text:
EP108: What's it like to be an Extra in Hollywood?
A great entry-level job in the industry is becoming an extra – the background people you see in movies and TV shows. Ken explores that world, the requirements, pay, future, how to get one of those jobs along with some stories including who was "that girl" on the MASH opening credits?
North American Freeze-out
My heart goes out to everyone in the Midwest and East suffering through the latest arctic blast. (But of course, there's no Global Warming. May everyone who doubts it get frostbite today.)
I got out of the East just in time although I was in New York for the huge cold snap last week. Understand that I'm from Southern California where there are frost warnings when the temperature dips below 50.
Last Monday the temp in Manhattan was 0 degrees with a -19 degree wind chill factor. By the way, what's the real difference? If it feels like -19 degrees it IS -19 degrees!
I watched the local weather forecasts on Channel 2 and 7 and it was like those scenes in every James Bond movie where the super villain tells Bond his doomsday scheme in delicious intricate detail. "You see this big pink blob on the map, Mr. Bond? By 4 PM it will be over Manhattan and all life as we know it will cease. But by the weekend we should warm up." And I kid you not, one of the WABC-TV weather reporters is named Amy Freeze.
I'm normally traumatized when I can see my own breath so last Monday was an adventure. I needed to go outside a couple of times (once to lunch and once to Brooklyn for a rehearsal) so I made sure I dressed warmly. And by that I mean Under Armour, layers of shirts, a ski sweater, heavy parka, scarf, gloves, and hat. God forbid I needed to go to the bathroom. I looked like a blue Michelin Man. But I figured I was suitably protected against the elements. And maybe someone with actual blood would have been.
I walked outside and that wind went right through me. GAAAAA! For lunch I ducked into the first restaurant I saw. Thank God it wasn't White Castle.
My other fear was ice, which there was plenty of because it had rained the day before. That's the other thing: the temp dropped from 50 to 0 in just a few hours. (I really hope climate change non-believers all meet for a picnic today in Grant Park.) I was told how to walk – like a penguin taking tiny steps and keeping my weight above my feet at all times. Tis' the season of broken hips so I was super careful walking.
Again, please be safe and cautious and stay warm. And for God sakes, don't worry about getting in your 10,000 steps today.
My latest multi-camera rant
As you know I'm a big proponent of multi-camera sitcoms. I've always maintained that they force you to be held accountable. An audience will tell you whether something is actually funny so you really have to up your game to make sure them laugh. And I've proudly been associated with several series that lived up that — and still are funny to this day.
The criticism often leveled at multi-camera shows is that the laughter is not genuine. It's sweetened with a laugh machine.
For the past number of years I've been writing plays and those are even tougher to get people to laugh. Not only is there no laugh track, there's no warm-up guy, and the audience isn't familiar with the premise or characters like they would be with a popular sitcom. Laughs have to really be earned.
But that's part of the challenge and when I do make audiences laugh it's that much more rewarding. And it seems a worthy goal as a writer to push yourself and continue to raise your standards.
That said, I recently watched some current multi-camera shows. And I was appalled. The jokes were terrible and yet the laugh machine was orgasmic. The most obvious lines, the lamest quips were met with explosive laughter. Half the time I was saying, "What are they laughing at?" I've been in multi-cam long enough to know the difference between real audience laughter and the machine. And these shows, some highly regarded, were drenched in canned laughter.
I can only assume the studio audience didn't laugh (and why would they?) so the show runner sweetened the shit out of the show. But that defeats the purpose of the audience. If you're presenting subpar material you've got to circle the wagons. You're not trying hard enough, you're settling, you're fooling yourself, or you have the wrong writers.
Again, as someone who believes in the form, please step it up. I can't believe that show runners and writing staffs can objectively look at the final product they're turning out and not say, "this is unacceptable. We're better than this."
Imagine you can't use the laugh machine one week. Imagine every laugh has to be earned. I guarantee you'll turn out a better show. You might stay up later rewriting. You might have to throw out a whole scene or subplot. But as a comedy writer, if you don't believe you can write something that will make strangers laugh out loud you shouldn't be on staff. If nothing else, have some pride. Your names are on these damn shows.
What's better -- first or last?
Casting calls are always stressful for actors – especially if they find they have to go either first or last. There are disadvantages to either but actors always wonder which is worse? I can tell you my impressions from sitting on the other side of the room as a producer.
First off, if you don't give a good audition it makes no difference where in the line up you are. You won't get the job. So for now I'm assuming you are good, even good enough to land the part.
And it goes without saying that if you absolutely hit it out of the park it makes no difference when you come in.
Okay, enough disclaimers…
THE FIRST PERSON
Generally there are expectations that we are going to see good people. They've been hand-picked by the casting director so the quality should be somewhat high.
But that means if you give a terrific audition we might think, "Promising. If that's just the first person there will probably be others who are better." So you're somewhat penalized. But you're now the yardstick. Can the subsequent actors beat you? It's not an enviable position.
However, if you're first and you tank then we producers get worried. Are the rest of the hopefuls this bad? The good news for actors is that we then subconsciously lower our expectations. So if you come in later and do a terrific job it's elevated in our eyes. There's also a sense of relief. "Oh good. At least we now have ONE person we can go to if need be."
THE LAST PERSON
The big problem here is if others have already impressed us our minds might be made up before you walk in the door. And then to win the part you have to blow us away.
The other problem is that we've now heard the same scene numerous times and we're tired of hearing it (especially since half the time we hear it performed poorly).
The advantage of going last is that if we haven't found someone by the time you enter we sooooooo want you to nail it. Even an okay audition gets elevated.
SO WHICH WOULD I PREFER?
I would think going first is preferable. At least we're fresh and hopeful. And by going first you know you'll really be considered. Like I said, if you go last often times the decision has already been made and now you and we are just going through the motions. You have to really pull a Hail Mary.
By the way, sometimes an actor who knows he's scheduled first will come in late so he has to go later. Don't pull that. We know what you're doing, and if nothing else your tardiness sends a message you're unreliable. Wherever your scheduled, just do the best job you can. Remember, a truly great audition will get you the job whether you're first, third, eighth, or last.
My heart goes out to all you actors. Auditions are brutal. It's not enough how good you are but where you are in the day's call sheet. But remember one thing, ultimately we want you to do well. We want you to crush it. And we're thrilled when you do.
As always, the very best of luck.
The thing about living in Los Angeles – today's waiter could well be tomorrow's super star.
Lots of actors starting out taking jobs as waiters or bartenders. The hours can be flexible and you can get night shifts, which allow you to audition for parts and take classes during the day.
Among the actors who once took your order were Jon Hamm, Megan Fox, Chris Rock, Sarah Silverman, Rene Zellweger, Kathy Bates, Jon Hamm, Amanda Seyfried, Marisa Tomei (at Tony Roma's), Kristen Wiig, Chris Pratt, Julianne Moore, Jennifer Aniston, Russell Crowe (he probably beat the shit out of diners who didn't tip well enough), Sandra Bullock, and Amy Adams (who worked at Hooters). Julianna Margulies was one of the smartest. She knew to work in a high end restaurant because the tips were better.
The point is when you dine in LA there's a very good chance your waiter is an aspiring actor or writer or director. And usually you can tell. They emote when reading the specials.
I've always said that my heart goes out to young wannabes. There's no guarantees, there's lots of rejection and frustration, and customers who eat half their meals then complain and want whole new orders.
I must say that on a few occasions I've learned that my waiter is an actor and have arranged for them to read on projects. And in a couple of cases even hired them. So take heart. It does happen. Not often, but it does.
My only truly awkward experience was one time when casting for a guest star role I rejected a certain actor and two hours later he was my waiter. God knows if he spit in my food. Although if his aim was as good as his reading I was pretty safe.
But if you're a waiter I hope you make it. And if by chance Sarah Silverman was once my server I think you forgot the side of toast.
MEANWHILE...
Last two performances of UPFRONTS & PERSONAL at the Gallery Players Theatre in picturesque Brooklyn, NY. 7:30 Saturday and 3:00 Sunday. After Sunday's final performance I will be doing a talkback. Join the fun. Here's where you go for tickets. Thanks.
Hello from Brooklyn, NY where my play UPFRONTS & PERSONAL runs this weekend. If you're east of St. Louis, come see it. Info here.
But no matter what's happening in my life I always make time for Friday Questions.
Julie Burlington has the first question.
I love vintage sitcoms. (Rediscovering) so many old shows on Antenna TV, plus all of the shows I've watched over the years, I've watched so many main female characters get arrested mistakenly for prostitution, so many characters get locked or stuck together in storerooms or elevators, or have a ghost of Christmas past visit in a dream, or have an item donated in error to a charity sale that contains that envelope of money ... What do you think has been the most overused story premise in sitcoms?
I would have to say "the dinner party to impress someone and everything goes wrong." And if I'm being honest, I've gone to that trope myself. (No, not on MASH.)
Mark Solomon asks:
Margaret Houlihan became a much more interesting, three-dimensional and nuanced character once she was no longer comedically linked to Frank Burns.
Ken, was that a conscious decision of the MASH braintrust to humanize Hot Lips at about the same time that the much more estimable Charles Winchester character effectively filled the vacancy left by Larry Linville's departure from the show?
Yes, there was a conscious decision.
The tipping point was an episode called "The Nurses" written by Linda Bloodworth & Mary Kay Place and directed by Joan Darling (who also directed the famous "Chuckles Bites the Dust" episode of THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW).
There's a famous scene where Margaret pours her heart out to the other nurses that really took her character in a new direction. Here's Loretta describing it.
YEKIMI wonders:
Do you think it was easier to make a show [less network interference, not as many crew members, etc.] in the earlier days of TV as compared to today or maybe 30 years ago?
GOD YES! The interference is maddening, but that's a given. (You can probably find fifteen rants about that in the archives.) Having to put everything in writing to be approved by seven different people and then having to wait until you hear back from everyone and often repeating the steps three or four times before you can move on is really what kills momentum, not to mention morale.
On MASH and CHEERS (at the beginning) we had very small staffs. But the work was much more efficient. We didn't waste weeks going up blind alleys. We knew what we were doing and we did it.
You could argue the value of all this current interference if it meant the ultimate product was better, but it's not. In most cases it's worse.
Now it's just layer after layer of suits trying to justify their jobs. And if they were all swept away the shows would all continue to be produced and aired. So if someone is not integral to the process, why keep them? But that's the TV world we live in today. And why we look back fondly at the "Good Old Days."
And finally, from Oliver:
How do you shoot reveal gags on sitcoms that are recorded live in front of an audience?
If you want the audience surprised, you generally pre-shoot those gags the day before and show that scene (or that part of the scene) to the audience the night of filming.
Sometimes there are sets you don't want revealed. Usually rolling screens are set up to block off that set to the audience and they're not removed until just before you're ready to shoot.
Hope to see you at the Gallery Players this weekend. After the Sunday matinee I'm going to do a talk-back. What's your Friday Question? Just leave it in the comments section. Thanks.
EP107: More with writing partner, David Isaacs
Ken and David share lessons they learned in comedy writing, both good and bad – along with discussions on casting, directing, the series they developed for Mary Tyler Moore, and David's year working on MAD MEN
Come see my play... FINALLY
One of the reasons I got into playwriting was that I was frustrated that it took sometimes years for screenplays to actually become movies (assuming they get made at all). With a play, you write it, get some actors together, find a barn, and you can do it. And sell concessions.
Well, I'm proud to announce that my play UPFRONTS & PERSONAL opens tomorrow night at the Gallery Players Theatre in Brooklyn and gets its world premiere.
After 18 years.
Okay, some backstory. I made a BIG rookie mistake. I had a cast of eight. When I finished the draft I sent it to Garry Marshall who had his own theatre in Burbank. He called me a week later and said, "Verrrry funny!" I said, "Great. Can we do something at the Falcon (his theatre) with this?" "TOO MANY PEOPLE!" he replied.
Apparently with costs, etc. it's now pretty much understood that plays shouldn't have more than four people in the cast, and fewer if possible. (The ideal cast size is none.)
FACTOID: My next play did get produced at the Falcon Theatre. The cast size was two.
Again, I was a novice. Who knew? I was used to all plays having large casts – even ones you don't think of. Look at the ODD COUPLE. Yes, it's primarily Felix & Oscar but there are seven people in that cast. And as funny as that play is, it wouldn't nearly be as good without the poker players and the Pigeon sisters. Big casts are a good thing -- and give more actors work.
UPFRONTS has eight roles and they can't be combined. So I had a few all-star readings (that all went great), just kept rewriting and updating, and leaving the candle in the window. I've always felt it was a terrifically funny play and deserved a shot. My eternal thanks to the Gallery Players Theatre for finally giving it a production. Also thanks to my wonderful director, Scotty Watson and awesome cast: Timothy Paul Jobe, Mark Hudson, Rachael Schefrin, Michelle Conti, Mike Sause, Jared Wilder, and Logan Hurd.
I'm in New York for the performances and have been here a week for final rehearsals. It's so exciting to finally see it come to life (although it was 0 degrees here in Gotham last Sunday night).
Here's the synopsis: The process of getting a TV show on a network schedule is examined as one studio attempts to place two sitcoms on the Fall line-up. How far will everybody have to go, what compromises must they make, which ethics will they have to abandon? And yes, it's a comedy. Really. It is. And loosely autobiographical. "What doesn't kill you only makes for good story material."
If you're in the area, the play is very funny, the theatre is heated, and for your money you get to see eight actors instead of two. And I'll be there to apologize for anything that doesn't work. Here's where you go for tickets. If you come Thursday night enter the promo code BOX10 and all seats are $10.
And by the way, 18 years is still faster than some of my screenplays.
Stan & Ollie
I loved the new movie, STAN & OLLIE about the longtime comedy team of Laurel & Hardy. In the '30s and '40s they were the biggest comedy movie stars in the world. Steve Coogan was amazing as Stan Laurel and John C. Reilly did a nice job capturing Oliver Hardy. The two recreated some of Laurel & Hardy's classic bits and I found myself laughing out loud.
But the movie also made me very sad.
Why? Because I figure that 99% of people under 40 have no idea who Laurel & Hardy were. Not that I blame them. You rarely see their movies or shorts on TV anymore. And practically everything they did was in black-and-white and good luck getting a Millennial to watch something in black-and-white.
And it's a shame because Laurel & Hardy were really funny. Yes, it was slapstick but the attitudes and timing was just priceless. And it was all Stan who wrote their material, essentially directed, and edited the films. Hardy would play golf and come in when Stan said they were ready to shoot. Both gentlemen made me laugh but Hardy was my favorite. His slow burn kills me. And his attempt at all times to preserve his dignity in the face of utter humiliation made him the perfect comic foil.
So I recommend the movie. But more than that, I recommend you see the real thing first. Even if you are loathe to watch black-and—white, if you are a serious student of comedy or even just someone who loves to laugh, I implore you to watch the following video and be introduced to Laurel & Hardy.
The short I'm featuring is famous. It won an Oscar. Please treat yourself to the Music Box by Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy. Set aside a half-hour and enjoy.
