since there was a rumor out there that O’Connor wanted to step down to focus on her ill husband and/or relax in retirement.

The next reaction was, “Damn. We’re going to have hell now, because they’re definitely going to go right of O’Connor, even if we won’t have the chaos that would have arisen with a Rehnquist retirement.”

The reaction thereafter was “Please, Rehnquist, don’t retire, because this summer would really be hell if we have to deal with two Supreme Court nominations at the same time.” The realization that Rehnquist would be too stubborn to give up was a small consolation, that and a news report that Rehnquist wouldn’t want to inflict more hassle for the Bush administration and Congress.

Then, I thought: “Oh, great, now we’re down to one woman in the Court, and we’re definitely going to have yet another man.” All the short lists are pointing to moderate conservatives (which is okay by me, so long as you’re as amazing as a Posner or other like moderate conservative/libertarian) or hard-core conservatives (so NOT appetizing for me) – and they’re all men (sorry to men out there; but I do have to support my sex).

I’m still plowing through reading the O’Connor stuff in the news media, so I’m not linking to anything more right now. But, I do think it’s unlikely that an O’Connor-esque judge will be selected (I really don’t like reading how these right wingers make her sound like a judge who didn’t go in their direction; honestly, she didn’t write those opinions to make you Right Wingers feel all nice and happy – this country isn’t just about you Right Wingers anyway). It’ll be scary to watch both sides of the political range go to the battlefront. Can we plead for civility in all this, please?

Luther Vandross passed away. Sad, considering all his health problems and lovely voice.

I hope ABC learns a lesson in its pulling “Welcome to the Neighborhood” from ever airing. Based on what I could tell of the commercials, the reality show, wherein a cul-de-sac of WASP’s evaluate a bunch of non-conforming people for owning a house in the neighborhood, bordered on violating the federal Fair Housing Act (prohibiting discrimination in the leasing, purschasing, and other terms and conditions of housing on the basis of race, national origin, religion, etc) (and, as I mentioned before, state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation). Alessandra Stanley does her take on the ABC debacle in asking “Whatever was ABC Thinking?”:

“Welcome” creates strange bedfellows, but it does not really reveal anything about Americans we didn’t already know. (Tattoos are only skin deep.) Instead, it says a lot about the unspoken rules of seemingly lawless reality shows. Bad taste, ritual humiliation and shameless bathos are all permissible, but there is a sense of fair play; even on shows like “Wife Swap,” rich families are ridiculed just as much as poor ones – usually, in fact, a little more.

On “Welcome,” three families in the neighborhood soberly weigh the different aspirants’ appearance, values and compatibility as if the residents were genuine moral arbiters instead of privileged, blinkered contestants in a game. The home-seekers do not have a chance to turn the tables on their hosts; they are too desperate to win the big house in a safe neighborhood. Their yearning – many of the wives cry when they first tour its large kitchen and two-story living room – is too poignant and embarrassing to bear. Almost as embarrassing as the sight of Jim Stewart, the stocky, self-satisfied neighborhood leader, who complains that the obsequious flattery of a Mexican-American mother of four is “over the top.”

What was ABC thinking? It’s pretty obvious. Network executives were experimenting with recombinant reality television: grafting the heartstring tugs of “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” with the Wisteria Lane intrigue of “Desperate Housewives.” The show’s creators evidently hoped that debunking stereotypes would trump the show’s political incorrectness. (The neighborhood is surprised and delighted to learn that the aspirant covered with full-body tattoos and body piercings actually voted for George W. Bush.) It doesn’t.

Social engineering on television is a dangerous contrivance, but FX does a better job on “30 Days,” a reality show created by Morgan Spurlock, the maker of “Super Size Me,” who for the premiere episode moved to Columbus, Ohio, with his fiancée to see what it was like to live for 30 days on minimum wage. (They barely survived.)

ABC was right to pull the show. There already is plenty of bigotry on reality television, let alone in real life. Nicholas (Fat Nick) Minucci, who is a family friend of the stars of the A&E show “Growing Up Gotti” and has appeared on it, was recently charged with a hate crime in Howard Beach, Queens, after he was accused of using a baseball bat to fracture the skull of a young black man who had encroached on his turf. Welcome to the neighborhood.

