Random Thoughts for Today

First of all, let me offer my congratulations to Kimmie Meissner, Evan Lysacek, Brooke Castile and Benjamin Okolski, and Tanith Belbin and Ben Agosto on their victories at the National Championships. I must say, however, that I think my analysis of the ladies' field still holds true. Meissner won the event, but placed third in the long program because of a few wobbles. If you look at the results of the top four ladies, there is an amazing lack of consistancy.

Final Place	Name	Points	SP	FS
1	Kimberly Meissner	181.68	1	3
2	Emily Hughes	180.86	3	2
3	Alissa Czisny	177.74	5	1
4	Beatrisa Liang	167.15	2	4

These final results show the potential for great depth of field, but they also show that no one U.S. ladies skater is really ready to take on the Japanese trio of Asada, Suguri, and Ando by putting two solid programs together. Czisny turned in an amazing long, but that was after finishing 5th in the short. Meissner had a solid short, but had trouble in the long. If any of the three going to Worlds--Meissner, Hughes, and Czisny--are able to improve their consistency between now and then, then they might have a shot at the title.

The other thought for today...Over the weekend, I saw some pictures of work done by sidewalk artist Julian Beever, and I was really impressed. While some chalk artists just draw regular pictures, Beever creates trompe-l'oeil drawings using a projection called anamorphis. In other words, he creates optical illusions by skewing the perspective of his drawings; these illusions work only if the drawing is viewed from a certain angle, otherwise it just looks strange. For example, here is a drawing of a Coke bottle:
I'm just very impressed by the way the bottle does actually appear to be in 3 dimensions. If you're interested in seeing more of his work, the link above goes to his website, where more of his sidewalk drawings are on display.

Hope everyone has a happy Tuesday :)

Remember, remember, the fifth of November...

I know that V for Vendetta has been out on DVD for a while now, but we just got it at our house, giving me the chance to watch it again. I think it's a brilliant film, with both Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving turning in fantastic performances. Special credit should go to Weaving who manages to convey amazing depth of emotion from behind a mask.

For those of you who haven't seen the movie, I would suggest skipping the rest of this post, as it contains spoilers, watching the movie, and then coming back and reading the rest.

As I watched the movie for a second time, I was able to concentrate much more on the political significance of what was being said, rather than on my concern for Evey and my curiosity about V himself. And as I watched, I was struck by a number of things:

First, V is described by the media as a terrorist, yet the viewer sides with him when watching the film. Why? Because we see the person behind the label; we see a person who has been scarred and nearly killed by an oppressive government, and we think he is justified in doing what he's doing. If we think about the word "terrorist" in our society today, so often we don't think of "terrorists" as anything but that, often applying that same label to anyone who even just looks like them or shares their faith. This is hardly fair. Our ability to empathize with V should suggest a similar possibility with those labeled "terrorists" in our world, and offers a solution to our conflicts based on mutual understanding, rather than bloodshed and war.

My second point is perhaps more controversial, but I mean no disrespect by it. Rather, I just want to point out how V for Vendetta encourages the viewer to see the other side of 9/11, the side that would claim that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were completely justified, and were done to upset an unfair balance of power in the world. When Evey wakes up at V's mansion after passing out in distress, she asks him, "You really think that blowing up Parliament is going to make this country a better place?"

After a bit of conversation, V replies, "The building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people; alone, a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people, blowing up a building can change the world."

When we think about the blowing up of Parliament in the movie, such a statement seems completely logical and justifiable. But what happens when we think about such a statement in the context of the United States? Now, I in no way want to say that the bombings of 9/11 were justifiable; the loss of life was horrific. Rather, I just want to suggest that our ability to understand V's perspective in V for Vendetta offers us a unique opportunity to consider the other side of the 9/11 bombings, and once again, offers us a possibility for understanding, rather than hate and war.

