The United States is having some ongoing minor problems with terrorism. And I use minor as a relative term, in that the terrorists - notwithstanding having had only limited success in waging any sort of meaningful "war" against the United States - have had some success in inspiring terror among the United States populace. Which is largely irrational, as the average American citizen is statistically much more likely to fall victim to death by carjacking or home-invasion than they are to international (or even domestic) terrorism.
For a variety of reasons, the terrorists attacks are not going to have substantial effect on United States, except for monies spent towards tracking down and killing the terrorists in question and/or those who aid or support them. It is a documented historical fact that when a nation/state intentionally wages war against the civilian populace of the tacit "enemy," they will almost always lose. I could go into great depth if anyone is interested, but to briefly summarize: It didn't work for the Romans in Germania. It didn't work for the English (under Cromwell) in Ireland (and indeed, still doesn't work). It didn't work for the Tamil Separatist Tigers in Sri Lanka (google it: the Tigers - not Muslim arabs - were the true pioneers of suicide bombing). It didn't work for the Americans in Vietnam. It's not going to work for Islamic Fundamentalists in America.
Even setting aside the historical precedent, all you really have to do is consider terrorism rationally. Terrorism is the intentional use of violence against non-combatants with the intention of winning political gain. But regardless of the political ends sought in the latter part of the definition, the former part of the definition precludes any meaningful success. How do you expect to prevail when you act so as to make every single man, woman, and child of a population into an overt and active enemy? How do you expect the fathers, husbands, and sons of such population to react in response to your efforts? When the game plan is to kill a nation's women, children, and non-combatants, why would anyone possibly expect the enemy to cower in submission, rather than to pursue the attackers to the ends of the earth by every means at their disposal? Unless the political end the terrorists seek is to inspire the enemy to kill the terrorists at any cost, the political goal - any political goal - of the terrorists WILL FAIL. For all the occasions that is has been pursued (which are many), the idea of terrorism as a means to an end overlooks critical and obvious aspects of human nature.
That having been said, terrorism is a very real problem, and it would be nice to find some sort of expedient solution. Meaning a solution that doesn't require the expenditure of trillions of dollars, billions of soldier man-hours, and thousands of slain servicemen to implement. It is not practicable to kill every single terrorist who is inclined to air his grievances in public with high explosives, attractive as the option may be to the family members of World Trade Center fatalities.
Generally speaking, and setting aside political correctness in favor of honesty, most terrorist attacks against the United States grow from Islamic Fundamantalism. While Usama Bin Laden is a Saudi Prince, and while many of the upper leadership of al Queda are educated men pursuing socio-political agendas, they are not the ones blowing themselves up. They're too smart for that. The ones who do the killing (including killing themselves) are typically single, lower-middle class, highly religious men. The social structure of the middle-east means that there are an effectively infinite number of such men: they tend to be the younger sons of large families, without substantial economic prospects, and - failing substantial income - lack the ability to afford a wife and family. Their prospects in this world are not glowing or spectacular, and a long, happy life is often a fairy tale. Average life expectancy in Afghanistan, for example, is under 45 years.
Absent substantial prospects in this life, these men are fairly ripe for manipulation, based on the promise of better things in the next life. Enter the whole deal with rivers of honey and 40 virgins for anyone who dies in the service of Allah against the infidel. People want to believe it, so they toe to line. So long as there are people willing to blow themselves up to send the message penned by their socio-political controllers, terrorism is going to continue. The political agendas are ALWAYS going to be there, so the way to combat terrorism is at the grass-roots. Gotta either lessen the power of the Mighty, to ease their control over the masses, or else increase the power of the masses, to reach the same ends.
This is tough, since most Americans have problems even grasping the depth of the religious fervor involved. Notwithstanding our own frustration-based social problems (gangs, drugs, youth violence, etc.), most Americans cannot conceive of a life so frustrating, bleak, and devoid of prospects as to get us to entertain the idea of blowing ourselves up for God. Most citizens of western nations, hearing of frustration and angst as basis for that degree of motivation, will short-circuit to thinking that it's a crock of shit, and that the believers in question are simply nut-jobs. But even as a member of a "modern" society, there's no denying that it's easy to fall under the sway of charismatic people who tell you that everything is going to be all right and things are going to be wonderful, if you just read this book/follow this diet/blow up this Israeli cafe. American devotion to Tony Robins, Oprah, the Church of Scientology, etc., differs from Islamic fundamentalism only in two substantial respects. First, Americans are too comfortable and hedonistic to be in a rush to shuffle off the mortal coil as martyrs. And second, most Americans are educated and cosmopolitan enough to be skeptical about religious figures actually having some sort of hot-line to God, through which they receive holy directives.
But that wasn't always the case among western societies. Google "Crusades." Or "Spanish Inquisition." Or, more recently, "Jonestown." It is human nature to believe the unbelievable, especially where such efforts are required to provide explanation for the unknown and/or ill events. The ancient Greeks/Norse/etc. didn't know that lightning was the equalization exchange of static electrical inequalities between earth and sky. Thus, they needed Zeus/Thor/etc. to provide them with an explanation they could believe in. Likewise (and persisting through the present) there is the question "where do we go when we die," which is hands down, bar none, and without question mankind's greatest and most exploitable philosophical insecurity. It bothers us, so naturally, we enjoy (or at least tolerate) the company of those that tell us that things are going to be all right. Over time, and in an excellent example of human nature, the shamans and priests married their "knowledge" of arcane points to quality ritual showmanship, and gained enough adherents that they no longer needed to serve any actual purpose nor do any actual work.
Built upon the idea that they were closer to God than you were, and on the parallel idea that if you wanted to go to heaven, you'd better toe the line they set, the Roman Catholic Church was the central political force in Europe for about a millennium, holding at least as much sway over the day-to-day lives of the populace as does modern Islamic sects over their adherents. The really interesting part with the Holy Roman Empire was that through most of this period of dominion, people attending church on any given Sunday had only the vaguest idea of what was being said and done in all the elaborate rituals. Those rituals were performed in Latin and/or Greek. When readings were done from the bible, those readings were also in Latin and/or Greek, from books dating back to the early Christian empire in Byzantium, which was an outgrowth of Rome. Suffice to say that up until the 16th Century, the people sitting in the pews and filling the Church of Rome's collections plates generally didn't have a clue what was being said from the pulpit, except for the parts were they were told that they'd better listen up and do as they were told unless they wanted to burn in hell. Must've been believable. The priests clearly knew a lot of things that everyman didn't, and those rituals sure were elaborate. So people toed the line, and besides living their lives how the Church told them to, they also went to war because the Church told them to. Again, google "crusades."
But it didn't last, and the end came surprising quickly. Interestingly, the decline of the Church as the grass-roots power in Europe was not based so much on schisms within the Church as it was based on the removal of the centuries-old mysteries in which the Church had cloaked itself. It is not at all coincidence that the rise of Protestantism (and subsequent civil and holy wars in much of Europe) coincided with the first publications of bibles written in modern languages (notably Martin Luther's German translation in 1522 and William Tyndale's English New Testament Bible in 1525). Prior to this, and as above, substantially all bibles had been in Greek or Latin, including the first book ever to see large-scale mechanical printing, the 1455 Gutenberg Bible, which was in Vulgate Latin.
Availability of scriptures in common tongues led to interesting socio-religious developments, like people standing at the back of 16th Century church proceedings, reading the English translation of scriptures aloud, concurrently with the Preacher's reading in Latin, up in the pulpit. While such things would historically have resulted in the offender being set on fire, political developments outside the cloisters meant that such religious dissidents enjoying protection from On High. Specifically, England's Henry VIII wanted a divorce, and couldn't get the Pope to grant him one. So (in 1534) he told the Roman Catholic Church to fuck off, and founded the Church of England, with Himself at the head. To rally popular support away from the Roman Catholic Establishment, he needed to show the world that the Holy Roman Empire was mostly just a bunch of corrupt political hacks and autocrats hiding under vestments. (Google "Borgia.") Which was not hard. To do so, he supported and sponsored all sorts of covert and overt efforts to turn Christianity from some esoteric thing conducted in dead languages into something understandable and accessible to the masses. Although he is said to have regretted it later, his efforts to get laid with a different woman than his wife resulted in broad and systematic dissemination of the idea that the Roman Catholic Priests and Preachers didn't really have access to God or to the divine workings of the universe. They just knew another language. The subtext was that with the newly published (modern language) versions of the scriptures, people could still have faith, without the oppressive mandates of the Church of Rome. And, of course, Hank the Eighth could have his divorce, Papal approval or no.
