Description:
Wandering thoughts... - LiveJournal.com
Contents:
I'm a numbers wonk so you don't have to be.
Since 1980, Republicans have held the Presidency for 20 years, Democrats for 12. In that time, by every economic measure I've found, Democrats have been better for the budget, the National Debt, jobs, and for business than the Republicans.
Wait. For business?
Yes, for business.
Don't believe me? Here's some homework: What was the Dow Jones Industrial Average on January 20th of any Presidential transition year? (Remember, election year plus 1.) How many Republicans ended their terms with the Dow higher than when they started? How many Democrats? How about the S&P 500, which is a better track of general business health?
For those that improved the Dow, how much debt did they accrue along the way? Or, did they reduce it?
Expanding on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
First, how did I get here? When I walked out of the movie, my biggest disappointment was how the mystery of Harriet Vanger was solved with an entire act still to go. What was the point of going into so much detail of how Lisbeth Salander committed a multi-million dollar act of fraud against an enemy of Mikael Blomkvist? A day-and-a-half later, it clicked.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009) was a mystery movie. The focus of the movie was discovering why Harriet Vanger disappeared. The motivations, or souls, of the characters are mostly glossed over. The driving force is a whodunnit.
The 2011 movie is a character study of a character rarely studied: A woman with a history of victimization by people in power over her, and her resulting rage and vengefulness. To a lesser extent, it's also a character study of "Mika" Blomkvist, whose nickname I don't remember ever being used in the 2009 movie. But, we only get to see his character for context on why Blomkvist affects Salander the way he does.
Why do we have to sit through two rape sequences? The first is uncomfortable, the second horrifying. To make the point, shortly afterward, that one should really avoid pissing off a woman with a demonstrated intelligence and documented capability for savagery.
Shortly afterward, Salander gets an offer from a former investigative subject to help track down "a killer of women." Salander's intent focus at receiving this offer is obvious. One point: The movie implies that Blomkvist got Salander's address from her boss. The book goes into a few pages of detail to explain that Blomkvist actually got her address from his own research. Basically, he played Salander's game against her, and won. So, this former investigative subject beats her at her own game, points out that she's open to blackmail for her methods, promises that he's not interested in actually doing so, and asks for her help in doing something she wants to do anyway.
Then, this movie goes through the process of solving the mystery, and gets to the mistaken climax of discovering the truth behind Martin Vanger. Here, we get another clue. Salander rescues Blomkvist, and asks him if she can kill Martin. Martin isn't her vengeance to take! He belongs to Mikael, since Mikael was his last victim. So, she secures his permission first before chasing after Vanger.
In the book, Salander winds up having no more to do with Vanger's death than keeping the pressure on him by the pursuit. One of my major complaints about the 2009 movie was Salander actually setting the fire that kills Vanger. While that's a reasonable interpretation of the book, what would have worked for the 12-year-old Salander would have been beneath the 23-year-old Salander. My feelings about the equivalent scene in the 2011 movie are mixed. I understand why the filmmakers didn't spend 5 minutes on a chase, but I'm not sure how I feel about the pistol. It seems insufficiently subtle or creative for the character.
What about the sex? This review at movies.com says "Maras Lisbeth is seen through a Hollywood filter. Shes sexy, tough, in-your-face, always belligerent, and childishly snarky." Unfortunately, I found this review suffering from somewhat of a multiple personality disorder view of Salander. The review applauds the 2009 Salander as being silent and emotionally crippled, and the "repetitive sense that Lisbeth is prey." I never got that out of the book, and was irritated at this interpretation in the 2009 movie. The characters who considered Salander prey learned, to their horror, what a strong and sneaky predator she can be.
The movie has five major sexual encounters. In the first two, Salander has to endure abuse from her new legal guardian, in exchange for access to her bank accounts. He later learns to do better research on his wards, and deserves what he gets. The third encounter is Salander and another young woman in the only truly neutral sex in the movie. Neither of the two women is out for anything except a bit of happiness. The fourth and fifth are Salander and Blomkvist, with Salander clearly in control. She initiates sex in the fourth sequence, and stops Blomkvist from distracting her in the fifth. The movies.com review object to the fourh, in that "[s]he has learned to always have control, yet Fincher has Blomkvist quickly flip her over during sex and take command, as if Lisbeth is ready for a father figure, partner, and savior." I'm sorry, but bullshit. As the fifth sequence clearly showed, if Salander wasn't okay with Blomkvist flipping her over, she would have objected. Also, letting him take control is consistent with the possibility that she's falling for him, another point supported by the book.