Finally, while the obvious heroes of the movie are V and Evey, and to a lesser degree, Inspector Finch, I would like to point out that without the act of one soldier, all their efforts would have been in vain. At the end of the movie, when thousands of people are marching on Trafalgar Square dressed in masks and capes, the army has been given the order to shoot them. In a scene the brings a lump to my throat every time I watch it, the ranking officer orders the troops, "Stand down!" thus allowing the crowd to march forward and preventing the loss of thousands of lives. In my estimation, this one soldier is the unsung hero of this movie, the man who truly made V's vision a reality. This is the kind of heroism that our country needs, even more than V's. Not large grandiose gestures like blowing up a building, but one person, defying the wishes of the government and standing up for what he believes is right.

So when you hear the 1812 Overture, "remember, remember, the 5th of November..."

U.S. Figure Skating Championships!

This weekend is the U.S. Figure Skating Championships, and I'm looking foward to a weekend filled with lots of great skating.

I'm disappointed, however, with the strength of the U.S. ladies' field this year. Michelle Kwan has retired (although this week's video is still in her honor), and Sasha Cohen has withdrawn from Nationals this year. It took me a while to like Cohen, although I now appreciate her tight technique and amazing extension, and think that she's the best chance the U.S. ladies have to win big at the World Championships.

Without Cohen, that leaves 3 major competitors for the title of ladies' champion: Kimmie Meissner, Katy Taylor, and Emily Hughes. And quite frankly, from what they've shown this year on the Grand Prix Circuit, none of them has what it takes to beat the ever-stronger Japanese women. Kimmie Meissner has excellent jumping ability, being one of the few women in the world who has landed a triple axel in competition. And she is the reigning world champion. This season, however, she placed 2nd at Skate America and 3rd and Trophee Eric Bompard, which wasn't enough to qualify her for the Grand Prix Final. I love Katy Taylor's long program (to the music of Legends of the Fall), but her finishes this season weren't strong: 12th at Skate Canada and 11th at Skate America. Emily Hughes is a very polished skater, but she comes across (to me at least) as very cool and distant on the ice. She is a stronger contender than Taylor, finishing 3rd at Cup of China and 5th at Skate America, but still, she is not a skater who can compete with the likes of Miki Ando, Fumie Suguri, and Mao Asada--the Japanese women. My bet would be on Meissner or Hughes to win, but honestly, neither of them is a skater that I really get excited about watching, the way I did when Kwan skated.

So, when it comes to the World Championships, who am I going to cheer for? Well, at the beginning of the season, I was really excited by the skating of Yu-Na Kim from South Korea, and when she won the Grand Prix Final, I was impressed that she was able to beat the very strong Japanese presence there. A strain on her back, however, has made her ability to compete the rest of this season unknown.

Unless one of the U.S. women really wows me at this weekend's Nationals, I think I'll put my support behind Sarah Meier of Switzerland. Her third place finish at the Grand Prix shows that she has the ability to compete with the top skaters in the world, and she has an elegance and maturity that many of the younger skaters are lacking. And, at the age of 21, she's no longer a teenager, which is somehow strangely satisfying to those of us who are getting older but still wish we could be champion figure skaters.

So, to those of you who watch this weekend, enjoy the skating!

And to N.I. in Berlin and K.I. in Wisconsin, Happy Birthday! :)

Christian Video Games?

When the Left Behind series came out, I read the first few books to see what the hype was all about. I don't agree with the theology, and the relationship between worldly, experienced journalist Buck and naive college student Hattie was slightly creepy. But even more than that, I found it boring. Oh, no...the Antichrist has taken over the UN...oh, no...the world is being destroyed...It doesn't matter how many horrible, earth-shaking events an author introduces into a narrative; if the author (or authors) are lousy writers, it's going to be a boring book. So I stopped reading the series, and didn't think much more about it.

Now, Left Behind Games has come out with a video game version of the series, entitled Left Behind: Eternal Forces. Normally, I would link the game's official webpage for you, but I am really quite upset with this game and its implications, so I'm not going to. If you want to buy it, you have to find it yourself. So there.

Why am I so upset? Because this game purports to be a Christian video game, when in reality, the principles and take-away messages of the game are anything but.