My approach to writing movie reviews
There are college courses on film criticism. I never took one. If I did, I think I'd fail it. Having to write a long analysis of a movie, comparing it to Russian speculation fiction films and uncovering all the symbolism and providing overview and perspective and literary references is not what I do. God bless those who can.
I read some of these reviews and tip my hat while also saying, "What a bunch of shit?"
Reviews can get pretentious. Reviews can get precious. Reviews can be self-indulgent.
There are a few reviewers however, that I admire (even if I don't always agree with them). Anthony Lane in THE NEW YORKER is one. He's occasionally very droll and funny, and it's clear he puts a lot of thought and effort and research into his weekly reviews.
Way more than I ever do. Or ever would.
Now that we're in award season (God help us), I've been reviewing more movies for this blog. (Thank you studios for the screeners.) But I'm not a professional reviewer. (That's probably clear by simply reading one of my reviews.)
So to better understand my reviews (for you to decide whether to give my opinions any credence at all), I thought you should know my approach.
It's more a "take." It's more of a "reaction" to what I'm seeing. Did I like the damn movie? Yay or nay and why? How were the actors, director, writers, explosions? Would I recommend the movie to you and why?
But I try to write in broad strokes, with some laughs along the way. I have very definite tastes and generally will not see a movie I have no interest in just because it's a "contender." Life's too fucking short. You could make the world greatest horror film. I'll never review it because I'll never see it. Sorry.
When I was young I felt almost an obligation to see every movie that came out. It was homework I needed to do. Now? If it looks like something that will bore the crap out of me I give it a pass. Will I miss seeing some good movies that I am stupidly avoiding? Sure. But so what? The good news is if I'm reviewing your movie it's because I'm expecting to like it. The bad news is if I don't, watch out.
But in any event, a few paragraphs should cover it. I read three page reviews for movies that can be distilled down to "formula comedy" or "avoid." You should get the idea by paragraph three what my take is. I try to write them as soon as I can so the film is still fresh in my mind. And sometimes that's 2:00 in the morning so factor that in.
My hope is that my reviews are somewhat unique in that they're in my voice and style (if it turns out I happen to even have one – the jury's still out). And they're also an excuse to invite you to weigh in on your opinion. So this isn't film criticism; it's a cyber water cooler.
Thumbs up.
This video made me laugh really hard. A woman tries to put gas in a Tesla.
Also, this video shows the value of some sort of laugh track. When you watch the first time keep the sound on. The guys' laughter is infectious. Then watch it again on mute. Not nearly as funny, is it?
I hate a laugh track as much as anybody, but I do have to concede the point that hearing laughter promotes laughter.
MEANWHILE....
Rehearsals are going well on my play, UPFRONTS & PERSONAL that opens Thursday night at the Gallery Players Theatre in fabulous Brooklyn. I'll be there all weekend. Come for laughs and stay to say hi. After the show next Sunday there's a talkback where you can heckle. Here's where you go for info and tickets. Thanks. Hope to see you there.
Hello from New York. I'm very excited to announce that my first play gets a production next weekend in Brooklyn. It's called UPFRONTS & PERSONAL is about the process of getting TV shows on network schedules. (Right. What do I know about that?) Anyway, it's very funny and I'll be there to say hi (if you like it). Here's where you go for info. Please come. It's one of my better efforts.
But just 'cause I'm out of town doesn't mean the Friday Questions stop. No sir. Here they are.
Jen from Jersey has a question about the FRASIER set:
Did you make any changes to the set as the show progressed? I noticed that the lighting in the radio studio was much darker during season 1.
The Director of Photography (cinematographer) is always tweaking. FRASIER stayed pretty consistent.
On the other hand, look at CHEERS. Notice how different the bar looked on the pilot to later seasons. Lighting can really change a set's appearance.
The problem with lighting multi-camera shows is that they have to accommodate actors walking all around the set so everything needs to be lit well enough that actors don't disappear in shadows.
Boomska316 asks:
I was wondering if you were a fan of old fashioned radio and if so what some of your favorites were? I'm partial to the old Sherlock Holmes shows starring Rathbone.
First let me establish that old time radio was before my time.
I did love the comedies. THE JACK BENNY SHOW and THE FRED ALLEN SHOW. EDGAR BERGEN (Candice's dad) & CHARLIE MCCARTHY were also funny, although how bizarre to have a ventriloquist on the radio? That's like a magician hosting a radio show doing card tricks. Oh, and it's not PC anymore but the old AMOS & ANDY SHOW always made me laugh.
As for the dramas, I liked old episodes of THE SHADOW. And SUPERMAN.
Michael has another FRASIER question.
Do you know why Daphne's psychic abilities were dropped on FRASIER? Was it based on network or audience feedback or just something the writers decided to discontinue on their own?
The writers decided the bit had pretty much run its course. And they were always trying to give the characters more dimension – and it's one of the reasons FRASIER was such a cut above – instead of just going to the same well over and over they sought to find other aspects of her character to explore.
And finally, from Matt:
You said it is easier to find jokes now than when you were younger. Do you ever go back to your earlier work and think to yourself, "what idiot wrote that?" Do you think your comedy style has changed as you have aged?
I can only watch maybe three of the MASH episodes I wrote. As for the rest, just give me one more day to rewrite each one of them. There are better jokes, story turns, speeches, etc.
I don't know if my comedy style has changed per se but I think I've honed it. I'm more skilled and write with more assurance. So the improvement is more a matter of craft.
EP106: Ken's writing partner, David Isaacs defends himself
Ken welcomes his long-time writing partner, David Isaacs to the podcast. We discuss how we broke in, how we work, writing together vs. separately, script problem solving, and David tells his side of the prank I pulled on him.
Guest blogger: Abraham Lincoln
Hello, this is Abraham Lincoln. Ken is letting me guest blog today. I asked if I could just lob in some random thoughts and he said sure.
The difference between my White House and the current one is that the crazy spouse wasn't the one who was president.
I don't believe in labels. For instance – I'm way more than just a "vampire hunter."
Note to current Commander-in-Chief: Stay out of my bedroom.
Why is it always the South?
Of all the actors who portrayed me in movies, my favorite was Gilbert Gottfried in A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST.
How many of you knew that Hannibal Hamlin was my Veep?
People remember speeches, not tweets.
Come to my monument. Bring the kiddies.
They used to call me Honest Abe. That's one nickname they'll never give the current guy.
I want to be remembered for two things: Being the greatest president in U.S. history, and Lincoln Logs. Those things are really fun!
If I had it to do all over, I'd lose the beard.
Boy was I right when I said "you can fool some of the people some of the time." Jesus! Do you people have eyes?
Everyone asks what I thought of Steven Spielberg's LINCOLN. Meh. I only saw the screener. I suppose it's better on the big screen but you know me and theaters.
I also said, "Those who look for the bad in people will surely find it." That's right, Robert Mueller, I'm talking to you.
Lincoln Town Cars have more room. I'm just sayin'.
And finally, subscribe to Ken's podcast.
I Love Eve
Someone asked who my favorite TV comedienne was, fully expecting me to say Lucy. He was shocked when I told him Lucy was number three. Number two is Audrey Meadows who played Alice on THE HONEYMOONERS, and number one is someone you might never have heard of.
Eve Arden.
Yes, you have to be a certain age to remember Eve Arden, but mid-century she was a comic star of stage, screen (big and little), and radio. No one could deliver a line with better deadpan delivery than Eve Arden. Her voice, her attitude, her timing – she was impeccable. Bea Arthur and Betty White are close, and Carol Burnett is hysterical but in a different broader way – yet for sheer delivery of a pithy line, no one could touch Eve Arden.
She's been on my mind lately because there's a character in my new play that I thought, "Ohmygod, Eve Arden would have KILLED in this part."
In movies she often played the droll wise-cracking best friend, but she was probably most famous for starring in a radio show and then TV series called OUR MISS BROOKS. It was produced by Desilu which also produced I LOVE LUCY. Like I LOVE LUCY, it was done in the multi-camera format in front of a live studio audience that Desi Arnaz originated. In fact, both shows shared the same crew. As a result, OUR MISS BROOKS was recorded on film and copies of all the episodes still exist (as opposed to all the shows done on Kinescope that are either gone or not of broadcast quality).
I remember liking OUR MISS BROOKS when I was a kid and saw the show in syndication. But it was more of a distant memory. She played a High School teacher in a small midwestern town.
Now, with Eve Arden in my head I looked on YouTube and sure enough, there were some episodes available. They were from 1953. That's even before my time in front of the tube. I figured the show would be really musty, but there might be some nostalgia value to it so I clicked on one at random.
I was stunned at how good it was. I even laughed out loud a few times. I haven't laughed out loud at a current network sitcom in years. And this was an episode produced over 60 years ago. The story was clever, the character actors were all pitch perfect, and there was a plethora of sharp funny lines. Oh, and Eve Arden was awesome.
Some amazing things about how good that show was: They made 39 episodes a year. And the same man co-wrote and directed them – Al Lewis (not the actor Al Lewis who played Grandpa Munster). Where did he find the time? I then watched a couple more and those stories were all clever and well-constructed – way better storytelling than any episode of THE BIG BANG THEORY ever. Lewis wrote the episodes with Joe Quillian, and a lot of what they did still holds up.
And then I thought to myself, this must be what it's like when a Millennial discovers CHEERS for the first time. He or she is probably amazed that an ancient show written by old guys could actually still be funny. Who knew? /And guess what -- there are lots of gems out there that are still great and just waiting to be discovered (or rediscovered). What an enormous treat is in store for anyone willing to seek them out.
If you're 20 I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't respond to OUR MISS BROOKS. It's just too far back and is in black-and-white. You may or may not appreciate Eve Arden's brilliance. But classic sitcoms from the 70s and 80's (some of which I never wrote for) are out there and available. Believe me, it's a gift. Take advantage. Your own Eve Arden may be out there waiting.
TOO FUNNY TO FAIL
As anyone who reads this blog knows, I always have my finger on the pulse of popular culture. Something comes out – you can bet I'm on it instantly. And so this weekend I focus on the Hulu documentary, TOO FUNNY TO FAIL. What? It premiered October 21, 2017? Yes, but it never caught the zeitgeist until yesterday.
In any event, it's terrific! Check it out.
In 1996 Dana Carvey, who was white hot coming off of SNL made a deal with ABC for a primetime variety show (after a bidding war). He enlisted the help of brilliant writer, Robert Smigel (Triumph the insult comic dog) and assembled a cast of players that included then-unknown Steve Carell and Stephen Colbert. For good measure throw in then-hireable Louis C.K. Writers included Oscar winner Charlie Kaufman, Robert Carlock who went on to guide 30 ROCK and KIMMY SCHMIDT, Bob Odenkirk ("Saul Goodman"), Spike Feresten (coming off of SEINFELD), and Greg Daniels (creator of the US version of THE OFFICE).
You would think that with that line-up of All-Star talent the show would be a huge hit.
It bombed. Horribly. Disastrously.
Placed in ABC's best time slot at the time (following HOME IMPROVEMENT) the minute-by-minute ratings showed that within the first five minutes 6,000,000 people tuned out. The opening sketch was Bill Clinton breast-feeding and managed to completely alienate an entire nation.
The ratings were a disaster. The reviews were brutal.
And from there it was like a battleship trying to make a U-Turn in a river. They made eight episodes. Only seven aired.
But I have to say, based on the segments and sketches they showed, the show was really funny. Clearly it was in the wrong time slot on the wrong network. And yes, that first sketch was a bad miscalculation, but the show deserved a better fate.
At first when I started watching this documentary I was intrigued at how so many extraordinary talented people could turn out such a trainwreck. But like I said, they did not turn out a bad product. If SEINFELD had premiered on the Trinity Broadcasting Network I don't think it would have been a hit either.
But the interviews are all great and very candid. Everyone admits to mistakes and yet has a tremendous fondness and pride for the show. Interestingly, a few of the sketches were later aired on SNL and KILLED. Dana Carvey as Tom Brokaw pre-recording obits for Gerald Ford doing many alternate insane causes of death was hysterical.
For a TV show to become a big hit all the planets have to line up. But to me the takeaway of THE DANA CARVEY SHOW is that cream rises to the top, and real talent will somehow emerge and blossom. Ask Michael Keaton, Swoosie Kurtz, Merrill Markoe, and David Letterman – cast members of the MARY TYLER MOORE VARIETY SHOW (cancelled after three episodes).
Oh no! The nudist restaurant in Paris is closing! Say it ain't so!
It lasted a year. Customers would have to take off all their clothes before entering the dining room. If you wanted to steal the silverware you had to be really creative. A fig leaf was considered overdressed. The good news is you never got any stains on your clothes. Spill all the wine you want. Nothing had to go to the cleaners.
I assume the air conditioning was not on too high. You do not want shrinkage in a public setting.
The cuisine was high end -- lobster, etc. You would think if you had to be naked in public you'd be less likely to eat dishes that put on an extra pound or five.
Anyway, the joint closed because of lack of customers.
How many nudist foodies are there?
And I'm guessing it was not a big first date destination.
One promotion that many restaurants use is "early bird specials" for senior citizens. But boy, do you really want to see that? On the other hand, customers can't stick rolls into their purse.
Who in their right mind thought it would be a good idea to invest God knows how much money into a fine restaurant where everyone has to be naked? Isn't it hard enough, especially in Paris, to fill restaurants anyway? As gimmicks go, you're shooting for a limited customer base.
In West Hollywood there used to be a sushi restaurant where you ate sushi placed on naked girls. I have no idea if this still exists. I can't imagine the health department giving that place an A. New York has (or had) one too.
Oh, the money they save in placemats.
What will they think of next?
In the meantime, sorry but the nudist restaurant is clothesed.
Who's up for some Friday Questions?
YEKIMI leads off.
Was watching a M*A*S*H* marathon on one of the cable channels and noticed one of the co-writers of that episode was Mary Kay Place. Checking IMDB shows she wrote for quite a few shows other than M*A*S*H*. I knew her more as an actress and didn't realize she did all that writing. Any other writers on M*A*S*H* [or other shows] that went on to become more recognized as actors than writers?
Not an actor per se, but Conan O'Brien was a writer with us on THE SIMPSONS. Carol Liefer was a writer with on ALMOST PERFECT. And then of course there's Larry David. Mindy Kaling was a writer on THE OFFICE. Tina Fey was a writer first on SNL. And I'm sure you dear readers will think of others.
Ben Varkentine has a question about the first MASH episode David Isaacs and I wrote.
In "Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind" there's a moment I've long wondered whether it was improvised.
When Klinger is leading the blind Hawkeye out of the Swamp, Alan Alda bumps into the stove and Klinger just says "Don't hit that," and Hawk replies "I'm sorry."
It just seems like such a real moment.
Good actors know how to stay in character when unforeseen things occur. This was a small one, but both Alan and Jamie (Farr) made the most of it.
Thanks for the question and not saying that was the best joke of the show.
From Michael:
I agree that the CHEERS first season stands up to the best season of any series, but was wondering if you think it would be even remembered today if NBC had elected to cancel it after that season due to low ratings? Also would Ted Danson have been able to become the big star he did?
Forget Ted. What about ME if the show had been cancelled?
But seriously, when you see how sensational Ted is in any role he's asked to play I'm sure he would have done fine. Plus, the hardest part to cast in a comedy is a handsome leading man type with comic chops. Ted would have offers galore. (As would Shelley Long.)
But would his next show or the one after that prove to be a huge hit? No one can predict. So much of success is luck. The planets just have to line up. I think that's why that first year of CHEERS, even though we struggled in the ratings, everyone involved (certainly me) recognized and appreciated that they were a part of something special. And those opportunities don't come along very often.
