But if you've ever wanted to make a Michael Cera movie, here's how:
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Slush Pile Blues
By Wade
Interesting article on what it takes these days to get published. For your edification, the "slush pile" is the pool of unsolicited manuscripts that a publisher may receive. These were traditionally picked over by assistants before being thrown out, or rarely, sent upward.
The article does mention Stephenie Meyer and J.K. Rowling as notable exceptions that were published via this route. And while I am loathe to ascribe anything good to Meyer's writing, it does sell like crazy.
This bit from Carol Schneider of Random House hit particularly close to home:
Reminds me that I need to get my ass in gear and sign up for this upcoming Pikes Peak Writers Conference that Christian from my writing group is involved in.
At the same time, it does seem as though some publishers are adapting. It's clever and somewhat insidious to use readers as the arbiters for considering a manuscript, but it's better than wholly rejecting everything.
Of course, doing something like this blog is also good to keep in the habit of writing on a regular basis.
Interesting article on what it takes these days to get published. For your edification, the "slush pile" is the pool of unsolicited manuscripts that a publisher may receive. These were traditionally picked over by assistants before being thrown out, or rarely, sent upward.
Now, slush is dead, or close to extinction. Film and television producers won't read anything not certified by an agent because producers are afraid of being accused of stealing ideas and material.
The article does mention Stephenie Meyer and J.K. Rowling as notable exceptions that were published via this route. And while I am loathe to ascribe anything good to Meyer's writing, it does sell like crazy.
This bit from Carol Schneider of Random House hit particularly close to home:
Don't be a barista waiting for someone to stumble upon your genius. "Our editors travel, they get around. They look at writer's conferences, at MFA programs. They look at magazine articles and at blogs. That's what editors do, they sniff things out from so many different sources.
Reminds me that I need to get my ass in gear and sign up for this upcoming Pikes Peak Writers Conference that Christian from my writing group is involved in.
At the same time, it does seem as though some publishers are adapting. It's clever and somewhat insidious to use readers as the arbiters for considering a manuscript, but it's better than wholly rejecting everything.
In 2008. HarperCollins launched Authonomy.com, a Web slush pile. Writers can upload their manuscripts, readers vote for their favorites, and HarperCollins editors read the five highest-rated manuscripts each month.
Of course, doing something like this blog is also good to keep in the habit of writing on a regular basis.
Something We Can All Get Behind
By Wade
From a White House mass e-mail:
Here's where you can add your name to the list and then donate afterwards, should you so desire.
From a White House mass e-mail:
Yesterday, President Obama announced our proposed Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on the country's largest banks:
"My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed. And my determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people...We want our money back, and we're going to get it."
Here's where you can add your name to the list and then donate afterwards, should you so desire.
Friday, January 15, 2010
What has Obama Done For Me Lately?
By Dave
I wanted to spend some time on this because a lot of people mistakenly believe that little has been accomplished in the last year.
Remember how bad things were this time last year? It was awful! The economy was in a tailspin. The banking sector was on the verge of collapse. Massive job loss and foreclosure. Health care costs were strangling our nation. The deficit was growing unchecked. The government didn't care or didn't believe in climate change. World opinion of America was abysmal. We were engaged in two failed wars. We were torturing people for bogus information. Remember all this? Then Obama became president.
What has he done? Well, he:
Updated: The Guardian has a pretty good timeline of Obama's first year in office. It's worth checking out.
I wanted to spend some time on this because a lot of people mistakenly believe that little has been accomplished in the last year.
Remember how bad things were this time last year? It was awful! The economy was in a tailspin. The banking sector was on the verge of collapse. Massive job loss and foreclosure. Health care costs were strangling our nation. The deficit was growing unchecked. The government didn't care or didn't believe in climate change. World opinion of America was abysmal. We were engaged in two failed wars. We were torturing people for bogus information. Remember all this? Then Obama became president.
