Thanksgiving Reading Book Review

Freak Out!

After failing to finish the below book, I tried out another nonfiction, Levitt and Dubner's Freakonomics. I basically didn't put it down until I was done. Highly recommended. In Freakonomics, we get a random selection of various research discoveries Steven Levitt has made. These range from abortion being the real reason crime went down in the 90's (that would have been when those unwanted children came of juvenile age- the trend also happened in other countries and states that legalized at different times), why your real estate agent may try to sell your house to early (the little extra money they make keeping it on the market is outweighed by just moving on to a new house), and how the number of books you have in your house will effect your child's intelligence more than how often you read to them.

What I really like about his approach is how he looks at the full range of incentives, and isn't pigeon-holed by a behavioresque punishment/reward mantra. For instance, I was very pleased to see that high stakes testing in schools may or may not increase intelligence, but they certainly increased cheating in Chicago schools. On the same point, my favorite finding was based on research done at day care. They had been having issues with parents picking up their kids late, so they tried an experiment where they added a fine to their monthly charge if they came in after the prescribed time. So what do you think happened? Yes, exactly, the late pick-ups doubled. Why? Perhaps because even though there was an economic incentive to be punctual, they had removed the social incentive. A major reason to be on-time was to not be rude. You don't feel bad though if you know they were compensated for your tardiness.

So, yes, great read. And not very long either! Just over 200 pages. Would make a very good x-mas gift for the resident nerd in your family.

Thanksgiving Reading Book Review

Collapsed

Wait, is it okay to do a book review of a book you never finished? Of corse it is- that's why we all love blogs!!! Well, this weekend, I read parts of Jared Diamond's (of Subway fame) book called Collapse. Jared Diamond is known for an earlier book, Guns Germs and Steel that is, I think, a work of genius. Unfortunately, Collapse isn't. In Guns Diamond applied a unique yet not overly complicated thesis to 13,000 years of history. To sum up, he proposed that due to the surplus of food and time, agricultural peoples gain the necessary means (like guns and germs) to overtake other societies. And what makes them agricultural is not brains or morals or lack of either, but the specific environment they live in. For me, Guns was both the first science book I ever understood and an incredible way of looking at history.

In Collapse, Diamond also has a thesis. This time it's that cultures have fallen due to mishandling their environment. This is sort of similar to his last book, but this time it feels less interesting, since they kind of did or didn't. I also felt like he was going too far out of his way to remind us that this means that we could destroy our society similalry. I mean, I agree with this, but now what? For instance, he writes about how Easter Island probably collapsed due to them cutting down all of their trees. And then says (in a chapter titled "Easter Island as a Metaphor"), due to globalism the whole earth is just like an island floating in the galaxy. Okay... I guess so since we can't trade with Mars, but... I wouldn't say it's a great comparison. A people cutting down their last tree because they are stranded in the middle of an ocean seems very different from us who cut down trees because we can get them elsewhere. Today, I'm not cutting down the last tree, I'm just not going to notice when it happens. And why does he need to reach so far? Can't we all just agree that cutting down all of our trees is a bad thing?

Another problem is that he goes way too anthropological on our asses and it makes it much harder to read. As grandma always said, a little bit about radio carbon dating references goes a long way. A lot of it leaves one brain dead. In his defense, I skipped the intro and first chapter and then only made it through two chapters. Who knows what I missed (the opening chapter for some reason focuses on fly fishing in Montana). Also, in the chapters I did read, I did find out interesting info. I think I'll use it by just occassionally learning about one of the cultures' demise. Still, overall, both in readibility and purpose it comes nowhere close to Guns Germs and Steel.

Iron Cage Match #6

Phoenix versus Las Vegas

Alright, I think this will be the last Iron Cage Match for a while, but one question still remains that needs to be addressed (besides the eternal Sammy Hagar versus David Lee Roth quandry): of these 2 air-conditioner reliant, driving based, sprawling Southwest metropolises, which one is better?

This is a harder question for me to answer than others might think. Yes, I do have an affinity for gambling and I do find the adult-epcot center camp of Las Vegas funny, but that's in 2 to 3 day shots. The idea of living in Las Vegas creeps the fuck out of me. I have no doubt that the utter obnoxiousness of the strip would wear on me and cease to be funny faster than I could say, "Split the 8's please". Of course, Las Vegas isn't just the strip - it's actually much worse. I was there 2 years ago and tried to go fo a walk. You know, get away from the gambling and take a stroll. An hour later, I had made it about 1 square block and felt completely worn down by the combination of heat, dust, sub divisions, and, well, nothing. Can you say Urban Planning Needed?

Phoenix is no better though. With no downtown or even the resemblance of a personality, Phoenix is that bland blonde girl who doesn't smile much. Phoenix is for people who think weather is the end all be all (and as a Portlander, I hope to god it isn't). If you're 60 and like to golf or an asthmatic who is fascintated by cassette tapes melting on your dashboard, Phoenix is the place for you. For everyone else...

In the end I hope to never live in either. But if I had to choose, I think I would have to take the trashy blonde who at least has some personality. Oh yah, and the Hoover Dam is near. Las Vegas definitely!!!

Iron Cage Match #5

Cheney Versus Putin

Okay, so let's just say our lovely president dies (God Forbid!), who would you rather take over for him, Senor Dick or everybody's favorite Vladimir?

