That's okay--everyone involved was well and truly punished. In 1990, responding to various rumors that cast and crew were exposed to radioactive debris from nearby nuclear weapons testing, People Magazine discovered that of the 220 people involved in the making of the film (and not counting numerous Native American extras), 91 had developed some form of cancer, which turns out to be well beyond rate one would expect from a similar sample set. Adding injury to injury, Howard Hughes authorized TONS of the radioactive dirt to be shipped to Hollywood for various interior shots. The best line of the People Magazine article? A scientist from the Pentagon's Defense Nuclear Agency, when informed, "Please, God, don't let us have killed John Wayne."

Then again, it might have been all those unfiltered cigarettes over the years...

This might be a touchy point, but giving this video a 'native' 'american' tag is a bit of a stretch, and 'first' 'nation' is right out. The New Orleans Indians are a wonderful adaptation of African culture to a new setting. They adopt the name and general aesthetic as gratitude for all that the Aboriginal Americans did for runaway slaves during the antebellum period. The elaborateness of their costumes came in direct response to Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West Show passing through the area in the 1880s.

Still, a powerful scene.

>> ^mgittle:
Problem is, who are you putting on trial? Obviously the entire company's worth of people isn't responsible for any deaths. Who had the malice, who was negligent?


Okay. I'm a person, and when my behavior indicates that I am a danger to myself and others, there are legal remedies that exist which can make sure the damage I do to society is minimized. I can be involuntarily committed, until such a time that I can prove that I am not a threat to myself or others, and that I can care for myself. So BP's a company that's shown a depraved indifference to human life and the welfare of others. It's a person. I say we file papers to have it committed.

See, this personhood has some cons, as well as the obvious pros. If you can't do this one thing, then you're not really a person.

Here's the thing--after you watch that video, pay particular attention to the pathos being elicited, as we watch the hopes and dreams of thousands of children riding on a particular bingo ball being selected. So much emotion, designed to make the viewer ANGRY that it's come to this. But research (reported in Freakonomics and other places) has shown that every child in that auditorium is just as likely to succeed in their respective educational career, whether or not their number is called.

Say what? The authors speculate that, like so much in life, who you are is far more important than what you do. They found positive correlations between the number of books in a home and a child's long term educational success, so Blagojevich, governor at the time, ordered books for every home with children under age six. This is exactly the sort of faulty interpretation of research findings that cause so much consternation in educational reform efforts. It wasn't merely the number of books a child could read--it was the total number of books present in the household. The authors mused that such a collection transmitted a clear set of values to the child. Parents who treasured reading had children who treasured reading, and these children did rather well in testing situations. Similarly, merely the desire to improve one's current state through applying for new educational opportunities seems to be the factor in whether or not a child succeeds. I worked at a magnet high school in Chicago, and I have to be clear--the desire must come from both the parents AND the child. Parents who enrolled in the lottery to place their child in a 'safe' school against that child's wishes were sorely disappointed with the result, which usually included 27 other children (and their parents) annoyed at the disruptive element in their midst.

There are a number of reports from the Consortium of Chicago School Research (based out of the University of Chicago) which finds, quite astonishingly, that the best indicator of a student's long term success is NOT a standardized test score (which in CPS is the Prairie State, which is the ACT plus three other tests) but rather GPA. Think about that for a moment. Here you have BAD teachers in FAILING schools. I mean, that's what the movie's talking about, right? The research shows, though, that these 'bad' teachers are actually fairly good at gauging where the student is at. They're not necessarily dumbing down the material, or handing out C's for having a pulse. You would think that if they were so terrible, they'd avoid the stress of report card pick-up by passing everyone, but they don't. They do the right thing. They pass the ones who are passing, and fail the ones who are failing, and somehow this aggregate does a better job of predicting how well that student will do in life than the standardized test. That one conclusion should be studied at every school in the nation, but it seems to be ignored. Why?

Remember that joke about the guy who finds his best friend frantically looking for his wallet in the street late one night, and helps him out, but after an hour, asks, "Are you sure you lost it here?" The friend replies, "Oh, no. I lost it in the alley over there. The light's better here." That, right there, is most of what's wrong with the current fetishization of accountability in education. In order to hold schools accountable, they've chosen something that's easy to count. However, is what it's counting IMPORTANT? Accountability that doesn't count the right thing shouldn't count at all. The alternative is hard, sticky, prone to errors with few moments of identifiable triumph. In short, it makes the bureaucrats work, and Ghod help us all if they have to do THAT.