As an interesting and relevant footnote, the publication of common-language translations of the bible spurred massive grass-roots intellectualism in Western Europe. Languages were standardized. (Especially in Germany, by the Luther bible; previous to its publication there were multiple German dialects, based on Germany's history as a loose affiliation of principalities, each with its own tongue. After 1522, Germans adopted a common tongue, so they could read the bible.) Literacy rates soared. Whereas only the upper-class could afford a full classical education to read the Bible in Latin or Greek, lots of people - down to artisans and tradesmen - could provide their children with the ability to read a "modern" language. And they did. To the point that a sizable portion of the populace became smart enough to be skeptical about any man claiming to be God's proxy. For people who can't read, books are magical. For people who can, they're just words on a page.
Besides the mean increase in popular intellect and related rise in educated skepticism, literacy would in turn lead to another domino falling: the rise of widespread literature to challenge the bible as humanity's tacit seminal written work. Shakespeare's father was a tradesmen (a glover), who would probably have been unable to send little Billy to Oxford to learn Greek (especially since Billy was the third of eight children). But Billy did learn to read and write at his local grammar school. You might say he put his skills to use.
Thus, in the late 16th century, the bible itself would come under indirect attack, since it was surpassed as the best read available. Historically, christianity was every bit as myopic as Islam in the idea that reading anything other than the scriptures was, at best, a waste of time ("Either it agrees with the bible, in which case it is extraneous, or else it disagrees with the bible, in which case it is blasphemy"). With the rise of literacy and literature (and with further development of the printing press), other stories arose to compete for readers' attention. Shakespeare was doing his best work in the late 16th Century, with the first published editions of Hamlet dating to about 1599. Cervantes wrote Don Quixote in the same period, and German literature (somewhat slowed by its still-diverse dialects) was developing as well, highlighted by the Baroque period and the early Faustian tales.
Of course, the Church was not pleased at having lost its veritable monopoly over the actual content of the scriptures, much less with all that pesky free-thinking and intellectual skepticism that came from a literate populace. William Tyndale never lived to see any of these literary developments: he was arrested by Church authorities, strangled, and burned at the stake in 1536. Martin Luther was allowed to live, since he had a big enough following that he would be dangerous as a martyr, and had already been excommunicated (in 1521) prior to publishing his Germanic bible. In any rate, the damage had been done. People under the Church's sway started doing the last thing that the church wanted them to do: they stopped being impressed with the rituals and dogma, and started thinking for themselves. Less than 100 years from the Bible having been illegible to nearly all church-goers, church-goers were themselves creating literary masterpieces of their own.
When that happened, the end was inevitable, since the Church - ever fundamentally traditionalist - dug in its heels rather than bending to fit the times. In 1616 (ironically the year that both Shakespeare and Cervantes both died on the same day) Galileo went to Rome, to try and convince the Church that Copernicus was right about that whole helocentricism thing. He argued to the Pope that the Church should acknowledge such obvious scientific truths, regardless of what might be laid out in Psalms, Chronicles, and/or Ecclesiastes. Alas, alack, the Church didn't want to hear it. They had their hands full with upstart Protestant figures, culminating in Sweden's King Gustav Augustus, whose (Protestant) armies would shortly be rolling through (previously Catholic) central Europe, kicking that collective asses of the Catholic armies that were supposed to have God on their side. Needing to appear strong in the face of attacks on the Church and the Bible, and in the interest of preserving the monolithic image of the Catholic Church as the hand of God on earth, the Pope Decreed accordingly. Galileo spent most the remainder of his life under house arrest, with his published works declared heretic. This notwithstanding that his principles of a heliocentric solar system could be observed and verified by anyone, largely without even use of a telescope.
With the management of the whole Galileo thing, the Church utterly and truly lost the intellectuals of Europe. Turns out that you lose credibility when you demonstrate that you're full of shit. Hell, if the Church can't get a simply orbital ellipse straight, how they hell could they claim understanding of something like the immortal soul? In any rate, the end of the Church as the great power in Europe was fast coming after that, since the professional academics were responsible for providing educations for the upper crusts of society. You can imagine the sort of opinion they had of the Church and its tenets, when the Church Ordered that one plus one does not equal two. Safe to say that the people they were educating might have picked up on the idea that the Church might not actually be the divine conduit it claimed to be. So, while it would remain intact through the present, The Holy Roman Empire was done as the controlling power over people's lives. It yielded substantially all claims of sovereignty over both people and nations in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which treaties also included the western world's first codification of any substantial right to freedom of religion.
Applying these historical precedents to current problems in the Middle East: if you want to reduce religious fervor and fanaticism, the thing to do is teach people to read. Get enough people reading and writing, and the culture is going to wax skeptical about religious mysticism. They're going to create great literary works to surpass the ancient (cryptic and/or outdated) religious texts in the minds of the people. Get the people smart enough to ask pointed questions, to which they will not accept "because the Book says so" as an acceptable answer. However subtly it might be presented, the proposal that turns disaffected Arab men into terrorists is: "If you blow yourself up to kill people you've never met, you will go to heaven. Trust me." Honestly, should it really be difficult to educate people enough for them to be skeptical when presented with that message?
Alas, we don't seem to be making much progress, and might even be going backwards. If you rank the world's 180-some nations in order of their literacy rate, Saudi Arabia is 116th. Iran is 121st. Egypt is 148th. Pakistan, at 163rd, has about the world's lowest literacy rate outside of Africa. No figures are currently available for Iraq or Afghanistan, what with large-scale disruption of their education system from recent wars. But suffice to say that current breakdowns of the education systems and concurrent low literacy rates suggest that the next 20 years (at least) will find no shortage of disaffected Iraqi and/or Afghan males who follow the orders of their church without question.
With regard to dissemination in the Arab world of home-grown literature, the situation is equally bleak. The 20th Century did see a tacit renaissance of Arab literature (the nahda period), but the world's pre-eminent Muslim author is probably Salman Rushdie (google him), who has a death sentence outstanding in Iran, for heresy. For the most part, the Arab world has not had a great storyteller since Scheherazade. With low literacy rates, the likelihood of a transcendental author of the caliber of Shakespeare (or Cervantes, or Hemingway, or Murasaki, or Flaubert, or whoever) appearing is relatively small. Nobody in the past century has come close to challenging the Koran (formalized in 654) as the pre-eminent must-read for Arab citizens and academics alike. Doesn't it seem odd that 1400 years later, nobody has come up with something that people find more captivating? Maybe something can be done about that?
We can kill terrorists to no end. There are plenty of them, and current socio-economic trends - both in the Middle East and in the world as a whole - indicate that there will be a lot more coming. Setting aside individual terrorists, the defeat of Islamic Fundamentalis terrorism will necessarily take a long view, with progress measured in generations, rather than in years. But history shows that as history measures time, religions can fall rather quickly. It only took a few generations for the people of Europe to evolve from illiterate yokels, smiling, nodding, and toeing the line into educated skeptics living their own lives.
The fall of the Church of Rome started with people learning to read, from which grew religious skepticism, literary tradition, and - ultimately - the intellectual discrediting of the Church. Looking at the world today, terrorists tend to come from parts of the world with poor literacy, little or no secular literary tradition, and stunted intellectual communities.
Maybe there's a lesson here? Maybe a solution to terrorism as well?
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Self Help
Mexico is having some problems these days, largely as a result of it's inability to control criminal enterprises (read: drug cartels). The most extensive military services the Mexican armed forces has seen in years are happening right now, inside Mexico, in scenes not a lot unlike the pictures you see of peacekeeping Marines on patrol in Basra. Same basic job, and about the same risk: that someone you've never seen before, probably a misguided teenager, is going to toss a grenade at your feet, because he and his buddies have been told to do so by shadow criminal/political figure on high.
There are in fact entire cities which are under martial law, and these are not cities in the central-american hinterland. You can stand in El Paso, Texas, and see the fires burning in Juarez, just on the other side of the Rio Grande. They averaged about 7 murders per day there this year. Approximately 95% of crimes in the last three years remain unsolved. It's a fun town, and is just exemplary of the problem, not definitive of the problem. But for heavily policed areas, there's a lot of lawlessness. South of the Border, the maintenance of law and order is more wishful thinking than legitimate state of being.
Which is prompting an interesting grass-roots response, and the emergence of "self help" as an effective means of maintaining civil order. On September 21, 2010, a group of young men, masked and armed with assault rifles, stormed into a local seafood eatery in the Mexican town of Ascencion, in an attempt to abduct the 17-year old girl who was manning the register. The men - teenagers - were set upon by the local farmers and tradesmen in the restaurant and in the streets, who up to that point had been turning the other cheek to such sorts of lawlessness. But when they did finally rouse themselves to action that day, results were gotten. Some of the people in the vigilante crowds apparently suffered broken hands and wrists in the course of handing beat-downs on the would-be abductors.
Federal Police eventually arrived at the scene, pulled the suspects from the crowd, and locked them in the back of police vehicles. The crowd did not disperse. Although they did not attack the police, the crowd surrounded the police cars, chanting "KILL THEM! KILL THEM!" They refused to move out of the path of vehicles. They blocked the entry of other police vehicles onto the scene (including preventing helicopters from landing). They did eventually lose interest and allow the police vehicles to leave, but not until after the kidnappers died from the wounds inflicted on them by the crowds. In effect, the would-be kidnappers bled out there at the scene, sweltering inside the police vehicles. No charges have been filed against any members of the crowd.
