When I first saw Clerks I thought, "wow, look what you can do with $30,000."

Tonight I watched Primer, which cost $7,000 and is all around a much more impressive film. The plot is incomprehensibly dense at the end, but the filmmaking is deft and the quality high. I hope Shane Carruth -- the writer/director/lead actor -- is able to really put a lot more into his next project.

I won't even try to get into what the film is about except to say that it's a movie with no special effects about time travel. Reminded me of Pi, but without being so aggressively artistic. The way in which the pace and style captures the life of engineers and techies at work is really quite endearing (Carruth was really an engineer apparently) and the manner in which the whole thing plays out is reminiscent of the work of the great Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky.

The film is about 1:15, and you can get it off Netflix. I liked it enough to look for the filmmaker's email in the WHOIS record for the movie's website and send fan mail. Strongly recommend.

One of the major drags on my soul is the energy situation. The thermodynamics of our economy are not sustainable, and we're getting to the point where the primary engines of our wealth are going to quite literally run out of gas. There's a terrible poverty of ideas within the establishment when it comes to addressing this or any other problem, and it's been really getting me down lately. But today I found a few things that brightened my mood considerably. First a little background.

Oil is not going to get cheaper. This will completely undermine our way of life and lead to a massive global depression unless we either learn to get by with less energy or find new sources. We're not getting by with less or even the same amount of energy. While we could do this if we had the will in America, the developing world (in particular India and China) are going to keep increasing their energy consumption rapidly until either they've brought 40 to 50% of their population out of serfdom or there's a massive catastrophy. So new sources of energy must be found.

We need to look seriously at our energy policies with an eye towards real solutions that can change things in the next few decades. The "hydrogen economy" is not a real answer, nor is any other proposal that doesn't work with the infrastructure we have.

Which is what? Cars are not going away. Too much has been invested in sprawling development. This is something that needs to change -- whether it's the New Urbanism or something else -- but we have to acknowledge the physical reality that exists. People need to drive in order to work and to acquire food, to get children to/from school, and so on. While I think revitalizing the notion of "urban planning" (as we're doing really well in some places) and pushing public transportation and alternatives like biking are important, we have to recognize that any solution which tries to remove the automobile from the center of American life in less than 50 years is unrealistic.

So we have all these vehicles and the repair infrastructure to support them, as well as a massive system for distributing liquid fuel. An increasingly popular answer given this is to migrate to hybrid electric engines -- which take advantage of more of our existing repair infrastructure than fuel cells, which require very different technical knowledge to maintain -- and use BioDiesel as a fuel source.

It sounds nice, but I've been very suspicious of the scalability. Most of the projects to create BioDiesel use an existing commercial food crop -- usually soybeans -- to extract the oils needed to make fuel. This is not a good option because those crops are already net-loosers of petroleum energy in current production, largely because of fertilizers. So unless you have a plan to get ADM to convert it's whole operation to organic and also shut down the existing business lines which use soya, we're not getting enough biodiesel to power America from there.

Here's a quick aside. When this topic comes up, do not, I repeat not, suggest hemp. I like that plant as much as the next guy, but for fairly obvious reasons it's not going to happen, ok? It's also not a great producer for BioDiesel. For paper and other fibers, yes, but it's not very rich in oils, which is what you need.

However, today I cought a link to a really encouraging article about using Algae as source biomass for BioDiesel. This is the first time I've seen someone make an effort to think about what it would take to produce enough fuel to meet our energy needs nationwide. It's much more of a thought-experiment than a research piece, but it seems rather conservative in its estimations. It gave me some new hope that solutions exist.

Essentially we can take advantage of sewage and agricultural runoff (aka shit) to grow species of algae which are oil-rich, then use the algae to make BioDiesel. It seems like the kind of system that could work. It doesn't require reconfiguring an existing industry and the major infrastructure needed is just shallow ponds which can capture nitrogen-rich waste. And refineries. There's that. But it seems like a plausible answer both scientifically, economically and politically.

Incidentally, I cought the link from the discussion in this Kos post from Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, talking about his idea for converting coal directly into liquid fuel, which is another very interesting option. An important aspect of tis "SynFuel" idea is that it will work in non-diesel engines, which are what most regular people drive. While some of what he says sounds too good to be true, the thrust of things is that SynFuel will release less CO2 compared to gasoline because much of the carbon can be "sequestered" (e.g. diverted into solid or liquid form) in the process of refining. While you still have to deal with this sequestered carbon, better to bury it than release it into the atmosphere. Even at double the cost figure he quotes ($35 a barrel) this is a step forward from where we are.