A quick statement to establish my bona fides. I was selected to participate in Teachers for Chicago, the spiritual predecessor of Teach for America. I was part of the first group of library media specialists put through the program. We were a different breed of teacher, sent to confront a new breed of student. I have worked 14 years in CPS, six in the elementary school setting, eight in high school. I have watched the rise of charter schools, and know why they're so effective--the Freakonomics folks called it. They do better because they WANT to do better, and that desire manifests with the choice to forego the neighborhood school for the charter school. But the students who wanted into the Charter school and did not are still doing well--they're just drowning in a sea of knuckle-heads, and their successes are being diluted when it comes time to rank schools in how well they prepare their students.

I've written quite a bit, because I have a lot to say. I'll see this movie when it comes out (because I'm that kind of librarian), but I'm almost certain that they'll ignore most of the new evidence that's come out indicating that charter schools don't live up to the hype (read The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch for a comprehensive view of this) and that the problems confronting us seem almost insurmountable. They certainly defy easy metrics that would allow standardized testing to be used to establish accountability. The problem, to me, is plain. When A Nation At Risk came out in the 1980s, the US education system entered triage mode. We've never left it. We've pandered to corporate interests, as they sell us 'proven' tests (the creators of those tests have gone on record as saying that it's useless to test the sort of thing that politicians want tested) and curriculum delivery systems that simply do not work. As anyone will tell you, the entire hospital cannot be run like the ER, and yet we do just that. There is a solution, but it is all but unthinkable in the current climate. I've discussed this with other teachers, and they've rebelled against the notion, even though they later admit that perhaps it's the only way.

One last comment. I am currently working at one of the selective enrollment schools featured in the Freakonomics study. Students merely have to apply, and there's a lottery. There are, as a result, a wide variance of student ability levels, but not 100% bell curved--the very top can score well enough to get into Northside College Prep or Walter Payton College Prep. I arrived at the end of March, when the Prairie State push was in overdrive. Metrics were everywhere, and the pie-in-the-sky target of 18 was pretty much unattainable, if the various practice tests were to be believed. When the school's score came back 19, though, there was the usual jubilant celebration, but undermining this was 'the fear'. One administrator said when asked by a teacher what was done differently this year, he replied, "I don't know." They'd tried a lot of things, and clearly one was the winner, but which? Why is this navel gazing important? Why do I call it "the fear"? Because schools all over the area will be sent to this school, to learn from them. They're a success, after all. They did much better than predicted. Will these schools settle for, "We don't know?" I doubt it.

>> ^entr0py:

To me the brunette at 0:35 was more attractive than any of them. Nothing kills my libido faster than when a woman finally speaks and seems to have the mental age of a 12 year old. You just feel creepy. Even more so when you see that she's done everything from surgery to taking a bath in makeup to look as much like Barbie as possible.


Agreed, all around. On Loveline back in the day, Dr. Drew and Adam Corolla would listen to a few seconds of a caller's voice, and accurately guess at what age the caller was when she experienced the trauma that stunted her vocal development. People would call them on it all the time, saying it was cruel to dismiss someone's pain so cavalierly (they'd usually bet), but they pointed out that such traumas are 1) relatively commonplace and 2) devastating if not addressed. Every time I talk to an adult who has that little girl voice, I wonder when it happened to her.

I'm pretty sure that this is viral for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadows of Chernobyl.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
You think this didn't take place before this generation?
Maybe not so snide, but more insults in olde English?
For fucks sake. The least they could do is use some fucking wit when the insult. It's like a schoolyard playground in there.


And in one infamous case, things went far beyond mere words:

http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_cp.html

tt

So he prevaricates and says that "this bill is a baby killer". Hrm. Let's fact check that. I went on over to Gapminder, and generated a graph with per capita health expenditures vs. infant mortality, which can be found here: www.bit.ly/ah14zH

As you might imagine, the current state of things finds us with a deplorable infant mortality rate, when compared with industrialized countries practicing 'socialized medicine'. One wonders which bill (or lack of a bill) is the real 'baby killer'.