Had CHEERS been cancelled after 13 it would probably be remembered by some as one of those "brilliant failures" like Larry Gelbart's UNITED STATES or Steve Gordon's GOODTIME HARRY. Bootleg episodes recorded off the air might circulate. But in time it would be forgotten. Unlike BIG WAVE DAVE'S.
And finally, from Coram_Loci:
Have you ever purposefully gone easy on a critique because of the race, sex, or orientation of the actor, or because of its political viewpoint?
No. But the great thing is that I'm not obligated to review everything. I try to be as objective as I can – positive or negative – without regard to race, gender, or politics. And I would rather just not review something than to whitewash an opinion.
So when you vehemently disagree with one of my reviews please just think of me as someone who has no taste and no idea what he's talking; not someone who is prejudiced.
EP105: 129 Ways to Get a Husband and 1 Way to Get a Wife
Ken shares a hilarious and jaw dropping article from 1958 on how
to get a husband. You won't believe some of these tips. And finally, a prank Ken pulled on his writing partner to get him a wife. You won't be alone after listening to this podcast.
THE MASKED SINGER -- My review
In my never-ending quest to introduce you to the most insane reality shows I have a new favorite — THE MASKED SINGER that premiered last week on Fox. Episode 2 is tonight.
Here's the premise. B-List celebrities (or more likely C-List) put on outlandish head-to-toe costumes and compete head to head in a singing completion for the chance to… uh… keep doing it. At the end of each episode one celebrity is voted off and reveals himself. Last week it was superstar/household name Antonio Brown. (If you don't know who that is it just proves my point.). Ultimately one Masked Singer will survive and win…um… nothing. Maybe the winner gets to keep his costume.
What would a singing competition show be without an idiot panel and THE MASKED SINGER is well represented. Is there anybody on television dumber and less talented than Jenny McCarthy? She offers such insightful comments like "Oooooh, yeah." Then there's Ken Jeong who's painfully unfunny (especially since he thinks he is funny), Nicole Scherzinger (listed as a "television personality"), and Robin Thicke.
Panels are there to offer critiques, but there's nothing to critique. Panels are there to make decisions but the audience decides who wins and loses so the panel is useless in that regard. Panels sometimes solve mysteries but this panel hears clues and makes moronic guesses as to who the celebrities really are. One thought Lady Gaga — like Lady Gaga, on the verge of winning Oscars, is going to put on a fifty pound peacock costume and parade around incognito on a Fox reality show. So the panel is as functional as cufflinks on pants.
Nick Cannon is the hip hop hipster host. And the singing performances range from professional to your drunk cousin at a wedding. Oh, and don't forget the audience. Shots of emo Millennials alternating between utter astonishment and crippling bereavement.
In other words, this show has it all!
Already the show is a Social Media sensation. Lots of speculation as to who the celebrities are. I have a feeling that within a few weeks all the celebs will be unmasked on the internet long before they officially take off their hippo heads.
As idiotic as this show is, there's something addictive about it. Assuming I can tolerate Ken Jeong's woeful attempts at humor and Jenny McCarthy's 52 IQ I will continue to watch THE MASKED SINGER. I want to be a part of the mass mania when the ultimate Masked Singer is unveiled to be Kellyanne Conway.
What I learned NOT watching the Golden Globes
I didn't watch a minute of it. Didn't watch a minute of highlights from it. To me the Golden Globes are a waste of time. The Foreign Press is a tiny number of people, some actual waiters, who can be bought. And their awards are essentially hosting a big party with lots of alcohol, fine wine, and when has Hollywood ever passed up a free meal where they can be on television and go home with prizes? It's a night out on the town at someone else's expense. Women get to dress up. It's nothing more than the industry's Senior Prom.
The categories are idiotic. A few years ago THE MARTIAN won Best Comedy. MOZART IN THE JUNGLE won Best TV Comedy. More often than not movies that win Golden Globes do not win Oscars. In fact, many consider them Oscar & Emmy's consolation prizes.
So by not watching them, here is what I gleaned based on Social Media and friends who did suffer through them. Those of you who saw the ceremony, tell me how accurate I am.
They didn't announce the name of the writer nominees in the Best Screenplay category; just the name of the movies. For that alone, FUCK YOU Foreign Press.
The opening with Sandra Oh and Andy Samberg was awful.
Patricia Arquette and Regina King gave endless speeches. (Who is surprised?)
The Jeff Bridges award went on forever. And he was doing "the Dude" from BIG LEBOWSKI.
Chuck Lorre finally won something.
Michael Douglas used Yiddesh expressions.
Glenn Close was a big upset winner as Best Actress (even though she's a great actress).
THE AMERICANS won. Of course Russia could have rigged that election too. Hell, all they had to do was send Academy members a free tin of caviar.
Diversity ruled. This year Hollywood is all about diversity. Last year it was #MeToo. Next year it will be the election. Their nod to #MeToo was not mentioning Bryan Singer who directed some of BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY, the big winner.
Christian Bale, who played Dick Cheney, thanked Satan and that caused an uproar. Yawn.
Foreign Press darling Alfonso Cuaron won for ROMA won although everybody I know who has seen it said it's painfully slow and confusing. (I haven't seen it so I don't know… but I am sufficiently scared to skip it.)
It was cool to see Carol Burnett and she said something like no network would put on her show today.
I really didn't miss a thing.
Okay, so how'd I do?
Three Identical Strangers
A lot of readers have said their favorite movie of the year is THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS and I would be hard-pressed to disagree. It's a documentary that features one bombshell after another and ultimately is a very weird and tragic story.
Without giving anything away, it's the story of three identical triplets who were separated at birth and unaware of their brothers. And then in their early twenties they happened to stumble upon each other. How they did was interesting, but the story really takes off from there. I absolutely recommend this film.
It was especially poignant for me.
Because I had met them.
When they all found each other it became a big feel-good story. They made the rounds on TV talk shows and became minor celebrities. We had them on CHEERS. We used them in a teaser.
I had forgotten until watching the film when suddenly it hit me -- "Oh shit! I KNOW these guys!"
They were nice happy-go-lucky trio really enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame.
Who knew the ultimate bizarre backstory?
Needless to say, watching the film, my heart really ached for them. The movie is worth seeing. And I'm starting to think maybe it is my movie of the year.
One of my favorite restaurants in Los Angeles is the Apple Pan. I love it for lots of reasons but probably the main one is I've been going there all my life and the quality and menu has NEVER changed. There's a dependability of excellence and they never disappoint. Waiters are fast (many have been there for 40 years), the portions are large, everything is delicious, and your order is up within five minutes no matter how busy they are.
Basically they do everything right that fellow burger peddler Mel's Drive In does wrong.
I used to love Mel's Drive In. Large menu, good food, decent portions, reasonable prices, open all hours, and a very cool '50s retro atmosphere. There are a number of Mel's Drive In's in the southland, but the one on the Sunset Strip is fabulous for people watching. Musicians and folks sporting piercings in places you didn't know could be pierced all congregate along with families and actors who were once on a series in the '80s. The décor is '50s-themed with photos of AMERICAN GRAFFITI prominently displayed. Juke boxes at each table allowed you to hear your favorite golden oldies. It was a fun place. On the weekends there were great brunch specials, the menus were always filled with inserts featuring yummy additional items.
But over the last year they've made a conscious effort to scrimp, assuming I suppose, that the customers wouldn't notice.
They were wrong.
Portions started shrinking, the menu was completely overhauled and is maybe half as big. There are fewer servers. Orders take longer to arrive. They run out of nightly specials by 6:00 pm. Even little things like napkin dispensers were removed. How much money does the company save on napkins? The meat is different, bakery products are different or gone, salads are woeful. Juke boxes are even gone. It's as if they're trying to distance themselves from their brand.
I complained to the manager and asked if I was the only one. "No," she said, "There are a lot of complaints from customers on the menu and their favorite items now gone."
The result of this penny-saving new approach is obvious. They're losing customers. Long time customers. What's really stupid about this is that LA offers lots of choices. If I stop going to Mel's there are plenty of other places I can go. Hundreds. There's even Café '50s that features the same retro vibe with a bigger menu.
I'm sure the corporation that owns the Mel's franchise would point to numbers and equations that show that they're losing 39 cents a year by offering rotisserie chicken and napkins could easily bring down the entire enterprise if not doled out judiciously, but the loss of good faith and customers is a number they better take into consideration as well.
The restaurant business is fickle. They close every day. Who remembers Johnny Rocket's? Developing loyal customers is a gift and a luxury not many establishments enjoy. And when they lose steady customers they are hard pressed to get them back. We move on. We find new places. It's only diner food for God sakess.
I would bet 90% or more of the Apple Pan's business is repeat customers. It's always packed. But every burger, for example, has an inch of lettuce. I bet they'd save $250,000 a year if they cut it to half an inch. But they don't. And never will. When you leave they ask if you'd like more coffee or ice tea to go. A corporate number cruncher would say that's another $100,000 a year in unnecessary costs. The Apple Pan would say, "It's a nice touch." Mel's would say "Nothing extra to go and charge a quarter more for the coffee."
And that's why I will continue to go to the Apple Pan, and introduce friends to the Apple Pan, and wave at Mel's as I drive by on the way to Apple Pan.
New FQ's for a new year.
The Bumble Bee Pendant starts us off.
I'm always intrigued by how a writer of a show/screenplay/whatever can simply say, "I am going to write a totally new draft and not include anything from the old script."
How does someone's previous version not influence a new version? How do you pretend that anything you thought worked in the previous iteration, not make it into the new one?
Re a teleplay, I just go back to the original outline or make a new one and work off of that, not even consulting the previous draft.
Believe me, I would MUCH rather work off a writer's draft, even if it's to save a few jokes or scene that still works. But when a script requires a page-one rewrite it missed the target by a wide margin.
Same with features. In those cases, not only might the structure change but the tone as well. So even if there were some good jokes or moments in the original they would not fit with the new tone.
The big difference between the two is that for a teleplay, if I'm the showrunner it's my job to present the best script I can no matter how much extra work I have to put into it. With features, if I know the assignment will be a page-one rewrite I ask for way more money than polishing an existing draft.
sanford asks:
I was looking up something about the famous Chuckles episode. I found this clip of Ed Asner talking about how the show was short and they needed another scene to fill the time. As he explained there was so much laughter that it filled all the time they needed. Has anything like this happened with any of the shows you worked on?
The pilot of BIG WAVE DAVE'S. At the dress rehearsal it was right to time. Normally you can count on a two to four minute laugh spread once it's filmed. On this night we got a TEN minute laugh spread.
That was great until we had to edit the damn show down to time.
Tom Asher has a baseball question.
Why don't we see more stolen bases? Too many managers looking for the three run homer?
That's the new analytics of baseball. Get used to it. The thinking now is that it's not worth the risk of losing an out to steal a base. Do you know that there were some teams that did not pitch-out ONCE last year?
Personally, I think it's short-sighted. Just the threat that a runner might steal often distracts or even rattles the pitcher. And the infield is a little jumpy too, anticipating they might have to leave their position to take a throw.
But that's the game today. You could have four infielders on the right side of the diamond, giving the hitter a free single if he hit it to the left side. And instead the hitter swings from his ass and tries to hit a home run.
Pitchers and catchers report next month!!!
And finally, from Stephen Marks:
(This is) the Friday question that will set Friday questions back 20 years. The Friday question where the answer may have me running over to Earl's blog, getting into the fetal position, and sucking my thumb as I rock back and forth. Ken, do you podcast in the nude?
Only when I interview guests.
EP104: Meet Tracy Newman – Emmy-winning writer, musician, show runner, improviser, and wizard with playing cards.
Hope for older writers: Tracy Newman broke in when she was 46. She also had other careers. She's a fascinating Renaissance Woman who once lived with the great Ricky Jay, guested on THE TONIGHT SHOW, and wrote the famous Ellen-coming-out episode of ELLEN. Almost an hour of fun and inspiring stories.
SPRINGSTEEN ON BROADWAY -- My review
I understand tickets were going for $2000 a pop. And people were saying it was a bargain. Bruce Springsteen was on Broadway. In a theatre that sat 975, which is somewhat more intimate than 80,000. Plus, it was for a limited engagement. And even though it was extended, it has now closed.
Fortunately, it was filmed and the SPRINGSTEEN ON BROADWAY phenomenon is now available on Netflix – for the same price you pay for season two of FULLER HOUSE.
It's not a concert film. It's more like MARK TWAIN TONIGHT. It's just Bruce, a few guitars, and a piano. No E. Street Band. No band of any street. For 70% of the show he just talks, telling his life story.
Now there are tons of these one-person shows. If you have friends who are actors you've doubtless been to at least four of them. Personal memoirs that range from fascinating to who the fuck cares?
These shows can be judged on four categories. 1) Is the person himself interesting (famous helps)? 2) Does he really have a story to tell? 3) Is the person a good storyteller? and 4) is the show theatrical?
Well Springsteen is certainly an interesting individual. And how he went from a grim blue collar upbringing in New Jersey to become one of the premier artists and superstars of his generation is (with apologies to my waiter) way more compelling than not getting a call-back for DOG WITH A BLOG.
As for the storytelling itself, Springsteen is an absolute master. The show is very scripted and a lot of it is so poetic and descriptive it sounds like he's reciting lyrics. The Boss obviously has a real presence, but more than that, he understands phrasing, vocal impact, the power of pauses. He's funny, candid, touching, and revealing. All those songs about working in factories – he admits he never worked in a factory and made all that shit up. Unlike some artists who clearly think they're God's gift to the world, Springsteen considers what he does a "magic trick." And best of all, the humility, the desire to "find himself" and make sense of the world – all comes off as truly genuine.
In terms of theatricality, well, he sings a number of songs. Who needs slides and home movies when you've got the Boss singing "My Home Town?"
And for a one-man show it's pretty long. 2 ½ hours. But that's Springsteen. His concerts generally last four hours. You may pay a lot to see him, but he always gives you your money worth – and then some.
At one point when I was watching it I thought, what if someone sees this in fifty years and is unfamiliar with Springsteen or his work? Would they appreciate it or be bored hearing some stranger's life story? Hopefully I'll be around to let you know. But failing that, I do think someone being introduced to Springsteen by this special would recognize what a layered, passionate, brilliant artist he is. The songs, even if heard for the first time, would resonate due to their powerful lyrics, the universal stories, and the soul in his voice.
I've been to several of his concerts but did not get to see his Broadway show live. I'm sorry but for $2000 I want him to do his show in my living room. However, I loved the Netflix special.
That said, if I were given a choice (for the same price) of seeing the one-man Broadway show in an intimate setting or a full-out concert in a stadium, I'd still take the concert. The stories were great. I want more music.
I have to say I'm a lot more hopeful this year than last. May this be the year our beloved president, his family, and close associates all go to prison for the rest of their lives.
And MLB eliminates the shift.
Happy New Year to you and yours.
EP106: Ken's writing partner, David Isaacs defends...
EP105: 129 Ways to Get a Husband and 1 Way to Get ...
EP104: Meet Tracy Newman – Emmy-winning writer, mu...


