Tom Tomorrow visits parallel Earth. Click through for more.
It’s the one year anniversary of this blog, which began on New Year’s Eve 2008. To celebrate, here’s a few posts that pretty well sum up the last year:
My first post here was a look back at 2008.
This post on Amateurs and Art led to a new friendship.
Sometimes, I wrote about politics.
Some of my friends lost their jobs.
My wife and I celebrated our second anniversary.
I wrote about Star Trek and fan fiction.
and I wrote a post on Stimulation and Satisfaction.
——
Looking back, there are some things I didn’t blog about that I wish I had. I haven’t said anything here about the baby we’re expecting in March, or the deep burnout I experienced in the middle of the year. I’ve been busy with a new writing project that I haven’t said much about either, but I’ll reveal more on that in a few weeks.
Mostly, I’m just happy for the connections I’ve made over the last year. Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you next year.
Apparently, it’s cartoon week at Pay Attention.
I’m not sure if every parent experiences this, but even before my daughter was born, I started making plans to control curate her pop culture experience. Honestly, I can’t stand the bulk of modern children’s programming, and I freely admit that most of the shows I watched as a kid were pure crap too.
It isn’t that I plan to cut her off from her own generations pop culture, but I want to at least lob some influence in her direction. So we’ve been watching a few cartoons every morning, mostly Donald Duck cartoons from the 30s through the 50s because they’re both hilarious and gorgeous. (There’s a nice collection that Disney hasn’t seen fit to remove from YouTube if you want to check them out).
A couple of weeks ago, I decided to broaden her horizons a bit and showed her the Chuck Jones classic “One Froggy Evening”, better known as “that cartoon with the singing frog.” Apparently she enjoyed it because she now requests it every morning.
Which brings me to the point that I actually meant to post about. The songs featured in the short are extremely infectious. After I watch it, I find that I can’t get them out of my head for most of the morning. I decided to do a little research, and possibly purchase copies of the songs. During my research, I found a site that gives the full background of each of the songs that the frog sings.
It’s worth checking out, if only to discover how disturbing some of the music really is.
There’s no excuse for blogging this, except that the world has forgotten Clyde Crashcup. From Wikipedia:
Clyde Crashcup is a fictional character from the early-1960s animated television series The Alvin Show.
Clyde Crashcup (voiced by Shepard Menken impersonating Edwin Carp) is a scientist in a white coat whose experiments invariably failed. His was the only voice heard in many of the episodes, because the other character in the series was his assistant Leonardo, who only whispered into Clyde’s ear. In one episode, though, Clyde invented a wife (voiced by June Foray who also portrayed Rocket J. Squirrel in Rocky and Bullwinkle, among many characters). Clyde had one of the four segments, and the Chipmunks starred in the other three (two of which were musical segments). In the episode “Crashcup Invents the Birthday Party”, Foray provided the (all too audible) voice for the mother of Crashcup’s inaudible assistant Leonardo.
Clyde Crashcup was primarily an inventor rather than a researcher, although he tended to “invent” things which had already been invented. However, in one episode, he built a functioning time machine. He typically would invent something by taking a pencil out of his lab coat’s pocket and drawing a picture in midair of his conception: the picture would then become the actual object. Clyde’s catchphrase (and consider that term loosely used) was to break down the name of his invention into its etonymic elements to explain his thought process. For example, when asked to justify the invention of the telephone, he would say “That’s ‘tele-’ for tele and ‘-phone’ for phone: telephone.” Not exactly the scientific method one would seek, but for a five-year-old child watching the show, guaranteed hilarity.
Video of the great scientist:
I’ve watched the last three seasons of American Idol, and I don’t think any contestant has been a better at pure performance than Adam Lambert (David Cook, from the previous year is a better artist overall). No one else from the season came close to Lambert’s cocky, theatrical stage presence.
Despite that, I’m probably not going to buy his new album because his brand of pop music really doesn’t wear well on my ipod, but I’m pretty tempted after the interview he gave this morning.
If you don’t follow these, things, Lambert gave a “sexually charged” performance at the AMAs earlier this week, including a kiss with another man. This led some people to complain, and he was dropped from an appearance on Good Morning America. CBS’s ‘Early Show’ then invited him on to talk about the performance, and he offered a defense of his music and performance so articulate and unapologetic that I want to compare it to Frank Zappa’s defense of free speech before the Senate.
That’s probably over the top, but watching the interview, I was really happy to see him push back on the notion that all entertainment needs to be kid-friendly, or that his performance was somehow worse for family viewing than Eminem’s. More to the point, I’m really glad to see a gay man on television who’s confident and sexual.
Americans have proven themselves relatively tolerant of gay men as long as they relegate themselves to the roles of neutered best friend, minstrel show stereotype, or tortured cowboy, but I think a lot of the outrage over this performance is rooted in the fact that it was clearly about sex and unapologetically gay. That makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and I can appreciate that, but they’re going to have to move past it.
(Note: I initially shared this item and comment on my Google Reader ‘shared items’ page, and Adam asked me for a longer response. Since it was fairly long, I thought I’d share it here.)
From the New York Times: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.
In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”
Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.
Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.
This is one of those Rorschach events where your interpretation of its significance depends entirely on your prior opinion.
My own interpretation is that I’m willing to question what I “know”, though I’ve always tried to characterize myself as someone that believes in the warming hypothesis based on second hand observation. I’m not nearly qualified to assess the first-hand evidence, and I try to keep a moderate, ‘non-panicked’ view on the question.
I haven’t read the excerpts yet, just the above story and a post on Vulgar Morality. Unless the full contents of the hacked emails are released, I probably won’t read through them. It’s too easy to cherry pick quotes that cast a negative light. Also, years of reading email lists leaves me with the opinion that you learn almost nothing about the subject being discussed and a great deal about the people discussing it.
That said, I’m not surprised by the characterization that emerges. That some scientists are derisive of people that disagree with them, or that some scientists may have overstated their conclusions or falsified results is pretty believable. Those are very human things to do, but since there’s no single piece of evidence that all of climate science relies upon, and no single scientist or group of scientists behind the theory, I don’t see these revelations having a huge impact on the debate. If they lead to a re-evaluation of the existing literature, then that’s even better.
What interests me most is the automatic reaction from climate change skeptics and believers. Some skeptics point to this event as a “smoking gun” and some true believers automatically downplay its significance, or ignore it altogether. I don’t think either of those responses is the right one, but that’s probably the result of my own bias.
For whatever reason, I’ve been listening to a lot of early folk, country, and blues. I was reading about Woodie Guthrie, and I thought this copyright notice fit well with the themes of amateurism that I’ve discussed on this blog.
“This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
——-
Also, here’s one of only two known films of Guthrie performing.
Congratulations to Adam on five years of blogging at Sophistpundit, which he apparently began at the age of 19.
Now I will point out that there were no blogs when I was 19*, so I started a diary. It lasted for three months, and I used it to chronicle my thoughts on CGI in movies, Shakespeare, and my dread of dance class. Thankfully, the diary is long gone.
At any rate, congratulations.
—-
*Actually, it turns out there were blogs when I was 19, and I missed out on my chance to be an internet pioneer. Oh well.
Only the Country Music Association could give its ‘New Artist of the Year’ award to a guy who had his first hit record fifteen years ago, but in honor of Darius Rucker’s big win, I present this, his finest hour:
——
Okay, I was kidding, but it’s actually pretty awesome (and disgusting).
