How government can "safely" invest in the venture market?

Tom Evslin recently touched on the dangers of government dumping money in the venture market, which is something he's done before and will no doubt do again, but it's really hard to stop the government from spending money, so I wonder if it might be easier to at least try to spend it (more) wisely.  For example, instead of saying, "we're going to spend $30 billion on funding a green energy alternative, and we choose to spend it on so-and-so companies that work on the such-and-such alternative" the government could instead set up an X prize or Netflix prize-style contest that sets up the parameters of a problem to be solved (generate so much electricity at such-and-such a cost) and allows individual business to figure out the solution to the problem.  

Water for elephants : a novel (Gruen, Sara) 2006

[posted 3/26/9, backdated to 1/12/9 because that's when I finished the book]

I was sick from work yesterday and took the opportunity to finally read the copy of Water for Elephants I've had sitting on the shelf -- it reminded me a little of The Girl in the Glass, though I think the plot of Water for Elephants is stronger (disclaimer: I briefly worked with Sara Gruen at SPSS, Inc.).  I found the structural decisions interesting, because the 1931 part of the story holds up really well on its own without the "present day" chapters *except* for the fact that including the present provides a much stronger ending than would have been possible by setting the book entirely in the past, and it also allows for the flashback introductory chapter that serves to draw us immediately into the story.  Initially I dreaded that the present day chapters would be a distraction, but the present chapters are only as long as they have to be and Sara does a great job of flowing Jacob's reminiscences into the present day so that it all hangs together.  My favorite paragraph: "Dear God.  Not only am I unemployed and homeless, but I also have a pregnant woman, bereaved dog, elephant, and eleven horses to take care of."  Hopefully it will take me less time to get to Ape House.

Rebuilding: Year 40 for the Padres

As part of the latest round of rebuilding, the Padres traded Khalil Greene to the Cardinals; unfortunately, this was a year too late.  Yes, Padres management wanted to keep the competitive core from the last few years together for a 2008 run to the playoffs, but Greene, while valuable defensively anywhere, has never been comfortable at Petco.  While his overall numbers were great in 2007, it was not a breakthrough at home; his OPS was .670 home versus .841 away, and the chance to ship him somewhere else for a player more valuable at Petco slipped through the Padres' fingers.

Leaving Las Vegas (1995)

Oh, the injustice of the Academy's system for honoring actors.  How can Nicholas Cage win the best actor award and Elisabeth Shue not win best actress?  Are either of their performances possible without the other?  Well, Cage had less competition (and Thompson and Shue were robbed by sentimental/political voters giving one to Susan Sarandon).  Sigh.  In the brief time he has, Julian Sands is also excellent in helping to establish Shue's background (I'd give Richard Lewis his props, too, but let's be realistic).

And really, the performances are why you should watch this movie, because the script/direction are mostly adequate with one serious stumble.

**spoilers**

That stumble, of course, is the scene with the college boys, which is clumsily handled and the outcome obvious from the moment Sera goes out on the town after kicking Ben out of her home. We already know that her life as a prostitute is hard; we already know that it's dangerous; we don't need to brutally punish Sera with uncharacteristically bad judgement because she's piqued by Ben's "infidelity".  I know that they want Sera hurt just before the end of the film so that she can be healed, but I think it's unnecessary because she's been hurt enough.  If they must have her further injured, then the scene and setup needed to be handled with greater tact, and ideally so that we don't see it coming, because as it is, it disrupts the flow of the movie.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

I watched it "instantly" on netflix because Sarah wouldn't want to see it (she liked Fargo, but feels no need to see it again -- the Coen brothers are very good, but we can generally do without the graphic violence).  Near as I can tell, No Country for Old Men is basically Fargo in southwest Texas circa 1980.  Same archetypes, similar story, beautiful shots of desert (hot this time vs. cold).  Despite any shortcomings (Frances McDormand >> Tommy Lee Jones; Javier Bardem's acting == good but waaaay overhyped, is he really any better than Schwarzenegger in the first Terminator movie?  I didn't think so), I was hooked by the opening shots and then transfixed for 2 hours.