Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Random Book Review - Rome: A Cultural, Visual and Personal History

Author: Robert Hughes
Released: 2011
Format reviewed: Hardcover (library copy)
Pages of content: 383
Rating: 5/5

Rome: A Cultural, Visual and Personal History is a fantastic exploration of the Eternal City's 2777 years (and counting) of history by the Australian-born but mostly America-dwelling Robert Hughes.  It is not a comprehensive history, of course.  Any one century of Rome's history could easily fill a book, and many single years are worthy of such treatment.  But the author covers the full extent, from the mythical founding through the cultural wasteland of the Berlusconi era.

All of the expected highlights are included - Roman emperors, Catholic popes, Renaissance painters, Baroque architects, and more.  A full chapter is devoted to the transition from paganism to Christianity, and another on the emergence of Italy as a modern state.  The later also provides some insights into the enduring north-south divide that I had not encountered before.  In other chapters art and artists are the main focus.  Bernini is the subject half of a chapter, the most of any individual creator.  Elsewhere, the author runs through several schools of lesser artists in the same space.  Most of the chapters are fairly upbeat, but the final two on Fascism and on the post-WW2 era less so.  The former is for obvious reasons, but latter is less so.  The author finds modern Rome basically bereft of interesting new art of the kind he likes - painting, sculpture, and architecture.  He does mention the brief flourishing of Italian film from the '40s through the '60s, but finds the cultural output of the capital city since then to be lacking.  I don't think that should be surprising, because the vast self-aggrandizing wealth of the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church are both long gone.  The notable high art production that exists in modern Italy mostly occurs in the northern cities like Milan, where the country's wealth is concentrated.

The book concludes on an even more sour note, as the author's complaints about over-tourism fill most of the epilogue.  He's not wrong, but he also doesn't have a solution for what is now a globally recognized problem.  Perhaps there is no good way to balance the personal benefits of incomes rising across the globe, which enable vastly more people to at least temporarily escape their daily drudgery through visiting world-class art, and the hard physical limits of something like the Sistine Chapel, which is only about 130 ft by 44 ft (40 by 13 French units) minus any restrictions to protect the space.  The glibertarian/neoliberal response of pricing everything to the point of diminishing returns would be effective, but would also act to attract even more rich people who are simply hoarding exclusive luxury experiences, and exclude people for whom the art or destination in question actually has significant emotional, cultural, and/or educational value.

That vexing question is certainly not a reason to skip the book, as it is wonderfully well-written.  The author effortless switches between art criticism to biographic sketches to political history, and makes all of many topics he touches seem interesting.  It is also supplemented with two sets of full-color plates, which include many of the paintings, sculptures, and buildings mentioned in the text.  I am not a historian or art critic, so as with most of my reviews I am not able to assess whether the book is factually accurate, or if this one provides good interpretations of history and art.  But it is a great read, and a good introduction to what is arguably the most important city in European history.

Thursday, January 30, 2025

Random Media Review: Star Trek Picard, Season 1

Producer: Michael Chabon
Released: 2020
Format reviewed: DVD (library copy)
Episodes: 10 episodes
Rating: 1/5

As with most things cultural, I am well behind on my Star Trek viewing.  I tried watching the third season several months ago when it was first released on DVD, but I did not like the first episode at all and stopped there.  Nonetheless, for some reason, as I was browsing in the library the other day, I impulsively grabbed the first season of this show despite the many negative reviews.  It was a bad decision.

Star Trek: Picard S1 is an awful show on many levels.  The story, at its core, is a retread of themes already explored in previous series, but without anything remotely like a new perspective.  The plot as written isn't enough to fill more than two or three classic Trek episodes, but nonetheless it is stretched out over 10 episodes.  The new characters are uninteresting and underdeveloped.  The old interesting characters are made dull.  The dialogue is forced and awkward.  The emotional moments are unearned.  The rousing speeches are boring and trite.  The endless 'member-berries are infuriating.  Conventions about space travel - distances and times - which were well establish in TNG, DS9, and VOY, are discarded.  The actors are poorly directed.  The 3D ship interfaces are unnecessary and distracting.  The early pacing is overly slow, and the ending is rushed.  And on and on and on.

