A quick trip over to Rotten Tomatoes reveals just how poor the critics think M. Night Shyamalan’s new film really is. They call it self-conscious, ludicrous, and lacking in subtlety. They’re exactly right; and that’s exactly what makes Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water not only the best film of the summer, but possibly the best Shyamalan film to date.

In Lady in the Water, Shyamalan has created a fairytale incarnate–an intentionally far-fetched bed-time story that tells itself beautifully. The story begins when a stuttering apartment caretaker named Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) apprehends a mysterious woman, Story, swimming in the complex’s pool after hours. Cleveland learns that Story is a messenger from the so-called Blue World, sent to inspire a young writer (Shyamalan) to create his masterpiece. He also soon discovers that a deviant creature is bent on stopping her.

While the story’s plot does indeed become progressively fantastical, it’s exactly the fantasy that gives the film more substance than anything else in theatres this summer. A winning (and often dichotomous) combination of humorous moments, beautiful camerawork, and the suspense for which Shyamalan is known best ensures the delivery of exactly what every good fairytale must have: a pertinent moral, in this case one that the story’s audience just might not want to hear. Add in brilliant performances by Giamatti and Shyamalan, a poignant score, and some striking social commentary, and the film is easily palatable to anybody with the imagination to remember the uneasy pathos of childhood innocence.

Many of us aren't old enough to remember the period in the early fifties when Senator Joseph McCarthy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, and their cronies engaged in a series of witch-hunts, suspending the rights of countless Americans who they accused of communism. For those who can’t quite remember that section of our nation's history class from high school, I can only suggest you read up on it. Those of us who are familiar with McCarthyism, even minimally through films like Goodnight, and Goodluck, however, can't help but recognize similarities between the actions of our government's intelligence agencies then and those of their modern counterparts.

This morning, the New York Times published two articles, one on an ACLU challenge to the NSA's eavesdropping program and one on the CIA's refusal to confirm or deny its involvement in the detainment suspected terrorists. The articles document only the most recent of events in a long chain of consolidation of power by top officials, one which even seasoned republicans admit is rather troubling.

As always, however, most of us are unconcerned with consolidation itself but rather how officials use such power. The similarities to McCarthyism are striking. In the 1950's, the FBI engaged in a series of illegal wiretaps, burglaries, and even murders; today, the NSA conducts covert operations, spying on American citizens without warrants. In the 1950's, Senator McCarthy conducted a series of witch-hunts, accusing many Americans of communism but refusing to offer proof because he claimed it was classified; today, the CIA holds accused terrorists outside of the United States, refusing to acknowledge that it does so or to offer proof of their guilt.

While many claim that such agencies would only spy on or detain those who are guilty, I can only plead, "read up on your American history." The screams from the witch-hunting of the 1950's, which harmed some of America's greatest heroes–names like J. Robert Oppenheimer, Arthur Miller, and Charlie Chaplain–echo in the actions of today's intelligence community.

Jurors found former Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffery Skilling guilty of fraud and criminal conspiracy yesterday, in what the New York Times hailed as “a verdict on an era.” In fact, the Times chose a comment made by Sean Berkowitz, director of the Justice Department’s Enron Task Force, as their quote of the day: "The jury has spoken and they have sent an unmistakable message to boardrooms across the country that you can't lie to shareholders, you can't put yourself in front of your employees' interests, and no matter how rich and powerful you are you have to play by the rules," said Berkowitz.

Yet, yesterday’s verdict comes just weeks after the GOP pushed a shamefully diluted lobbying ethics bill, which failed to ban lavish gifts like exotic free trips, increase lobbying transparency, require ethics training for congress members, or even provide any means of enforcement for old and new rules. Despite the repeated dishonesty and wanton corruption of officials like Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay, most Americans seem apathetic to the fate of the previous bill, which would have put a significant damper on corruption.

Oh, the American hypocrisy! While our politicians parade around, demanding corporate transparency and responsibility, they feel little guilt when the accept bribes, lie to the constituents, and "stay the course" when every sign indicates a giant u-turn is necessary. One can only wonder what happened to doing the right thing; American Democracy has never been more of sham.

At just over a week since yet another bureaucratic reshuffling placed former Fox News commentator Tony Snow in the hot seat as White House Press Secretary, things don't seem to be settling down for the media–liberal or conservative.  In fact, the New York Times ran a startling three articles today, detailing the sale of two major papers, U.S. military bribes of Iraqi reporters, and yet another fascist move by the Irani government to shut down a major media outlet.