Is this what happens when you lose your empire? If so, I propose we invade Andorra. IMMEDIATELY.

>> ^nach0s:
I would add #11: "The misunderstanding". Over-used in television more than movies, this happens when one character and the audience knows a certain fact, but another character in the scene doesn't, and has a misunderstanding that is often milked for WAY too long as you're sitting there thinking "WHY DOESN'T CHARACTER 'A' TELL CHARACTER 'B' WHAT THE REAL INFO IS, AND CLEAR THIS SHIT UP, DEAR CHRIST."

Actually, one of my favorite lines from Friends was "Oh, I think this is the episode of Three's Company where there's some kind of misunderstanding." Until they said that, I never realized that EVERY episode of Three's Company had essentially the same plot. One could argue shows like CSI have the same plot, but it isn't the exact same people doing the crimes.

Secret Talk is merely the film version of the dramatic aside, where a character steps to the side of the stage and talks directly to the audience. Usually this is an internal monologue, but there are a few places where two characters should be audible, given the circumstances, but it is assumed that they are not.

Far more egregious, IMO, is unnecessary tension created when a secret talk occurs that the audience isn't in on, especially when there are other secret talks that include the audience.

As for the 360, there's a reason why it's a relatively new innovation--cameras are small enough to allow for rapid movements without a HUUUGE crew in the wings to support each shot. A 360 shot is meant to defy the expectations of the viewer. While it doesn't completely eliminate the Fourth Wall, it suggests a freedom of perception and movement. I'd imagine AVGN would have had a problem with the opening of Citizen Kane, as, in short order, everyone was mounting a camera on a crane and breaking the 2-D plane that had limited films up to that point. Was it overdone? Sure, but like everything else, it got boring and was put away until someone had a really NOVEL use for it, and dusted it off.

And it should also be noted that there's a 'trip' in The Book of Eli that doesn't result in a complete loss of balance.

We're missing a golden opportunity here, people.

SCOTUS says corporations are people too, right? Well, the DSM-IV says that if a person acted in a manner similar to SOP at the average corporation, they would be labeled sociopathic. If they then engaged in behavior that proved to be a threat to themselves or others, they could be involuntarily committed, until such a time that they can 'prove' that they're sane.

And... well... I'd like to see them try.

And this is why they will survive the coming Zombie Apocalypse.

Well, that and the fact that they're used to people coming back from the dead.

Holy Smokes, I'm simultaneously impressed and NOT impressed. The fact is, if any country can be said to be ready for anything, it's Israel. They're survivors. The desert has made them a hard, yet generous people. What they do to the Palestinians is inexcusable, but the Palestinians are also getting a ton of BAD ADVICE from people who don't mean them well. Everyone loves a proxy, especially a proxy willing to die for your cause, so you don't have to, and perhaps one day the Palestinians will awaken and realize what Israel did, which is that no one, NO ONE is on your side more than you are. The only people you have to be accountable to are yourself, and your children. Be there for them, and they will grow up right.

It's funny--the usual SOP is for the world to hold Israel accountable for its actions, usually using lots and lots of words. Here, the Israelis are holding the world accountable, especially Haiti's large-ish neighbor to the north, by SHOWING them how it's done. They live every day as if tomorrow will be another September 11, 2001. We don't.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Does whale taste like cow, or it is more like chicken? Or is it as tasty as dog?


Did you not see the South Park episode? It explains EVERYTHING:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/254177

and

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/254178

(I would submit them, but can't figure out how to embed them. They're super-NSFW, and has one of the best South Park endings I've seen in a long time)

You MOCK the Great and Powerful Robert Krulwich?

>> ^gtjwkq:
Genovese Syndrome


Actually, in the just-published Superfreakonomics, they look at the Kitty Genovese case, and discover that there are a great many misperceptions, not the least of which is that people DID call the police. The first attack, a stabbing, happened out in the open, but due to the poor lighting, it seemed to be little more than a domestic dispute, and when he was challenged by a bystander, the attacker seemed to flee the scene. Genovese staggered into an enclosed area, while her attacker moved his car to get it out of sight. He then returned, and proceeded to rape and kill her with zero witnesses. The point of the chapter, I suppose, is that a great deal of scholarship relies upon the version of events first reported in the New York Times (that there were three separate attacks with over a dozen witnesses) that were later refuted by police.