Prior to September 21, Ascencion had suffered about 40 kidnappings in 2010, or an average of about one kidnapping a week. There haven't been any since then. Of couse, since the mobbing of the kidnappers on 9/21, the locals have dug a ditch around the town (too deep to traverse with any civilian vehicle), and erected a watchtower. They've instituted a neighborhood watch. As the main focus is to stop kidnappings, the game plan is simple: when citizens hear the big alarm on the tower, they drop what they're doing, walk out of the house, and stand in the highway that runs though the middle of town. They use their bodies to prevent people from leaving by the roadways, and the ditch prevents anyone from escaping (with, for example, a 15-year old kidnapped girl in their trunk) through other means.
There haven't been any published kidnapping attempts since then, and local honchos of the neighborhood watch say that if they catch anyone, they would turn those people over to the police. Of course, the kidnappers who died on September 21 were technically in the custody of police at the time of their deaths, so I don't think any would-be kidnappers would place a lot of faith in Due Process, should they get pinched. Especially since the body of a man suspected to be a local thief has subsequently been found on the edge of town in October.
I thought I would share all this, since it warms my heart to see people taking an active interest in local politics and law enforcement.
There are in fact entire cities which are under martial law, and these are not cities in the central-american hinterland. You can stand in El Paso, Texas, and see the fires burning in Juarez, just on the other side of the Rio Grande. They averaged about 7 murders per day there this year. Approximately 95% of crimes in the last three years remain unsolved. It's a fun town, and is just exemplary of the problem, not definitive of the problem. But for heavily policed areas, there's a lot of lawlessness. South of the Border, the maintenance of law and order is more wishful thinking than legitimate state of being.
Which is prompting an interesting grass-roots response, and the emergence of "self help" as an effective means of maintaining civil order. On September 21, 2010, a group of young men, masked and armed with assault rifles, stormed into a local seafood eatery in the Mexican town of Ascencion, in an attempt to abduct the 17-year old girl who was manning the register. The men - teenagers - were set upon by the local farmers and tradesmen in the restaurant and in the streets, who up to that point had been turning the other cheek to such sorts of lawlessness. But when they did finally rouse themselves to action that day, results were gotten. Some of the people in the vigilante crowds apparently suffered broken hands and wrists in the course of handing beat-downs on the would-be abductors.
Federal Police eventually arrived at the scene, pulled the suspects from the crowd, and locked them in the back of police vehicles. The crowd did not disperse. Although they did not attack the police, the crowd surrounded the police cars, chanting "KILL THEM! KILL THEM!" They refused to move out of the path of vehicles. They blocked the entry of other police vehicles onto the scene (including preventing helicopters from landing). They did eventually lose interest and allow the police vehicles to leave, but not until after the kidnappers died from the wounds inflicted on them by the crowds. In effect, the would-be kidnappers bled out there at the scene, sweltering inside the police vehicles. No charges have been filed against any members of the crowd.
Prior to September 21, Ascencion had suffered about 40 kidnappings in 2010, or an average of about one kidnapping a week. There haven't been any since then. Of couse, since the mobbing of the kidnappers on 9/21, the locals have dug a ditch around the town (too deep to traverse with any civilian vehicle), and erected a watchtower. They've instituted a neighborhood watch. As the main focus is to stop kidnappings, the game plan is simple: when citizens hear the big alarm on the tower, they drop what they're doing, walk out of the house, and stand in the highway that runs though the middle of town. They use their bodies to prevent people from leaving by the roadways, and the ditch prevents anyone from escaping (with, for example, a 15-year old kidnapped girl in their trunk) through other means.
There haven't been any published kidnapping attempts since then, and local honchos of the neighborhood watch say that if they catch anyone, they would turn those people over to the police. Of course, the kidnappers who died on September 21 were technically in the custody of police at the time of their deaths, so I don't think any would-be kidnappers would place a lot of faith in Due Process, should they get pinched. Especially since the body of a man suspected to be a local thief has subsequently been found on the edge of town in October.
I thought I would share all this, since it warms my heart to see people taking an active interest in local politics and law enforcement.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Big Bang News
According to Yahoo news, a big leap forward happened in science recently, in that scientists at CERN were able to create AND CONTROL an anti-matter atom for an appreciable period, purportedly long enough to perform qualitative analysis of the atom and its interaction with other forces. While it is possible that these recent published findings will go down the trail blazed by Pons and Fleischmann (google them), recent lab results are reported to include creation and substantial maintenance of a complete anti-hydrogen atom. This is a big step.
For those of you not of the science-fiction geek sect, anti-matter has been a favorite hypothetical sci-fi power source for years, particularly for things like interplanetary and/or interstellar travel. The theory is that when anti-matter comes into contact with "normal" matter, both are annihilated in toto, releasing energy on a scale offered by Einstein: The energy generated equals the mass of the matter consumed times the square of the speed of light. Since the speed of light is a really big number, this annihilation of matter results in a LOT of energy compared to the amount of material involved in the reaction. Hypothetically, only a relatively small amount of anti-matter would be enough to push an object from one star system to the next in a space of time measured in periods shorter than geological epochs. The starship Enterprise, for example, has at its heart a matter/anti-matter reactor, and even legitimate scientific theorists who posit ideas for travel between star systems (some of which are pretty interesting; google 'Alcubierre drive') generally concede that anti-matter is one of the few reactions known to man that would produce sufficient energy to reach the required velocities, and/or to generate the exotic matter/energy fields needed to simultaneously exploit and not fall victim to pesky little things like the gravimetric effects of relativity.
Here in the real universe (at least on this planet) anti-matter spent decades as a fantasy substance, where it was theorized to exist, but remained unobserved. Then it spent years at a hypothetical substance, as scientists were able to create anti-particles (anti-protons, anti-neutrons, etc.), but fell short of creating an actual atom. The first complete anti-hydrogen atoms were first created in 2002, but nobody could really be sure, since too short an interval existed between the creation of the anti-atom and its subsequent annihilation. While the energy levels in the observed reaction (i.e., the annihilation) supported that what was being generated was, in fact, anti-matter, nobody could trap the anti-atoms long enough to perform any detailed scientific analysis. That's the problem that's being worked on currently, with results being gotten. By freezing the anti-atom down to just half a degree above absolute zero (-272.5 degrees C), scientist have been able to create and trap complete anti-matter atoms for periods measured in actual seconds.
Rationally speaking, anti-matter as an energy source is horse-shit, and will remain so for at least a few more generations. Generating anti-matter takes vastly more energy than is released by the matter/anti-matter reaction that follows - notwithstanding the direct application of Einstein's matter/energy conversion rate - even before you consider the energy costs of cooling the anti-matter to near absolute zero to trap the atom. Barring some amazing breakthrough that makes the stuff easy to produce and store, we're going to keep burning oil for fuel. Hell, we can't even figure out a way to produce normal hydrogen cheaply and efficiently enough to use it as an energy source, much less anti-hydrogen.
But in theory at least, analyzing anti-matter will provide insight into the nature and properties of matter itself, in the literal sense. Meaning that science here on earth is seeking to explore the circumstances and context of how matter is actually created and/or destroyed. Did Ben Franklin know what he was getting us in to when he went and flew a kite in a thunderstorm? Who knows where this might lead us.
For those of you not of the science-fiction geek sect, anti-matter has been a favorite hypothetical sci-fi power source for years, particularly for things like interplanetary and/or interstellar travel. The theory is that when anti-matter comes into contact with "normal" matter, both are annihilated in toto, releasing energy on a scale offered by Einstein: The energy generated equals the mass of the matter consumed times the square of the speed of light. Since the speed of light is a really big number, this annihilation of matter results in a LOT of energy compared to the amount of material involved in the reaction. Hypothetically, only a relatively small amount of anti-matter would be enough to push an object from one star system to the next in a space of time measured in periods shorter than geological epochs. The starship Enterprise, for example, has at its heart a matter/anti-matter reactor, and even legitimate scientific theorists who posit ideas for travel between star systems (some of which are pretty interesting; google 'Alcubierre drive') generally concede that anti-matter is one of the few reactions known to man that would produce sufficient energy to reach the required velocities, and/or to generate the exotic matter/energy fields needed to simultaneously exploit and not fall victim to pesky little things like the gravimetric effects of relativity.
Here in the real universe (at least on this planet) anti-matter spent decades as a fantasy substance, where it was theorized to exist, but remained unobserved. Then it spent years at a hypothetical substance, as scientists were able to create anti-particles (anti-protons, anti-neutrons, etc.), but fell short of creating an actual atom. The first complete anti-hydrogen atoms were first created in 2002, but nobody could really be sure, since too short an interval existed between the creation of the anti-atom and its subsequent annihilation. While the energy levels in the observed reaction (i.e., the annihilation) supported that what was being generated was, in fact, anti-matter, nobody could trap the anti-atoms long enough to perform any detailed scientific analysis. That's the problem that's being worked on currently, with results being gotten. By freezing the anti-atom down to just half a degree above absolute zero (-272.5 degrees C), scientist have been able to create and trap complete anti-matter atoms for periods measured in actual seconds.
