Emmys 2006 - Opening Number (Part 1)

For those of you not sufficiently engrossed in celebrity self-congratulation you may not have heard about the bang up job Mr. O'Brien did hosting the 58th Annual Emmy Awards. Check it out (second part here) what I thought the best award show opening I can remember.

UPDATE: The links have been fixed.
|

A friend of mine, and co-Bonnaroo-er who works at CBS News in New York, just had an "investigative" video he put together placed on the CBS News website.

In it, he tries to find out what it takes to become a U.S. Open Ballperson. Does he make the cut? Find out.
|

This one is worthy of a duel post. Who's down for a potential car camping trip o'er labor day weekend? If you read this blog on a regular basis consider yourself invited. If the Indy crew shows interest we could arrange a southern/mid-illinois spot. Otherwise Wisconsin should not be ruled out. No major backpacking type shit, just the basic car camping.

Who's down?
|

My friend Ross reminded me off this absolutely hilarious send up of Ready.gov, the government's brilliant homeland security outreach website. In the tradition of colorful pictures paired with authoritative instructions, this little ditty comes up with hilarious captions for the actual pictures used to help instruct you what to do in case of terrorist attack.

The first two:

If you have set yourself on fire, do not run.










If you spot terrorism, blow your anti-terrorism whitsle. If you are Vin Diesel, yell really loudly.
|

I remember briefly discussing with Nowak, why he (and eventually myself when I got around to seeing it), actually liked Cameron Crowe's borrowed film Vanilla Sky. Speaking for myself, I think it was superbly executed, even if largely plagiarized. But for Steve, it asked a question with no objective answer -- one that sublimely pits human cognition against human experience.

David Friedman reminds me of a thought experiment posed by Robert Nozick in his seminal Anarchy, State and Utopia. Quoting:

Someone invents an experience machine; get into it and you will have a fully convincing illusion of experience. Somehow, the inventor figures out about what your life is going to be like and makes you the following offer:

Get into my experience machine, spend the rest of your life there, and I will give you the illusion of a life slightly better than the one you would otherwise live. Your average income in the illusion will be a few thousand dollars higher than it would have been in reality, your wife a little prettier, your children slightly better behaved, your promotions just a little prompter. Your illusory summers won't be quite as hot, or winters quite as cold.

Assume you believe his offer. Do you accept it? If not, why not?

Tyler Cowen takes issue with his formulation: the machine provides a much better life. Say the improvements run a continuum. At what point do you say yes? Suppose, like in the movie, you can pay more to have a better experience (again, along a whole spectrum). How much would you be willing to pay? How much should you be willing to pay?
|