As the Apollo Alliance has been saying for a while (and not getting any traction... switch gears guys! seize the day!) one of the major benefits of reconfiguring our energy policy is not just to secure the fuel to run our economy, but to make the production of that fuel something that working Americans benefit from again. As it stands, nearly $200B a year leaves the us to pay for crude oil, not to mention the cost of the military entanglements this brings. Personally I'd be happy to let Red China prop up the Saudis by buying their oil. Let's re-invest those $200B here at home. This would also provide us with the geopolitical mobility to pull our troops out of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East because we wouldn't need to enforce the kind of stagnant status quo to protect our energy lifeline.

This is a big idea. It's a call for progressive reform based not on some moral notion of social justice, but quite literally on our future survival. It's something I think people will respond well to (90% percent of people are worried about foreign oil and want the government to take action) if we really get serious and innovative. I'm really glad to see Schweitzer putting this on the radar. He's one of a new generation of political leaders who are actually concerned with good government and willing to think outside the box. He's also miles ahead of Establishment Democrats in how to connect to the American people; reminiscent of my man Howard Dean in those respects, really.

I find my mind returning again and again to energy as a touchstone issue. So I'm going to work on it. This is how I do. It's part of what I want to write about: how it can be. Unless we popularize these ideas and this scale of pragmatic thinking, the small-minded and risk-averse business-as-usual mindset will prevail.

One of the major drags on my soul is the energy situation. The thermodynamics of our economy are not sustainable, and we're getting to the point where the primary engines of our wealth are going to quite literally run out of gas. There's a terrible poverty of ideas within the establishment when it comes to addressing this or any other problem, and it's been really getting me down lately. But today I found a few things that brightened my mood considerably. First a little background.

Oil is not going to get cheaper. This will completely undermine our way of life and lead to a massive global depression unless we either learn to get by with less energy or find new sources. We're not getting by with less or even the same amount of energy. While we could do this if we had the will in America, the developing world (in particular India and China) are going to keep increasing their energy consumption rapidly until either they've brought 40 to 50% of their population out of serfdom or there's a massive catastrophy. So new sources of energy must be found.

We need to look seriously at our energy policies with an eye towards real solutions that can change things in the next few decades. The "hydrogen economy" is not a real answer, nor is any other proposal that doesn't work with the infrastructure we have.

Which is what? Cars are not going away. Too much has been invested in sprawling development. This is something that needs to change -- whether it's the New Urbanism or something else -- but we have to acknowledge the physical reality that exists. People need to drive in order to work and to acquire food, to get children to/from school, and so on. While I think revitalizing the notion of "urban planning" (as we're doing really well in some places) and pushing public transportation and alternatives like biking are important, we have to recognize that any solution which tries to remove the automobile from the center of American life in less than 50 years is unrealistic.

So we have all these vehicles and the repair infrastructure to support them, as well as a massive system for distributing liquid fuel. An increasingly popular answer given this is to migrate to hybrid electric engines -- which take advantage of more of our existing repair infrastructure than fuel cells, which require very different technical knowledge to maintain -- and use BioDiesel as a fuel source.

It sounds nice, but I've been very suspicious of the scalability. Most of the projects to create BioDiesel use an existing commercial food crop -- usually soybeans -- to extract the oils needed to make fuel. This is not a good option because those crops are already net-loosers of petroleum energy in current production, largely because of fertilizers. So unless you have a plan to get ADM to convert it's whole operation to organic and also shut down the existing business lines which use soya, we're not getting enough biodiesel to power America from there.

Here's a quick aside. When this topic comes up, do not, I repeat not, suggest hemp. I like that plant as much as the next guy, but for fairly obvious reasons it's not going to happen, ok? It's also not a great producer for BioDiesel. For paper and other fibers, yes, but it's not very rich in oils, which is what you need.

However, today I cought a link to a really encouraging article about using Algae as source biomass for BioDiesel. This is the first time I've seen someone make an effort to think about what it would take to produce enough fuel to meet our energy needs nationwide. It's much more of a thought-experiment than a research piece, but it seems rather conservative in its estimations. It gave me some new hope that solutions exist.