The only positive aspects of the show are some of the visual elements.  Unlike other recent productions, the audience is actually treated to a decent amount of color.  At times it is a little over-saturated for my taste, but at least it is there when appropriate.  Many of the sets are attractive and seem quite real due to them being well-filled with props and detailed surfacing.  And while I don't really care for the 3D interfaces that have everyone tapping in the air constantly, they do seem plausible.  The CGI also looks fairly good, even if the ships and other design elements aren't great.  But a lot of the camerawork is too close, and the number of camera changes within scenes often makes them lose cohesion.

Basically, if you are a classic Trek fan, there is no reason to watch this show.  It has characters most classic fans want more of - Picard, Data, Seven of Nine, even Riker and Troi - but all of them are given absolutely atrocious dialogue.  In the case of Seven, the character is actively regressed and degraded from what we knew of her at the end of VOY.  And Picard's development is disappointing as well.  I now see why the reviews (at least from people I trust) were so negative.  This is a bad season of television that nobody should waste time consuming.  It should be purged from the Star Trek cannon as soon as possible, and the creators blacklisted from the franchise.

Tuesday, January 7, 2025

2024 Fitness Results

While 2024 was horrible for the world in many ways, for my own selfish self it was a decent year in the pursuit of fitness.

(data in freedom units)  2024-01-01   2025-01-05   2025 Goal 
Weight 172.6 171.4 168
Body Fat % (est.) 39% 36% 32%
Workouts per week 3 6 6
Average workouts per week - 4.28 5.5
Miles walked per week 9 31 30
Biceps 13 13 14
Chest 39 40 40
Waist 38 37 36
Thighs 21 22 23
Calves 16 16 15
Pullups 0 0 1

While I would like the top-line weight number to have moved more, I did "recomp" to a fair degree.  The body fat percentage numbers are guesses, but I can feel and see substantial differences in several muscles, including side deltoids, trapezius, and pectorals.  At the same time, the amount of excess flesh around my torso decreased visibly.  I hope to see substantial muscle gains in my thighs and upper arms this year.

In addition, the amount of exercise I am able to do each week increased substantially, with the number of workouts doubling and the typical walking mileage tripling.  While the actual statistics are not terribly impressive compared to fit people, I have had several health issues in the past six years, including: frozen shoulder in 2019, what may have been COVID in March 2020, possible long COVID in late 2020, another frozen shoulder in 2021, and probable Lyme disease in 2022.  The frozen shoulders led to considerable loss of muscle mass in my upper body, while the long COVID and the Lyme disease led to general exhaustion for several months.  It is only in the past six months that my exercise capacity has reached an acceptable level.  Also, I'm well over 50 now.  That doesn't make getting fitter any easier.

Anyway, the general plan for this year is below.  Like any battle plan, it will change when new conditions arise.

 Day/Activity   Workout   Walking 
Monday Upper, 50 minutes 6-7 miles
Tuesday Lower, 50 minutes 4-5 miles
Wednesday Upper, 50 minutes 4-5 miles
Thursday Cycling intervals, 40 minutes 4-5 miles
Friday Upper, 50 minutes 4-5 miles
Saturday Lower, 50 minutes 4-5 miles
Sunday
optional

Thursday, July 18, 2024

Bottoming Out or Approaching the Edge?

Apparently we're entering crunch time in the Dump Biden saga.  Biden, unfortunately, has caught COVID-19, taking him off the campaign trail for several days.  That has created another lever for those who are trying to get rid of Biden to use against him.  Apparently there are rumors "major donors" are now threatening to take their money away if he stays in, and as a result he is about to fold.  Of course, I am getting these rumors 3rd- or 4th- or 5th- or 27th-hand, so I have no way to verify them or what Biden's actual thinking is at the moment.  I'm just reacting to the flow of (potential) bullshit in my information streams.