It's little wonder, however, that the press has been out of sorts lately; just look at how governments, both abroad and at home, have been reacting to the media.   While nobody has complained too loudly about the move to censor what almost everyone agrees is a terrible film (those ratings are almost as bas as the President's!), the struggle for power continues elsewhere.

Between American and European corporate-giant media, the government-backed BBC and Chinese Press, and a handful of radical newspapers and media outlets, those of us looking for any sort of moderation are shit out of luck.

The New York Times detailed one of the lesser known results of Bush's new tax bill in an article today: a tripling of tax rates for students with college savings funds.  Despite his 1999 promise to veto any tax increase, Mr. Bush has apparently decided that taxing those who need the money most makes perfect sense.  In other news, analysts expect President Bush's approval rating to drop another 2% by the end of next week; the Democratic Party sent President Bush a bottle of scotch with a note saying simply, "Thanks."

Today, the New York Times published an article entitled "Colleges Chase as Cheats Shift to Higher Tech." The article opens by describing three sets of students who recently 'cheated' via high-tech means: a student at the University of California who used class notes on a PDA during an exam, Students at San Jose State University who used their computers for spell check during an exam, and students at the University of Nevada Las Vegas who used cameras on cell phones to trade answers during a test. In the course of the article, a dean at U.N.L.V. states, "If they'd spend as much time studying, they'd all be A students." While these cases may seem somewhat clear cut, it's worth taking a few minutes to reflect on two questions: Why, exactly, do students cheat? and What can we consider cheating?

Professors and parents alike have been scratching their heads for quite a long time at what they consider an entirely mindless desire to cheat. Why, they wonder, do students cheat? If only they realized that they're only hurting themselves, they say. And, to some extent, they're correct. It is clear, however, that students continue to cheat despite these protestations, and, as Steven Levitt aptly noted, people don't act without incentives.

It is an unfortunate truth that, more often than not, there seems to be absolutely no connection whatsoever between what students learn in school and what they'll need to know in order to function in the real world. Pre-med students, for example, must take courses in organic chemistry, a field that, while related to medicine, has almost no use whatsoever for students hoping to become clinicians. Likewise, countless Professors require their students to memorize equations that they could easily look up if needed and that they would memorize through repeated use if the formulas were truly useful. When a student is required to take a class that will have no use in her future job and in which she has very little interest, it is clear that she has very little incentive to study other than a rather misplaced desire to get a good grade.

An even more important, though related, question should also be considered. What exactly is cheating? Implicitly, we must also ask what the purpose of testing is. The Times article cited students using technology to read notes, to check spelling, and to trade answers during exams. It is clear that such activities undermine the idea of modern-day testing. The validity of such tests, however, is quite a bit less clear.

Tests are, or should be, intended to asses the understanding students have about materials they will need to understand in order to function in the future. Quite a few tests, however, do not measure what they should. As noted previously, students are often tested on material they will find wholly useless. Likewise, as technology improves, the need for memorization seems to decrease dramatically. The case of the students who ‘cheated’ by using computers to check spelling is an exempli gratia. Why, one might wonder, is a college professor testing students on spelling? Even in a writing class, students’ spelling seems entirely irrelevant; while a student can spell pneumonia correctly, he may still be a very poor writer indeed. Likewise, the very idea of testing college students on spelling, something upon which they should have been tested in first or second grade, is ridiculous. The cases of using cell phones and PDAs to read notes and trade answers seem similar. If students can obtain such information so readily, it seems illogical to require them to memorize it.

Indeed, modern testing seems quite lacking as a means to prepare today’s students for their future roles as tomorrow’s professionals. Professional educators should focus on training their students to synthesize information, solve problems, and create new ideas rather than requiring them to memorize facts and formulas.

The New York Times published an article today discussing European/U.S. attempts to negotiate with Iran. According to the new offer, Europe and the United States would aid Iran in building a light-water nuclear reactor in exchange for Iran's ending of "activities suspected of being a cover for a weapons program." Ostensibly, such a compromise seems ideal for both sides. But is it?

As American and European politicians scramble to find a solution to the Iran problem, one might easily recall the ways in which the allies tried to appease Nazi Germany just before the onset of the second World War. Indeed, despite America's "shoot first, ask questions later" style of diplomacy, it is clear that American cannot afford– socially, politically, or economically–another war. Likewise, a lethargic Europe seems even more unlikely declare war over the matter.

