At school, in my AP Language and Composition class, I’ve been inviting students to engage with the arguments in recent public debate around food in contemporary America. This started with “Why McDonald’s Fries Taste So Good,” by Eric Schlosser; “Consider the Lobster,” by David Foster Wallace; and “On Dumpster Diving,” by Lars Eigher. For video essays, we watched a day of Super-Size Me, and we had already seen an episode of Anthony Bourdain’s No Reservations when studying travel essays. But now we’re watching Food, Inc., which was only last week nominated for the Best Documentary Oscar, and is by far the most persuasive thing I’ve seen or read on the subject. Jen and I watched it together before I presented it to my classes, and it has had its desired effect.

It has led, in the very little time that we’ve had to think about it since viewing the film, to a reconsideration of our purchases.

I’m sure I’ll blog more about this in the coming months, but in the meantime, here are a few interesting things I’ve clicked across…

  • David Roberts thinks greenies should take a deep breath and reconsider whether the Audi ad was actually making fun of them. I thought his analysis was obvious on seeing the ad the first time, during the game, but apparently some environmentalists are very sensitive. And Roberts is right about the ads overall: lame. Very lame.
  • At the Atlantic, Sophie Brickman writes about making a bacon feast for carnivores going veg. Mmmmmm, chocolate-covered bacon…
  • Anastasia Bodner, a doc student at Iowa State, makes some claims against “corn syrup myths.” Interesting reading; I haven’t had a chance to click the links.

If any readers have suggestions for stuff to read, watch, buy or eat, I’d be interested in hearing them…

I’m with Tony Dungy. I just don’t see how the Colts lose this when they haven’t lost a meaningful game all year long. And I’m one of those who doesn’t get the Peyton Manning hatred. I like the guy.

Colts 34, Saints 24.

And now for the food…

POST-GAME UPDATE: Huh. That was surprising.

In response to Peggy Noonan’s claim that Obama should have simply tried to make insurance companies abandon their restrictions on patients with pre-existing conditions, Uwe E. Reinhardt explains why it’s not that simple:

She seems completely unaware that, to be implemented, that step has to be accompanied by (1) a mandate to be insured or, at the least, very powerful financial incentives to be insured. And if government imposes such a mandate on citizens, it must be ready (2) to subsidize low-income families in the acquisition of the mandated insurance. Already we have a bill requiring many pages.

To me, that’s a very helpful way of explaining to lay people like myself, who aren’t thrilled at the prospect of a massive insurance bill but don’t understand the nuances of the issue especially well, why such a bill is necessary even if your goals are relatively modest.

This then moves the debate to a different place, in my mind: if we are forced to go to great trouble and expense to get access to people with pre-existing conditions, is it worth it? If we decide it is, then it’s probably worth having the government involved. But Reinhardt’s point makes me more suspicious of Republican claims that we could just have the parts of the Health Care Reform Bill that everyone agrees on.

My thoughts on the iPad run like this:

1) I want this.
2) I’m not sure what I’d do with this.
3) I don’t need this.
4) But it’s cool.
5) Repeat.

Slate’s Farhad Manjoo explains how great the Kool-Aid tastes. And Tyler Cowen notes that the design would seem to cleverly position the iPad as the first iTextbook. Now THAT makes sense:

My theory is that Apple wants to capture a chunk of the revenue in this nation’s enormous textbook market — high school, college, whatever. Why lug all those books around? The superior Apple graphics, colors, and fonts will support all of the textbook features which Kindle botches and destroys. Apple takes a chunk of the market revenue, of course, plus they sell the iPads and some AT&T contracts. There are lots of schoolkids in the world.

That’s pretty brilliant. And here’s the company that’s going to make it happen, apparently.

On the evening of Conan’s Last Stand…

Like many other things, I never got around to commenting on the Iowa Hawkeyes’ win over the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets in the Orange Bowl last Tuesday. It certainly deserves comment; it was UI’s biggest bowl victory in fifty years. I didn’t realize we’d had that big of a drought in “major” bowl games, but there we were on the BCS stage, shutting down the supposedly formidable GT triple-option.