Well, maybe I’d be the only one watching if, say, ABC were to air how the cul-de-sac’s WASPs receive sensitivity training from a federal or state agency about how not to discriminate against others. I think that maybe a show done correctly could actually teach Americans the correct moral and legal values – and how acting incorrectly means facing consequences (like, say if the Mexican-American family were to file charges against those WASP’s for discrimination, assuming that the Mexican-American family didn’t sign off on a release of their rights – but they probably did to go through these idiotic reality shows). However, I think asking a tv network to do be instructive and effective would be too much, I guess. (Disclosure: hopefully, I won’t discuss this theme too much more, considering my line of work is related to this type of stuff; but I couldn’t ignore bringing it up on the blog since I hated those commercials for the show).

Hope you’re all enjoying the long weekend…

Hmm, so Wednesday night, I finally watched the thing that tv people have been talking about: “Dancing With the Stars.” Eh, what’s the big deal? . These aren’t even real stars – more like B or C (dare I even say D) list stars. On the other hand, it’s been strange fun. John O’Hurley (a.k.a. J. Peterman of Seinfeld) is a real ham. Joey McIntyre, the ex-New Kid on the Block, is still cute (while Donnie Wahlberg and Mark (“Marky Mark”) Wahlberg are the Actors, Joey was always the cute one; I think he ought to be on tv more often – quirky dramedies would fit him – he was decent on “Boston Public” before that show went south; maybe he should show up on “House” as the latest patient with the mystery illness). (well, yeah, I was in the generation that thought the New Kids on the Block was The Boy Band).

ABC has the sense to pull the planned (and panned) reality series “Welcome to the Neighborhood.” As per the commercials, ABC was going to allow this cul-de-sac of white Christian middle class folks to pick their new neighbor – (a) the Asian family (unclear if it was an Asian-American family, or Asian family); (b) a family that identified itself as Wiccan; (c) an African-American family; (d) a family of punk people; or (e) a pair of male gay parents and their adopted children. ABC said whatever the families did would not run foul of the U.S. Fair Housing Act (the legislation prohibiting discriminiation in housing, on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc. (with the exception of sexual orientation, but don’t worry, state and local laws get to cover that). But, the idea of the show offended the senses (yeah, watch the WASPS’s try to explain why they rejected the families (“They just don’t fit in…”) – no, really?).

Slate explores why, of the journalists being threatened with jail time for not revealing their sources, hasn’t the man, Robert Novak, who revealed the CIA agent’s identity going to jail…

The latest conversation on the US Supreme Court up on Slate – really interested. I liked Prof. Tim Wu’s analysis of the Ten Commandments and the Grokster cases – that you have Breyer and O’Connor concerned about our maintaining manners – extremes are bad.

The passing of Shelby Foote, the writer/commentator on Ken Burn’s “Civil War.”

The NY Times’ Sewell Chan on the latest plans to change the rules of conduct in the subways:

Hmm. Yeah, that’s pretty much what I do without the MTA telling me to do – I go in and out at the platform, not between cars (which really is scary – to me anyway). I understand the rules, but I don’t necessarily think you’d need them. Those posters of “Don’t be Stupid and Risk Dying” seem pretty strong enough (yeah, I actually do look at those posters in the subway).

Enjoy Wednesday, even if the humidity around here sucks…

On the CD player: “Classic Yo-Yo” 0 compilation of Yo-Yo Ma’s best.

Glad to see that the NY Times still has the link up – its special Brooklyn section from last week. Tons of great stuff, plus an article about my neighborhood (I was reading it, thinking: “Good grief, that’s my subway station they’re talking about!”). Check this stuff out before the free links expire.

Plus, for this week’s City section, NY Times has an article about this one man’s quest to collect cofee cups (the stuff we get from the local delis, you know “It’s our pleasure to serve you” with the Greek blue design).

Hmm. I don’t always like the tone of NY Times’ columnist Frank Rich, but his take on the mess with PBS is interesting:

HERE’S the difference between this year’s battle over public broadcasting and the one that blew up in Newt Gingrich’s face a decade ago: this one isn’t really about the survival of public broadcasting. So don’t be distracted by any premature obituaries for Big Bird. Far from being an endangered species, he’s the ornithological equivalent of a red herring.

Let’s not forget that Laura Bush has made a fetish of glomming onto popular “Sesame Street” characters in photo-ops. Polls consistently attest to the popular support for public broadcasting, while Congress is in a race to the bottom with Michael Jackson. Big Bird will once again smite the politicians – as long as he isn’t caught consorting with lesbians.