(The movies.com review also objected to Salander asking permission to go after Martin Vanger. A few paragraphs ago, I cheered this same thing. The reason movies.com got this wrong is that nowhere in the book does Salander take direct action against someone else's abuser. She is loyal to those people she cares about, savage to those who threaten her and hers, and indifferent to everyone else. But, what category does Blomkvist fit into? At this point in the 2011 movie, I'm not sure she knows, or is willing to admit to herself. (More on that later.) So, Martin Vanger isn't her predator to take vengeance on. Vengeance, to her, is Blomkvist's privilege. She doesn't need Blomkvist's permission to take vengeance. She needs Blomkvist's permission to execute vengeance that's rightfully his.)
So, in the movie pacing, Martin Vanger is dead, the mystery of Harriet Vanger is solved, and we have another 20 minutes of Salander, again, going after one of Blomkvist's enemies. She, sort of, got permission to do so when Blomkvist asked her to help do the research needed to take down Wennerstrom. But, why steal his money? Why does she go to all this effort. The reasoning is revealed in two scenes. In the first of these, Blomkvist and Salander are post-coital, and she allows herself to answer his questions about her past. In the second, at the very end of the movie, Salander buys Blomkvist a new leather jacket, writes him a card, and dumps it all in the trash when she catches Blomkvist walking out of his apartment with old-flame Erika Berger.
Salander seems to have fallen for Blomkvist. She's backed into trusting and caring about someone else as a partner, figures out it doesn't go both ways, and is upset with herself and Blomkvist for ever getting into this situation. This is somewhat different from the book, but consistent with the character. In the book, Salander figures out where she is going, and how it can't end well, and cuts things off with Blomkvist. In the book, he also winds up out in the emotional cold. I like this a little bit better, in that it's a better reflection of Salander being in control. The reason I still think the movie is consistent is that we never get any indication that Salander has fallen for someone and had it even temporarily reciprocated. So, having Mad Crush sneak up on her is a reasonable conclusion for what we've seen of her.
That's what the whole third act was about. Why does Salander go to all that effort to take on Blomkist's enemy? Because, slowly, she's found someone she cares about as a potential equal. The book, at least, never gives us any hint that this has ever happened to Salander before. And, as happens, it doesn't work out. But, it explains why she goes to the effort she did, explains why showing it in the movie is important, and nails down my conclusion that the 2011 movie is a character study for a character we don't get to see often enough.
One sentence movie review.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): "Okay, now I'm really in love!"
A year ago, I mentioned that I didn't like what the Swedish version of the movie did with Lisbeth Salander. That character is bulldog protective of the people she cares for, savage against the people who try to use or manipulate her, and indifferent to everyone else. I didn't think the Swedish version really captured that. This version went a lot further in that exploration. And, yah, my fascination hasn't abated...
And, and, and, Mac Terminal.app! With raw SQL commands!!!! Okay, I was geeking out, a little. Thinking of which, this version also went a little further down the path of explaining how Lisbeth did some of her hacking.
(Oh, and the sexy, was really sexy. And, the not-sexy was really f*cking disturbing.)
It's a plausable stretch.
Start here: Why do automakers in Germany make twice the cars and pay twice the wages as automakers in the US?Michael Maibach, president and chief executive officer of the European American Business Council, described this apparent difference by saying that union-management relations in the U.S. were adversarial" as opposed to the "collaborative German model. J. Ed Marston, a spokesperson for the Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerce, likewise told Remapping Debate that Workers councils in Germany promote cooperation between workers and mangers and they deliver value and they continue to thriveCompared to UAW, where there is an adversarial relationship.
