My wife and I went to see Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy last night. Some impressions:

• We went to the 7:00 showing at Cinerama. The house was packed with a hardcore geek crowd. I remember thinking that half of these guys—overweight and pony-tailed—could be models for the comic book store owner in The Simpsons. Personally, I love this. It was nice to watch a movie like H2G2 with a truly appreciative crowd. When “For Douglas” flashed on the screen at the end of the movie, the audience let out a heartfelt cheer.


• I thought I was the only one pissed at George Lucas. Guess not. When the trailer for Episode III came on, there were equal parts cheering and booing, and one very loud, “You suck, George Lucas!” from the gentleman in front of us. Hope you sell a lot of toys, George.


• My wife has not read the books and enjoyed the film. And why not? Who wouldn’t love Sam Rockwell and Alan Rickman?


• As a long-time Douglas Adams fan, I found lots to enjoy, but also many filmmaking decisions that puzzled and frustrated me. It’s no wonder that the film took so long to get produced, because Hitchhikers is in no way the stuff of standard Hollywood fare. It’s meandering, philosophical, and a bit wistful. And damn funny. It’s not a love story, and I think that by trying to make it one, the story lost its center.


• If you’re a real fan, I’m not sure what you’ll gain by seeing the movie. The radio and tv series were much better adaptations. In fact, I’m not even sure what the big deal is about making any great book into a movie. The two media are completely different, and so much has to be lost in the translation from the page to the screen. It’s kind of like saying, “Hey, you like pizza? Well you’re going to love this pizza-flavored corn chip.” I might, but it’s not the same thing.

There was a lovely tribute to Douglas Adams from the folks at IGN FilmForce. It’s worth a read, even if you’re not a fan. The way the folks who knew him talk about him… well, I’d be proud to leave such a legacy.

I have been increasingly concerned by attacks on judges, both physical and philosophical. The squealing about so-called “judicial activism” has been particularly appalling. Those who declaim liberals as “America-haters” seem to themselves have a vulgar contempt for America’s institutions. See also:

• In Contempt of Courts – Max Blumenthal visits the “Confronting the War on Faith” conference.

• Oliver Willis collects some of the Right’s more egregious anti-judiciary quotes.

I was listening to the podcast of the April 8th edition of NPR’s On The Media today, and just had to retch at the interview with John Stossel. The 20/20 anchor was on the program to defend the side of the “Global Warming Is Nonsense” contingent. Here are a couple of exchanges that brought me up short:

BROOKE GLADSTONE: You don’t believe that is the case [that the vast majority of scientists believe that global warming poses a serious danger]. The consensus seems to be clear. Why don’t you believe it?

JOHN STOSSEL: Because scientists tell me that the people writing the alarmist reports do not reflect the majority of scientists who really understand it; that the way you characterize it is not the way I’ve heard good scientists characterize it; and that the idea and the tone of voice you use is very telling – it’s saying “Yes, there’s a crisis. How can you refute that? You’re such a jerk.”

Really? Which scientists? Stossel never says, and Gladstone never asks. She’s diverted effectively by his whine that she’s pre-judging him, but instead of taking it like a man and countering her with evidence, he just complains that she’s implying that he’s a jerk.

Look, maybe it’s true that Stossel’s contacts in the scientific community are right to pooh-pooh the evidence. I’m willing to hear them out. But how are we to know or judge their claims without knowing who they are or why they believe the way they do. This is sloppy he-said, she-said journalism, completely unenlightening and not at all informative. Stossel’s rhetoric is hollow; it just sounds like he’s making a point.

But here’s the thing that really almost made me throw my iPod against the wall. Keep in mind here that Chrichton has been belittling environmental science of late…

BROOKE GLADSTONE: In December, you featured novelist Michael Crichton on 20/20, and you praised him for contradicting something most people believe and fear. You went on to say that environmental organizations are fomenting false fears in order to promote agendas and raise money. Why use a fiction writer to refute the scientific community?

JOHN STOSSEL: Because he’s famous, and he’s interesting, and he’s smart, and he writes books that lots of people read, and I could interview the scientists for 20/20, but more people will pay attention when this particular smart fiction writer says it.

Sweet Jeebus, John… do you hear yourself? You’ve just told us that you don’t particularly care about Crichton’s scientific credentials or the worthiness of his argument. All you care about is that he’s famous. That response tells me more about your character and values than anything about the nature of your argument. I think it’s the stupidest, most baldly cynical thing I’ve ever heard anyone in the media say… and that’s saying something.

