'Astronautical' doesn't really mean anything; I just made it up. -- Adam Cadre, Photopia

Technically, a cloaking device should make you blind as well as invisible

It seems that I have become invisible to telemarketers. In the worst way possible.

  • Calls from Comcast, asking me if I’d like to sign up for cable, because I don’t have cable (I have cable): 2 a day every day for a week.
  • Calls from the credit card company asking if I would like to do a balance transfer or sign up for their new credit protector program: 1 a week
  • Letters from AARP suggesting that send them some money and become a member, because I’m fully eligible, after I wrote them a letter telling them that I was not interested, that I was not eligible, and that I was not going to be eligible for another twenty years, and was told that they were very sorry and it wouldn’t happen again: 2
  • Calls from Sprint on my cell phone assuring me that this was a free call, and asking if I ever went over my minutes, and telling me that I was eligible to get a second line: 4

I AM IRON MAN

So close as I can tell, Hollywood doesn’t really like doing superhero movies. Back when I reviewed Transformers, and, for that matter, back when I reviewed Knight Rider, I pointed out that the Transformers and KITT both came off more as props than as characters. What Hollywood is interested in is characters and situations, and superheroism is really just a category of special effect. Consider a movie about two former lovers who meet again in the midst of dangerous circumstances, and there’s a corporate sellout who is antagonistic. This movie has special effects. Now, if those special effects are a dude in tights flying, the movie is Superman Returns. If the effects are a tornado, it’s Twister. Okay, that’s not the best example, but you get the idea. Far as Hollywood is concerned, superheroism isn’t what the story is about; it’s just a framing device for the special effects. (Now, this can be contrasted with the martial arts genre, as I’ve also seen The Forbidden Kingdom recently. There’s a movie where being capable of chi-magic is not simply a prop, but is really what the story is all about. Now, I thought it felt a bit silly, but maybe that’s just because I’ve been trained by Hollywood) They don’t want you to think in terms of “It’s a movie about a giant monster” or “It’s a movie about giant robots” or “It’s a show about a talking car.” Cloverfield was a movie about young, frightened people surviving a disaster in New York, and it had a giant monster in it. Transformers is a movie about a dorky boy and a hot girl surviving a disaster in middle America, and it has giant robots in it. Knight Rider is a story about a reckless womanizer learning responsibility while protecting a former lover from evil mercenaries, and it’s got a talking car in it.
Iron Man is a story about a hard-drinking, womanizing arms-manufacturer, who is forced to come to terms with the fact that there are indeed negative repercussions to selling dearly weapons after he is gravely wounded. And it’s got a flying armored war-suit in it.
Iron Man
2008, Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges
Anyway, hit the jump for the spoilers, but even if you don’t, if you’ve somehow managed to avoid knowing this: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STAY UNTIL THE END OF THE CREDITS.

Continue reading I AM IRON MAN

ITCXXIII: Bad taste, worse taste

Not too long ago, I found a pile of digital camera pictures from some time back. Today, I’d like to juxtapose two that I took at the National Aquarium in Baltimore on or around the beginning of November, 2006.

it123a

This is a little funny, because here’s an adventurous outdoorsman in a playset with a bunch of wild animals, and look: his arm’s missing. O for fun. Now, look at what was directly under it:
it123b

And you, sir, are a formidable opponent

When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you
…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

— Ben Stein, 2008 In an interview with TBN’s Paul Crouch Jr. (video here)
I don’t even need to summarize. “Science leads to killing people.”
Someone disagrees (emphasis mine):

I hereby offer a few suggestions on how we can ruin American competitiveness and innovation in the course of this century:
Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism–and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women–to an equal status with technology in the public mind. Make sure that, in order to pay proper (and politically correct) respect to all different ethnic groups in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable.

— (wait for it) Ben Stein, 2002, in Forbes
Ben Stein wants to kill American competitiveness.
I think it’s our turn to use everyone’s favorite right-wing mudsling:
Ben Stein, why do you hate America?