I didn’t have any idea what to expect, since Iowa hadn’t faced anything like Tech’s offense. But DC Norm Parker had the defense well coached and ready to go. Shocked me, really, how ready we were for them. It really did cap a season that might have been, as Yahoo Sports’ Matt Hinton wrote last week, Kirk Ferentz’ best coaching job ever. And at #7 in the AP poll, it’s Iowa’s highest season-ending rank under Ferentz. If the ridiculously-early-2010-preseason polls are to be believed, we’ll start out next in the top twelve. CollegeFootballTalk has us at #5. And that would give us a real shot at a national title run, given our number of returning starters and a more favorable schedule.

In the meantime, we can just bask in an 11-win season, and be comforted that, unlike some people, Ferentz seems to know what Tony Dungy said on NBC the other night. It’s a lot harder to coach 25-year-old millionaires than broke 19-year-olds.

Good lord, we’re ten days into 2010 and I haven’t posted yet. I suppose that means saying “Post more on Panoptiblog” was on my New Year’s Resolutions would ring hollow…

Well, we’ve been settling in with little Z, and of course there’s more to say about getting a new baby home than I’m going to write at the moment. The highlights:

  • We were told at her first doctor’s appointment, when she was about four-and-a-half days old, that she was “advanced.” That’s right. She was already holding her head up, and actually had been for a couple of days. Also followed things with her eyes, and nailed her hearing test. Booyah. Already sent away for her Mensa form.
  • Been taking some paternity leave from school, which is good, considering that day after day of driving to CR on this little sleep, in the weather we’ve had lately, might be dangerous.
  • She’s eating well, and has already gained more weight than the doctor wanted. Jaundice? Not this baby.
  • She’s wearing this harness, because she has hip dysplasia. Basically, when she was born her legs could be easily popped in and out of her hips. So she’s got to wear the harness for probably six weeks, during which time the sockets will grow around the ball joints. It keeps her in what Jen and I lovingly refer to as “the froggy position.” It’s not a big deal; 95+% of kids are fine later on. It does add a degree of difficulty to diaper changes, which does not matter, because we have mad diaper-changing skills.
  • Not to undermine that last point, but we have already been pooped and peed on more than my last two children combined. I was going to keep some kind of unofficial tally between the two of us–see who was getting the worse end of things, so to speak–but we lost count too quickly. I chalk this up as Zelda’s excellent comic timing.
  • Reaction to the name has been interesting, and has included more uninvited praise than we expected. There were several reasons we found it appealing: (1) Zelda Fitzgerald was a fascinating cultural, literary, and (later) feminist figure; (2) we both had fond memories of playing The Legend of Zelda back in the ’80s; (3) it’s old-world Jewish; and (4) it sounds cool. That said, we expected lame reactions, like “Wow, that’s really different,” or “That’s really… unique.” These being euphemisms for “fucking weird.” I have an extremely polite friend who uses the word “interesting” to mean, “completely fucked up,” and we expected to hear what an interesting selection Zelda Pearl was. And we’ve had some of that. But there have been far more people enthusiastically endorsing the choice than we’d anticipated, and from all the right people, if you know what I mean. So that’s nice. We’ve had no second thoughts.
  • Coincidentally, what’s the new meme on Facebook? (No, not the one where women and girls post their bra color, thanks but no thanks.) Apparently it’s some survey about how original your name is, and therefore how much credit your parents deserve for naming you that. This only emboldens us.

Soon I’ll do a post about the other things that have escaped my notice in this space in the last couple of weeks. Maybe in a couple of hours, when I’m up again.

Farewell to 2009, and to the 2000s.

In order to fulfill my obligation as a proprietor of a blog, I offer you this Top Ten Films of the 2000s list.  These lists are more statements about what kind of viewer the writer is than about which movies are better than others. I grew up on comic books, so the list of movies I saw is gonna be heavier on superheroes than others’ might be. I have kids, so I have the opportunity to be surprised by The Princess and the Frog (which I thought was cute). I’m not a huge fan of Clint Eastwood as a director (though Unforgiven would be on my Best of the Nineties list), so I didn’t get around to Million Dollar Baby or Gran Turino yet. Et cetera.