As China and Russia drag their feet–an inaction which seems primarily motivated by a reluctance to prevent anything that might weaken Western Europe and the United States–causes one to wonder exactly what we should be doing about Iran.

The hypocrisy of nuclear-proliferated countries telling Iran it can't have a nuclear weapons program aside, every political analyst agrees that a nuclear-armed Iran would be incredibly dangerous–for the U.S., Western Europe, and China and Russia. What, then, should we do? Presenting an offer so clearly favorable to Iran when we really have nothing to bargain with is not the answer.

American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer is both a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography and an essential read for anyone interested in the politics of nuclear energy and warfare both historically and today. The book, written by Kai Bird and Tufts University’s own Martin J. Sherwin, details Oppenheimer's life from his birth in New York City in 1904 to his death of throat cancer in 1967. The story is beautifully told and provides great insight into Oppenheimer's art, work, and politics. Perhaps more importantly, American Prometheus illuminates the origins of many of the world's current conflicts. What has been called the only "truly comprehensive" biography of the father of the atomic bomb is well worth the read.

Today, Microsoft announced that it received its 5000th U.S. Patent. As the article explains, Microsoft’s intellectual property strategy is fairly defensive. As much as I tend to hate Microsoft, they could be worse; there are quite a few companies with much more aggressive policies. Take over 1600 record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, for example. As we all know, the RIAA and its associates have recurrently pursued aggressive lawsuits against copyright violators. It’s also common knowledge that quite a few people are less than pleased with the RIAA.

While companies and consumers seem locked in a never-ending battle over the freedom of data, the intellectual property struggle is producing a much more subtle, though arguably more profound, effect on technological innovation. Wired.com recently published a nice, though predictably uninformative, article on innovation in the era of copyrights and patents.

What the Wired article leaves out, among other things, is the dramatic effect that the open source movement is having on innovation. While most of us are at least aware, if not relieved, by free, useful software products like Firefox and Thunderbird, many are unaware of the vast array of open source alternatives available. While Open Source’s influence outside of the software industry is even more obscure, collaborative efforts have yielded better journalism, better energy innovation, and even better beer. It is, perhaps, the open source movement’s surprising implications that led Thomas L. Friedman to dub the open source movement as “radical” in his newest book, The World is Flat.

The open-source idea, however, is not as new as Mr. Friedman believes. For example, concepts of authorship in the 18th Century were quite different than they are today. In Shakespeare’s era, it was incredibly uncommon for playwrights to claim “ownership” of a text; the plentiful additions to the texts of Shakespeare, Marlowe, and many other famous writers during the period give evidence to the sense of collaboration that existed then.

Likewise, democratic forms of government and the idea of the university are enduring examples of successful collaboration. So why does everybody keep insisting that open source will fail?

In the last six months the U.S. has been playing catch-up with the rest of the world; from going green to better cell phones, it seems like America might finally be catching up.

There is at least one area, however, where the U.S. hasn’t even begun to modernize. Broadband internet speeds in the United States max out at a rather lethargic 6 megabytes per second, compared to about 100 megs per second in England, and up to 250 megs per second in Japan and other parts of Asia.

But why is the U.S. so behind, and what does that mean for the future of broadband in America?

For one thing, despite the exorbitant investment in fiber optic cable that occurred in the ’90s, America’s high speed infrastructure was never completed. Entrepreneurs and investors never got around to laying the “last mile” of cable, meaning that almost no houses or businesses are actually connected directly via fiber optic; the bottle-neck that ensued continues to prevent speeds from rising.

Today, the New York Times published an article speculating that MaBells plan to past the cost of upgrading our infrastructure to websites themselves, who will then pass that cost on to the consumer. The article states: “Companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google fear that if they do not buy faster access, they could end up in a slow lane.”

Such a conclusion, however, seems unfounded, especially since none of the three popular websites offer enough data-heavy content, such as music or video, to cause any noticeable difference between users on a 6 megabyte connection and those surfing at faster speeds.

Likewise, the article has also ignored the fact that most internet companies do not actually charge users for their services, but rather make their profit via advertising revenue.

Given the general trend of super-targeted advertisements displayed online, it seems unlikely that MaBell charges would significantly impact profit for such websites; as advertisements become increasingly targeted, the websites can afford to charge even more for them. Even if those companies purchasing advertisements did pass on the extra cost, that cost would be dispersed so widely that it seems unlikely anybody would notice.