That doesn’t mean the right’s new assault on public broadcasting is toothless, far from it. But this time the game is far more insidious and ingenious. The intent is not to kill off PBS and NPR but to castrate them by quietly annexing their news and public affairs operations to the larger state propaganda machine that the Bush White House has been steadily constructing at taxpayers’ expense. If you liked the fake government news videos that ended up on local stations – or thrilled to the “journalism” of Armstrong Williams and other columnists who were covertly paid to promote administration policies – you’ll love the brave new world this crowd envisions for public TV and radio.

There’s only one obstacle standing in the way of the coup. Like Richard Nixon, another president who tried to subvert public broadcasting in his war to silence critical news media, our current president may be letting hubris get the best of him. His minions are giving any investigative reporters left in Washington a fresh incentive to follow the money.

[….]

As the public broadcasting debate plays out, there will be the usual talk about how to wean it from federal subsidy and the usual complaints (which I share) about the redundancy, commerciality and declining quality of some PBS programming in a cable universe. But once Big Bird, like that White House Thanksgiving turkey, is again ritualistically saved from the chopping block and the Senate restores more of the House’s budget cuts, the most crucial test of the damage will be what survives of public broadcasting’s irreplaceable journalistic offerings.

Will monitors start harassing Jim Lehrer’s “NewsHour,” which Mr. Tomlinson trashed at a March 2004 State Department conference as a “tired and slowed down” also-ran to Shepard Smith’s rat-a-tat-tat newscast at Fox News? Will “Frontline” still be taking on the tough investigations that network news no longer touches? Will the reportage on NPR be fearless or the victim of a subtle or not-so-subtle chilling effect instilled by Mr. Tomlinson and his powerful allies in high places?

Forget the pledge drive. What’s most likely to save the independent voice of public broadcasting from these thugs is a rising chorus of Deep Throats.

Hmm. So maybe I am wrong – maybe PBS could become a tool of propoganda. Uh. That doesn’t sound right at all.

Enjoy the rest of the hot sultry weekend.

PBS funding restored, but other concerns remain. The NY Times’ article by Lorne Manly on “Public Broadcasters’ Tightrope Over Funds” demonstrates the problem. The PBS managers are trying to do more outreach to get help and money, but that only gets more ire:

But the lobbying effort has been criticized. “What bothers me is they’re using my tax dollars to lobby the Congress to get more of my tax dollars,” said David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization, and a guest on Mr. [Brian] Lehrer’s [WNYC/PBS radio] program on Monday.

Mr. Boaz, a regular listener to public radio, said he believed in the separation of news and state. “The government shouldn’t be putting its thumb on the scales in the marketplace of ideas,” he continued, adding that public broadcasters could withstand the loss of money that represents about 15 percent of their revenues.

Public broadcasting executives defended their outreach efforts, arguing that they are allowed, within certain restrictions, to broadcast spots that support federal financing. And with a vote looming in the House, they did not have the luxury of waiting until the cut becomes reality.

“If we did not tell our members and the funding quietly slipped by, they’d never forgive us,” said John Lawson, president and chief executive of the public television lobbying group.

In addition, they said they are merely laying out the facts for their viewers and listeners to digest. “We are asking them to express their opinions, whatever that may be, but not telling them what to think,” Ms. Walker said.

Placing these spots near news segments about the controversy can raise journalistic questions about blurring the line between news and promotion. Tim Eby, radio manager of WOSU and chairman of NPR’s board, said the station’s on-air people have made sure the spots don’t run during any locally produced segments about the controversy.

So, there’s the concern about the appearance of conflict of interest in PBS journalism (which is usually very solid, but when you’re trying to defend the very concept of PBS, PBS journalism looks like it’s on the defensive, when, just before Lehrer (Brian on radio or Jim on tv) interviews someone, there’s that Save PBS promotion on the air. I didn’t really agree with that libertarian guy referred above – I mean, really, the Constitution talks about separation between religion and state; a division between news and state is something else. It’s not like government funding for PBS makes PBS the government’s propaganda tool or that the government is endorsing a particular network (especially when the current administration is all but accusing PBS of having “liberal” bias). If anything, government funding of PBS (pretty minor stuff as it is, compared to, say, paying for military or Social Security) encourages and maintains free speech in the marketplace of ideas: so long as there is PBS, we don’t have to be the captive audience of the greedy (-ier?) network broadcasters and the cable networks.

