Wall Street Journal furor

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Keith Johnson which questioned the usefulness of Euskara, the Basque language, in a modern context. He makes a number of points, most of which are pretty ridiculous. For example, he criticizes Euskara for having non-native words for concepts like democracy, which, of course, isn’t a native English word either as it derives from Greek roots. Because of the number of incorrect assertions Johnson makes, this article has generated quite the response from online Basques. Unfortunately, the WSJ article is only viewable to those who have a subscription to the journal (if you have one, you can see the article here). However, you can get the gist of the article by reading the responses to it. Here are a couple:

  • Itsasertzeko zubia (which also posts a reply by Johnson in response to the criticism his article has generated)
  • Luistxo’s blog
  • Mikel Iturbe‘s response to the article
  • EuskoBlog‘s take on the Basque-phobe-of-the-week
  • EiTB‘s initial response to the article and
  • Mikel Morris‘s answer to Johnson (Morris is the author of the leading English-Basque dictionary)

All of these responses do a much better job than I could in debunking Johnson’s article and I agree with what they say. To criticize the Basque Country for wanting Basque to be a viable language within its borders seems utterly ridiculous to me. And we wouldn’t criticize other, larger countries for doing the same. Don’t we essentially demand that doctors know English in the US, even if they are administering to predominantly Spanish-speaking areas? I know there are schools taught primarily in Spanish, but the teachers know English all the same. It seems to me quite a double standard.

What do you think?

Is it torture?

There has been a lot of discussion about Bush’s nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, and whether he views waterboarding as torture.  Like most executive branch people, he hems and haws and never really answers the question.  See, for example, this LA Times article.

It seems to me that the question that needs to be asked of these guys is this:  Is the US doing anything to prisoners that we would not want done to our soldiers if they were captured by the enemy?  If your son or daughter were captured, would you be uncomfortable with the enemy doing the same things to them that we do to our prisoners?  Cuts to the heart of the matter, at least to me.

The whole reason for the Geneva Convention, it seems to me, was to make sure that our guys were treated well enough when they were captured during war.  So, we (and other countries) said we would treat the enemy in a certain way so that our guys would be too.   So, that is the litmus test: are we treating the enemy in a way we would want our guys treated?

Prius vs Hummer

A friend of mine came into work the other day, touting an article very similar to this one (the one he had was written by a James Martin for a senior citizens’ publication, but I can’t find a good link to it online; in any case, the content is essentially the same as the one above). The basic conclusion of this article is that the Hummer is more eco-friendly than the Prius (recall, Lisa and I just bought a used Prius).

I won’t go into all the reasons that I think this article is BS, as the main points have been refuted already by a number of others (see, for example, this Wikipedia article, this Better World Club article, and this topic on the Hybrid Cars forum). However, there are a few comments I wanted to add to those already made.

First, the main crux of the argument that the Hummer is more eco-friendly has to do with the mining of nickel that is used in the batteries of a Prius. Much (most? all?) of the nickel Toyota uses comes from a mine in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada (also, interestingly, the home of Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, or SNO, an underground neutrino detector built in an abandoned mine in Sudbury). The article claims that there is a great deal of pollution associated with that mine and, if you consider that pollution in the production of a Prius, it makes the Hummer look as green as can be. As some of the other links point out, though, the main pollution from Sudbury occured several decades ago, long before Toyota started producing the Prius, and has since been cleaned up to a remarkable degree. Furthermore, Toyota only buys 1% of the nickel mined in Sudbury. To blame the entire pollution produced there on Toyota is like blaming the Iraq war on Hummer because of the oil we need to run them.

Second, I don’t think that the original article considered at all the post-production cost to the environment. Probably, because it is hard to quantify. But, even Bush is starting to admit that global warming is real and human caused. If there is a large-scale effort to try to reverse things, to try to clean up the environment to reverse some of the climate change we’ve caused, shouldn’t those costs be added to the Hummer’s cost of driving? I’m guessing, based on how much more CO2 those spew, it would far outweigh any pollution Toyota is responsible for by purchasing 1% of the nickel produced in a relatively clean mine in Canada.

