Yikes, Emperor Mike, that was a close call!  New York’s (sort of) beloved Mayor Bloomberg barely eked out a victory in yesterday’s elections there.  Sort of an embarrassing turn of events, considering the polls showed him winning by sound double-digits.  In exit polls, New Yorkers thankfully verified that they were more than a little yucked-out by Bloom’s meek grasp of democratic principles. 

As previously noted on this blog, America’s favorite power-hankering Independent not only had the city’s popular mayoral term-limit law overturned to afford himself a third stab at Giuliani-like heraldry, but even creepier, he funneled into his campaign’s coffers an estimated $90 million of his own scratch, more than any other candidate in human history.  Congrats on your tenuous reelection, Mister Emperor-Mayor.  You’ve proven campaigns in America can still be jiggered and bought, just not as quietly as they used to.

It’s a question of preference: The Incredibles or The Incredible Hulk?

By which I’m referring to Pixar’s 2004 stylized animated adventure about a family of superheroes, versus the 2008 Louis Letterier-directed actioner, which featured a fully computer-animated and (kind of) photo-real Hulk.  That is, as photo-real as you can get without encountering a real-life muscle-bound green-skinned gigantor. 

But to the point, both films turned on animated characters.  The difference, of course, being that Pixar’s characters were cartoonish and stylized, all goofy outsized features and limbs, whereas the transforming monster of the Marvel film was intended to look, well, real enough to stand side-by-side with honest-to-goodness human actors… and Liv Tyler too.  Somehow the Pixar characters had so much more expression and humanity to them.

Along those same lines, you ever wonder why Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny manages to retain so much more humanness than the photorealistic CGI denizens of a flick like Polar Express?  Think back.  Think hard.  Remember how dead-eyed mannequin Tom Hanks haunted us that holiday season? 

High-gloss digital characters and environments pervade the cinema of the moment, but so much of it seems to leave audiences cold.  It’s hard not to feel like special effects are… well, not all that special lately.  Are they in retrograde?

And what’s the cause of this chilling effect?  With filmmakers like Peter Jackson and James Cameron crowing the advances of motion-capture and digital character-making, why does it all still look so phony?

According to scientists and robotics experts, the answer lies in a decades-old theory known as “the uncanny valley.”  Conceived by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970, the term literally refers to a dataset mapped on a graph, one axis depicting a robot’s increasing human likeness, and the other our emotional response to viewing them.  As robots more closely resemble real people, we actual humans become more and more distrustful of them, even a little revolted.  When machines reach for a close degree of human mimicry, we become ever more keenly aware of their innate inhumanity.

Now a major new study by a bunch of fancy Princeton scientists suggests the uncanny valley phenomenon affects primates too.  According to this article in Science Daily, monkeys show a humanlike fascination with visual representations of themselves.  But as those representations grow increasingly lifelike while not necessarily real-looking, the monkeys grow distrustful. 

Based on these early results, said fancy-pants researchers suspect the uncanny valley response is tied to the highly evolved facial response functions we humans share with our primate cousins.  Others suspect the phenomenon may be connected to human “disgust responses,” developed to help early man and woman identify their sick brethren, and in turn avoid infection. 

But enough with all the science.  I want to know, what did the monkeys think of that Avatar trailer?

“He turns not back who is bound to a star.”

                                                                       -Leonardo da Vinci

In other news, too, perhaps more pressing than China and green tech, today we learned that Hamid Karzai, the sometimes president of Afghanistan has agreed – under great American duress, no doubt – to allow a runoff to last month’s disputed banana republic-style national election.  Throughout the media hoopla, it’s hard not to feel like the US is saying to Afghanistan, if you’re going to rig elections, at least do a better job of covering it up.  

The Obama administration has, it seems, strong-armed the strong-armer, which, instead of bringing glad tidings of a bright political future for Afghanistan, merely underscores the morass of nation-building we’ve waded into over there.  

Sure, the media continues to refer to this tarpit of an occupation with that puzzling term “war,” which seems a little far-fetched at this juncture.  In a war, there are clear enemies, a well-delineated objective, a constant series of combat operations.  We’re not fighting a war in Afghanistan.  This is an occupation, puntuated with occasional guerilla-style skirmishes.  This is national-building, carried out in a nation that for centuries has refused to be built, least of all by imperial forces.