ITCXX: Real is the new Fake

it120

Bakelite is plastic. Bakelite is the original fake material. Faux-bakelite is imitation fake material. Costume jewlery is fake jewelry. Reproduction costume jewlery is fake fake jewelry. Faux-bakelite reproduction costume jewlery is fake plastic fake imitation jewlery. I think this means it’s actually made of gold.

An Open Letter

My Alma Mater, Loyola College, considered changing their name to “Loyola University” ten years ago. I suspect this had something to do with a desire to make themselves sound more prestigious to executives shopping around for an MBA. They’ve decided to revisit this now, probably because they didn’t get the answer they wanted last time.
This is my response.
To: Rev. Brian F. Linnane, S.J, President, and the Board of Trustees of Loyola College
Dear Sirs,
I was most alarmed to learn recently that the Board of Trustees had authorized its Executive Committee to move forward with the proposal to change the name of Loyola College to “Loyola University”.
While I can certainly understand some of the reasoning which might lead to the proposition of a name change, I think in this case, such a move is unwise in the extreme, and I am a bit perplexed as to how it could have moved this far without wiser voices prevailing.
I was myself a student at Loyola College when such a name-change was last proposed ten years ago, and I find it difficult to imagine that so much has changed in the intervening decade that the reasons raised against the change of name are no longer applicable or compelling. While it is certainly true that the graduate and professional programs at Loyola have evolved and strengthened in recent years, there can be no question that Loyola remains firmly committed to its excellence at undergraduate education in the liberal arts. Indeed, during the years I attended, this emphasis on excellence as an undergraduate institution was one of the most important traits setting Loyola apart among its peers, that, in strengthening its graduate and professional programs, the institution had not, as many schools choosing the title of “University” have, shifted its emphasis away from the traditions of a strong liberal arts undergraduate education. To my mind, the very term “College” imparts something that “University” does not: a firm understanding that Loyola is and remains, first and foremost, committed to undergraduate education in the Jesuit tradition of liberal arts, rather than, as is far too-often the case amongst “Universities”, treating its undergraduate population mostly as a revenue stream to support its professional and graduate programs.
Under these circumstances, one might interpret a name change as a shift in direction away from Loyola’s strong tradition of excellence as an undergraduate institution. But there can be no question of this; Father Linnane himself has said that, “The extraordinary qualities that shaped the Loyola you love have not, will not and could not be altered by a change in designation,” and likewise that the proposed change, “Will not signify a change in direction, mission or values.”
Furthermore, I find it surprising that an institution so founded on Jesuit values and informed as it is by Catholic tradition would be so quick to discard the weight of its own tradition. Since its founding in 1852, Loyola College has changed its focus, its size, the demographic of its student population, and even its address, but never its name. It is a name well known in the region and with a well-established history, and surely, in a school so well-reputed for its school of business, the value of name-recognition could not have been overlooked. It is decidedly strange to me that a name that both school and alumni have born with honor for a century and a half could be so easily discarded. As I was leaving Loyola College, the celebration of its sesquicentennial was beginning. “Loyola College” has one hundred and fifty-six years of history behind it. “Loyola University” does not.
Moreover, of the four colleges in the United States named for St. Ignatius Loyola, Loyola College stands alone in name. To intentionally take on a name that would reduce it to the stature of “One of the several Loyola Universities,” seems counterproductive. And while I do not propose that many would be especially confused by the name change, I should hate to think that the achievements of my beloved institution might be misattributed to some other school, neither would I find any credit in being mistaken for a graduate of one of those institutions.
In summary, while I accept that much may have changed at Loyola in the past decade, it does not seem to me that those areas overlap with the sound reasons that have already been put forward against a change of name. While the graduate and professional schools have strengthened, Loyola’s commitment to excellence as an undergraduate institution providing education in the liberal arts according to the Jesuit tradition remains firm; the weight of history and distinctiveness of the traditional name has, if anything, grown with the passage of time. And, of course, the emotional attachment of students and alumni can not have diminished for the addition of several classes of new students.
In light of all these factors, it is my most earnest hope that the Executive Committee will not be misled into an unwarranted and unwelcome renaming of the college that I and so many others hold dear in our memories.
Thank you,
Lewis Ross Raszewski Jr. ’01