According to [Horst] Mund [head of the German automakers union IG Metall], however, The accusation that American unions are more radical and destructivedefinitely has to do with the hostile environment in which the unions have to act. How can they be constructive and friendly if their asses are kicked all the time? Mund sees the lauding of cooperation in the German context as profoundly misleading, saying they would not talk to us either if they had the choice. In a competitive environment, who wins? The element more willing to compete, right? The element willing to go further, or be sneakier, or rig the game, or do whatever it takes to win. What word do we use to describe people like this?
Greedy.
It's the greedy, the people unwilling to cooperate, the people motivated to rig the system, who are screwing this country. And, by making "socialist" an epithet, the greedy have suckered many of their victims into actively conspiring in their own victimization.
CPR science review
In order to maintain my EMT certificate, I have to go through so many hours of continuing education every year. The last bit of CE I needed to do for 2011 was an hour long video review of the latest science on CPR. I really wish this review wasn't behind a login barrier, because this information would really impress many of you.
I had already posted the reemerging emphasis on CPR as a Basic Life Support skill. This review of current science that I just watched reinforced that, and pointed out to me just how physically demanding CPR is. Here's the review of current science:
- Perform an average of 90 actual compressions per minute. A slower rate shows a marked reduction in survivability. The current AHA recommendation is a rate of 100 compressions per minute with a ratio of 30 compressions to 2 breaths. If you can do a set of 30 and 2 in less than 20 seconds, you're just making the minimum necessary effective average.
- In an adult, compress the chest at least 5cm (2"+) for each compression. Not compressing the chest enough shows a marked reduction in survivability. Particularly, if you don't compress at least 5cm, you don't raise arterial blood pressure enough to perfuse the heart muscle (supply it with blood) during the decompression period where you lift back up. So, you're barely saving the brain, but the heart is still dying.
- In an adult, you need to let the chest rebound ("decompress") all the way to normal during each stroke. If you get tired, and don't let the chest wall all the way up because you're resting your body weight, you don't give the heart enough room to completely refill. What's worse, if you do start allowing full chest rise after getting sloppy for a bit, you will still never get back to the full potential blood volume per compression that you would have had getting good compressions and decompressions from the beginning.
So, think about this. You need to push against someone's chest for at least two inches. Then, you need to use your lower back to lift your upper body at least two inches. And, you need to do those things at least 1½ times a second, for several minutes. And, that's before considering whether you have to also do the rescue breathing, or you have help for that.
So, how's your six-minute mile?
Seriously! This is exhausting stuff!
The science review also noted that the folks doing the rescue breathing tend to get too enthusiastic in some ways and not enthusiastic enough in others. Either problem reduces survivability. The too enthusiastic? You don't need to breathe for the patient more than 12 times a minute. Doing more increases pressure in the chest, which reduces blood flow. And, when you do push a breath, you need to be done in less than two seconds. Field studies show where responders were taking 3-4 seconds blowing the entire contents of a bag-valve mask into a patient. Again, that's air volume that's getting in the way of blood movement.
Also, a study was done on using Advanced Life Support interventions with CPR. In doing CPR on a bunch of pigs, Epinephrine injected during good CPR perfused through the animal twice as fast as with bad CPR. Not much point in pushing the drugs if they don't spread through the body.
"Page Eight" is captivating British drama.
For lack of anything better on, I was watching an episode of Nature on PBS. Next up was a spy thriller by the name of Page Eight. On the basis of Michael Gambon, Bill Nighy, Rachael Weisz, and Felicity Jones in the line up, I figured I'd give it a shot.
It's captivating.
It's George Smiley written for the 21st Century. It's tight and tense, and everyone is delightfully understated in the way only British drama can be. It's cerebral. And snarky.
It's won't appeal to many American viewers. It's slowly paced and lacking in immediate punch. But, if you let it, it will carry you along like a juggernaut.
Three iterations of Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells"
1973: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2rwyxvieug
1981: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBVrChlMpSs
1998: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSRJvq4Wd48
(This piece made the tubular bells my favorite orchestral instrument.)
I was thinking about changing my bank.
Then, today, I left my wallet at home.
I understand that my bank takes millions in Federal dollars that it really shouldn't be getting. But, that little four-branch neighborhood bank couldn't have helped me today.
Today, I walked into a nearby branch of my nationwide bank, said "I left my wallet at home, but I can recite my checking account number from memory." That, my PIN, and some security questions got me $40 for lunch and emergencies.