Finally, in looking for sites discussing the original article, I couldn’t help but note the comments people left on sites hosting it and the bile in their comments. There were comments like “there isn’t anything that makes me happier than seeing a Prius broken down on the side of the road” and other things like that. These people really hate the Prius. And it makes me wonder why. They claim it is because of the in-your-face “environmentalism” the Prius represents. To be honest, Lisa and I bought our Prius for a simple fact: it uses less gas. I drive ~40 miles each way to work and I just wanted something that uses less gas, both for my pocket book (though, to be honest, the extra cost of the Prius means it will be a while before I break even there) and for the environment (why spew as much crap if I don’t have to). But these people seem threatened by the car. I’m guessing it reminds them of how crappy their cars do and how they aren’t willing to do anything to help fix the problem. Just because some of us try to do at least a little bit to make things better for the climate and environment, doesn’t mean these people have to feel so threatened.

But, if you want to talk about an in-your-face vehicle, what is the Hummer? Is there a vehicle that is more in-your-face than that one? Why does anyone but the military need such a beast? Aren’t Hummer drivers showing the rest of us (a) how much money they have to afford such a thing and (b) how little they care about the rest of us, in terms of sharing the road and using resources?

Michael Clayton

Last weekend, we saw Michael Clayton.  I’ve heard that there has been a clamor for “adult-oriented” films, and by that I don’t mean XXX.  Rather, films that are geared toward a thinking adult audience, with more than just explosions (not that I dislike explosions).  Michael Clayton was supposed to be a film that appealed to such people, though it has not done as well as hoped at the box office.

I have to say I really enjoyed the film.  I would say that the plot is secondary here, that the characters are the real drivers.  The plot is pretty simple, and pretty “ripped-from-the-headlines”: a big, bad company is destroying some mid-western families. The story is about the lawyers who represent that company.  There are two sets of lawyers, it seems, one directly with the company and a set with the firm the company hires.  Michael Clayton, played by George Clooney, is one of the second.  It is about him and his best friend, and trying to understand what his best friend is going through.

As I said, the plot isn’t necessarily novel or overly dramatic.  It has a few twists and turns that keep it from being too predictable.  But the real essence of the film, to me, is in the characters.  All of the characters are brought to life by some great acting.  Even the bad guys, lead by the lawyer for the company, are made real.  You get the sense that she isn’t necessarily an evil person as just someone trying to get ahead who is way over her head.

Michael Clayton himself is brought to life via his interactions with the people around him: his lawyer colleagues, his family, the guy shutting down his bar.  You can tell Clayton is a guy just trying to get through life, doing the best he can, but sometimes sacrificing his principles to keep afloat.  Because of his situation, at the end, you aren’t quite sure which route he is going to go with the information he has.

Overall, again, a film I’d recommend.  Especially for someone who wants a good drama but doesn’t necessarily want all of the bombs and fights typical of summer fare.

Stardust

About 2 weeks ago, we saw Stardust with Jot, a good friend of Lisa’s who was visiting for the weekend.  I’ll start off with two confessions:  while I haven’t read a lot of his work, I do enjoy Neil Gaiman and the worlds he creates.  And, when I was younger (high school/college), I had a thing for Michelle Pfeiffer.  If there was one actress I thought was absolutely gorgeous, it was her.

Stardust is a fairy tale, the story of a man who enters a magical world and finds his true love.  There are a number of twists and characters along his journey, and it takes him a while, as it seems it often does in these things, for him to realize who his true love is, but he gets there.

The characters are the best part of the movie.  Pfeiffer and Robert De Niro play very over-the-top characters that are enjoyable to watch on screen.  The plot is somewhat standard.  And it, of course, has a happy ending.  But, I liked that, unlike some Disneyfied stories, this one had more of the original Grimm feel to it.  People die.  Sometimes violently.  This is mitigated a bit by them coming back as ghosts and providing some comedic relief.  But, they die nonetheless.

I was intrigued enough by the movie that I will definitely find the book by Gaiman that this was based on and see what his original version was like.  Definitely recommended.

Blah, blah, blah… I've got the blahs.