Here are some of the biggest problems with Left Behind: Eternal Forces:

1. You kill everyone who doesn't convert to Christianity, or even your particular version of Christianity. Muslims, gone. Atheists, goodbye. Lutherans, Catholics, sorry.

2. Forget women's rights. You can convert men and train them to be builders or soldiers, but women...well, women can only be nurses or singers.

3. Peace activists and non-Christian doctors and nurses--well, they're certainly demonic forces, and should be killed immediately.

4. Also, because the Antichrist is working to unite all governments in an effort for world peace, the game suggests that those striving for peace in the real world are agents of evil.

Quite frankly, this isn't the kind of game that I'd want to introduce someone to as a Christian video game. And numerous Christian organizations agree, calling for a boycott and a recall of this game because it promotes un-Christian values.

What are people to do, then, who are looking for a Christian video game? I would suggest games that involve quests that teach the consequences of your actions, or pose some sort of moral dilemma that forces the player to think about what's right and wrong. An article in the February 2007 issue of PC gamer entitled "The Quest for a Decent Chore" describes how the Ultima series transformed quests from simply "kill this" or "deliver that"; it "injected moral depth into quest goals by requiring you to act virtuously in order to succeed" (88). Now, this isn't Christianity per se, but I find this sort of moral humanism much closer to Christianity than killing people simply because they don't believe the way you do.

Now, my personal favorite, World of Warcraft, doesn't have this sort of moral depth in quests. When I first started playing the game, I was concerned when a quest asked me to steal barrels of beer from an inn that had just befriended me. I was hesitant about doing this quest, until I learned that all these quests were scripted, everyone did the same ones, and there was no choice involved. World of Warcraft, however, does provide players the opportunity to interact with other players, and therefore, is another way to "love thy neighbor." Plenty of people need help--directions on where to go for a quest, help killing a monster that is too much for them, maybe even just someone to talk to. Because the game is virtual, players are given the opportunity to recreate themselves, and the results are often very interesting. These questions of identity--why did I blow off that player who asked me for help? for example--can really make you think about who you are, and challenge you in moral and spiritual ways that a game like Left Behind will never do.

This Upcoming Week...

Well, it looks like it's going to be a big week. Ok, well, not really. I have to go back to work on Tuesday after a relaxing holiday break, but that's more unfortunate than noteworthy.

Of course, The World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade comes out on Tuesday (or, if you pre-ordered it, can be picked up late Monday night at your local video game store), which is definitely exciting. Get ready for a week (let's hope that's all) of last-minute patches, unbelievable lag, and random disconnects :)

For those of you who couldn't care less about the goings-on of a virtual world, two other upcoming events have caught my attention. First, on January 18th, Bill O'Reilly and Stephen Colbert will swap appearances on each other's shows. Now, I'm beginning to think I'm really slow, because the mention of this meeting was the first time that it occurred to me that Colbert's show is spoofing O'Reilly's. In my defense, I don't watch either show all that often--I actually run screaming from the room whenever I see Bill O'Reilly on TV. That said, however, I'm interested to see how Colbert handles O'Reilly's barbs, and if Colbert will stay in character throughout the two exchanges. I'm also really glad that this meeting is taking place, because hopefully, it will highlight that what Bill O'Reilly does is NOT the news. Just like Stephen Colbert's show is "fake news," so is what O'Reilly does.

The other interesting thing happening this week is the turning forward of the Doomsday Clock. Again, this was something I hadn't heard of, and so I was interested to learn that the clock originated in 1947, is kept updated by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, and was originally set at "7 minutes to midnight." It is moved closer or further from midnight, based on how close these scientists think the world is to nuclear disaster, as determined by international events. Right now, the clock is once again at 7 minutes to midnight, and will be moved closer sometime this week. Additionally, a Wikipedia article on the Doomsday Clock lists a bunch of interesting pop-culture references to this clock. What I find particularly strange about this clock is that it's completely arbitrary. This group of noteworthy scientists, including Stephen Hawking, is responsible for moving the clock forward. When I think of a scientist, I expect someone who deals with measurable data and completely objective standards for measurement. This clock, however, is something that is primarily symbolic. As an English literature scholar, I'm fascinated to see that the scientific community has a use for symbolism as well as objective measurements. Then again, this just might be "crap science" without any actual value. I'd be interested in hearing from readers who are science people about two things: 1) is there any actual scientific weight to this clock and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists? and 2) are there other examples you know of where something scientific is done mostly for its symbolic value?

