The 1955 article paints a rosy world, straight out of Pleasantville.  Witness the headline:

In a sense, it really was a different era. As the 1955 Life article claims, “Embroiled in no war, impeded by no major strikes, blessed by almost full employment, the U.S. was delighted with itself and almost nobody was mad with nobody.” But Greene notes the dark underbelly of the era: “Racial inequity was widespread, constrictive conformity was all around, intolerance of anything different was itself tolerated … your list could go on and on.”

More importantly, Greene compares the fantasies of yesteryear with the “anger” of today:

If monolithic national happiness was, in fact, being sold as a commodity back then, a case can also be made that the commodity being sold to us today is national animosity. Just about every day, we are told how furious we are at each other. If . . . Life magazine was endeavoring to promote the notion of consensus, what we are being relentlessly barraged with now is a message of anti-consensus. And that may be just as false an impression, in its own way, as the everyone’s-joyful pitch was in 1955.

Cass Sunstein makes a similar, important point, one that others have made, and one that bears emphasis.  In an age of information overload, people are drawn like bees to viewpoints that reinforce pre-existing social and political beliefs. I’ve written about the problems of information overload in the trademark context. Here, in the context of social tensions, the echo chamber is even more dangerous. It’s easy to read the Drudge Report or Huffington Post and pat yourself on the back — left shoulder or right, as the case may be — for being so clever as to believe things that other smart (or sometimes smart) people are saying. It’s quite another to force yourself to question your beliefs by reading things that challenge them. Moreover, the loss of shared communal experiences (something that Sunstein correctly bemoans) means that you’re losing out on beliefs and values that you may not even know about.

And now for something completely different….  Not only were the pundits of the 1950s wrong about themselves. They also got the future wrong. Witness this 1959 cover of Superman, where the Big Blue Boy Scout battles evil-doers from the year 2000, who use ray guns from flying cars.

Me, my 2001 Tiburon doesn’t fly, let alone possess a ray gun. But thank goodness it can get NPR on Satellite radio (as well as Fox and CNN).

Below is a side-by-side comparison of the original and new video.

I’m glad to see that nothing (yet) has been done to try to take down the video.  The video also makes me wonder about what we mean when we use the term “mash-up.”  As far as mash-ups go, Galactica: Sabotage is dissimilar to Danger Mouse’s mash-up classic Grey Album, which juxtaposed music samples from the Beatles’ White Album with vocals from Jay-Z’s Black Album.  In such a mash-up, you simultaneously hear portions from both sources.  It’s music with music.

However in form (but perhaps not function), Galactica: Sabotage is different.  Same music, but new video clips substituted for the original.  Perhaps such mash-ups by substitution are more like “smash-ups,” i.e., substitution + mash-up.  Like the Grey Album, there’s still juxtaposition, but the juxtaposition is provided by what’s absent rather than by what’s present.

This substitution may significantly deepen the level of knowledge required to appreciate the smash-up.  With the Grey Album, one need only know The Beatles’ original.  Even if one isn’t familiar with rap, one can appreciate the juxtaposition of Jay-Z’s lyrics with The Beatles’ music.  And if one is familiar with both, then the level of appreciation is much deeper.

But to be truly appreciated, the Galactica: Sabotage smash-up requires a much deeper level of knowledge.  Without knowledge of the missing original images, it’s harder to appreciate how the substituted video tracks and pays homage to the original.  Of course, the same might be said of Quentin Tarantino movies, which themselves pay near-continual homage to the history of film.  But recognizing the homage is not a prerequisite to enjoying them.

Failure to consider and address valid counter-arguments may leave an essay answer on thin ice, as illustrated by Bruce Wayne in the movie Batman Begins. Below is a video showing Wayne (pre-Batman) being trained in combat by Henri Ducard, who later turns out to be the villain Ra’s al Ghul. Ducard/Ghul reminds Wayne to “always mind your surroundings.”  But Wayne, hoping for a quick and easy win, ignores the fragile ice below his feet, leading to an equally quick and humbling defeat.  At about 1:00 into the video the battle reaches its climax:

Wayne: Yield!
Ducard/Ghul: You haven’t beaten me.  You’ve sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke.

Anticipating and raising counter-arguments isn’t just law-school stuff: it’s what lawyers do every day.  If lawyers don’t anticipate counter-arguments, they’ll be blind-sided when their adversary — or worse, the judge — raises them.  Thus, a good lawyer has to be his own “best frenemy,” anticipating the arguments against his position.  This will enable the lawyer to take a number of crucial tactics, such as: 1) strengthening arguments to avoid leaving room for counter-attack; 2) rebutting counter-arguments after they are made; 3) preemptively rebutting counter-arguments before they are made; and 4) omitting arguments that turn out to have fatal defects.