Rationally speaking, anti-matter as an energy source is horse-shit, and will remain so for at least a few more generations. Generating anti-matter takes vastly more energy than is released by the matter/anti-matter reaction that follows - notwithstanding the direct application of Einstein's matter/energy conversion rate - even before you consider the energy costs of cooling the anti-matter to near absolute zero to trap the atom. Barring some amazing breakthrough that makes the stuff easy to produce and store, we're going to keep burning oil for fuel. Hell, we can't even figure out a way to produce normal hydrogen cheaply and efficiently enough to use it as an energy source, much less anti-hydrogen.
But in theory at least, analyzing anti-matter will provide insight into the nature and properties of matter itself, in the literal sense. Meaning that science here on earth is seeking to explore the circumstances and context of how matter is actually created and/or destroyed. Did Ben Franklin know what he was getting us in to when he went and flew a kite in a thunderstorm? Who knows where this might lead us.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Dear Santa...
For Christmas this year, I would like:
A pony (or just a saddle for Griffin)
An Ipad
Fable III for Xbox 360
Lego Harry Potter Years 1-4 for Xbox 360
Rusack Vinyards 'Anacappa'
Digital calipers (on sale at thinkgeek.com)
Clothes that CB approves of
New digital camera
'Darkwar' by Glen Cook
'Lost' Seasons 4, 5 & 6 on DVD
A big-ass gaudy walking stick to go with my pimp suit
Bulk .45 ACP ammo (cheap stuff for plinking)
A mechtechsys.com carbine upper for a Glock 19 receiver
Hank Burgoyne II's head on a platter
A good dress watch
Membership at Desert Sportsman
An electric sander (Dewalt makes a nice 1/4-sheet pad sander)
New candle for my office (something with an oceanic theme. Or else dryer-sheet scented.)
A pony (or just a saddle for Griffin)
An Ipad
Fable III for Xbox 360
Lego Harry Potter Years 1-4 for Xbox 360
Rusack Vinyards 'Anacappa'
Digital calipers (on sale at thinkgeek.com)
Clothes that CB approves of
New digital camera
'Darkwar' by Glen Cook
'Lost' Seasons 4, 5 & 6 on DVD
A big-ass gaudy walking stick to go with my pimp suit
Bulk .45 ACP ammo (cheap stuff for plinking)
A mechtechsys.com carbine upper for a Glock 19 receiver
Hank Burgoyne II's head on a platter
A good dress watch
Membership at Desert Sportsman
An electric sander (Dewalt makes a nice 1/4-sheet pad sander)
New candle for my office (something with an oceanic theme. Or else dryer-sheet scented.)
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
More on the Bourgeois
A little while ago, I posted on the decadence of the Roman Empire prior to its fall, and questioned whether those enjoying the decadence and ignoring the masses either realized what was coming, or would have cared if they did know.
Over the weekend, I went out to dinner with CB and her parents. We were celebrating several notable events, and went to Joe's Stone Crab. (NOT to be confused with Joe's Crab Shack. NIGHT and DAY.) (I met the Sommelier at jury duty earlier in the week - viva Las Vegas - and he set us up pretty well.) Between the four of us in attendance at Joe's, we had 24 oz. of fillet mignon, several lobster tails, a handful of stone-crabs claws, about 2 lbs. of Alaskan king crab legs (add two sticks of butter as condiments for the shellfish), and a concoction of potatoes, cheese, bacon, and sour cream that weighed about two pounds as well. Also a bottle of red. And a bottle of white. A plate of asparagus spears. And then there was pie. OH MY GOD, the pie. It literally defied description as to how good the pie was, except to assert that we all found room for some, even after the gluttonous frenzy of the preceding courses.
It was amazing, it was fattening, and I will savor recollection of every delicious bite every time I re-read this post. (Did I mention the pie?) And then the check came. For the price of our meal for four, a family of four could have eaten pretty well for literally a month.
I paid it without shock or hesitation.
I feel not the slightest bit guilty or apologetic about it. I bet the Romans were much the same.
Over the weekend, I went out to dinner with CB and her parents. We were celebrating several notable events, and went to Joe's Stone Crab. (NOT to be confused with Joe's Crab Shack. NIGHT and DAY.) (I met the Sommelier at jury duty earlier in the week - viva Las Vegas - and he set us up pretty well.) Between the four of us in attendance at Joe's, we had 24 oz. of fillet mignon, several lobster tails, a handful of stone-crabs claws, about 2 lbs. of Alaskan king crab legs (add two sticks of butter as condiments for the shellfish), and a concoction of potatoes, cheese, bacon, and sour cream that weighed about two pounds as well. Also a bottle of red. And a bottle of white. A plate of asparagus spears. And then there was pie. OH MY GOD, the pie. It literally defied description as to how good the pie was, except to assert that we all found room for some, even after the gluttonous frenzy of the preceding courses.
It was amazing, it was fattening, and I will savor recollection of every delicious bite every time I re-read this post. (Did I mention the pie?) And then the check came. For the price of our meal for four, a family of four could have eaten pretty well for literally a month.
I paid it without shock or hesitation.
I feel not the slightest bit guilty or apologetic about it. I bet the Romans were much the same.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
How did we go from there to here?
"From each according to ability, to each according to need."
Although this passage is commonly attributed to Karl Marx, the phrase was actually (per most histories) coined by Louis Blanc, about a decade before Marx really climbed to the pinnacle of his soap-box. Blanc himself offered the phrase as a revision of a comment from a French utopian socialist (Henri de Saint Simon) who had the audacity to suggest that workers should be paid according to how much he works.
But although the line doesn't actually appear in the Communist Manifesto (1848), it is a principal underlying point of nearly every mainstream communist/socialist movement, philosophy, or ideal. Which I mean to include any time a tax dollar gets paid for the benefit or advantage of someone who doesn't pay taxes, or who otherwise fails to support themselves. Use of warm fuzzy "moral" arguments to argue that it is the responsibility of the capable to provide for the comfort and benefit of the incapable. Which is not something that I'm overwhelmingly adverse to. There are people who legitimately need charity, and there are a great many who can afford to give to charity. My objection comes when the idea becomes institutionalized to the point that the capable are REQUIRED to provide for the comfort and benefit of the incapable, whether they like it or not, and where there's only questionable differentiation between "incapable" and "disinterested."
But returning to the communist ideal expressed above, this was an idea that Americans railed against 50 years ago, universally and violently. You couldn't get a job in this country if you were associated with any sort of communist/socialist party. Wars were waged with little more justification than being part of the "war against communism." Aversion to this idea, and belief that a person was entitled to the benefit of their labor, was fierce, to the point that the United States went to the brink of nuclear war, and contemplated ending the existence of meaningful human civilization on this planet, rather than accept the concept.
So I think it's hilarious that "from each according to ability, to each according to need" has become a central tenant of American political thought and governmental efforts. We don't use those words, of course. Even if it were politically correct to call a duck a duck, we're much more sophisticated than to use the same failed slogans while we attempt to re-enact the same failed policies.
Because that is what we're doing. Lets make the successful pay higher taxes, BECAUSE THEY CAN. It should be their obligation to support the health and welfare of the HALF OF THE POPULATION that doesn't pay taxes at all. Fuck this whole privatized industry thing: lets get the automotive industry under Federal Control. Throw some more regulation on the banking industry. Oh, and about that whole health-care thing; successful people should be barred from paying their own money for procedures. Lets make the taxpayers buy coverage for everyone. Play some games with the billing structure so we can fit 30 million additional people into the healthcare system, regardless of whether they can pay. Never mind that the former Soviet Union - where living conditions are currently nearer to downtown Mogadishu than they are to downtown Chicago - should be lesson enough for any rationally thinking political scholar to write off Marxism/Leninism as a catastrophically bad idea. Never mind that there are five entire European countries on the verge of bankruptcy (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) from following these exact policies, Barack knows better. And, after all, he is NOT a communist. Just ask him. And of course, he'd never endorse the Marxist language, which remains anathema, even as he trumpets the Marxist ideal.
Fifty years ago, the administration was willing to destroy the world to protect us from this idea. Now, the administration is enacting this ideal, pretty much regardless of whether people want it or not.
*Sigh.* We have met the enemy. And he is us.
Although this passage is commonly attributed to Karl Marx, the phrase was actually (per most histories) coined by Louis Blanc, about a decade before Marx really climbed to the pinnacle of his soap-box. Blanc himself offered the phrase as a revision of a comment from a French utopian socialist (Henri de Saint Simon) who had the audacity to suggest that workers should be paid according to how much he works.