Madam Speaker, I rise today to invite you and all hon. colleagues to Vesak Day on Parliament Hill. This is an event being held on May 10 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. in the Sir John A. Macdonald Building. Vesak Day is the day Buddhists remember the birth, the enlightenment, and the passing away of the Buddha. I look forward to meeting with the Ambassadors of Thailand, Nepal, Myanmar, and others in this year's wonderful celebration. We will have occasion not only to learn more about Buddhism but to celebrate the enormous contribution that so many Buddhist Canadians have made to our country. I would like to thank Vesak in Ottawa, an organization that is co-hosting this event, and invite all members to come to join them in celebrating this wonderful occasion.


So many things are changing with time, changes that are inevitable.
The case still remains pretty similar with the Sports field, and in one of the Ted Talks – David Epstein explains and asks the people whether the real and other famous athletes are stronger and better than the previous players?
He has explained this in a very detailed way making it a must-watch for all.
David Epstein on: Are the athletes getting faster, better, stronger?
David Epstein is currently serving as the investigative journalist at the ProPublica. He is also the author of the New York's Best Seller – The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance. He was the former senior writer at the Sports Illustrated.
Talking about his TED talk video, he charts all the records from different sports activities and compares them with the current records. He says, indeed new records have been set in the athletic field but are those equal comparing with the previous records considering the technology, and factors that were used back in the 70s and 80s?
The Olympic motto says Faster, Higher and Stronger. But David asks the audience if these are rightly justified for the current scenario.
He started off the talk taking Jesse Owens example. Jesse Owens won the 1936 Olympics 100m Sprint with a time record of 10.2 seconds. In the year, 2013 the record was broken by Usain Bolt with a new record of 9.77 seconds. Definitely, you will say that Jesse Owens would have lost the match if he competed with Usain, but are the technological and other conditions taken into consideration?
For example, Jesse Owens ran on a soft surface of wood rash that would actually lose out more energy than the engineered carpet which was used by Usain Bolt. While Usain ran using the starting blocks, Jesse had to dig small holes using a trowel on the surface. Can you make out the differences now?
So, this proves that Jesse has got more stamina in him and he would have won the match if he had to compete with Usain Bolt. If all the advancements were taken care of, then undoubtedly Jesse would have won against Usain, instead of being 14 feet slower.
Along with the gaming upgrades, even the body type has changed a lot. In the earlier days, average body type was considered the best for all sports. But things are different now, and each sport demands a specific physique. Not all the game players have the same body, and you might have seen them already.
It's a delight to watch the points David shares in this TED Talk, and the video has already crossed 2 million views!