Let me clear: I have thought Dump Biden has been a hit on Biden since day one.  There is not an organic groundswell among the Democratic primary voters based on the 6/28 debate to change who they selected in 50+ primaries.  This is a top-down, rich male-driven attack that does not have the country's best interest in mind,* blasted through a media that is owned by many of the same people but that also has its own parallel interests.  It's a one-way bet for both groups - either they cripple Biden and Trump wins, or they get a shitty replacement and Trump wins, or they get the exact replacement they (and not the Democratic base) want and that person wins, and is beholden to them.  Even Harris, if she survives this putsch and is the replacement candidate, may feel obligated to them (though I would like to think not), or at least very intimidated by what they just accomplished.  No matter the outcome, rich males will get tax cuts and the media will get a controversial, click-bait-ready president.  Everybody else will lose.

I very strongly prefer that Biden stays in.  I believe he can beat Trump - or at least could have beaten Trump before the hit on him was ordered.  Things have gotten murkier since the media blitz against Biden began, and the attempted assassination of Trump did not help.  Biden may be irreparably damaged among low-info swing voters who don't know much but do respond to the general tone of media coverage.  Of course, if the media decided to stop putting its thumb on one side of the scale and try the other one for a change, those swing voters would pick up different vibes.  That won't happen, especially now.  But it's also not clear to me that a replacement will suddenly surge in the polls, even with good vibes from the temporarily placated media.  For better or worse, even if the replacement is Johnny Unbeatable, some segment of the Democratic coalition will be bitter about what has transpired, rendering ole' Johnny eminently beatable.

No matter how it occurs, or why, any replacement for Biden other than Harris is absolutely unacceptable.  I will not accept "major donors" controlling the party in that way.  Yes, it may play into their hands if I don't vote for president.  And yes, I am a straight white male, albeit a poor one.  But I believe in democracy, and even if the Democratic Party's selection process is flawed, it is still little-d democratic, and should be respected.  If the Democratic Party won't stand for democracy within its own processes, what will it stand for at all?

So, we may be reaching an inflection point.  Or not.  I certainly don't know.  Whatever happens, it's going to be jarring for someone.

* I have ideas about the composition of this group which are circumstantially strong but otherwise unsubstantiated, so I won't publish them.

Sunday, July 7, 2024

Blimey, Frenchies

French voters have just confounded both polling and the analysts by electing a somewhat more left-wing Assembly in the latest legislative election.  As in the 2024 UK general election, voters shifted away from the center and somewhat to the right, but due the geographic distribution of the vote, the left-leaning party (actually a coalition of parties) New Popular Front (NFP) made significant gains.  The main loser was the centrist President Emmanuel Macron, the head of Ensemble (ENS) who, in a classic case of being out of touch with the citizens, decided to call a snap election in response to the strong showing by the far-right (and possibly crypto-fascist) National Rally (RN) in European parliamentary elections.  The results from that election (in France) were not good, but EU elections are often venue where voters in various countries make a domestic protest vote, because the connection between EU governance and the average voter in EU countries is weak at best.  Nonetheless, Macron called an unnecessary election in order to basically berate French voters for making a protest vote in response to his unpopular government.  Initially, that looked like a bad idea, as RN led in the polls.  However, the outcome was a significantly different, as NFP won the most seats.

As in the UK, vote efficiency mattered significantly for the results.  French legislative elections are not strictly first-past-the-post (FPTP), but use a more complicated system (naturallement) where a candidate can win in a first round with over 50% of the vote, but a second round is held if there is no winner.  In that case, only candidates receiving 12.5% of the vote in the first round can advance.  The second round, however, is FPTP.  Voters in both France and the UK understand tactical voting, as do the parties, and in both elections the center and the left agreed to withdraw competing candidates in various seats (though it should be noted that Macron was hesitant about doing so, and his party subordinates revolted).  And in both France and the UK, the right-wing vote ended up being distributed inefficiently relative to other groupings in part because of tactical voting.