Essentially we can take advantage of sewage and agricultural runoff (aka shit) to grow species of algae which are oil-rich, then use the algae to make BioDiesel. It seems like the kind of system that could work. It doesn't require reconfiguring an existing industry and the major infrastructure needed is just shallow ponds which can capture nitrogen-rich waste. And refineries. There's that. But it seems like a plausible answer both scientifically, economically and politically.

Incidentally, I cought the link from the discussion in this Kos post from Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, talking about his idea for converting coal directly into liquid fuel, which is another very interesting option. An important aspect of tis "SynFuel" idea is that it will work in non-diesel engines, which are what most regular people drive. While some of what he says sounds too good to be true, the thrust of things is that SynFuel will release less CO2 compared to gasoline because much of the carbon can be "sequestered" (e.g. diverted into solid or liquid form) in the process of refining. While you still have to deal with this sequestered carbon, better to bury it than release it into the atmosphere. Even at double the cost figure he quotes ($35 a barrel) this is a step forward from where we are.

As the Apollo Alliance has been saying for a while (and not getting any traction... switch gears guys! seize the day!) one of the major benefits of reconfiguring our energy policy is not just to secure the fuel to run our economy, but to make the production of that fuel something that working Americans benefit from again. As it stands, nearly $200B a year leaves the us to pay for crude oil, not to mention the cost of the military entanglements this brings. Personally I'd be happy to let Red China prop up the Saudis by buying their oil. Let's re-invest those $200B here at home. This would also provide us with the geopolitical mobility to pull our troops out of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East because we wouldn't need to enforce the kind of stagnant status quo to protect our energy lifeline.

This is a big idea. It's a call for progressive reform based not on some moral notion of social justice, but quite literally on our future survival. It's something I think people will respond well to (90% percent of people are worried about foreign oil and want the government to take action) if we really get serious and innovative. I'm really glad to see Schweitzer putting this on the radar. He's one of a new generation of political leaders who are actually concerned with good government and willing to think outside the box. He's also miles ahead of Establishment Democrats in how to connect to the American people; reminiscent of my man Howard Dean in those respects, really.

I find my mind returning again and again to energy as a touchstone issue. So I'm going to work on it. This is how I do. It's part of what I want to write about: how it can be. Unless we popularize these ideas and this scale of pragmatic thinking, the small-minded and risk-averse business-as-usual mindset will prevail.

One of the major drags on my soul is the energy situation. The thermodynamics of our economy are not sustainable, and we're getting to the point where the primary engines of our wealth are going to quite literally run out of gas. There's a terrible poverty of ideas within the establishment when it comes to addressing this or any other problem, and it's been really getting me down lately. But today I found a few things that brightened my mood considerably. First a little background.

Oil is not going to get cheaper. This will completely undermine our way of life and lead to a massive global depression unless we either learn to get by with less energy or find new sources. We're not getting by with less or even the same amount of energy. While we could do this if we had the will in America, the developing world (in particular India and China) are going to keep increasing their energy consumption rapidly until either they've brought 40 to 50% of their population out of serfdom or there's a massive catastrophy. So new sources of energy must be found.

We need to look seriously at our energy policies with an eye towards real solutions that can change things in the next few decades. The "hydrogen economy" is not a real answer, nor is any other proposal that doesn't work with the infrastructure we have.

Which is what? Cars are not going away. Too much has been invested in sprawling development. This is something that needs to change -- whether it's the New Urbanism or something else -- but we have to acknowledge the physical reality that exists. People need to drive in order to work and to acquire food, to get children to/from school, and so on. While I think revitalizing the notion of "urban planning" (as we're doing really well in some places) and pushing public transportation and alternatives like biking are important, we have to recognize that any solution which tries to remove the automobile from the center of American life in less than 50 years is unrealistic.

So we have all these vehicles and the repair infrastructure to support them, as well as a massive system for distributing liquid fuel. An increasingly popular answer given this is to migrate to hybrid electric engines -- which take advantage of more of our existing repair infrastructure than fuel cells, which require very different technical knowledge to maintain -- and use BioDiesel as a fuel source.

It sounds nice, but I've been very suspicious of the scalability. Most of the projects to create BioDiesel use an existing commercial food crop -- usually soybeans -- to extract the oils needed to make fuel. This is not a good option because those crops are already net-loosers of petroleum energy in current production, largely because of fertilizers. So unless you have a plan to get ADM to convert it's whole operation to organic and also shut down the existing business lines which use soya, we're not getting enough biodiesel to power America from there.