This is the official website for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Pacific Area for opinion leaders, the news media and the public.
This site provides news releases, background material, commentary, Church statements, multimedia and other elements for use by the news media, bloggers and others. Contact information for Church media representatives can be found here.
Young "Mormon Helping Hands" volunteers give community service.


text:
Central African Republic — July 2016 Update
Posted: 25 July 2016| Region: Africa | Category: Africa
AfricaAnalysisPolitical StabilityRemote ViolenceRioting And ProtestsViolence Against Civilians
Reported fatalities in the Central African Republic (CAR) have continued to fall since May 2014 to levels not seen since before the outbreak of widespread violence between Seleka and Anti-Balaka groups in late 2013-early 2014. By December 2015 the number of events recorded had fallen to a third and the number of fatalities to a quarter of those reported by ACLED in September 2015, and have continued to stay low for most of 2016 (see Figure 1). This period of lower violence has coincided with CAR's elections which appear to have brought a degree of stability to the country, although parts of its territory still remain largely outside the control of the central government (The Economist, 8 January 2016).
Since May 2016, localised communal violence in the north has been on the rise (see Figure 1) and threatens to upset this renewed stability. Although the spike in violence between August and September 2015 was largely catalysed by sectarian tensions (see Figure 1), to a lesser degree it was also the result of conflict in the country's periphery between herders and the settled populations. Starting in May 2016, the potential for renewed sectarian violence has taken a backseat to communal conflicts as the movement of nomadic herders in the northwest has sparked tensions. In May 2016 for example, over 90% of the fatalities recorded by ACLED occurred in events involving armed herders, whilst a similarly high share of fatalities in June (74%) were related to conflicts between herders and various local armed groups. These notably include violence in the Ngaoundaye area in mid-June following a refusal by residents of the area to allow herders to cross their land (Daily Mail, 17 June 2016) and most recently reports of large numbers of casualties and burnt villages in the Niem-Yelewa area involving "cattle rustlers" (Radio Ndeke Luka, 2 July 2016).
On the one hand, these attacks are a sign that the government of CAR needs to play a more active role in securing its territory by empowering its police and armed forces. This is demonstrated by MINUSCA's role in resolving these clashes, for example by intervening in unrest between former Seleka militiamen and Fulani herdsmen in the Batangafo area, which resulted in 16 deaths over two days (France24, 21 June 2016). A major obstacle remains that the armed forces of the Central African Republic (FACA) have been largely disarmed, and an arms embargo remains in place on the country, leavings its military impotent (RJDH-Centrafrique, 2 July 2016). On the other hand, while the on-going contention is indicative of larger problems facing CAR and the weakness of the central government, the current violence in the north appears to be localized. The question that remains to be answered is whether the government, even with international support in the form of MINUSCA, can effectively secure the country, especially as France's Sangaris mission prepares to leave in December 2016 (France24, 30 March 2016).
This report was originally featured in the July ACLED-Africa Conflict Trends Report.
Matt Batten-Carew
Matt Fluegel-Carew is ACLED's Senior Programs Manager and has been with the organization since December 2013. He was originally hired as the ACLED's West Africa Researcher and has previously worked as Research Manager for a number of the project's regional desks, including South Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Latin America, and East Asia. He is currently responsible for ACLED's program management, fundraising and development, and partner outreach. He also leads the Operations department, which oversees ACLED's travel, procurement, digital office management, and risk planning and mitigation. Matt holds an MA in Geopolitics & Grand Strategy from the University of Sussex and a second MA in Eurasian Studies from Carleton University, with his research focusing on regional cooperation and conflict management. He has worked previously for Global Affiars Canada and the Canadian Department National Defence, and for consulting firms specializing in policy development and political risk analysis.
Categories: Africa, Analysis, Political Stability, Remote Violence, Rioting And Protests, Violence Against Civilians 25 July 2016
Regions: Africa
Tags: Central African Republic
PreviousPrevious post:Kenya — July 2016 UpdateNextNext post:The Geography of Riots and Protests

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Probability that a random binary matrix has at least one zero-row or zero-column Let $M$ be a random $(0,1)-matrix$ where the occurrence of $0$ or $1$ is equiprobable in each entry. The probability that this randomly generated Matrix $M$ has at least one zero-row or zero-column is
$$\sum_{k=1}^{2n} (-1)^{k-1} \sum_{m=0}^{k} \binom{n}{m} \binom{n}{k-m} 2^{m(k-m)-kn}$$
Can anyone explain this to me using the inclusion exclusion principle?
Thank you!