What has he done? Well, he:
- Passed a $800b Stimulus Bill that:
- Invested in infrastructure like roads and bridges
- Invested in green, renewable technology
- Invested in new High Speed Rail corridors
- Invested in an electric smart grid, weatherizing homes, and alternative energy
- Computerized medical records
- Helped cities and states to close gaps in their budgets to maintain services
- Gave $237 Billion in tax cuts for small businesses, college students, and 95% of working families
- Billions for Pell Grants, Headstart, increased teacher salaries and to prevent school layoffs
- Expanded Job training programs, unemployment insurance, and food stamp programs
- Put people to back work and helped pull our economy back from the brink
- Repaired America's damaged image in the world
- Engaged the Muslim world
- Banned the use of torture, including waterboarding, and restricted interrogation to the Army Field manual
- Expanded SCHIP to include an additional 4 million children
- Passed new regulation preventing credit card companies from ripping people off
- Proposed new laws in place to protect consumers from mortgage fraud and predatory lending.
- Passed national service legislation which boosted funding for volunteers and for AmeriCorp members
- Passed stronger hate crimes law
- Reformed defense spending to cut out waste like the F-22
- Had more spending cuts than Bush
- Changed strategy in Afghanistan and increased the number of troops fighting the war
- Withdrew some troops and set a timetable for further withdrawal in Iraq.
- Proposed financial regulatory reform.
- Is on the verge of real health care reform. This reform will:
- Prevent insurers from refusing coverage for preexisting conditions for children or from dropping coverage when people get sick and need it the most.
- No restrictive annual limits or lifetime limits
- Insurers will be required to offer free preventive care like checkups, routine tests and mammogram
- Lower costs for most people
- Insure an additional 30 Million people
- Bring down the deficit by $100 Billion in the first 10 years and by a trillion in the second ten years.
- That's not going to appeal to seniors who are now seeing the possibility of that doughnut hole finally closing and so they can finally get discounts on their prescriptions.
- Tax credits for employers who provide coverage to their employees
- Allow kids to stay on their parents plan until they are 26
Updated: The Guardian has a pretty good timeline of Obama's first year in office. It's worth checking out.
A Democratic Freakout?
By Dave
That's what conservative Jon Henke sees on the horizon:
So this makes for a cautious legislative environment, particularly for those with fragile holds on their seats.
But that being said, I don't think 2010 will be some sort of 'lost year.' If health care reform passes, the toughest battles will be behind Democrats. Sure, climate change regulation will be difficult but can it be as hard as health-care? I don't think so. Reid is already saying the Senate will be up for it by Spring.
My prediction: 2010 will be a year for low hanging legislative fruit, symbolic victories to rally the base, and maybe one or two big, important, but divisive issues (climate change and financial reform?).
As for the Henke's analysis of Moderates/Pragmatists, I 'd say the Obama track record shows exactly the opposite. Pragmatists have made concessions and compromises in order to accomplish major policy goals. (See: Stimulus, health care, etc.) It still is yet to be seen if this strategy will help them maintain power.
That's what conservative Jon Henke sees on the horizon:
The first Democratic freak out will be an internal Congressional fight in 2010 over whether to (1) move big and fast while they still have the votes, or (2) slow down and preserve as many seats as they can. The second Democratic freak out is going to occur in 2011 and beyond, when Democrats try to figure out what the lesson of the 2010 elections really is.I think, except for moderates/pragmatists part, Henke's analysis is largely right. At least, it's definitely a possibility. As I've said before, I don't think 2010 will be a year of amazing legislative success. The realist (or cynic) in me says that 2010 is a mid-term election year. Historically, the party in power loses seats. Democrats are nervous. As Wade's post showed, Republicans have no idea why they lost the last two elections and their confusion makes them all the more pissed off and angry. They smell blood in the water and think now is their time to seize back power. They are going to fight with everything they have.
- Progressives - and especially the netroots - will say the lesson is "Damn the Republicans, Full Speed Ahead", but that's what they always say. Revolutionaries like bold action more than practical details.
- Moderates/pragmatists will say the lesson is "don't try to do too much, take smaller steps, make reasonable compromises". But that is more effective at maintaining power than accomplishing major policy goals.
So this makes for a cautious legislative environment, particularly for those with fragile holds on their seats.