But, the lobbying efforts do bother me as a viewer in one sense – I tend to turn to PBS as the commercial free tv. But, increasingly, it obviously isn’t, when you have to sit through “Thanks for our supporters and grant providers from Chipotle, Coca-Cola, and Sprint.” Not easy times for PBS.

And, continuing my topic here on tv stuff, I thought this Alessandra Stanley evaluation of the now-notorious Tom Cruise appearance on yesterday’s Today show is interesting. Yeah, so Cruise is looking a little unhinged, but is terribly honest. Stanley says it’s refreshing. She also makes a point – Cruise is making it obvious that the talk show host/interviewers aren’t exactly the smartest bunch – I mean, really, it’s just Matt Lauer asking silly questions. But, to me, is it that worth it to make Matt Lauer look really dim-witted and to kick dirt at the science of psychiatry (which helps people, even if someone like Cruise doesn’t think so)? I wasn’t planning on watching the Cruise/Speilberg “War of the Worlds” in the first place (not my kind of movie – looks too scary, and I never liked the concept of it in the first place – begging pardon to H.G. Wells). But, this publicity for Cruise – well, I just don’t know how much it helps him. He’s going to have to hope that the audience is able to separate Cruise the Actor from Cruise the Man and that the Man doesn’t end up driving away the Actor’s audience.

Oh, and my silly joke – since Katie Holmes (ex-Joey of “Dawson’s Creek”) can’t let go of Cruise, I do so very much wonder, when will old Dawson and Pacey rescue Joey from the strange older man? … 😉

Hot weekend.

Christian Bale is the man.

Oh, yeah, and so are Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine. They really lift any movie (and support The Man).

So, yeah, I liked the movie. 😉 God, I really am a geek wanna-be! (not that that’s a bad thing).

I think the identity killer of Bruce Wayne’s parents will always be a toss up, since I am aware that in one earlier incarnation of Batman, the killer was just a criminal (probably the earlier comic books of the 1940’s). In another (recall the Batman movie of 1989, with Michael Keaton as Bruce), the killer is the Joker himself – so we could wrap our heads around the idea of who created who – the criminals made Batman – a psycho justice-seeker, but Batman made the criminals – the psycho ones anyway. Christian Bale’s Batman movie does bring that into question (does Batman make the criminals go “theatrical” or did they make him go (more) nuts?).

Bale’s strong portrayal certainly didn’t ignore the question of just how many issues does Bruce have. While Keaton didn’t turn away from the Bruce as a psycho, I liked how the Bale movie emphasized Bruce’s path and his perennial Scarlet Pimpernel dilemma – yeah, so he’s a Kennedy-esque playboy, but he ain’t stupid (or, tries not to be in his Bruce persona). But he risks losing “Bruce” – whoever he may or could have been without his issues in the way (the “Fugitive” series/graphic novel played up the whole Bruce vs. the Batman dilemma). The Waynes had a legacy, and there’s the heir going around in Kevlar costume to beat up the bad guys. Umm, right. Hope you do find time in your Bruce life to fix up the elevated subways of Gotham, Bruce. I mean that in a nice way, of course.

The R’as Al Ghul storyline was definitely confusing in the movie. In the comics and the 1990’s cartoon, that character was seriously nuts. Henri Ducard existed too (in the comics, so far as I know – but I’m not too into the comics – really, I’m not!) – but the Bale movie has really made me confused there. (seriously, my Bat-knowledge is based on whatever I’ve picked up over the years or the cartoons – which are far more mature than you’d think and are highly recommended).

The Bale movie could have been more cheesier (well, aren’t all superhero movies just a little cheesy and campy? Isn’t that what we like about them?), but it was a superior movie all around. A little on the long side (like how much “Let’s torture Bruce” scenes can we stomach?).

I do miss the idea of Bruce having some more allies in the fight to save Gotham. Umm, sure, the Asst. DA who doesn’t walk around with her DA badge; the one good cop; and Bruce’s corporate right hand man. The comics and the cartoons did give Bruce his own personal doctor, and she was pretty inspirational as she also helped the inner city communities, tended to Bruce’s wounds and helped Alfred (someone has to help the poor guy watch Bruce do crazy stuff). What, do we really think that Alfred had to deal with Bruce’s “spelunking injuries” by himself? 😉 Well, Bruce is just beginning, so good help will have to come down the line.