Being mindful of one’s surroundings isn’t just limited to the courtroom.  A tennis player must consider the position of her opponent before returning the ball.  A chess player must anticipate his opponent’s range of counter-moves.  And law students — as well as superheroes — must do the same.

Advice part I (life and stress) here.
Advice part II (studying and attitudes) here.
Advice part III (back up your data) here.
Advice part IV (essay exams) here.
Advice part V (conclusory argumentation) here.
Advice part VI (incomplete argumentation) here.

Like many teens learning to play guitar in the 70s, I spent far too many hours torturing my parents and neighbors with the riff from My Sharona (along with, of course, the obligatory Smoke on the Water).

RIP, Doug.

H/T to IO9.com.  Vid from CollegeHumor.com.

But as a long-time sci-fi geek, I have decided to join the bandwagon.  Welcome to my rebranded blog: dygytul grrbudge.

UPDATE:  Nope.  Gotta call it dygytyl grrbydge.  Imagine that!

COMMENTS AND SPOILERISH SPECULATION BELOW:

Did I hear Sam Anders say that there were eight Cylon skin-jobs?  That could make the missing # 7 model “Daniel,” a Cylon that Ellen designed and who she described as her favorite.  Daniel was hated by Cavil, and it may be that Ellen did a gender switch on Daniel to save him.  Indeed, the message boards are buzzing that “Daniel” may be Starbuck.  (Notably, before passing out, Sam saw the other Cylons, as well as Starbuck, glowing.  Do Cylons glow?  Who knows — the producers are well-known for dropping red herrings.)

It would be an interesting irony if a Cylon Starbuck was gender-switched, considering that the character itself underwent a gender switch from the original: the reboot uses the wonderful Katee Sackhoff as Starbuck.  In the original, Starbuck was played by Dirk Benedict.

A thought about the end of the series:  I could be wrong, but I’ve long thought that there are no humans, only Cylons.  Humanity died out eons ago, replaced by tribes of human-looking Cylons such as Ellen, Tigh, Sam, Galen, Tory, etc.  What a sad and poignant thought.

UPDATE: I was wrong about almost everything!  Daniel was a red herring.  Starbuck wasn’t gender-switched.  I was wrong that all the characters on the show were Cylons, but was kind of close — after the jump-forward 150,000 years, it turned out that we’re all human/cylon hybrids, descending from Helo and Athena’s daughter Hera.  Thank you Ron Moore for an excellent series.  So say we all.

Post-game verdict: fun but a little disappointing.  It’s not as heart-warming as the original, which showed a soft side to Hall-of-Famer Greene.  Also, why would “Coke” accuse “Coke Zero” of stealing Coke’s taste and commercials?   That’s like Nike accusing Nike of stealing the Nike name.  In addition, maybe it’s just the law professor in me, but I think the commercial would’ve been much funnier if the stuffed shirts who grab the Coke Zero bottle were corporate lawyers rather than “brand managers.”  After all, Polamalu tackles one of them to get back the drink.

Final thought: corporate brand managers grabbing a bottle from Troy Polamalu?  Sorry, guys, learn your football.  Polamalu grabs balls from the other team, you don’t grab things from him.

If ever, oh ever, a Wiz there was the Wizard of Oz is one because
Because, because, because, because, because
Because of the wonderful things he does.

Always give the “because.”  If you state a conclusion (that the Wizard of Oz is a “Wiz”), make sure you give the reasons — i.e., state the issue, rule of law, analysis, and counter-analysis — that support the conclusion.  Thus, always make sure you’ve given the “because, because, because.”  Why is he a wizard?  Because of the wonderful things he does.

Of course, Dorothy’s analysis is still lacking.  She says the Wizard of Oz is a Wiz because of the wonderful things he does.  What are those things?  Explain.  Why are those things wonderful?  Because . . . .  And so on. So Dorothy shows what should be done: always give the “becauses.”

An illustration of what not to do can be found in Monty Python’s classic sketch Argument Clinic.  When I was in law school, one of my professors would mock students who engaged in what he called “Monty Python” arguing.  In the sketch, Michael Palin buys a five-minute argument.  John Cleese, in turn, simply contradicts everything Palin says.  Exasperted, Palin argues with Cleese over what is a proper argument:

Palin:  An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.

Cleese:   No it isn’t.

Palin:  Yes it is! It’s isn’t just contradiction.

Cleese:   Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Palin:  But it isn’t just saying “No it isn’t.”

Cleese:   Yes it is!

Palin:   No it isn’t!

Cleese:   Yes it is!

Palin:  Argument’s an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Cleese:  No it isn’t.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Advice part I (life and stress) here.
Advice part II (studying and attitudes) here.
Advice part III (back up your data) here.
Advice part IV (essay exams) here.
Advice part V (conclusory argumentation) here.
Advice part VI (incomplete argumentation) here.