But that being said, I don't think 2010 will be some sort of 'lost year.' If health care reform passes, the toughest battles will be behind Democrats. Sure, climate change regulation will be difficult but can it be as hard as health-care? I don't think so. Reid is already saying the Senate will be up for it by Spring.
My prediction: 2010 will be a year for low hanging legislative fruit, symbolic victories to rally the base, and maybe one or two big, important, but divisive issues (climate change and financial reform?).
As for the Henke's analysis of Moderates/Pragmatists, I 'd say the Obama track record shows exactly the opposite. Pragmatists have made concessions and compromises in order to accomplish major policy goals. (See: Stimulus, health care, etc.) It still is yet to be seen if this strategy will help them maintain power.
Comedy Takedown
By Dave
Jimmy Kimmel evicerates Jay Leno on Leno's Ten at Ten:
I've always ranked late night: Conan, Letterman, Leno. In that order. Conan is the man! Plus the couple of Simpsons episodes he wrote are my all-time favorites.
Jimmy Kimmel evicerates Jay Leno on Leno's Ten at Ten:
I've always ranked late night: Conan, Letterman, Leno. In that order. Conan is the man! Plus the couple of Simpsons episodes he wrote are my all-time favorites.
I've Always Wanted to Do This!
By Dave
Who didn't read Calvin and Hobbes and think it would be so cool to recreate Calvin's snow creations?
Well, now someone has! Web Urbanist features 38 Snowmen Nightmares: Calvin and Hobbes in Real Life. Check it out!
Who didn't read Calvin and Hobbes and think it would be so cool to recreate Calvin's snow creations?
Well, now someone has! Web Urbanist features 38 Snowmen Nightmares: Calvin and Hobbes in Real Life. Check it out!
It's Okay to Laugh
By Wade
Really, it is.
Short article, here's all you really need to know:
Really, it is.
Short article, here's all you really need to know:
A group of around 20 Swedish Weight Watchers participants who'd gathered in the programme's Växjö clinic to "see how much weight they had lost" found out the answer was not enough to prevent the floor from collapsing under their combined bulk.
WSJ Lives in a Fantasy World
By Wade
This would be a much better article if it was actually founded in reality.
Most of these strategies are laughable at best.
Because they took the country for a joyride, crashed it, and then got upset when they were held accountable for their actions? I'd love to see any member of the GOP admit that.
Yes, please run on the platform of denying 30 million people health care coverage. I think some people might get angry about the government getting involved with their Medicare. Don't mind that steadily amplifying whistling sound. That's just the sound of your political career in a nose-dive toward self-destruction.
Exsqueeze me? Baking powder? Did I just hear you right? YOU MORONS ARE THE ONES THAT PUT US IN THE 1930S TO BEGIN WITH. Then we are led to believe that these three institutes have boldly put forth new solutions that will revolutionize America and save us from the gol'dern kommonists. Only, all three of those are well-known conservative, libertarian think tanks(read: policy shills). Need some research to back up your point that removing restrictions on logging will keep our forests healthier? Call up one of these guys. They make Aaron Eckhart's character in Thank You For Smoking look like a saint.
Oh really? Then why is there a sharp upswing in debt every single time a Republican takes office? I'll tell you why. Republicans aren't interested in doing the most good for the most people in our country. They're interested in doing the most good for their people in our country, namely, those poor beleaguered millionaires who unjustly have to pay taxes. Tax cuts are the Republicans theology, a term more appropriate to a party that wants to run America like a theocracy anyway.
I wholly recommend reading the rest of this vomit-inducing lie festival. The Wall Street Journal is always good entertainment.
This would be a much better article if it was actually founded in reality.
Despite tanking poll numbers both for themselves and their president, congressional Democrats have persisted for months in a stunning act of political self-destruction. The evaporation of home-state support for Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and the retirements of Christopher Dodd and Byron Dorgan should give the White House and the congressional majority pause...It's not surprising that a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch would repeat misinformation and misdirections.
Most of these strategies are laughable at best.
10) Face up to why the party lost in 2006 and 2008.
Because they took the country for a joyride, crashed it, and then got upset when they were held accountable for their actions? I'd love to see any member of the GOP admit that.