But although the line doesn't actually appear in the Communist Manifesto (1848), it is a principal underlying point of nearly every mainstream communist/socialist movement, philosophy, or ideal. Which I mean to include any time a tax dollar gets paid for the benefit or advantage of someone who doesn't pay taxes, or who otherwise fails to support themselves. Use of warm fuzzy "moral" arguments to argue that it is the responsibility of the capable to provide for the comfort and benefit of the incapable. Which is not something that I'm overwhelmingly adverse to. There are people who legitimately need charity, and there are a great many who can afford to give to charity. My objection comes when the idea becomes institutionalized to the point that the capable are REQUIRED to provide for the comfort and benefit of the incapable, whether they like it or not, and where there's only questionable differentiation between "incapable" and "disinterested."
But returning to the communist ideal expressed above, this was an idea that Americans railed against 50 years ago, universally and violently. You couldn't get a job in this country if you were associated with any sort of communist/socialist party. Wars were waged with little more justification than being part of the "war against communism." Aversion to this idea, and belief that a person was entitled to the benefit of their labor, was fierce, to the point that the United States went to the brink of nuclear war, and contemplated ending the existence of meaningful human civilization on this planet, rather than accept the concept.
So I think it's hilarious that "from each according to ability, to each according to need" has become a central tenant of American political thought and governmental efforts. We don't use those words, of course. Even if it were politically correct to call a duck a duck, we're much more sophisticated than to use the same failed slogans while we attempt to re-enact the same failed policies.
Because that is what we're doing. Lets make the successful pay higher taxes, BECAUSE THEY CAN. It should be their obligation to support the health and welfare of the HALF OF THE POPULATION that doesn't pay taxes at all. Fuck this whole privatized industry thing: lets get the automotive industry under Federal Control. Throw some more regulation on the banking industry. Oh, and about that whole health-care thing; successful people should be barred from paying their own money for procedures. Lets make the taxpayers buy coverage for everyone. Play some games with the billing structure so we can fit 30 million additional people into the healthcare system, regardless of whether they can pay. Never mind that the former Soviet Union - where living conditions are currently nearer to downtown Mogadishu than they are to downtown Chicago - should be lesson enough for any rationally thinking political scholar to write off Marxism/Leninism as a catastrophically bad idea. Never mind that there are five entire European countries on the verge of bankruptcy (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) from following these exact policies, Barack knows better. And, after all, he is NOT a communist. Just ask him. And of course, he'd never endorse the Marxist language, which remains anathema, even as he trumpets the Marxist ideal.
Fifty years ago, the administration was willing to destroy the world to protect us from this idea. Now, the administration is enacting this ideal, pretty much regardless of whether people want it or not.
*Sigh.* We have met the enemy. And he is us.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Addendum re: Shitty Sequels
After she read the prior post, CB (yes, the significant other has been assigned a code-name) pointed out to me a spectacular example of the trend I was describing. And it was a better example than any I used. Specifically, the Die Hard movies.
Again, we were talking about how some ideas and storylines are so good they become cultural icons. We were talking about how storylines can evolve when people who care about the storyline are given creative authority to develop the storyline. And we were specifically talking about how things absolutely fall into the shitter when creative authority is turned over to some pop-culture asshole who cares more about pandering to the masses than about developing the storyline.
Now. Die Hard. Remember John McClane from the first (1988) movie? Got invited to a party by mistake by his wife's boss. Didn't even know for sure if he was welcome at his wife's house. Regular guy, shitty job that he can't help loving, with some every-day marital problems. Yeah, the storyline was no better than the typical action move flick, but it managed to not violate the laws of physics overmuch. Alan Rickman was great as the iconically sleazy Hans Gruber. Willis and (director) John McTiernan managed to plausibly sell the idea that McClane was just a regular guy doing the best he could, which ended up being good enough. And - notably - by the end of the movie, McClane could barely walk because he feet were so shredded.
Good shit.
Of course, by the time the fourth movie rolled around (directed by Len Wiseman, whose fame is based almost entirely on how good his wife looks in skin-tight leather), McClane was knocking helicopters out of the sky by jumping cars into them - he was out of bullets - and wrestling jet planes with his bare hands. Really? REALLY? But hey, those one-liners sure were great, weren't they? And those crashes and explosions? Wow. CGI has really come a long way since "Tron."
As for his own efforts regarding furtherance and/or damage to icons, McTiernan himself should probably be killed for his 2002 remake of "Rollerball" (which is unwatchable for the entirety of the movie that doesn't feature a naked Rebacca Romjin-Stamos). But McTiernan himself has sparked several other Hollywood icons ("Predator," and the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan movies), and I personally think his 1999 remake of "Thomas Crown Affair" was better than the (1968) original. And he undoubtedly believed in John McClane as an every-man character, doing his best to deal with extraordinary events.
Wiseman, not so much.
The fact that "Live Free or Die Hard" was a commercial success and was at least fun to watch doesn't change the fact that it was as completely divorced from reality as was "Batman & Robin." Neither does it change the fact that it was as removed from the McTiernan original as "Generations" was from "Wrath of Khan." Rather, and as with certain Star Trek movies, the commercial success came from the quality of the original, rather than the quality of the sequel. But at least commercial success means that Wiseman won't have to publicly apologize for his conduct.
Unfortunately, Wiseman has already won new gigs as a director, and was penciled in to do the film adaptation of the Xbox "Gears of War" game. Fine and good, since this was unlikely to do any damage to extant Hollywood movie icons. Alas, Wiseman walked away from the project after he realized that "Gears of War" would go the way of the "Resident Evil" flicks: fun to watch, but utterly devoid of both reality and intellectual content. While Wiseman already has that style down pat after his personal Die Hard foray, he apparently conceded inability to make a successful movie when denied a $200-million budget, the "Die Hard" name, Bruce Willis, and/or Kate Beckinsale in tight outfits. Fingers crossed for him to stick to the "Underworld" thing. Although even his wife has departed from that franchise, which really speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Again, we were talking about how some ideas and storylines are so good they become cultural icons. We were talking about how storylines can evolve when people who care about the storyline are given creative authority to develop the storyline. And we were specifically talking about how things absolutely fall into the shitter when creative authority is turned over to some pop-culture asshole who cares more about pandering to the masses than about developing the storyline.
Now. Die Hard. Remember John McClane from the first (1988) movie? Got invited to a party by mistake by his wife's boss. Didn't even know for sure if he was welcome at his wife's house. Regular guy, shitty job that he can't help loving, with some every-day marital problems. Yeah, the storyline was no better than the typical action move flick, but it managed to not violate the laws of physics overmuch. Alan Rickman was great as the iconically sleazy Hans Gruber. Willis and (director) John McTiernan managed to plausibly sell the idea that McClane was just a regular guy doing the best he could, which ended up being good enough. And - notably - by the end of the movie, McClane could barely walk because he feet were so shredded.
Good shit.
Of course, by the time the fourth movie rolled around (directed by Len Wiseman, whose fame is based almost entirely on how good his wife looks in skin-tight leather), McClane was knocking helicopters out of the sky by jumping cars into them - he was out of bullets - and wrestling jet planes with his bare hands. Really? REALLY? But hey, those one-liners sure were great, weren't they? And those crashes and explosions? Wow. CGI has really come a long way since "Tron."
As for his own efforts regarding furtherance and/or damage to icons, McTiernan himself should probably be killed for his 2002 remake of "Rollerball" (which is unwatchable for the entirety of the movie that doesn't feature a naked Rebacca Romjin-Stamos). But McTiernan himself has sparked several other Hollywood icons ("Predator," and the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan movies), and I personally think his 1999 remake of "Thomas Crown Affair" was better than the (1968) original. And he undoubtedly believed in John McClane as an every-man character, doing his best to deal with extraordinary events.
Wiseman, not so much.
The fact that "Live Free or Die Hard" was a commercial success and was at least fun to watch doesn't change the fact that it was as completely divorced from reality as was "Batman & Robin." Neither does it change the fact that it was as removed from the McTiernan original as "Generations" was from "Wrath of Khan." Rather, and as with certain Star Trek movies, the commercial success came from the quality of the original, rather than the quality of the sequel. But at least commercial success means that Wiseman won't have to publicly apologize for his conduct.
Unfortunately, Wiseman has already won new gigs as a director, and was penciled in to do the film adaptation of the Xbox "Gears of War" game. Fine and good, since this was unlikely to do any damage to extant Hollywood movie icons. Alas, Wiseman walked away from the project after he realized that "Gears of War" would go the way of the "Resident Evil" flicks: fun to watch, but utterly devoid of both reality and intellectual content. While Wiseman already has that style down pat after his personal Die Hard foray, he apparently conceded inability to make a successful movie when denied a $200-million budget, the "Die Hard" name, Bruce Willis, and/or Kate Beckinsale in tight outfits. Fingers crossed for him to stick to the "Underworld" thing. Although even his wife has departed from that franchise, which really speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Cultural Evolution. Through IP Theft.