Thumbs up for Batman Begins. If this jumpstart the franchise, I’m on it.

“Entertainment Weekly” had the new Superman/Lois Lane on its cover, as it presented its Must-see list. Hmm. Not sure if this will get that franchise going: personally, Clark Kent is that guy on Channel 11 in WB’s “Smallville.” But, WB didn’t want to break its tv contracts by deciding to have the actor Tom Welling be in a future big-screen movie, so they get an unknown to be the new new Clark. Heck, they even have a B-level star be Lois (even though “Smallville”‘s Lois is great). And, they want to hurry up with the new new Superman, because they’ve got their new Batman and they sat on their new new Superman project for ten years.

Hmm. Well, I can only handle one franchise at a time. Batman has the upper hand right now, and WB better not screw it up.

Let Congress know that their intention to cut PBS funding is wrong. The vote’s this Wednesday, June 22, 2005.

I’ll get off my soapbox now.

Amazing book review of Trudeau’s latest Doonesbury book, covering B.D.’s adjustment to the lost of his leg, helmet, and homecoming from war.

A story on shark fin soup and Disneyland Hong Kong. Umm hmm. So the animal rights/environmentalist people are against Disneyland Hong Kong serving shark fin soup. Hmm. Protecting the earth (or one approach to it) vs. one culture’s values (which I would think aren’t inclined to wipe out all shark, since they want to continue to have shark fin soup, but values conflict nonetheless). Anyway, why would a soup served at wedding banquets have to be at Disneyland Hong Kong?

Another beautiful day. Enjoy. And Happy Father’s day…

Beautiful spring weather today.

In the CD player right now: “More than You Think You Are” album, by Matchbox 20.

An interesting NY Times column by Clyde Haberman on how Shea Stadium got its name (because William Shea was the lawyer/power broker who got the Mets for NYC) and the Shea family’s hope that maybe the new Mets stadium can keep the Shea name (at least, preferably not go corporate; no one should want a “MasterCard/Visa/American Express/Federal Express/Burger King Stadium” or something corporate and vile).

A fascinating profile on a NYC citycouncilman/former law school professor. I’m not just posting it because I had this prof (well, ok, so that is among other reasons) – but the article’s an interesting inside look on one of the local politicians. Apparently, City Councilman David Yassky is very much looking into how NYC disposes its garbage. The profile closes:

[Yassky] welcomes fresh ideas. The latest is from a staffer half his age: Why not solve the garbage and taxi problem in one fell swoop, power taxis with garbage, à la “Back to the Future?” Mr. Yassky is thinking it over.

Hmm. If garbage can be converted into reusable biodegradable energy, it’d be lovely.

Examining the “Cosmic Struggles of Cultural Proportions” – the NY Times’ Caryn James considers how such figures as Bruce Wayne (Batman to you, me, and everyone else) and Anakin Skywalker (a.k.a. Darth Vader) portrays the world in a starkly Manichaen (either/or, black/white, and penultimately good/evil) manner:

Both films concern how heroes and villains take shape, and they include astonishingly similar transformation scenes that hinge on a life-changing moral question: to behead or not to behead?

In “Batman Begins,” Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is urged by his mysterious mentor – part spiritual adviser, part ninja master – to behead an enemy who is at his mercy. When Bruce refuses, he is on his way to becoming the heroic Batman, complete with a black mask and cape.

In “Revenge of the Sith,” Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) is urged by his mysterious mentor to chop off the head of his enemy, Count Chocula – sorry, that’s Count Dooku – and does. That is his crucial turn toward the dark side, and soon he’s the villainous Darth Vader, complete with a black mask and cape to call his own.

The films’ conflicts are not simply about good guys and bad guys, or even good versus evil, always the elements of broadly framed fantasies. With spiritual overtones, and an emphasis on an eternal struggle between equally matched forces of darkness and light, the films suggest a kind of pop-culture Manichaeism. And as crowd-pleasing movies so often do, they reflect what’s in the air, a climate in which the president speaks in terms of good and evil, and religion is increasingly part of the country’s social and political conversation.

And, on that note, enjoy the weekend.