6) For the midterm election, unite around a clear agenda of repeal. The party should give its candidates a list of programs and spending that will be up for cancellation the hour a Republican Congress is sworn in. At the top of the list should be the Troubled Asset Relief Program, unspent stimulus funds, and the health-care overhaul.
Yes, please run on the platform of denying 30 million people health care coverage. I think some people might get angry about the government getting involved with their Medicare. Don't mind that steadily amplifying whistling sound. That's just the sound of your political career in a nose-dive toward self-destruction.
5) Add in an agenda of market-freeing reforms in health care, energy, environmental and education policy. Scholarly centers such as the Hoover Institution, the Pacific Research Institute, and the Manhattan Institute have developed market-freeing solutions to health inflation, energy dependence, real and immediate environmental challenges, and education quality. Reform for congressional Democrats means more spending and more mandates. After the health-care debate the nation has rejected that 1930s-style model. The new model's time has come.
Exsqueeze me? Baking powder? Did I just hear you right? YOU MORONS ARE THE ONES THAT PUT US IN THE 1930S TO BEGIN WITH. Then we are led to believe that these three institutes have boldly put forth new solutions that will revolutionize America and save us from the gol'dern kommonists. Only, all three of those are well-known conservative, libertarian think tanks(read: policy shills). Need some research to back up your point that removing restrictions on logging will keep our forests healthier? Call up one of these guys. They make Aaron Eckhart's character in Thank You For Smoking look like a saint.
2) Tax cuts must be part of the answer. The surpluses of the late '90s were to a significant extent a product of the growth in revenues that came after the capital gains tax was cut. The Democrats' theology—actually economic superstition—prohibits them from renewing the 2003 tax cuts, the looming expiration of which has been a drag on the economy ever since they recaptured Congress.
Oh really? Then why is there a sharp upswing in debt every single time a Republican takes office? I'll tell you why. Republicans aren't interested in doing the most good for the most people in our country. They're interested in doing the most good for their people in our country, namely, those poor beleaguered millionaires who unjustly have to pay taxes. Tax cuts are the Republicans theology, a term more appropriate to a party that wants to run America like a theocracy anyway.
I wholly recommend reading the rest of this vomit-inducing lie festival. The Wall Street Journal is always good entertainment.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
When You Don't Know the Answer....
By Dave
...just pick all of the above! If it works for Sarah Palin, why not for you!
Reminiscent of her strikeout in the softball Katie Couric interview, Palin steps up to bat in an interview with Glenn Beck.
Whif! How do mess up that question? Even Glenn Beck had to call 'bullcrap!' Luckily, Palin was able to recall who was on the one dollar bill.
Via TPM
...just pick all of the above! If it works for Sarah Palin, why not for you!
Reminiscent of her strikeout in the softball Katie Couric interview, Palin steps up to bat in an interview with Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck: Who's your favorite founder?
Palin: Ummm... you know, all of them...
Whif! How do mess up that question? Even Glenn Beck had to call 'bullcrap!' Luckily, Palin was able to recall who was on the one dollar bill.
Via TPM
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Better than LBJ?
By Dave
That's what a report from Congressional Quarterly says. Obama won 96.7% of the votes in which he had any stake. That's almost 4 points higher than Lyndon Johnson, the famed arm-twister of the Senate. Not bad at all.
The reason for Obama's success is two-fold. First, the President has been very cautious, almost to a fault, about the fights he's willing engage in. Second, Obama has been very willing to accept compromise in order to secure a victory. There has yet to be an issue in which the President has drawn a line in the sand and declared "We will accept no less than (name your arbitrary breaking point)!" This all goes back to Obama's training as a community organizer. To paraphrase Saul Alinsky: if you come in with nothing, ask for 100% and compromise for 30%, you're 30% ahead! Declare victory and continue to fight another day. Having nothing doesn't leave you or your constituents any better off.
This mentality seems to have made for a good legislative track record. But it has left the liberal base restless. Americans, left and right, like to treat politics like team sports. They want to see their guys win and the other guys lose. Preferably lose big. People want to see you spike the ball in the other guys face. As a result, some on the left claim to be disheartened or even betrayed by Obama.