Hollywood has never been shy about stealing shit that looked good, and trying to make it into something better. I generally support this trend, although even an idiot would have to concede that the results are sometimes mixed, at best. But I suppose it needs to be, given the scope of the ongoing theft of intellectual property. How many of Shakespeare's plays have been "adapted" into modern cinema? How many different versions of Dangerous Liasons have been made? There's a bunch of generally shitty movies (notably "A Fist Full of Dollars" and "Last Man Standing") that are bad remakes of a great film called "Yojimbo." (By the way, the greatest writer-director who ever lived was not named "Lucas," "Spielberg," "Hitchcock," or "Cameron." Rather, he was a Japanese guy named Akira Kurosawa.)
Obviously, the transition sometimes doesn't take very well, since Hollywood packages things into 2-hour packages. The goal is usually something that's easily digestible by the lowest common denominator movie-goer, who's idea of non-movie entertainment is "Jersey Shore." Two hours is a good space of time to tell a story, yes. But it's not nearly enough time to build a world, a practice which will ever remain the province of the novelist. I contend, for example, that NOBODY builds worlds like Glen Cook. But none of his stuff would make a good movie.
Similarly, the greatest graphic novel of of all time is, in fact, "Watchmen." Which was a high-budget B-movie, devoid of nearly all of the impact and insight of the printed work. The greatest anime artist is Masamune Shiro ("Appleseed," "Ghost in the Shell,"). None of his works made a decent transition onto the big-screen, and for pretty much the same reason: too much depth. While there are undoubtedly success stories (with "Lord of the Rings" at the top of the list of converted books, and "300" headlining the graphic novels-turned-movie field) those tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Its the same reason that movies based on books almost always suck. Hell, just read Dean Koontz' "Watchers," and then watch any of the several movies the book has spawned. Or better yet, just read the book.
All that having been said, I'm a big believer in the recycling of characters and of storylines. First of all, it works. Even if the most recent 'Star Trek' movie had totally sucked (which it distinctly didn't), people would have seen it in droves, just because it's Star Trek. (I am glad that it didn't suck. After "Undiscovered Country" and "Generations," I was genuinely worried that Star Trek might need to be retired for a decade, before another decent movie would get made.) But aside from commercial success, recycling of storylines allows the storylines to EVOLVE.
Continuing the the Star Trek example: An entire generation of nerds was raised on that shit. Some of those kids aspired to be screenwriters and directors. Some of them succeeded. Then another generation came along watching Next Generation. That generation had its aspiring screenwriters and directors as well. Some of them succeeded as well. Of course there were some hitches and mis-steps along the way ("Voyager,") but by and large, the best and the brightest of the Trekkies (read: Rick Berman) were given leave to develop the world presented to the public. Kids raised on that shit were allowed to develop that shit. To add depth. To fill in the grey areas. To take something that was an idea to their predecessors, but was a way of life for them, and to present it again, or anew. Development. Refinement. The best stuff being preserved and added to, while the questionable points (Deltans) were NOT included in the reprisals. Refinement. Development. Evolution.
You see the same trend in the Nolan "Batman" films. Did you ever watch the original (1966) Batman movie? It featured an exploding shark for example, hanging from a helicopter. Really. There's a reason nobody took another run at the character until 1989, and then it took a loopy guy like Tim Burton, and had Mr. Mom playing the lead. But whereas the original was really just an extra-long episode of the intentionally campy TV show, the Burton version pioneered a trademark of the modern superhero film: the backstory. Rather than just having the hero solve the crime, a la a Sherlock Holmes mystery, we see WHY Bruce Wayne became Batman. We get depth. We get ART. Kids who grew up taking comics seriously (and rest assured that little Timmy Burton read some comics in his day), making comic characters into something serious.
Of course, and predictably, the success didn't last for long, since it turned from sub-culture into pop culture. When the pop culture crowd took over, the sub-culture crowd that was driving the evolution and development of the storyline got drowned out. As is the nature of almost all sequels (watch the latest "Mummy" movie to catch this point), creative authority left the people who believed in the characters, and vested in people who were more interested in pandering to the lowest common denominator. End result: one-liners and explosions were written in where the original film had depth and dialog. With Batman in the 90s, it started going bad with "Batman Returns," when the villains went over the top unbelievable. The Penguin as a deformed and psychotic foundling was fine and good. Promising even. But people should have realized that it was time to go in another direction when the end of the movie included his corpse being reverently carried off by giant water-birds.
Alas, the movies didn't go anywhere but further down that road. Remember "Batman & Robin"? Of course Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't be expected to make any artistic contribution, but still. The combined tit and ass superpowers of Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone couldn't pull that shit out of the fire, notwithstanding skin-tight superhero/villain outfits. Seriously, how do you manage to fuck that up? Give me that cast and a $140 million budget, and I guarantee you I'll make a movie that doesn't suck, even if I have to squeeze Ahh-Nold in there somewhere as well. But most germane to today's point: the reigns of a cultural icon were turned over to someone who was clearly not a devotee of the icon, and shit tanked. "Batman & Robin" director Joel Schumacher was not a scholar of the subject, and was NEVER the right guy to add depth and development to the Dark Knight genre. So he tried to make up for his ignorance of the Batman mythos by throwing in big stars and action. Even though he did actually apologize for the movie, Schumacher got off easy by being allowed to still show his face in public.
But the game wasn't over. There was the release of "Batman Begins" in 2005, which (rightfully and thankfully) pretended that there had been no Batman movies since 1966. In the decade (or more) between decent screen outings, Batman had been kept alive in animated shows and features, but director Chris Nolan really came out of nowhere. And what did we get? A movie where Batman doesn't even appear in costume until more than halfway through the movie. Depth and development. Human heroes with human failings, and human villains with human inhumanity. Perhaps best of all, a story that doesn't routinely violate the laws of physics or physiology. And - not coincidentally - almost no one-liners. It was a runaway success, both critically and financially.
Of course, it was followed (in 2008) by the consensus greatest comic-book move ever made, "The Dark Knight," which is also one of the highest-grossing non-James Cameron movie of all time. ("Avatar" blows everything away. It's not close, including "Titanic." Second place: "Titanic" blows away everything except "Avatar.")The success was predictable: the iron was hot, and the work was both darker, and more polished. Batman continues to be humanly conflicted, subject to pain and injury, and only minimally capable of bending the law of physics. It also helped that Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker... Yeah, you know what I mean. (I could write a bit about the Joker; let me know if you're interested.)
In any rate, Batman, Superman, James Bond, and so forth continue to be recycled by Hollywood. Sometimes, it doesn't go over so well, typically when the project is headed by someone who is not really that into the subject matter. But you put J.J. Abrams in charge of a Trek movie, and look what you get (interesting point: Abrams had stopped watching Trek movies after First Contact, on the basis that they had disconnected from the genre's roots). Put a nerd like Pete Jackson in charge of a Tolkien film, and look what you get. Good things happen when people who are passionate about a subject are given leave to do something with that subject. That's the real genius of Hollywood: allowing creative licence to people who will not just tell a story, but who will revolutionize the materials. Cultural evolution!
It's only when someone who either doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't care what they're doing is put in charge that things go awry. Alas, there are always a lot more idiots and assholes in the workforce than there are qualified experts. Other than ensuring that Joel Schumacher never directs again, there's not a lot we can do about this.
Obviously, the transition sometimes doesn't take very well, since Hollywood packages things into 2-hour packages. The goal is usually something that's easily digestible by the lowest common denominator movie-goer, who's idea of non-movie entertainment is "Jersey Shore." Two hours is a good space of time to tell a story, yes. But it's not nearly enough time to build a world, a practice which will ever remain the province of the novelist. I contend, for example, that NOBODY builds worlds like Glen Cook. But none of his stuff would make a good movie.
Similarly, the greatest graphic novel of of all time is, in fact, "Watchmen." Which was a high-budget B-movie, devoid of nearly all of the impact and insight of the printed work. The greatest anime artist is Masamune Shiro ("Appleseed," "Ghost in the Shell,"). None of his works made a decent transition onto the big-screen, and for pretty much the same reason: too much depth. While there are undoubtedly success stories (with "Lord of the Rings" at the top of the list of converted books, and "300" headlining the graphic novels-turned-movie field) those tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Its the same reason that movies based on books almost always suck. Hell, just read Dean Koontz' "Watchers," and then watch any of the several movies the book has spawned. Or better yet, just read the book.
All that having been said, I'm a big believer in the recycling of characters and of storylines. First of all, it works. Even if the most recent 'Star Trek' movie had totally sucked (which it distinctly didn't), people would have seen it in droves, just because it's Star Trek. (I am glad that it didn't suck. After "Undiscovered Country" and "Generations," I was genuinely worried that Star Trek might need to be retired for a decade, before another decent movie would get made.) But aside from commercial success, recycling of storylines allows the storylines to EVOLVE.