Any war has an objective, an endpoint in sight.  What’s our objective in Afghanistan?  Obama, like his weak-minded and ill-intentioned predecessor, talks continuously of “victory” and “success.”  But the parameters of success have never been clearly circumscribed.  We arrived at first in the wake of 9/11 to topple the Taliban and rout Al Qaeda.  Over years, we achieved a measure of accomplishment and sent militants fleeing.

Now they’ve regrouped across the border in Pakistan, where the issue of armed imperialist adventuring becomes a whole lot pricklier.  We can’t invade that nation, and its tenuous, enfeebled government is of two minds when it comes to helping the US.  As this re-energized Taliban snaps at the haunches of the Pakistani government, launching attacks within their own borders, Pakistan’s leaders continue to be preoccupied with old Indian feuds.  What’s worse, Pakistan’s nuclearized, which ups the ante darkly should that government fall to militant forces.

And yet, despite the stakes with Pakistan and the rudderless stagnation in Afghanistan, President Obama continues to consult with his military and diplomatic advisers, promising via proxies a rich resolution right around the bend.  

There is easy resolution in Afghanistan.  We need to quit trying to democratize a hostile, mountainous, decentralized nation-state.  We need to quit playing the occupier in a futile game of atttrition.  

From what I’ve read of the closed-door negotiations taking place within Obama’s inner-circle, it seems apparent they get some of this.  McChrystal has asked for more troops, but when – as has often been pundited – do military strategists request less?  And it’s not like he can throw up his hands and admit he’s out of options.

As far as I can tell, it’s Biden’s plan that looks the most promising.  We pull back and secure the borders, maintain current troop levels, but focus on securing the major urban strongholds.  Then we focus the bulk of our efforts on foiling terrorist activity throughout the region with precise surgical strikes, all of it buttressed by a strong multilateral diplomatic push, spearheaded by the president himself.

Obama needs to quit defining this effort in Bush/Cheney terms.  We need to return Afghanistan to autonomy and quit trying to democratize the region, and stop propping up Karzai’s straw man narco-state.  

Let’s see Obama scale down this occupation, this endless non-war.  After all, he won a peace prize.  Let’s see some alternatives to perpetual warfare.

With mutterings that the economy – fingers crossed – might be in the midst of a long, creaking turnabout, the ultimate question arises: can green energy yield the sort of jobs and growth many economists have predicted?  And are we jumping to the front of the pack fast enough?  

Apparently nowhere near as fast as China.

Or at least so says Fareed Zakaria.  Let me stipulate that I’m no Zakaria fan.  He’s oddly fair-weather in his opinion-making, but his points here are pretty fact-driven.  As he writes in Newsweek:

China is… well aware of its dependence on imported oil and is acting in surprisingly farsighted ways.  It now spends more on solar, wind, and battery technology than the United States does. Research by the investment bank Lazard Freres shows that of the top ten companies (by market capitalization) in these three fields, four are Chinese.  (Only three are American.)  It is also making a massive investment in higher education.

With Detroit in decline, the housing bubble busted, and tech jobs shifting overseas, President Obama and his caballeros in the House and Senate better keep this issue front and center.  If China, one of the globe’s leading producers of greenhouse gases and a growth-maddened upstart economy, can exercise this sort of foresight, our own industrial ingenuity may soon be in need of a reboot.

“The monsters were based on relatives.  They came from Europe, and they came on weekends to eat, and my mom had to cook.  Three aunts and three uncles who spoke no English, practically.  They grabbed you and twisted your face, and they thought that was an affectionate thing to do.  And I knew that my mother’s cooking was pretty terrible, and it also took forever, and there was every possibility that they would eat me, or my sister or my brother.  We really had a wicked fantasy that they were capable of that.  We couldn’t taste any worse than what she was preparing.  So that’s who the Wild Things are.  They’re foreigners, lost in America, without a language.  And children who are petrified of them, and don’t understand that these gestures, these twistings of flesh, are meant to be affectionate.”

                           -Maurice Sendak, on the creation of his Wild Things 

Oh friends, how the time doth fly.  Here we are again to that eeriest time of the year, just as the normally angelic LA weather glooms, turns rainy and dark – it’s Halloween time.  And your friends at A Farther Room headquarters plan to make quite a season of it.  So let’s ring it in with a holiday classic from the Brian Sisters, The Boogie Woogieman…