A: First off, I don't think you stated it, but it seems clear that $M$ is a $n \times n$ matrix.
For any such matrix $M$, let's define $z(M)$ to be the number of all-zero rows plus the number of all-zero columns. We wish to count how many $M$ exist with $z(M) \geq 1$. We'll do this via the inclusion-exclusion principle, first counting the number of $M$ with $z(M)$ at least 1, then subtracting the number with $z(M)$ at least 2, then adding the ones with $z(M)$ at least 3, etc.
Once we have the count, we'll divide by $2^{n^2}$ to get the probability.
So, suppose you had to construct all the matrices with $z(M)$ at least $k$. How would you do this?
Well, you'd first need to decide how many all-zero rows there are: some number between $0$ and $k$. Call this number $m$, so that the number of all-zero columns is $k-m$. Now, how many ways are there to select $m$ rows and $k-m$ columns out of this $n \times n$ matrix? Well, that's just:
$$
\binom{n}{m} \binom{n}{k-m}
$$
Now, if we've selected our rows and columns that we want to have as zero, how many matrices do we have? To work that out, we need to know how many elements of the matrix aren't in our selected rows or columns. We've got $n^2$ elements total, $mn$ elements in our rows, $(k-m)n$ elements in our columns, and $(k-m)m$ elements in both our all-zero rows and all-zero columns so we have $n^2 - mn - (k - m)n + (k-m)m = n^2 + (k-m)m - kn$ elements that we can choose freely as either 0 or 1.
So the number of matrices with $z(M)$ at least $k$ with $m$ all-zero rows is:
$$
\binom{n}{m} \binom{n}{k-m} 2^{n^2 + (k-m)m - kn}
$$
Now, summing that over all possible values for $m$:
$$
\sum_{m=0}^k\binom{n}{m} \binom{n}{k-m} 2^{n^2 + (k-m)m - kn}
$$
And that is - with duplicates counted extra - the number of matrices with $k$ all-zero rows and columns.
Combining them with alternating signs as the inclusion-exclusion principle uses gives:
$$
\sum_{k=1}^{2n}(-1)^{k-1}\sum_{m=0}^k\binom{n}{m} \binom{n}{k-m} 2^{n^2 + (k-m)m - kn}
$$
And divide by $2^{n^2}$ to get the probability, as mentioned before.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Joy Creek Photo Archive (c) all rights reserved Clematis 'Fragrant Spring' is an attractive Clematis montana selection with bronze foliage and fragrant flowers. All of our Clematis are two year old plants that are suitable for immediate planting in your garden.
May to June. 30 ft.


text:
\section{Introduction}

After the firm establishment of neutrino oscillations from solar
\cite{Cleveland:1998nv,Abdurashitov:1999zd,Hampel:1998xg,Fukuda:2001nj,Ahmad:2001an,Ahmed:2003kj},
atmospheric \cite{Fukuda:1998mi,Ambrosio:2001je}, reactor
\cite{Apollonio:1999ae,Apollonio:2002gd,Boehm:2001ik,Eguchi:2002dm}
and accelerator \cite{Ahn:2002up,Aliu:2004sq,Michael:2006rx}
experiments, neutrino physics will enter a new precision age with
future facilities aiming to measure the subleading unknown mixing
parameters, such as $\theta_{13}$ and the \emph{CP}-violating phase $\delta$
\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2007kx}. These forthcoming neutrino oscillation
experiments, with unprecedented sensitivities, might also test new
physics in the neutrino sector beyond the present constraints. It is
then desirable to study the sensitivities of neutrino oscillation
experiments to these non-standard parameters together with the
improved constraints on the known mixing angles and mass squared differences
and the possible correlations between the two.

The task of studying the combined sensitivity of neutrino facilities
to both standard and new physics parameters and the degeneracies
between them becomes prohibitively expensive in computer time as the
number of parameters increases.  Thus, it is common to ``switch on''
these new physics parameters only one or two at a time, which does not
allow the exploration of correlations and degeneracies among them. In
order to address this problem, we propose the use of Markov Chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms to explore these large parameter spaces
(see, \emph{e.g.}, Ref.~\cite{mcmcs}). Contrary to sampling the
$N$-dimensional parameter space through grids with $n$ samplings per
parameter, which require $\mathcal O(n^N)$ evaluations of the expected
number of events and $\chi^2$ for the considered setup, the number of
computations that MCMC sampling requires in order to achieve good
convergence grows at most polynomically with $N$.

MonteCUBES \cite{mcb} (``Monte Carlo Utility Based Experiment
Simulator'') contains a C library plug-in to implement MCMC sampling
into the GLoBES \cite{Huber:2004ka,Huber:2007ji} software. It thus
benefits from the flexibility of GLoBES in defining different
experiments while implementing an efficient scanning of large
parameter spaces. In addition to the MCMC sampling, MonteCUBES
includes an intuitive and user-friendly graphical Matlab interface to
interpret, plot and export the results of the MCMC sampling. It also
incorporates a method to locate degenerate solutions in a simple way
in order to tune the step proposal function of the MCMC sampling to
efficiently explore all the degenerate solutions, with the correct
weights, in the same run.

Not exclusive to the MCMC oriented functionalities of MonteCUBES, we
have added two extra utilities. The first is the implementation of two
new physics scenarios: the NonUnitarity Engine (NUE), which allows the
treatment of parameters describing the deviation from unitary of the
leptonic mixing matrix; and the non-Standard Interaction Event
Generator Engine (nSIEGE), which describes non-standard neutrino
interactions in matter. Calling these engines adds the dependence of
the oscillation probabilities on the extra parameters along with
useful functions in order to set their values and fix or free the
several new parameters in the minimization algorithms and the MCMC
samplings. The second functionality added is the possibility of
specifying the observed number of events of a given experiment instead
of computing them from the assumed ``true'' oscillation
parameters. This allows the usage of GLoBES and MonteCUBES to analyze,
not only forecasted data, but also real experimental data and study
the resulting constraints on the neutrino oscillation
parameters. Clearly, this feature requires extreme care when designing
the experiment definition files in order for the experiment definition
to coincide with the actual experiment.

\section{Markov Chain Monte Carlos}

Parameter determination through MCMC methods are based on Bayesian
inference. The aim is to determine the probability distribution
function (PDF) of the different model parameters $\theta$ given
some data set $d$, \emph{i.e.}, the \emph{posterior} probability
$P(\theta|d)$. From Bayes' theorem we have:
\begin{equation}
P(\theta|d)=\frac{P(d|\theta)P(\theta)}{P(d)} \equiv \frac{L_d(\theta) \pi(\theta)}{M}.
\end{equation}
The starting point is the \emph{likelihood} $L_d(\theta)=P(d|\theta)$,
\emph{i.e.}, the probability of observing the data set $d$ given certain
values of the parameters $\theta$. The \emph{prior}
$\pi(\theta)=P(\theta)$ is simply the probability of the parameters
having the value $\theta$ regardless of the data $d$, \emph{i.e.}, our
previous assumed knowledge of the parameters. Finally, the
\emph{marginal} probability $M$ is the probability $P(d)$ of
measuring the values $d$. It does not depend on the parameters
$\theta$ and can be disregarded as a normalization constant $M = \int
L_d(\theta) \pi(\theta) d \theta$, which cancels when comparing the
relative probabilities of different parameter values through the ratio
of the posteriors.\footnote{This normalization is,
  however, the key parameter in Bayesian model selection
  \cite{modelselection}.}

Thus, in order to compare the relative \emph{posterior} PDFs of
different sets of parameters $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ given the data
$d$, we must compute the ratio
\begin{equation}
\frac{L_d(\theta_1) \pi(\theta_1)}{L_d(\theta_2) \pi(\theta_2)}.
\end{equation}
The $\chi^2$ functions defined in GLoBES actually provide the
logarithm of the \emph{likelihood} of the data $d$ following a Poisson
distribution normalized to the distribution with mean $d$. Thus, computing
the exponential of the difference between these GLoBES functions for
$\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ gives the desired \emph{likelihood}
ratio.

\subsection{The algorithm}

The aim of the MCMC is to create a Markov Chain that has the desired
distribution (the \emph{posterior} PDF for the oscillation parameters)
as its equilibrium distribution. The most popular implementation, and
the one used in MonteCUBES, is the Metropolis--Hastings algorithm. At
each step, the chain moves from a point in the parameter space
$\theta_1$ to another $\theta_2$ with a transition probability
$T(\theta_1,\theta_2)$. This transition probability is the product of
the proposal function $W(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ times the probability of
accepting the new step:
\begin{equation}
\alpha(\theta_1,\theta_2) = \min\left(1,\frac{P(\theta_2|d)W(\theta_2,\theta_1)}{P(\theta_1|d)W(\theta_1,\theta_2)}\right).
\end{equation}
This algorithm ensures that detailed balance
\begin{equation}
P(\theta_2|d)T(\theta_2,\theta_1)=P(\theta_1|d)T(\theta_1,\theta_2)
\end{equation}
is satisfied (while maximizing the acceptance) and thus, $P(\theta|d)$
is the equilibrium distribution of the chain.

In the original Metropolis algorithm, as well as in the default
implementation of MonteCUBES, the proposal function
$W(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ is symmetric so that the probability $\alpha(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ of
accepting the new proposed step is simply given by the ratio of the
\emph{posteriors}, \emph{i.e.}, the exponential of the difference of the
$\chi^2$ provided by GLoBES plus the \emph{prior}.

In addition to using Gaussian proposal functions, MonteCUBES provides
an easy way of treating degeneracies by changing the proposal function
by randomly adding or subtracting steps with the correct length in the
direction between the degeneracies. MonteCUBES can automatically
search for degeneracies by increasing the temperature of the chain $T$
so that the likelihood is modified to $L_T \propto
L^{1/T}$. This procedure flattens the likelihood distribution
so that the chains can move between the different degeneracies. The
temperature and step sizes are then decreased in successive steps and
thus the different chains get stuck around different minima, unable to
move through the disfavored regions when $T$ is too low. Finally, the
points where the different chains have stopped are compared to decide
how many different minima the chains have fallen into and a
minimization of the log-likelihood is performed from those starting
values so that the minima are reached. The difference between the
minima, located in this manner, can then be used in the proposal function.
Thus, when performing the MCMC sampling of the parameter space, the
chains can jump freely between the degeneracies and sample them with
the correct relative weights. Finally, the standard MonteCUBES
proposal function can be replaced by an arbitrary user-defined
proposal function, which does not necessarily need to be symmetric (as
long as the user also implements the proper transition ratio
function).