Continuing the the Star Trek example: An entire generation of nerds was raised on that shit. Some of those kids aspired to be screenwriters and directors. Some of them succeeded. Then another generation came along watching Next Generation. That generation had its aspiring screenwriters and directors as well. Some of them succeeded as well. Of course there were some hitches and mis-steps along the way ("Voyager,") but by and large, the best and the brightest of the Trekkies (read: Rick Berman) were given leave to develop the world presented to the public. Kids raised on that shit were allowed to develop that shit. To add depth. To fill in the grey areas. To take something that was an idea to their predecessors, but was a way of life for them, and to present it again, or anew. Development. Refinement. The best stuff being preserved and added to, while the questionable points (Deltans) were NOT included in the reprisals. Refinement. Development. Evolution.
You see the same trend in the Nolan "Batman" films. Did you ever watch the original (1966) Batman movie? It featured an exploding shark for example, hanging from a helicopter. Really. There's a reason nobody took another run at the character until 1989, and then it took a loopy guy like Tim Burton, and had Mr. Mom playing the lead. But whereas the original was really just an extra-long episode of the intentionally campy TV show, the Burton version pioneered a trademark of the modern superhero film: the backstory. Rather than just having the hero solve the crime, a la a Sherlock Holmes mystery, we see WHY Bruce Wayne became Batman. We get depth. We get ART. Kids who grew up taking comics seriously (and rest assured that little Timmy Burton read some comics in his day), making comic characters into something serious.
Of course, and predictably, the success didn't last for long, since it turned from sub-culture into pop culture. When the pop culture crowd took over, the sub-culture crowd that was driving the evolution and development of the storyline got drowned out. As is the nature of almost all sequels (watch the latest "Mummy" movie to catch this point), creative authority left the people who believed in the characters, and vested in people who were more interested in pandering to the lowest common denominator. End result: one-liners and explosions were written in where the original film had depth and dialog. With Batman in the 90s, it started going bad with "Batman Returns," when the villains went over the top unbelievable. The Penguin as a deformed and psychotic foundling was fine and good. Promising even. But people should have realized that it was time to go in another direction when the end of the movie included his corpse being reverently carried off by giant water-birds.
Alas, the movies didn't go anywhere but further down that road. Remember "Batman & Robin"? Of course Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't be expected to make any artistic contribution, but still. The combined tit and ass superpowers of Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone couldn't pull that shit out of the fire, notwithstanding skin-tight superhero/villain outfits. Seriously, how do you manage to fuck that up? Give me that cast and a $140 million budget, and I guarantee you I'll make a movie that doesn't suck, even if I have to squeeze Ahh-Nold in there somewhere as well. But most germane to today's point: the reigns of a cultural icon were turned over to someone who was clearly not a devotee of the icon, and shit tanked. "Batman & Robin" director Joel Schumacher was not a scholar of the subject, and was NEVER the right guy to add depth and development to the Dark Knight genre. So he tried to make up for his ignorance of the Batman mythos by throwing in big stars and action. Even though he did actually apologize for the movie, Schumacher got off easy by being allowed to still show his face in public.
But the game wasn't over. There was the release of "Batman Begins" in 2005, which (rightfully and thankfully) pretended that there had been no Batman movies since 1966. In the decade (or more) between decent screen outings, Batman had been kept alive in animated shows and features, but director Chris Nolan really came out of nowhere. And what did we get? A movie where Batman doesn't even appear in costume until more than halfway through the movie. Depth and development. Human heroes with human failings, and human villains with human inhumanity. Perhaps best of all, a story that doesn't routinely violate the laws of physics or physiology. And - not coincidentally - almost no one-liners. It was a runaway success, both critically and financially.
Of course, it was followed (in 2008) by the consensus greatest comic-book move ever made, "The Dark Knight," which is also one of the highest-grossing non-James Cameron movie of all time. ("Avatar" blows everything away. It's not close, including "Titanic." Second place: "Titanic" blows away everything except "Avatar.")The success was predictable: the iron was hot, and the work was both darker, and more polished. Batman continues to be humanly conflicted, subject to pain and injury, and only minimally capable of bending the law of physics. It also helped that Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker... Yeah, you know what I mean. (I could write a bit about the Joker; let me know if you're interested.)
In any rate, Batman, Superman, James Bond, and so forth continue to be recycled by Hollywood. Sometimes, it doesn't go over so well, typically when the project is headed by someone who is not really that into the subject matter. But you put J.J. Abrams in charge of a Trek movie, and look what you get (interesting point: Abrams had stopped watching Trek movies after First Contact, on the basis that they had disconnected from the genre's roots). Put a nerd like Pete Jackson in charge of a Tolkien film, and look what you get. Good things happen when people who are passionate about a subject are given leave to do something with that subject. That's the real genius of Hollywood: allowing creative licence to people who will not just tell a story, but who will revolutionize the materials. Cultural evolution!
It's only when someone who either doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't care what they're doing is put in charge that things go awry. Alas, there are always a lot more idiots and assholes in the workforce than there are qualified experts. Other than ensuring that Joel Schumacher never directs again, there's not a lot we can do about this.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Bourgeois and the Plebes
When I was back in Mr. Blair's 7th grade World History class, I remember being surprised at his description of the Roman Empire in the periods of its decline. His general position (necessarily general; he was teaching a bunch of 12 year olds) was that the Empire had become amazingly stratified, where there was the privileged class who spent most of their time pontificating and/or dealing with amorphous abstracts - art, politics, philosophy, law, etc. - and the rest of their time lounging in steam baths being catered to hand and foot.
In contrast to this elite, there was a remarkably small merchant and artisan class, and then a vast mob of the lower-class. The precursors of modern tenement buildings, packed to overflowing with people. Unskilled workers and slaves in cases where they were employed at all. This persisted for centuries: by dint of being lower classes, the lower classes lacked the structure to organize into any sort of legitimate political bloc. Besides, the consensus was that they really felt no great impetus to organize, since the Roman policy of panem et circenses (google it) kept them fed, entertained, and voting for endless continuation of benefits. Rome was, in fact, the precursor of the modern wellfare state.
Right up to the point that it all went up in flames, at least.
As I was hearing these lessons, even back before I turned into the bastard-coated bastard with hard bastard center that I am today, I wondered how the ruling classes could allow that level of stratification to exist? Even at the time, it occurred to me that a social model based on hand-outs and blood-sport entertainments had no sustainability. And how was it that there existed no substantial middle-class which the lower-class could aspire too? How could the overall leaders of the Empire not see what what was coming when there existed neither social mobility for the capable, nor economic flow other than Legion-enforced imperialism? Although the Empire persisted for centuries under that social model, it seemed clear that it did so partially because the Roman lower-class populace was unarmed, but mostly because the 500-year supremacy of the Legionary military system meant that Rome could have all its tangible needs met imperialistically, regardless of whether the need was Egyptian wheat for the masses or Persian luxury goods for the emperors.
Did the Romans really think that they could go forward into perpetuity, buying the votes of an ignorant public with nothing more than promises of a decent hand-out diet, and weekly spectacles of chariots and gladiator games? Where they so busy trying to keep a doomed system afloat that they didn't have time to consider the long-term results? Or was the leadership just so busy enjoying luxury and opulence that they truly didn't give much of a damn at all about the masses, except for the expectation that the plebes remember their place and keep their complaints to a minimum?
These thoughts occurred to me as I was spending a weekend lounging on the pool deck at Red Rock Resort and Spa, sipping beer and snacking on over-priced finger-foods delivered by scantily clad girls. It was a good time, and I heartily recommend it, even if there was no steam-room in evidence. I specifically recommend the fruit plate with the honey-yogurt dipping sauce. There were even gladiator games going on over the weekend, although we didn't watch them; since the Fertita clan owns both UFC and the Red Rock Resort, they were piping in a live video feed from Oakland.
Has humanity developed at all in the last 2000 years, or are we just recycled situations, and variations on a theme?
In contrast to this elite, there was a remarkably small merchant and artisan class, and then a vast mob of the lower-class. The precursors of modern tenement buildings, packed to overflowing with people. Unskilled workers and slaves in cases where they were employed at all. This persisted for centuries: by dint of being lower classes, the lower classes lacked the structure to organize into any sort of legitimate political bloc. Besides, the consensus was that they really felt no great impetus to organize, since the Roman policy of panem et circenses (google it) kept them fed, entertained, and voting for endless continuation of benefits. Rome was, in fact, the precursor of the modern wellfare state.
Right up to the point that it all went up in flames, at least.
As I was hearing these lessons, even back before I turned into the bastard-coated bastard with hard bastard center that I am today, I wondered how the ruling classes could allow that level of stratification to exist? Even at the time, it occurred to me that a social model based on hand-outs and blood-sport entertainments had no sustainability. And how was it that there existed no substantial middle-class which the lower-class could aspire too? How could the overall leaders of the Empire not see what what was coming when there existed neither social mobility for the capable, nor economic flow other than Legion-enforced imperialism? Although the Empire persisted for centuries under that social model, it seemed clear that it did so partially because the Roman lower-class populace was unarmed, but mostly because the 500-year supremacy of the Legionary military system meant that Rome could have all its tangible needs met imperialistically, regardless of whether the need was Egyptian wheat for the masses or Persian luxury goods for the emperors.