Personally, I've appreciated the President's style of governance. I like that Obama isn't "The Decider." Maureen Dowd be damned! I like that he doesn't treat us like children. I'm glad we finally have a president who doesn't act catty or petulant. Obama took the distinction between campaigning and governing seriously. We should be proud. It's something the last guys didn't do at all!
But I get it. It would be nice to see Obama put his foot down and get tough on an issue or two. My guess is we'll see more of that in 2010. It's a campaign year, after all. It could be a year to give red meat to the base and get down and dirty against political opponents.
But I wouldn't be surprised if their stellar legislative record suffered, as a result.
That's what a report from Congressional Quarterly says. Obama won 96.7% of the votes in which he had any stake. That's almost 4 points higher than Lyndon Johnson, the famed arm-twister of the Senate. Not bad at all.
The reason for Obama's success is two-fold. First, the President has been very cautious, almost to a fault, about the fights he's willing engage in. Second, Obama has been very willing to accept compromise in order to secure a victory. There has yet to be an issue in which the President has drawn a line in the sand and declared "We will accept no less than (name your arbitrary breaking point)!" This all goes back to Obama's training as a community organizer. To paraphrase Saul Alinsky: if you come in with nothing, ask for 100% and compromise for 30%, you're 30% ahead! Declare victory and continue to fight another day. Having nothing doesn't leave you or your constituents any better off.
This mentality seems to have made for a good legislative track record. But it has left the liberal base restless. Americans, left and right, like to treat politics like team sports. They want to see their guys win and the other guys lose. Preferably lose big. People want to see you spike the ball in the other guys face. As a result, some on the left claim to be disheartened or even betrayed by Obama.
Personally, I've appreciated the President's style of governance. I like that Obama isn't "The Decider." Maureen Dowd be damned! I like that he doesn't treat us like children. I'm glad we finally have a president who doesn't act catty or petulant. Obama took the distinction between campaigning and governing seriously. We should be proud. It's something the last guys didn't do at all!
But I get it. It would be nice to see Obama put his foot down and get tough on an issue or two. My guess is we'll see more of that in 2010. It's a campaign year, after all. It could be a year to give red meat to the base and get down and dirty against political opponents.
But I wouldn't be surprised if their stellar legislative record suffered, as a result.
CO HD 12 - Funds Raised Thus Far
By Dave
From the Secretary of State's website, in case you were interested....
From the Secretary of State's website, in case you were interested....
I shouldn't be but I'm still kind of amazing to me that these small, local races pull in this kind of money.
Matt Jones: $24,275.00
Jake Williams: $20,230.00
Monday, January 11, 2010
Congratulations Sony
By Wade
I never thought I would say this, but I will not be seeing the next Spider-man movie. But Sony's done it. Fail is written all over this:
I never thought I would say this, but I will not be seeing the next Spider-man movie. But Sony's done it. Fail is written all over this:
In a back story twist reminiscent of the evolution of "Superman" into "Smallville,"That right there should be enough. Of course Raimi is all class:
“Working on the Spider-Man movies was the experience of a lifetime for me," Raimi said in a statement. "While we were looking forward to doing a fourth one together, the studio and Marvel have a unique opportunity to take the franchise in a new direction, and I know they will do a terrific job."There is one shining ray of hope for the movie(emphasis mine):
After the cinematic abortion that was Spider-man 3 (almost as bad as X-3), I said I would give the Raimi crew another chance simply because of the brilliance of the first two. However, after this dick move by Sony, I vow that they shall not profit by me in this endeavor.
[it] will be produced by "Spider-Man" veterans Laura Ziskin and Avi Arad of Marvel Studios.
Blagojevich is (not?) Blacker Than Obama
By Wade
Sarah Palin may be a joke with air-time behind her now, but Blagojevich is a joke that stopped being funny a long time ago. I thought his disastrous appearance on the Daily Show was bad enough, but he and his hair are still finding their way into the headlines.
Remember Rod, the internet never forgets...
Also:
I wouldn't either.