A CU or neighborhood bank probably couldn't have done that for me.
A few thoughts on current economics.
- Bill Clinton was the last President to raise taxes. He is also the last President to end his term with a budget surplus. Do you think those two points are connected? I do.
- Are you better or worse off than you were in 1980? Which Party has held the White House for more of the last thirty years? Do you think those two points are connected? I do.
- What aspects of Libertarianism prevent me from showcasing modern Somalia as an example? Somalia is an anarchy, you say? Yes. Exactly.
- What interest are we charging for US Federal Debt? How does that compare to the national debts of other countries? Are those countries better off or worse off than we are? By what measure?
Big Government is evil...
but Big Corporations are good? Are you sure?
I don't have a real opinion on Kevin Drum's "Get Involved!" blog post, but he includes a graph of aggregate corporate profits from both before and after the 2008 housing crash. How is it that the Big Corps came back almost immediately while everyone else is still struggling?
A couple interesting links...
Governments cutting budget deficits have to consider not just the political reaction of the opposition and the media. A backlash on the streets, in the form of unrest and politically-motivated violence, is a real possibility. This column shows that since 1919, the level of instability has typically risen at the same time as budget cuts are implemented. The link is to a summary of the study, with the study itself linked to in the bibliography. My take is that the study asserts more correlation than causation, but correlation is worth studying...
16 Techniques of Critical Thinking
I would add one more: Gather your data from written sources. Turn off the TV and radio. Even for auditory learners, remembering direct quotes from an aural medium is difficult. And, even if the memory is accurate, how would one prove it without access to a recording of the words in question? Paper is best. Text media online is okay, but print the stuff you really care about. With this limitation, fact-checking becomes much easier and permeates through one's study of the issue at hand.
Also, TV and radio, by their inherent nature, try to violate technique #7. Programs on TV and radio want watchers/listeners to become emotionally involved. Emotional involvement translates into viewing/listening loyalty, which translates into revenue for the transmitting organization. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Rachael Maddow, and Keith Oberman all have vested economic interests in their audiences' uncritical agreement. (As an aside, emotional involvement isn't just about political commentary. Fans of Firefly, Glee, Desperate Housewives, etc., are similarly irrational. That doesn't mean that such irrationality is bad. I'm a Firefly fan myself! But, such fanaticism gets in the way of calm appreciation of all aspects of an issue.)
Writer's Block: On repeat
"In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins. It has this weird combination of seething hatred and foreboding that makes me twitch. Bad Sh*t's about to happen...
(What's the point of having a whimsical sense of humor...
if I'm not going to use it?)
I'm calling a YouTube music party. The theme is "Huh! Didn't see that coming." Post a music video that does something unexpected. For my starting bid, here's an unexpected cover of some classic hard rock.
Shoulder update.
I recently emailed an update regarding the injury to my right shoulder. If you didn't get the update and would like to be informed, please let me know.
It's all timing...
Those numbers I was looking at, yesterday, weren't obvious enough for me to come out and assert that the responsibility for the still-faltering economy could be laid at the feet of corporations hoarding their profits by increasing their cash-on-hand.
Today, Andrew Leonard over at Slate did make that assertion and then defended it against counter arguments that the real problem was the deficit.
Both articles are longer on opinion and shorter on facts & research than I really like, but he makes good points.
Catching up on some numbers.
I posted this at the end of last November. Today, I'm surfing the BEA website, looking at numbers.
Everything is going up, including wages. So, why high unemployment, still? In a word, education. If you have a 4-year degree, your unemployment rate is 4.5%. In some circles, that's pretty darned good.
"Spring" cleaning...
One day last month of half-ass^H^H^H hearted clearing of old boxes. I have more in my truck right now for Goodwill. One more day, maybe two, and I will be divested of all the boxes that moved me up here from CA.
Paul Bettany keeps getting better and better...
I've just spent half an hour not finding corroboration for a description of Alec Guinness from about the time of Star Wars. That description was to the effect that Sir Alec could get so deep in a role that the viewer didn't realize who the actor was underneath. The actor was invisible. You just saw the character.
Today, after failing to recognize
Home
|
|