\subsection{Interpreting the results}

To test the convergence of the chains we use the method proposed in
Ref.~\cite{conv} with convergence criteria that can be specified by
the user. The key parameter that controls the the convergence speed
and how well the chains will sample the distribution is the typical
step sizes of the proposal function $W(\theta_1,\theta_2)$. Optimal
step sizes are of the order of the expected $1 \sigma$ allowed region.

If the steps are too small, the chains will sample small areas of the
parameter space and take a very long time to cover the whole region of
interest. Different chains will sample different regions, depending on
their starting values, and will give different estimates of the means
of the parameters, translating to very bad convergence. A good
diagnose of too short a step in a given parameter is a long
correlation length between the values sampled for this parameter as
the chains progresses.

If the steps are too large, the chains will often propose jumps to
regions of the parameter space which are very disfavored and the
probability of accepting the step will be very small, requiring a long
time to accumulate enough statistics to properly analyse the sampled
probability. A good diagnose of too large steps is that the chains
stop too many times at each accepted point.

The output of the MCMC sampling is several chain files, containing a
list of the accepted points in the parameter space together with the
weight (the number of times the chain stayed at that point), since the
equilibrium density of the chain is $P(\theta)$ the density of points
in the parameter space given by the chains will be proportional to the
\emph{posterior} probability we want to sample. Thus, simply binning
the parameter space and distributing the points of the chains in their
corresponding bins will provide the relative \emph{posterior}
probabilities of each bin in the multidimensional parameter
space. Notice that the marginalization over nuisance parameters does
not require a time-consuming minimization but is simply achieved by
ignoring the corresponding parameters, effectively projecting the
\emph{posterior} PDF to the parameter subspace of interest.

\section{The graphic user interface}

Even if the interpretation and analysis of the chains is
straightforward, as outlined in the previous section, processing them
can be cumbersome. For this task MonteCUBES includes an intuitive
Matlab Graphic User Interface (GUI) that allows to read, combine,
analyze, plot and export the results of the MCMC sampling.  After
opening the GUI the user can select the results of the run to be
analyzed by opening the corresponding summary file generated by
MonteCUBES together with the chains.  The summary file contains the
relevant information on the number of chains, number of samples, free
parameters and convergence criteria required to properly read and
analyze the results of the chains. After reading the summary file the
GUI reads and processes the corresponding chains. The user can then
either combine chains from further runs to increase the statistics of
the chains or plot the results in several ways. The following plotting
options are included in the GUI:
\begin{itemize}

\item{\bf 1D Histogram:} This plots a histogram of the number of
  points in the chains as a function of the parameter selected by the
  user in a range and with a number of bins that can be
  user-specified. The main application of this plot is to diagnose how
  well the chains have converged and sampled the chosen parameter.
  The histogram should resemble a Gaussian centered at the most likely
  value of the parameter or some multimodal distribution if that
  particular parameter presents degeneracies.

\item{\bf 1D chain progression:} This plot also diagnoses the
  convergence and how well a parameter has been sampled. It plots the
  consecutive values of a parameter which the chains have visited.
  For well sampled and converged chains these plots should resemble
  ``white noise'', any residual correlation length in the form of
  oscillations in these plots indicate a poor sampling of the
  parameter and the typical size of the steps in the proposal function
  may need to be changed (typically increased) to achieve better
  sampling. Notice that the chain convergence can be defined in a
  quantitative way and that MonteCUBES can test the convergence of all
  the parameters in the chains and continue the sampling until
  the desired level of convergence is achieved. However,
  these plots constitute a useful tool to determine how to tune the steps in
  the proposal function to speed up the convergence of the chains and
  obtain better sampling of the parameter space.

\item{\bf 1D confidence region:} This plots the posterior
  distribution marginalized in all the parameters except the one
  selected and highlights the most favored region at a user-defined
  confidence level.

\item{\bf 2D scatter:} This draws a scatter plot in the specified
  parameters of the points which the chains have sampled. This can
  also be a good diagnosis of bad sampling, since the plot should be
  uniform with clearly visible denser regions corresponding to the
  best fit values that gradually thin when moving away from the
  favored area.

\item{\bf 2D confidence contours:} This plots the isoprobability
  contours at the specified confidence levels for the specified
  parameters.

\item{\bf Triangle plot:} This option plots together the 1D confidence
  region and all the possible 2D confidence contours for a set of
  selected parameters.

\item{\bf 3D surface:} This plots the isoprobability surface in the
  specified three parameters at the chosen confidence level.

\end{itemize}
For all of the above plotting options, except the two
latter\footnote{All the plots from the triangle plot can be reproduced
  using the 1D confidence region and 2D confidence contour plots,
  while the 3D surface plot is not really suitable for the exporting
  of data.}, there is also the option of exporting the high-level data
for the plots into text files. This functionality is provided so that
the user can plot the data in a different graphical program if
desirable.

In addition, all of the plotting functions provide the user with the
choice of plotting the results against arbitrary transformations of
the oscillation parameters. Since the Jacobian of these
transformations may not be constant, the user-interface also provides
the possibility of specifying an arbitrary weight function in order to
compensate. This also allows to change the prior post-simulation.

\section{New physics implementations}

The MonteCUBES distribution includes two GLoBES implementations of new
physics. Both of these contain nine extra parameters in addition to
the six standard neutrino oscillation parameters. Thus, these
scenarios are ideally suited for MCMC exploration of the parameter
space, since a full scan quickly becomes inefficient.

The first implementation is the NonUnitarity Engine (NUE), which can
be used together with GLoBES and MonteCUBES functions in order to
include deviations from unitarity of the lepton mixing matrix
parameterized in a completely general way. A non-unitary lepton mixing
matrix in the charged-current interaction between neutrinos and
charged leptons is a generic feature of models involving extra degrees
of freedom that can mix with either of the left-handed lepton components
\cite{Langacker:1988ur}. In particular, in the popular type-I seesaw
models that accommodate the smallness of neutrino masses through the
addition of heavy fermion singlets (right-handed neutrinos), these
extra degrees of freedom will mix with the light active neutrinos,
giving rise to a larger mixing matrix than the standard $3\times 3$
matrix.  The $3 \times 3$ submatrix describing the mixing among the
light mass eigenstates, accessible at low energies, and the three
active flavour eigenstates will, in general, not be unitary. In
standard seesaw models, this unitarity violation is expected to be
unobservably small. However, these violations are induced by
a lepton number conserving operator independent of the one that
generates neutrino masses.  The smallness of the neutrino mass can
then be naturally accommodated through a slightly broken lepton number
symmetry, as in the inverse or double seesaw models, with large
potentially testable deviations from unitarity of the lepton mixing
matrix.

A convenient way of parameterizing the effects of a non-unitary mixing
in neutrino oscillations is splitting the general non-unitary matrix
$N$ as the product of an Hermitian times a unitary matrix
\cite{FernandezMartinez:2007ms} $N = (1+\varepsilon)U$, where
$\varepsilon^\dagger = \varepsilon$. Since strong constraints can be derived
on the unitarity deviations through electroweak decays
\cite{Nardi:1994iv,Tommasini:1995ii,Antusch:2006vwa,Antusch:2008tz},
$\varepsilon$ should be a small perturbation and $U \simeq U_{\rm PMNS}$. The
NUE adopts this parameterization, adding the six extra moduli and
three extra phases included in the Hermitian $\varepsilon$ to the
standard parameters of the unitary part of the general mixing matrix.

By using NUE, the oscillation probabilities are modified so that the
dependence on these extra nine parameters is taken into account. The
engine also includes useful functions in order to set the values of
these parameters in the parameter vectors and fix or free them in
GLoBES' minimization functions or in MonteCUBES' MCMC sampling.

The second new physics implementation is the non-Standard Interaction
Event Generator Engine (nSIEGE). This engine is designed to treat
non-standard neutrino interactions (NSI) with matter in their most
general form. The formalism of NSI parametrises the effects from
physics beyond the Standard Model on neutrino interactions through
effective four-fermion operators
\begin{equation}
 \mathcal L_{\rm NSI} = -2\sqrt{2}G_F \varepsilon^{fP}_{\alpha\beta}
               [\bar f \gamma^\mu P f][\bar \nu_\alpha \gamma_\mu P_L \nu_\beta],
\end{equation}
where $f$ is a matter fermion, $P$ is either a left- or right-handed
projector, and $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}^{fP}$ parameterizes the strength of
the NSI relative to the standard weak interactions. The new
interactions give rise to non-standard matter interaction terms in the
neutrino oscillation formalism, effectively leading to the replacement
\begin{equation}
 H_{\rm matter} = \sqrt 2 G_F N_e \diag(1,0,0)
  \to \sqrt 2 G_F N_e [\diag(1,0,0) + \varepsilon]
\end{equation}
of the matter interaction term in the neutrino oscillation
Hamiltonian. Here, $\varepsilon$ is a Hermitian matrix and $N_e$ is the
electron number density.

This type of new physics has already been studied extensively with
GLoBES
\cite{Blennow:2007pu,Kopp:2007mi,Kopp:2007ne,EstebanPretel:2008qi,Kopp:2008ds,Blennow:2008ym,Blennow:2008eb,Winter:2008eg,Malinsky:2008qn}
by several authors, but usually by fixing most of the parameters. The
nSIEGE implementation is very similar to the that of the NUE in terms
of the API.

\section{Conclusions}

We have presented a new software tool, MonteCUBES, which allows the
exploration of the neutrino oscillation parameter space through Markov
Chain Monte Carlo sampling. The MCMC algorithms are far more efficient
than minimizations or grids over large parameters spaces and we
therefore believe MonteCUBES to be a particularly powerful tool for
the investigation of the effects of new physics in neutrino
oscillations, since they imply the addition of new parameters to the
already high-dimensional standard parameter space. The simulation part
of MonteCUBES is designed as a plug-in for the GLoBES software and
thus benefits from a very flexible experiment definition. It includes
a useful method to find degeneracies and allow a faster scan, taking
all the allowed regions detected into account in the same sampling. We
have also developed an intuitive graphic user interface for Matlab,
which allows to easily read, combine, analyze, plot and export the
results of the MCMC exploration of the parameter space in order to
interpret the constraints that a given experiment can derive on the
oscillation parameters.