Here's a quick aside. When this topic comes up, do not, I repeat not, suggest hemp. I like that plant as much as the next guy, but for fairly obvious reasons it's not going to happen, ok? It's also not a great producer for BioDiesel. For paper and other fibers, yes, but it's not very rich in oils, which is what you need.

However, today I cought a link to a really encouraging article about using Algae as source biomass for BioDiesel. This is the first time I've seen someone make an effort to think about what it would take to produce enough fuel to meet our energy needs nationwide. It's much more of a thought-experiment than a research piece, but it seems rather conservative in its estimations. It gave me some new hope that solutions exist.

Essentially we can take advantage of sewage and agricultural runoff (aka shit) to grow species of algae which are oil-rich, then use the algae to make BioDiesel. It seems like the kind of system that could work. It doesn't require reconfiguring an existing industry and the major infrastructure needed is just shallow ponds which can capture nitrogen-rich waste. And refineries. There's that. But it seems like a plausible answer both scientifically, economically and politically.

Incidentally, I cought the link from the discussion in this Kos post from Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, talking about his idea for converting coal directly into liquid fuel, which is another very interesting option. An important aspect of tis "SynFuel" idea is that it will work in non-diesel engines, which are what most regular people drive. While some of what he says sounds too good to be true, the thrust of things is that SynFuel will release less CO2 compared to gasoline because much of the carbon can be "sequestered" (e.g. diverted into solid or liquid form) in the process of refining. While you still have to deal with this sequestered carbon, better to bury it than release it into the atmosphere. Even at double the cost figure he quotes ($35 a barrel) this is a step forward from where we are.

As the Apollo Alliance has been saying for a while (and not getting any traction... switch gears guys! seize the day!) one of the major benefits of reconfiguring our energy policy is not just to secure the fuel to run our economy, but to make the production of that fuel something that working Americans benefit from again. As it stands, nearly $200B a year leaves the us to pay for crude oil, not to mention the cost of the military entanglements this brings. Personally I'd be happy to let Red China prop up the Saudis by buying their oil. Let's re-invest those $200B here at home. This would also provide us with the geopolitical mobility to pull our troops out of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East because we wouldn't need to enforce the kind of stagnant status quo to protect our energy lifeline.

This is a big idea. It's a call for progressive reform based not on some moral notion of social justice, but quite literally on our future survival. It's something I think people will respond well to (90% percent of people are worried about foreign oil and want the government to take action) if we really get serious and innovative. I'm really glad to see Schweitzer putting this on the radar. He's one of a new generation of political leaders who are actually concerned with good government and willing to think outside the box. He's also miles ahead of Establishment Democrats in how to connect to the American people; reminiscent of my man Howard Dean in those respects, really.

I find my mind returning again and again to energy as a touchstone issue. So I'm going to work on it. This is how I do. It's part of what I want to write about: how it can be. Unless we popularize these ideas and this scale of pragmatic thinking, the small-minded and risk-averse business-as-usual mindset will prevail.

Earlier today Markos put up a con call invite for a GOP spin-session on the Meyers nomination. Someone got on an recorded it. It's not really all that interesting to listen to, but for the real wonks out there it might provide some fodder. Good for research anyway.

I think it's more of an novel phenomenon -- infiltration and exposure of a nominally "closed" organization though via the net -- than a breakthrough event. The call-in info came out on a blog and the recorder used Skype to get the audio. This sort of thing just might have future uses.

One of the ways I get traffic here is by building an archive of strangely topical narrow interest content. For instance, a google image search for travis will probably show you this image of Jessica Travis who I went to theater school with:

And so it goes. This is cool because from time to time people who I've lost touch with will decide to google someone they know (not even me, dear ego) and come across my site. The other week Randal Cohn, who was assistant director of the Ad/Diction project (nee: the QuickFix) dropped me a line because he was googling people from the cast of his ETW Independent Project, a cast that included the illustrious Julia Henning, and he ended up here.