Oh, and one final exciting event this week: my brother turns the big 21! Happy birthday, dude :)

Code of Silence

I'm a pretty big fan of Bruce Springsteen, and I've been listening to The Essential Bruce Springsteen recently. This week's quote is from "Dead Man Walkin'" on that album. When I heard the song "Code of Silence," it struck me as something relevant to our current political situation. Even though the song, written in 1997 with Joe Gruschecky, is about the relationship between two people, it can also describe the relationship between the American people and the Bush administration. Here are some of the lyrics:

There's a code of silence that we don't dare speak
There's a wall between us and a river so deep
We keep pretending that there's nothing wrong
But there's a code of silence and it can't go on

Is the truth so elusive, so elusive you see
That it ain't enough baby, to bridge the distance between you and me
There's a list of grievance a 100 miles long
There's a code of silence and it can't go on

Well you walk with your eyes open
But your lips they remain sealed
While the vows we made are broken
Beneath the truth you need to reveal
Well I came to know now darlin'
Need to know what's going on
But come on, come on, come on, come on
Come on, come on, come on

Now you walk with your eyes open
But your lips they remain sealed
While the vows we made are broken
Beneath the truth we fear to reveal
I need to know now darlin'
Need to know what's going on
So come on, come on, come on, come on


Much of what Springsteen sings about--broken vows, lists of grievances, code of silence, truth that needs to be revealed--can easily be read as commentary on the war in Iraq. In fact, his song is almost a musical version of the recent Chicago Tribune op-ed piece by Geoffrey R. Stone and William P. Marshall entitled "Secrecy, the Enemy of Democracy," which puts a charge on the American people not to blindly trust their president, but to insist on transparency in public policy. One of the most provocative lines for me in this essay reads, "Secrecy is the ultimate form of censorship because the people do not even know they are being censored." Knowledge is power, and in order to assert our power as citizens, we need to be informed about the president's policies and speak up. No more hiding behind the flag or the ideal of patriotism as the reason to blindly follow the president into Iraq.

The thing is, though--and I think this might scare me more than ever--the people have spoken, and Bush simply isn't paying any attention. Recent polls show over 60% of Americans opposing the war in Iraq, with some polls even showing that 70% of American people oppose sending more troops to Iraq. And then President Bush goes and announces his "surge." What is he thinking? He is so far out of touch with what the country wants; in fact, his recent plan forIraq has been met with condemnation from both sides of Congress. Bush is apparently stunned that his plan hasn't been met with approval.

It seems that this line from Springsteen's song is particularly applicable in this case:

Is the truth so elusive, so elusive you see
That it ain't enough baby, to bridge the distance between you and me.

The truth--be it the dismal military situation in Iraq, the lack of weapons of mass destruction, or even the people's opinion--isn't enough to change Bush's mind about Iraq, because he has his own personal agenda to accomplish there. We need leaders who will put the truth and the needs of their constituents first, rather than basing important public policies on what they, and they alone, think is right. As we gear up for the 2008 presidential elections, let's work to support candidates who promote transparency in governmental policies, rather than those who espouse secrecy and a "code of silence."

Best. Christmas. Gift. Ever.

My Slanket arrived in the mail yesterday, and I would just like to say that this is the best Christmas gift ever. It's unbelievably warm, long enough that my feet never poke out, and the perfect way to read a book in a house that's chilly. I would HIGHLY recommend this for anyone who is chronically cold while using the computer, watching TV, etc.

If you're interested, here's their website, which explains the history of this blanket with sleeves, as well as how to order one. Spread the warmth!