I think this is a very tough call, but I seem to be leaning towards Cheney. I know he's mean, into torture, a corporate lackey, and has been know to swear at other congressmen, but Putin really is in his own league. I mean, Cheney would love to do what Putin has, but he has not closed down all free press, jailed a man who was going to support the opposition (actually, we know Cheney would never press charges on an oil exec), and changed the law so that he picks the governors. It also should not be too long before Putin alters the laws again to both let him select mayors and allow himself to run again. So, if we have Putin, we might never lose him. Whereas besides Cheney's pure hatability making him unreelectable, his heart should knock him off in the near future anyway.

Cheney also hates the public eye, so I think he would be squirmingly terrible at continuing his evil agenda in front of people. He works much better behind the scene and I think forcing him to actually, you know, answer questions would definitely engender his neo-con goals. Putin, on the other hand, is perfectly comfortable in the limelight and would have no problem continuing his march towards totalitarianism. I think also I am more scared of Putin. Cheney's the teacher you hate and undermine. Putin's the one you diligently follow since you truly fear him at all times. Would I vote for Putin? I think I'd be too scared not to.

So I'm going to have grudgingly cast my ballot for Dick "Go Fuck Yourself" Cheney. God fear for our souls!

Perfect Movies

Petrovich and I share a concept we call "The Perfect Movie." The guidelines are that it is a great movie, that nothing should be changed on. And it is not necessarily your favorite movie or even the best movie. For instance, although I liked Pulp Fiction better, Reservoir Dogs is closer to perfect (although not quite). For all the genius in Pulp Fiction, it has the mediocre Bruce Willis section. And I even have to hold that my favorite movie, Shortcuts, is not perfect. Greatest dialogue and characters ever, but a little messy at times. Perfect movies have to astound you while being tight and having no obvious flaws.

It has been way too long since I've seen a perfect movie. Over the last month I've seen three good ones: The Constant Gardener, Good Night Good Luck, and The Whale and the Squid. Each one I'd recommend, but each could have bee improved. With the Constant Gardener I really didn't understand the political plot and they neglected to show us why his wife and he ever liked eachother (other than opposites attact, but that's actually a non-reason). The Whale and the Squid looks at divorce with a mix of humor and pain, but at times its mock indie tone made me distanced from their feelings, which worked against it. And I felt like the writer hadn't really decided on what the mom's character was. Good Night Good Luck is the closest, since I can't really think of anything they should change, but it doesn't quite get there because it was almost too easy. I loved that they centered you in the time, but in the end they're preaching to the choir that the whole country is in. Who doesn't think McCarthy was an idiot? And you can make your own connections to today, but you don't have to.

I don't mean to imply that Perfect movies actually have to be 100% perfect. They are rare, but not impoosible to find. The following are a list off the top of my head

Rushmore
City of God
Nobody's Fool
Permanant Midnight (I think, although it could've just been my mood. I've found no one else who's even come close to agreeing with me on this)
You Can Count On Me
American Splendor
Far From Heaven
Chuck and Buck (Ingeniously disturbing)
Silence of The Lambs
Good Fellas
Trainspotting
Crimes and Misdemeanors

Iron Cage Match #4

U2 versus Reggae

Talk about battle of the bottom dwellers! This is a real tough match-up for me to judge since both are so bad. Do I go with the bland, totally overrated, Bono-led U2? Or the music most responsible for white guys sprouting dread locks and sitting around Jammin'? They both represent different times of my life that I was repelled by a type of music. U2 brings me back to junior high. I really wanted to like them, I pretty much had followed every other trend brought to me by my more charismatic friends (Miami Vice, Camoflauge, Polo shirts, Classic Rock...). But at U2 I took a stand, and not even because they were so hateable, just because I didn't get it. Reggae brings me back to college and being trapped in smoke-filled dorm rooms with East Coast boarding school types endlessly discussing the differences between G-13, hyrdoponix, and Mexican Schwag Bud. It also reminds me of classmates returning from the Caribbean with Reggae-colored hair weaves. All memories I'd like to forget.

In the end though, I think I'm going to have to go with Reggae, since a world without reggae would negatively effect the musical universe. Although I personally hate it, Reggae has personally given birth to Ska and influenced bands I have liked- for example the Clash and Sublime. U2, on the other hand, might go down as the most popular least influential bands ever. Like, seriously, can you imagine some kids saying that they want to have a sound like U2? So in a battle of evils, the necessary one trounces the unnecessary one this time. Long Live Jah!

Caesar Salad Rankings Update

An update of a recurring series on the best Caesar salads in Portland Oregon...

1. Blue Monk - Jazz bar on Belmont. The food is mediocre, but the Caesar salad there was the best we've ever had. Crazy sharp, tasty, spicy - the holy grail thus far. Also has a very extensive beer list.

2. Fusion - An electic restaurant near our house on Division where you can also buy antiques.
Good tasty Caesar.

3. Pazzo's - The food was good but a little overpriced and a tad pretentious. The Caesar was simple, not a lot of leaves, and there was some zing to it. But the best Caesars never stop at simple. Zing it up baby!

4. Caesar Salad Kit - Can be bought at Fred Meyer's and put together in a jiffy. A little on the creamy side, but not bad. This is sort of the watermark ranking. All restaurants below this should feel bad (or should start buying the salad kits).

5. Brassiere Montmarte - Went there this weekend. Fun place downtown, kind of like an 80's French Bistro. I think magicians would like it a lot. Unfortunately, the food was not that great. The best part about the Caesar was that the lettuce tasted really fresh. But the lettuce is the least important part and it was overall pretty plain. Probably should've gotten a regular salad.

6. Hedge House - Nice Mcmenaminsesque place on Division. Good for a Reuben and a beer. Not so good for a Caesar Salad. It didn't taste bad, but it didn't taste like much either.