Don’t know if I get a vote in this, but Stossel’s my choice for Wanker of the Week.

I’m getting really tired of this debate. Are bloggers journalists? Isn’t that kind of like asking, Is a car a murder weapon? Are all priests pedophiles? Are all journalists vapid jagoffs?

Are bloggers journalists? The answer is, of course, “It depends.” Some bloggers are journalists because some journalists blog. But having a blog doesn’t make you a journalist, any more than owning a gun makes you a murderer. A blog is a type of web page, usually enabled by a particular type of software which allows you to post anything you want, from pictures to links to incoherent rants to real reporting. A blog is what you make it, and whether a blogger is a journalist depends on the substance of the content, not the form it takes.

Of course, it’s easy to see how those in the media could have lost sight of this fact over the years. The media have built themselves a nice little bubble house, inside which they can tell themselves that anything they do is fascinating and interesting and worthwhile. Anything they do is news, they seem to think, because it’s presented as if it were news. Adopt a certain tone of voice or style of writing and you can make the most trival drivel appear to be Serious Stuff. But 95% of it is a pile of crap with an expensive haircut.

The real question ought to be, Are journalists journalists? Are you a journalist just because you’re on television? Are you a journalist just because you get published? Is that all it takes, or is there more to it?

Continuing to clean out my virtual notebook with a bunch of links from the tech world.

• Take a trip down 16K-memory lane with these scans of print ads for classic computers from Altos to Zenith.

• De.lirio.us is a social bookmarking clone of del.icio.us. The main differences seem to be the capacity for longer notes, annoying videos built in to the posts, and an open code base. I’m not inclined to switch from del.icio.us after already committing so many bookmarks to that site, but perhaps there’ll be some way to share links between the sites. It does seem like it might be useful to use Delirious as an alternate site for finding stuff I’m interested in. I’ve already found a few very cool sites by browsing through the tags. If you haven’t tried a social bookmarking site yet, I do highly recommend del.icio.us. Check out John Udell’s screencast to learn more about what it is and how to use it. Also, Beelerspace offers a nice tutorial for Del.icio.us beginners.

• Alright, Windows users. I know you’re tired of Mac fanatics, but this article by Mary Stamper on her conversion to the Mac world is one of the most lucid, cogent, and accurate pieces I’ve ever read on just what’s wrong with Windows and what’s right with the Mac.

• I’ve just discovered MyBlogLog.com, and I love it. For those of you with blogs, MyBlogLog is an enhancement to the stats from your web host, in that it shows you which links your visitors are clicking on from your site. It’s dead easy to get started, too. Just sign up for an account, drop a line of java script in your blog template and start obsessively checking the MyBlogLog page.

• If you haven’t noticed yet, Google has added movie times and reviews to their search results. In the Google search field, just enter “movie:” and a movie title and zip code to find show times in your area. “Movie:” and a zip code will give you a complete list of movies and showtimes in the area. (via Slashdot)

• Speaking of Google, Gizoogle is good for a chuckle or two. Gizoogle (tag line: Fo all you beotches who wanna find shiznit) translates any site on the web into hip-hop. Word.

• And, speaking of Google and Word, the Google Tutor and Advisor tutors and advises us on just what the heck Google Print is anyway.

• Oh, what the heck. Let’s just make this a whole Google subsection. Google’s mail service, Gmail (ask me for an invite!), just upgraded its free storage space to 2 Gigs. They also seem to imply that, as you need it, you’ll be able to have as much more storage as you like. I wouldn’t have thought this necessary for any normal humans, but one of my co-workers who apparently never throws an email away has over 9G of archived email. Imagine if it was all instantly searchable! Anyway, for those of you who’ve been hesitating, check Grant McCracken’s blog post about his conversion to Gmail. He’s hooked, and so am I!

• Web-based, sharable lists, from the makers of Basecamp.

• Via BoingBoing, we found this link to an interview with Jeff Hawkins, founder of Palm Computing. I had no idea Hawkins also studied brain theory. His new company and his thoughts on computing are very stimulating.

• Via Slashdot, here’s an interview with Mac developer Jonathan Rentzsch. 90% of it is over my head, but I still loved reading it for the insight on the coding world and the dev’s perspective on the Mac OS. Lots of good stuff here.

• Wikimedia’s new venture, WikiCities, hosts community wikis for hobbyists, professionals, organizations, and more.