Sarah Palin may be a joke with air-time behind her now, but Blagojevich is a joke that stopped being funny a long time ago. I thought his disastrous appearance on the Daily Show was bad enough, but he and his hair are still finding their way into the headlines.
[Blagojevich] said in his Esquire interview:
I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little Laundromat in a black community not far from where he lived...
"It was a very stupid thing to say," Blagojevich told Chicago station CBS 2 this morning. "Obviously, I'm not blacker than President Obama."
Remember Rod, the internet never forgets...
Also:
The White House had no official comment.
I wouldn't either.
Palin: Wrangled Rogue
By Wade
Sarah Palin signs multi-year deal with Fox news.
I'll give you all a moment to stop laughing.
Needless to say, this is certainly a rogue move for such a maverick non-quitter. I'll bet she even finishes her term, I mean contract, since she's a real down-to-earth town hall main street average real folksy American who is real.
Some liberals are rightly sad about this. I share Paul Begala's sentiments:
This tickled me, especially since, right before I saw this, I had just voted on a facebook poll asking if people would vote for Palin in 2012. What a joke she is.
Sarah Palin signs multi-year deal with Fox news.
I'll give you all a moment to stop laughing.
The former governor of Alaska has signed a multi-year deal with Fox News to serve as a contributor across all Fox News platforms...
Needless to say, this is certainly a rogue move for such a maverick non-quitter. I'll bet she even finishes her term, I mean contract, since she's a real down-to-earth town hall main street average real folksy American who is real.
Some liberals are rightly sad about this. I share Paul Begala's sentiments:
"I do think maybe it suggests, sadly for Democrats, that she might not be running," said Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Paul Begala. "Democrats ... are pretty confident they can defeat Sarah Palin. She's not going to beat Barack Obama."
This tickled me, especially since, right before I saw this, I had just voted on a facebook poll asking if people would vote for Palin in 2012. What a joke she is.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
All Eyes on Massachusetts
By Dave
It's looking like the senate race to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts has gotten a little close for comfort, and it has huge implications for health care reform. If Democrat Martha Coakley loses to Republican Scott Brown, Democrats will lose their 60th vote right at the 11th hour. To make matters more interesting, the polling is all over the map. The Boston Globe has a poll that shows Coakley up 15 points, PPP shows them nearly in a dead heat. Nate Silver gives an interpretation:
It's looking like the senate race to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts has gotten a little close for comfort, and it has huge implications for health care reform. If Democrat Martha Coakley loses to Republican Scott Brown, Democrats will lose their 60th vote right at the 11th hour. To make matters more interesting, the polling is all over the map. The Boston Globe has a poll that shows Coakley up 15 points, PPP shows them nearly in a dead heat. Nate Silver gives an interpretation:
All of the polls have positives and negatives. And any of them could be right.So, your guess is as good as mine. It sounds like Coakley has a reasonable chance of pulling this off, but it's not unthinkable that she won't. If she doesn't Democrats will either have to scramble to pass health care before Brown gets into office, which probably means the House will have to accept the Senate bill nearly as is. Or they will have to go back and see if they can pull in a Republican like Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
The average of the three polls shows Coakley up by 8 points. As I've written before, I would probably take "over" on that 8 percent number. Fundamentally, this is still Massachusetts, and unless the Democratic candidate has some sort of fatal flaw (Coakley is a bit boring, but that's hardly an unpardonable sin), it's just going to be a really heavy lift for the turnout to be lopsided enough to allow the Republican to prevail.
At the same time, while I'm taking the "over" on that 8 percent, I'm also taking the over on variance. Special elections are notoriously hard to predict. And we also seem to be at some weird sort of inflection point in the electoral cycle. You can point toward some evidence to make the case that the bottom is really falling out from Democrats, and you can point toward other evidence which suggests that the whole tea-party backlash, while not unimportant, is really just operating at the margins. So, I acknowledge that there is a fairly tangible shot of Brown winning -- higher than the 3-5 percent I assigned to him after seeing the Rasmussen poll, but lower than the 15-25 percent chance I gave him before seeing the Boston Globe result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)