Apart from the MCMC sampling, we incorporate two useful
functionalities in the MonteCUBES software, both of them are
compatible with the new MonteCUBES functions and the original
functions defined in GLoBES. The first one is the implementation of
two scenarios of new physics, the NonUnitarity Engine (NUE) that
incorporates all the extra parameters required to study the effects
that a deviation from unitarity of the lepton mixing matrix will have
in neutrino oscillations, and the non-Standard Interaction Event
Generator Engine (nSIEGE) that describes non-standard neutrino
interactions in matter. These engines are examples of the kind of
applications we believe MonteCUBES to be best suited to, namely the
exploration of large parameter spaces. In both cases, six extra real
parameters and three extra phases are required in order to take the
new physics into account in the most general setting. Added to the six
standard neutrino oscillation parameters, this results in
15-dimensional parameter spaces.
Using MonteCUBES, a full scan of the unitarity violation parameter
space in order to test the sensitivity of a Neutrino Factory~\cite{Geer:1997iz,DeRujula:1998hd} to this
particular scenario of new physics has been performed in
Ref.~\cite{NUpaper}.

The second additional functionality is the possibility to input the
data of a given experiment so that GLoBES and MonteCUBES can be used
to analyze real data and not only forecast the sensitivities by
specifying some ``true'' oscillation parameters and predicting the
event rates to be observed from them.

We conclude that the MCMC methods implemented in MonteCUBES constitute
a powerful tool to explore the bounds on the neutrino oscillation
parameters that different experimental setups can give, as well as
possible degeneracies and correlations among them. In particular, they
allow an easy and efficient way of treating all neutrino oscillation
parameters simultaneously, as well as including additional parameters
from different non-standard physics.

\begin{acknowledgments}

We would like to thank M.~Beltran, P.~Coloma, A.~Donini, J.~Kopp and L.~Verde for
very useful discussions. This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council
(Vetenskapsr\aa{}det), contract no.~623-2007-8066 [M.B.]. E.F.M.~acknowledges support
from the European Community under the European Commission Framework Programme 7 Design Study:
{EUROnu}, Project Number 212372. The authors also acknowledge support by the DFG cluster of excellence ``Origin
and Structure of the Universe''.

\end{acknowledgments}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


I gave a presentation at the SagLacIO. This time, it was about gitlab-ci.
First, you'll need an account at GitLab.com. If you don't already have one, you can open an account with no problem. GitLab's free tier gives you a ton of features, unlimited free hosted repositories, 2,000 CI build minutes per month, etc. You can even use your own task runners in case you bust that limit.
If you have suggestions, feel free to poke me or open an issue.


Hello everyone! Today's post continues my series on UK immigration via Category A spousal route, and here I'll be showing you how to provide a proper letter of employment, whether you are applying for your first visa or are renewing. This counts for both Categories A and B.
Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an immigration adviser. I am not any kind of professional. I'm merely giving my own input and experience in UK immigration, and it should be treated as such. However, I hope it eases your confusion and helps you on your journey to Britain.
When applying under Category A or B, your spouse–as your sponsor–will have his or her employment information closely looked over, so they need to provide a good amount of proof that they're truly working and earning the minimum financial requirement. Your sponsor will need to provide a typed and signed letter from their employer confirming their job role, salary, length of time on that salary, if the contract is temporary or permanent, and how long they've been working with the company.
Like all financial documents (which I will go into in a subsequent post), the employment letter cannot be older than 28 days on the day you submit the online part of your application.
Some people are confused because they see that they need an employment letter AND the original employment contract, and think that they should only include the contract. The letter is required, the contract is not. HOWEVER, the contract adds credibility to your sponsor's employment and is recommended.
This is the template we followed for Jon's employment letter. If your sponsor's employer is willing, show them this template, or the above quote from Home Office and make sure they know those listed items are required. For the same reason that including your sponsor's original employment contract is recommended, so is their employer using their official letterhead.
This letter is to confirm that <Name> has been employed by <Company> since <Joining Date>, on full time permanent basis in the position of <Job Designation>, with a gross annual salary of <£> per annum.
For the last six months, from <Date> to <Date>, <Name>'s gross salary has been <£Gross Monthly Salary> per month and the total salary for the aforementioned six months is <£ Gross Total 6 Month Salary>.
As his employer, I can confirm that <Name>'s payslips from my company are authentic.
Should you require any more information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact us.
I hope this is useful to you in some way! Stay tuned for the next post in the series!


text:
Movie Tattoos
By Mike Johnson
Whenever we sit down to watch a flick we always see some actor sporting famed movie tattoos, but are these movie tattoos real or temporary tattoos? The answer to that question depends on the actor and the movie.
What are Movie Tattoos and how are They Created
Tattooing is an awesome form of art that has been growing in popularity to an actual fine art. Hollywood is known for making some of the most high quality movies in the world that grosses in the billions annually, despite the fact that they turn out less than a quarter of some of the other film producing countries. Hollywood not only perfected the art of making movies but also perfected the art of makeup design. Movie tattoos are temporary tattoos of such a high-quality it is nearly impossible to spot a fake as in the movie Wanted with Angelina Jolie, where she had movie tattoos next to her real ones and there was little difference.
Halloween Tattoos
Nightmare Before Christmas Tattoo
Fake Tattoo Sleeves
Many actors don't like to mark their bodies up with tattoos because to some it can make them less marketable. Sometimes a role can call for an actor to have a tattoo. They won't go out and get ink just to get a part, and so enters the art of Hollywood tattooing which has served some actors very well like Wesley Snipes, Jim Carrey, Vin Diesel and Angelina Jolie.
In the early days of film, tattoos were applied with stage makeup and set like you would normal makeup. These tattoos would be prone to smudging and running. In the 70's, an alcohol-based skin paint was invented and it was applied laboriously by hand, but the effects were more realistic than standard makeup grease paint and was water and sweat proof. The alcohol-based tattoo had to be touched up every day and due to the process, it could take multiple artists hours and hours to apply an actor with multiple pieces.
This art form of movie tattoos needed a breakthrough and it got it in the 90's. The film Pearl Harbor required many extras to be supplied with wounds, under normal circumstances each person would need to be done and this just was not cost or time effective. A transfer was able to be created that was very low maintenance and could last for up to a week. Think of these types of tattoos as a sort of high-tech Cracker Jack tattoo. This form of tattoo creation was seen on the film XXX with Vin Diesel and is in high-demand as an actor could be outfitted from head to toe in a matter of hours.
Some Movie Tattoos and the Stars that Wore Them
Hitman Movie Tattoos
This movie was based off a very popular video game and was met with warm reviews. Despite all that the tattoo in the game spawned a new trend in tattooing by making it popular to have a barcode tattooed on the back of your head (and other places).
Barcode Tattoo
Tattoos from the Movie Blade
The movie Blade starred Wesley Snipes as the half-vampire, half-human fighting machine bent on ridding the world of vampires. The movie featured many fake tattoos that were represented each of the vampire "tribes". The tattoos appeared on the underside of the wrist and sometimes on the back of the neck.
Dragonetti
Faustinas
Ligaroo
Cianteto
Lemure
Kobejitsu
Lobishomen
Vone Sper
Upier
Pallintine
Blade himself was decked out with one tremendous tribal piece that covered nearly his entire back and crawled up over his shoulder, behind his neck and ears and around his throat. This is one of the more impressive movie tattoos found today.
From Dusk Till Dawn Tattoos
This film is one of the most searched on for tattoos in a movie due to the huge tattoo that George Clooney had painted on him. It was a large tribal dragon tattoo that spread his entire arm and around his neck. The tattoo itself is barely seen except from under Clooney's shirt until the last bits of the movie when you get to see more. He is also sporting several other tattoos on his chest and neck including a sea horse.
Reign of Fire Tattoos
Set in the future where England is nearly a pile rubble and dragons roam free the movie features a much ripped Mathew McConaughey sporting a rather large full chest tribal of a dragon which spread over his arms as well.
Constantine Ink
Keanu Reeves plays John Constantine - a man with the ability to see demons and to send them back to where they came. In the film he sports one tattoo on either forearm that forms one tattoo when connected. This tattoo is unique to this movie and is not found in the graphic novel.
Protection Tattoo
Oceans 11 Tattoos
There aren't many seen fake tattoos in Ocean's 11 other than the one on Brad Pitt's hand. The tattoo is something of a tribal nature but is never full seen by the audience and the artist was never credited nor was the tattoo ever referenced.
Cape Fear Tattoos
This movie represents one of Robert Deniro's most disturbing performances of his career. His body also featured some very impressive fake tattoos for the movie including broken hearts and knives but also featured over the top bible verse tattoos geared toward revenge.
Tattoo Sleeve Pictures and Ideas
Tattoo Art Sparrows
White Ink Tattoos By Cheryl Cirelli
Infected Tattoo Symptoms By Kelly Roper
Tattoo Pain Relief By Benna Crawford
Make Temporary Tattoos By Beth Asaff
Tattoo Infection By Beth Asaff


The Underground Operators' convention has been amassing energy ever because the first convention used to be held in 1977. The 2005 convention was back an excellent chance for proprietor and agreement miners and their linked providers, experts and researchers to interact in a typical discussion board to debate a few working matters that experience faced and been solved by way of the underground mining group.
Bodleian, MS Arab. c. 90, fols. 15b–16a, undated c. 1200; Damascus, Maktabat al-Assad al-Waṭanīyah, MS 16501, fols. 43a–43b, copied 972/1564; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. Or. 68, fols. 133b–134a, copied 1571; Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. , fols. 1500s. Fig. The opening of Chapter Nine, Book One, in MS M. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. , fols. 1500s. introduction 23 Fig. Part of Chapter Nine, Book One, in MS D in which the text for the first three lunar mansions as given in MS A is transcribed in the margins as a commentary (sharḥ) on the discussion of lunar mansions taken from Kitāb al-Anwāʾ of Ibn Qutaybah (d.
4b] [a fol. 5a] [a fol. 5b] [a fol. 6a] [a fol. 6b] [a fol. 7a] [a fol. 7b] [a fol. 8a] [a fol.
34 Gharāʾib 2011, 1:66. The falconry treatise has edited (Bayzara 1953; 1995) and translated into French (Viré 1967). 35 Gharāʾib 2011, 1:52. 36 See Ibn Bassām 1967. 37 Gari 2008, see also Lev 1999. Kristen Stilt suggests the possibility that the author of the history of Tinnīs and the author of the market inspection treatise are not necessarily the same person (Stilt 2011, 60n). Given that the author in both works is named as Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad Ibn Bassām al-muḥtasib, this seems to us unlikely.