Less than a week!!!

This week's video was selected in honor of World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade being released on Tuesday. You are not prepared!

Pan-Fried Salmon Cakes

Last night for dinner, I made salmon cakes, which turned out quite tasty. The recipe calls for 1.5 pounds of salmon fillets, and both my husband and I agreed that while we liked the cakes quite a bit, they were more labor-intensive than simply marinading and grilling the salmon would be. During the winter, however, when grilling isn't an option, or just for a change of pace, this recipe is great.

But, I would like to complain about the time estimates in the recipe. 10 minutes of prep time and a total recipe time of 45 minutes is way too low, particularly for the first time you make it. Maybe I'm just a slow cook, but this is a problem I have noticed in recipes in general. I would like to issue a challenge to cookbook authors everywhere: make recipe times more accurate. Don't assume your readers are professional chefs. Don't cheat, and call for "1/3 cup chopped carrots" so you don't have to include chopping the carrots as part of the prep time. Don't give a time that is what someone who has made the recipe 60 times in a test kitchen will do. Give estimated times for recipes that will be close to what a moderately competent, first-time maker of the recipe can accomplish.

Anyways, if you're interested in trying it out, the recipe can be found on p. 251 of The America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook: Revised Edition. Or, here it is, in a slightly condensed version:

Pan-Fried Salmon Cakes
1.5 pounds salmon fillets, skin removed
1 1/4 cups plain dried breadcrumbs
1/4 c. mayonnaise
1/4 c. grated onion
2 T minced fresh parsley
1 1/2 T fresh lemon juice
3/4 tsp. salt
1/2 c. flour
2 large eggs, lightly beaten

1. Cut salmon into 1-inch chunks. Pulse the salmon in a food processor until finely minced, but before it is pureed or paste-like.

2. Gently stir 1/4 c. of the breadcrumbs, the mayo, onion, parsley, lemon juice, and salt into the salmon to form a cohesive mixture. Form the mixture into 8 patties. Lay the patties on a plate line w/ plastic wrap. Freeze, uncovered, for 15 minutes, or refrigerate, covered, for 3-8 hours.

3. Spread the flour, eggs, and remaining 1 c. breadcrumbs in three separate shallow bowls. Dredge each patty in flour, dip in the egg, and then coat with breadcrumbs.

4. Heat the oil in a 12-inch nonstick skillet over medium high heat until shimmering. Cook patties until golden on both sides, 4-6 minutes, working in batches if necessary. Let the patties drain on paper towels before serving with lemon wedges.

9 Days and Counting!!!

Let the countdown begin!!!

Imagination; or, the Failure of Reality

So I've been rereading Anne of Green Gables in my spare time over the semester break, and over the course of the reading, I've been struck with what a great place Green Gables would be to live. When Anne wakes up her first morning in Green Gables, she's struck by the amazing beauty of the place:
A huge cherry-tree grew outside, so close that its boughs tapped against the house, and it was so thickset with blossoms that hardly a leaf was to be seen. [. . .] In the garden below were lilac trees purple with flowers, and their dizzily sweet fragrance drifted up to the window on the morning wind.
Below the garden a green field lush with clover sloped down to the hollow where the brook ran and where scores of white birches grew, upspringing airily out of an undergrowth suggestive of delightful possibilities in ferns and mosses and woodsy things generally (Anne of Green Gables, chapter 4).

Now, for me, this sounds like an amazing place to live. A brook, a house surrounding by flowering trees, grassy meadows, hills...what more could you ask for? It's even set apart from the center of town, to give it more privacy. In my opinion, it would be the perfect place to live.

I hadn't really given much thought to the way the house itself looked, except that it would have an interesting shape, with all sorts of arches, gables, and maybe even a turret. It was the perfect place for someone who loved fairies, and dryads, and all kinds of enchanted things--someone like Anne, and also, someone like me.