I've embedded a spreadsheet below that has the gory statistical details, but the summary is this: NFP earned a seat for approximately ever 89,000 votes, whereas RN earned a seat for every 144,000.*  Overall, right-wing parties picked up about 45% of the vote, but received just 36% of the seats.  The left got 30% and 33% respectively, while the center got 24% and 29%.  (<2% went to other assorted parties.)  Macron had previously appointed a minority government (France's governmental system is overly complicated, but that's the gist of what happened) based on the 43% of seats held by his party and his allies.  After this election, however, he will most likely (again, complicated) appoint someone from the left as Prime Minister.

As in the UK, the French should celebrate the outcome of their election, but nobody on the left or center in either state should be complacent for a moment about turning back the rising right-wing forces in their country.  The voters as a whole are moving in the wrong direction.  Macron may have slowed RN's momentum, but as of now there's no indication that will last.  The French center and French left will have to cooperate and prove the French government can work, or RN will make further gains.

* Note that this is the total of first and second round votes.  A more accurate analysis would take just the votes from the winning round, but I suspect the general point - RN had poor efficiency - would remain. 



Friday, July 5, 2024

Blimey, Limeys

My almost entirely uniformed take on the UK election results is that the while the party distribution in Whitehall shifted significantly to the left, British voters actually shifted away from the center and somewhat to the right.  The Labour Party of 2024 is not (for better or worse) Labour of 2019, and has shifted to the right while it rebuilt its appearance of competency and even-handedness.  On the whole, it picked up more voters on the right than it lost on the left, but the fact that it received roughly the same percentage of the vote as in 2019 can't be ignored.  And almost a sixth of the seats that it picked up came from the complete collapse (due to incompetency in the devolved government, and internal party issues) of the Scottish National Party, which has generally offered a very similar economic program to Labour.  The Green Party and assorted left-leaning independents picked up several seats, mostly from Labour, but also had a few oddball wins over Conservatives.  The Liberal Democrats rose from near death to capture the center by attracting center-right Conservative voters who couldn't stand the incompetency of the past few years, but who also would never vote for Labour or Reform.  However, its vote share was little changed as well, and like Labour, LibDem votes were distributed efficiently.  Reform UK - which should be "Reform", since it is more interested in revolution than reform - didn't capture many seats but did attract a huge protest/repudiation vote from people who thought that the Conservatives failed to deliver on the promises of Brexit and knew that the Conservatives failed to halt immigration.  And finally, the Conservatives collapsed, losing almost 44 percent of their 2019 vote share.  The punishment was entirely deserved given how poorly the party governed from 2010 to 2024.

If the Conservative and Reform votes were combined - as might be the case if the UK didn't use an archaic FPTP standard for parliamentary elections - the right-wing vote would exceed that of Labour.  That would leave LibDem voters as kingmakers, and given that the LibDems mostly captured seats from the Conservatives, the overall 2024 vote was more conservative than the outcome.  However, the UK system rewards "efficiency" - meaning that it rewards distributing enough votes to come in first across as many constituencies as possible, not the overall number of votes nationwide.  Given that the right-leaning vote was split 2 or 3 ways, Labour was the most efficient party in the election, and thus won the seat count handily.  (I'll have another post in a few days with the details of the vote distribution.)

Despite what some in America may hope, the Labour victory on 7/4/24 provides no lessons for Democrats beyond a generic "look competent", which Democrats should already know.  The dynamics are just too different this time for anything else to apply.

Friday, June 28, 2024

Predetermined

Unsurprisingly, a consensus emerged when given the opportunity.

 
I hope those people get what they are asking for, even if they don't understand what they've requested.