So here we go, in alphabetical order.

Adaptation. (2002)– Truly original. Probably too meta for a lot of people, and I could see it if somebody told me it was obnoxious. Has one of the great speeches about love ever spoken in film, for my money.

No Country for Old Men (2007) — I don’t buy There Will Be Blood as better than the Coen Brothers’ film of the same year, but Blood is the one showing up on decade’s best lists I’ve seen. If there’s a flaw in Country, I don’t know what it is.

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) — An imaginative and effectively frightening film that makes me believe he can handle the pressure taking over the Tolkein franchise from Peter Jackson. Beautiful.

Ratatouille — There are other Pixar films I liked this decade. The Incredibles was derivative but well-executed; Wall-E was experimental in design but lazy in its message. Ratatouille had both did things that I hadn’t seen American animation try to do, and did it exceptionally well. It was brave; there was no guarantee that this would appeal to kids in the way that Finding Nemo and its ilk did and do, and parts are clearly more aimed at adults.

Requiem for a Dream (2006) — If I had to pick one movie above all the rest, I might pick this one. Aranofsky’s film tracking addiction through four related protagonists is ice cold brilliant. And very hard to watch.

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) — I don’t know if this is the LOTR film that belongs here, but Jen made a good case for it. Sentimentally, this is the one that made you say “wow” the way Star Wars did back in the day. In the next two, you said, “Let’s see what he does next,” but that first one was eye opening. This is a placeholder for the whole series, though.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008) — All right, here’s the love story. Clever premise. Great color. Amazing soundtrack. Plus, the actors actually fell in love and are sill together. (Do Bollywood romances have the same track record as ours do?)

Watchmen (2009) — I hate to do this… It seems too soon, and I haven’t seen it enough times to really justify it. I haven’t even seen the “ultimate cut” that Jen got me for XMas yet. But it was a near-perfect adaptation of the graphic novel, and actually seemed to make use of what film can do that comics can’t (music, for one) to complement what Moore and Gibbons were trying to do.

Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001) — That’s right, love stories outnumber comic book adaptations on this list. You got a problem with it? I’ve used up all my good film adjectives by this point. If you’ve seen Alfonso Cuarón’s film about two boys trying to impress an older woman who seduces them, you know why it’s on the list. If you haven’t seen it, you should.

What’s that, you say? That’s only nine films? That’s ’cause I couldn’t settle on a deserving tenth. My heart says The Dark Knight, because I just love it… but my head says it has too many flaws, and the performances aside from Heath’s weren’t brilliant (though Heath’s Joker is almost enough to get it on the list anyway). Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is on a lot of lists, but I thought it was overrated. Paris, Je T’aime? Haven’t seen it yet, plus that woulda been two films for Cuarón, which would have to hurt my credibility. And too many foreign films are the mark of a snob.

So I put it to you: What did I leave out?

Oh yeah. And here are five films I wasted my life on. They suck. That is all.

300 — Before Zack Snyder redeemed himself with Watchmen, he was best known for the dumbest, most homophobic, and yet gayest, movie ever. Don’t trust me, ask Andrew Sullivan.

The Fountain — Hollywood producers: next time Daren Aronofsky asks you to fund his art project starring Huge Ackman, just say no. More closeups of his bad acting the world does not need.

The Ladykillers — Tom Hanks + Coen Brothers = major suckage. Whoda thunk?

Star Wars Episode II : Attack of the Clones — Sort of the reverse of LOTR… Hard to know which one was worst. I vote AOTC the worst crime against humanity and my childhood that George Lucas committed, at least until Indy IV, which I refused to see.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona – Woody Allen + worst voiceover ever = major suckage. Yeah, should’ve seen that one coming. But people said it was good!

Next Page »