But then, when I looked up Anne of Green Gables on Wikipedia, I can across this picture of the house that inspired Lucy Maud Montgomery as she was envisioning Green Gables:

To be honest, I was horribly disappointed. It's too...well...open. And too sunny. And the gravel driveway takes away any romance the place might have. The house itself isn't right either; it's too boxy, too much of a common farmhouse.

So maybe Anne and I are alike in another way. We both prefer our imaginations to reality, because then we "can imagine what [things] looked like, without being hampered by facts" (Anne of Avonlea, chapter 13).

Eragon

Over the Christmas break, I went and saw the movie Eragon with my brother and husband. I think the book is a good story. It's a fun adventure, there are dragons, elves, and magic, and evil things that need to be vanquished. When I have kids, I will read Paolini's trilogy to them.

But, I think the book as literature is extremely derivative. The plot of Eragon is essentially that of Star Wars, rewritten in a fantasy world instead of space. A princess who supports a rebel group who sends something vital to their cause to a distant land, where it's found by a young boy who is then mentored by a hermit. Sound familiar to anyone? Even the most basic concept of the book--Eragon and his fantastic connection to the dragon Saphira--is almost directly lifted from Anne McCaffery's Dragonriders of Pern series. A 2004 article in USA Today asks the question, "Could teenager Christopher Paolini be the next J.R.R. Tolkien?" If Paolini is to stand on the same level as Tolkien, he needs to come up with some of his own material, and lift less of it directly from authors he so obviously admires. At this point, comparisons between Paolini and Tolkien do nothing but insult Tolkien, who had the original ideas that Paolini blatantly copies, with little or no revision--Lothlorien, Helm's Deep, even the nature of elves. As my dad asked about Eragon, "Isn't he that guy from The Lord of the Rings?"

The movie reflects the problems of the book quite well. There are a lot of very grandiose shots of Brom and Eragon traveling across mountains and wide open fields. Seems like not only did Paolini take a lot of his content from Tolkien, but Eragon director Stefan Fangmeier also took a lesson or two from LOTR director Peter Jackson. But the plot and dialogue of the movie are lacking. Many elements from the book are eliminated, which leaves the plot even more scarce than it originally was. I did like the special-effects dragon, but it wasn't enough to make up for the lack of real content (not just landscape shots) and provocative dialogue.

Thus, both the book and movie Eragon have the same problem--they attempt to copy the style and epic nature of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings--but because of a lack of substance and original dialogue, they come across as second rate imitations.

Tonight's Office

As most of you know, I'm not a huge fan of The Office this season. The sheer genius of the original British series and the first (and most of the second) American season was the way the lack of laugh track forced the viewer to decide for herself whether or not it was ok to laugh. And there was some stuff that you really wanted to laugh at, but weren't sure you could without your friends/family thinking you were a sexist/racist/pervert/whatever.

This season, however, has been noticeably lacking in these moments. There could be any number of reasons for this, which have been discussed to death on the official Office forums, including Jim's move to the Stamford branch. The prevailing thought in my household is that the longer a show goes on, the more it has to focus on relationships between characters, rather than just the awkward moments between them. And as a result, the show becomes more like Friends or Grey's Anatomy, and less a show that forces you to think about what is ok to laugh at.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a Jim and Pam fan (or JAM, as they call it on the NBC forums) as much as anyone else, and I would like them to end up together. But the longer the show goes on, the more it draws out the inevitable will-they-or-won't-they, Ross-and-Rachel type drama, which then makes such drama the focus of the show, rather than the humor that's the true genius.

The episode "The Convict" returned to these humorous roots, which I think was in large part because Ricky Gervais wrote the episode. Tonight's episode--"Back from Vacation"--also was promising. I really enjoyed the opening scene, with Jim making fun of Dwight recording everything. Dwight in general was great this episode. Peeking through the blinds, tying his coat around his waist, telling Pam her PMS must be really bad--very nice. Perhaps my favorite scene was Dwight and Michael racing down the hall after seeing the enlargement of the Michael/Jan photo down in the warehouse. And while the Jim/Pam element was certainly present, it was not the focus of the episode by any means.

Let's hope the writers continue on this trend.