It's fun to catch up; Randal's pulling down a Masters in International Relations and going PhD in 06 -- turns out we had similar reactions to how the world has changed in the past four years, promting a detour from purely artistic pursuits -- so I asked him what the Acadmic trip has been about, since I've considered going that way myself. Here's his response, which I thought was awesome:

things you should keep in mind:

1. your fancy BFA from NYU don't mean shit. you have a BFA. unless you got a dual degree, that means you didn't do any serious scholarship according to most people whose opinions matter in the application process to any rigorous academic program. that's why i am at SFSU -- not the best school on the planet -- getting this master's degree: so i can write a thesis, prove i'm capable, and then, in combination with my fancy BFA from NYU, make a credible application.
2. academics, on the whole, are kookier than artists and musicians.
3. the girls are hotter at the theater program.
4. the people who are -- by profession -- less full of shit than normal people who just talk out of their asses all the time are a) full of shit, and b) talking out of their asses all the time
5. better like reading.
6. it's about as likely you'll get a tenure-track appointment at a good university as it is you'll become a movie star.
7. the social sciences are particularly suspect epistemologically.
8. smart girls.
9. i remember when i used to take dance classes.
10. we'd love to have you.

I've been idly collecting content on this year's burning man to post on vagabender at some point. Came across a photo of our camp-neighbors from 2003 while looking for supporting evidence. For a fun quiz, spot my playa crush. You know the one.

This will keep you from getting work done. Really neat physics sim, and depressingly enjoyable to fool with. Plus you can throw the president into a bubble. Don't click the link if you have anything that needs to get done.

This will keep you from getting work done. Really neat physics sim, and depressingly enjoyable to fool with. Plus you can throw the president into a bubble. Don't click the link if you have anything that needs to get done.

And I thought it was just because I wasn't 18 anymore:

A raft of new studies suggest that cyclists, particularly men, should be careful which bicycle seats they choose.

The studies add to earlier evidence that traditional bicycle saddles, the kind with a narrow rear and pointy nose, play a role in sexual impotence.

Some saddle designs are more damaging than others, scientists say. But even so-called ergonomic seats, to protect the sex organs, can be harmful, the research finds.

Holy shit! This is really bad news! I've always been a fan of the cleft, which reduces the appearance of numbness, but apparently it falls short of a real solution, and may make the problem worse:

In men, a sheath in the perineum, called Alcock's canal, contains an artery and a nerve that supply the penis with blood and sensation. The canal runs along the side of a bone, Dr. Goldstein said, and when a cyclist sits hard on a narrow saddle, the artery and the nerve are compressed. Over time, a reduction of blood flow can mean that there is not enough pressure to achieve full erection.

In women, Dr. Goldstein said, the same arteries and nerves engorge the clitoris during sexual intercourse. Women cyclists have not been studied as much, he added, but they probably suffer the same injuries...

Today's ergonomic saddles have splits in the back or holes in the center to relieve pressure on the perineum. But this may make matters worse: the ergonomic saddles have smaller surface areas, so the rider's weight presses harder on less saddle, Dr. Schrader said. The perineum may not escape injury because its arteries run laterally and they are not directly over the cutouts. The arteries can come under more pressure when they come into contact with the cutouts' edges.

It's hard to talk about your penis not getting hard, or as hard as you'd like, when you're gettin' it on. But this is an important topic for men to get used to dealing with, and it's only going to be more of an issue as time marches on.

This plays a part in pride and enjoyment, as the advertising world reminds us. The vast majority of consumers of Viagra and its kin aren't trying to treat full-on impotence; they're trying to go from 60% (which is on the border of functional for intercourse) to 100% (the punishment!). It also affects people's sexual health choices. All the people I know who have unprotected sex do so not just because it's a different world of sensation, but also (and even primarily) because putting on a condom exacerbates any problems you might be having at that moment maintaining your boner.

Personally I haven't had frequent problems here. I still use protection rigorously, and I've been fortunite to be with women haven't made me feel bad when I have had problems with my circulation. Bully for me. However, the phrase "loss of libido" makes me nervous. Apropops my moments of romantic longing, I've writting in my private paper journal before about how I seem to have less and less of a hunger -- less acute, less often -- for the sensual things in life. Part of this is without a doubt a product of hormonal maturity, and part of it might be lingering depression, stress or fatigue. But what if my love of two-wheeled human power is also a culprit?

"We make kids wear helmets and knee pads," Dr. Goldstein said. "But no one thinks about protecting the crotch."

Well, I sure as hell am thinking about protecting my crotch now. I'm going to be getting a new larger track bike at some point when I get back to NYC. Looks like it's time to invest in a noseless saddle too.