Things that made me laugh today
August 10, 2006 - 02:09 PM
I've been absent from the blogging circuit for quite a while — what else is new. Here's some true web logging for you - things I chuckled at today:Orson Scott Card, reviewing the Reeves/Bullock flick Lake House:
Reeves and Bullock are wonderful in this kind of role. ... They feel like real people you might actually meet somewhere and talk to...
In fact, I almost started calling them Keanu and Sandra, as if I knew them personally. I don't. (I'm a writer. Writers are not encouraged to meet actors. It makes the writers feel ugly and the actors feel stupid, thereby making everybody miserable. Plus, if the actors and writers actually talked to each other regularly, people might notice how unnecessary most directors are, since most film performances come entirely from the actors' interactions with the writers' words.)
Scott Adams, on Israel and Hizbollah:
It's a strange little war in the sense that neither side can win, and they both know it. Hizbollah can't destroy Israel and Israel can't destroy Hizbollah. And neither side can afford to give up. So in the meantime, since no one can win or lose, they settle for killing as many random civilians as possible because that's one thing they can do. The thinking, I gather, is that killing random people and never winning is still better than doing nothing and looking weak. ...
If the warring parties don't like [my] peace plan, my other idea is to let God decide directly who should get Israel. For example, you could put the leader of Hizbollah and the Prime Minister of Israel in a cage with Sigfried and Roy's tiger and let God decide which one the tiger eats first. It's stupid, but again, not THAT much worse than the current method.
Blogger David Foster, commenting on a post by blogger Philip Greenspun (pointed to by Overlawyered):
Clearly, there is some number of lawyers, L, which represents an optimum from the standpoint of the overall economy. It isn't zero, because then there would be no one to draft and adjudicate contracts, conduct criminal proceedings, etc, but it isn't 10 million, either.
My sense is that the number of lawyers is now considerably greater than L, and thus each incremental lawyer graduated represents a reduction in overall national productivity.