Did the Romans really think that they could go forward into perpetuity, buying the votes of an ignorant public with nothing more than promises of a decent hand-out diet, and weekly spectacles of chariots and gladiator games? Where they so busy trying to keep a doomed system afloat that they didn't have time to consider the long-term results? Or was the leadership just so busy enjoying luxury and opulence that they truly didn't give much of a damn at all about the masses, except for the expectation that the plebes remember their place and keep their complaints to a minimum?
These thoughts occurred to me as I was spending a weekend lounging on the pool deck at Red Rock Resort and Spa, sipping beer and snacking on over-priced finger-foods delivered by scantily clad girls. It was a good time, and I heartily recommend it, even if there was no steam-room in evidence. I specifically recommend the fruit plate with the honey-yogurt dipping sauce. There were even gladiator games going on over the weekend, although we didn't watch them; since the Fertita clan owns both UFC and the Red Rock Resort, they were piping in a live video feed from Oakland.
Has humanity developed at all in the last 2000 years, or are we just recycled situations, and variations on a theme?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Bad Influences
I notice that my movie and TV viewing habits have changed substantially. Most notably, I actually watch movies and TV. This is a change for me, since I literally did not have even basic cable TV literally for years. I got a few local networks on open-air broadcasts (I did buy a digital converter box), and if I adjusted the antenna right, I could also catch the occasional soccer game on the Spanish Channel. But watch TV? Me? Kinda not so much. Until the last few months or so.
I have to admit, there is some good stuff on. And a lot of it is on DVD. Even now, I spend a lot more time watching re-runs on DVD and/or Netflix (Weeds, Lost, Bones) than I do watching live TV (pretty much limited to True Blood and Rules of Engagement). Baby steps, you know. Gotta build up my tolerance to it. Especially since most TV these days not just INCLUDES general douche-baggery (as addressed below), but instead seems to be BASED on general douche-baggery. The fact the Jersey Shore has the kind of following it does really speaks volumes about our culture. Have you seen 'Idiocracy?' Does the society portrayed in that movie really seem that far-fetched or over the top?
I've also been watching a lot of romantic comedies lately, since both The Woman and I enjoy laughs. I have no problem with watching romantic comedies, actually. They are generally funny and entertaining and appropriately mindless for casual lounging on evenings and weekends. No denying the amusement value. But I have to say that I fundamentally object to the general theme of the modern romantic comedy. The universal storyline of those movies seems to be 1) guy meets girl 2) guy acts like a douche-bag (intentionally or incidentally) 3) guy loses girl 4) guy sees the error of his ways 5) guy makes a further ass of himself apologizing in some endearing fashion 6) guy gets girl back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I go down my mental list of romantic comedies, and I really can't think of a single notable instance where the GIRL is the one who fucks things up, and ends up falling on her sword to get the guy back. I'm sure those movies are out there. But I can't think of them. And remembering movies is generally something that I'm pretty good at.
There is a certain amount of reality in what we seen on TV and movies. There is a lot of douche-baggery in the world, and some of it is really fucking funny. Moreover, guys DO act like jackasses, and nonetheless still get The Girl. I have no intention of stopping or changing my TV or movie viewing habits. But that having been said, I'm not sure any children of mine will be allowed to watch these sorts of shows and/or movies, at least until they're in their teens. Seriously. Because unlike the usual material that parents tend to object to (movies or shows about crime, violence, etc.), the people in these lowest-common-denominator shows and/or romantic comedies are not in settings or situations where their behavior is clearly fantasy. For example: rather than being set in jungles or battlefields or outer space, romantic comedies are set in normal day-to-day places, with actors who tend to look and act like everyday people. Except that the storyline has the guys overtly (and often intentionally) acting like jackasses, making fools of themselves, and the women in question sometimes acting even worse, and almost always forgiving the douche-bag(s) for their behavior and taking them back.
I think it's funny that a parent wouldn't let their kid watch action or horror movies because swearing and violence are 'bad influences' on their kids, but might have no problem with their kid watching programming where infidelity, intoxication, lying, and/or general douche-baggery are central points of the storyline. Maybe this has something to do with the sorts of entertainment that appears on TV and in movies these days. Again, is a true Idiocracy really that far-fetched?
I have to admit, there is some good stuff on. And a lot of it is on DVD. Even now, I spend a lot more time watching re-runs on DVD and/or Netflix (Weeds, Lost, Bones) than I do watching live TV (pretty much limited to True Blood and Rules of Engagement). Baby steps, you know. Gotta build up my tolerance to it. Especially since most TV these days not just INCLUDES general douche-baggery (as addressed below), but instead seems to be BASED on general douche-baggery. The fact the Jersey Shore has the kind of following it does really speaks volumes about our culture. Have you seen 'Idiocracy?' Does the society portrayed in that movie really seem that far-fetched or over the top?
I've also been watching a lot of romantic comedies lately, since both The Woman and I enjoy laughs. I have no problem with watching romantic comedies, actually. They are generally funny and entertaining and appropriately mindless for casual lounging on evenings and weekends. No denying the amusement value. But I have to say that I fundamentally object to the general theme of the modern romantic comedy. The universal storyline of those movies seems to be 1) guy meets girl 2) guy acts like a douche-bag (intentionally or incidentally) 3) guy loses girl 4) guy sees the error of his ways 5) guy makes a further ass of himself apologizing in some endearing fashion 6) guy gets girl back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I go down my mental list of romantic comedies, and I really can't think of a single notable instance where the GIRL is the one who fucks things up, and ends up falling on her sword to get the guy back. I'm sure those movies are out there. But I can't think of them. And remembering movies is generally something that I'm pretty good at.
There is a certain amount of reality in what we seen on TV and movies. There is a lot of douche-baggery in the world, and some of it is really fucking funny. Moreover, guys DO act like jackasses, and nonetheless still get The Girl. I have no intention of stopping or changing my TV or movie viewing habits. But that having been said, I'm not sure any children of mine will be allowed to watch these sorts of shows and/or movies, at least until they're in their teens. Seriously. Because unlike the usual material that parents tend to object to (movies or shows about crime, violence, etc.), the people in these lowest-common-denominator shows and/or romantic comedies are not in settings or situations where their behavior is clearly fantasy. For example: rather than being set in jungles or battlefields or outer space, romantic comedies are set in normal day-to-day places, with actors who tend to look and act like everyday people. Except that the storyline has the guys overtly (and often intentionally) acting like jackasses, making fools of themselves, and the women in question sometimes acting even worse, and almost always forgiving the douche-bag(s) for their behavior and taking them back.
I think it's funny that a parent wouldn't let their kid watch action or horror movies because swearing and violence are 'bad influences' on their kids, but might have no problem with their kid watching programming where infidelity, intoxication, lying, and/or general douche-baggery are central points of the storyline. Maybe this has something to do with the sorts of entertainment that appears on TV and in movies these days. Again, is a true Idiocracy really that far-fetched?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Resumes
I got this today as a forwarded email. Best thing I've seen since the mass email a while back comparing Condoleeza Rice to Martin Sheen, about who's best qualified to opine on national policy. This one clearly focuses on the military angle:
General Stanley McChrystal Biography
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/
Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan
United States Army
SOURCE OF COMMISSIONED SERVICE: USMA EDUCATIONAL DEGREES
United States Military Academy - BS - No Major
United States Naval War College - MA - National Security and Strategic Studies
Salve Regina University - MS - International Relations
MILITARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses
United States Naval Command and Staff College
Senior Service College Fellowship Harvard University
FOREIGN LANGUAGES:
Spanish
PROMOTIONS DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
2LT 2 Jun 76
1LT 2 Jun 78
CPT 1 Aug 80
MAJ 1 Jul 87
LTC 1 Sep 92
COL 1 Sep 96
BG 1 Jan 01
MG 1 May 04
LTG 16 Feb 06
GEN 11 Jun 09
FROM TO ASSIGNMENT:
Nov 76 Feb 78 Weapons Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Feb 78 Jul 78 Rifle Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Jul 78 Nov 78 Executive Officer, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 78 Apr 79 Student, Special Forces Officer Course, Special Forces School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Apr 79 Jun 80 Commander, Detachment A, A Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Jun 80 Feb 81 Student, Infantry Officer Advanced Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia
Feb 81 Mar 82 S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area, Korea
Mar 82 Nov 82 Training Officer, Directorate of Plans and Training, A Company, Headquarters Command, Fort Stewart , Georgia
Nov 82 Sep 84 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart , Georgia
Sep 84 Sep 85 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, Georgia
Sep 85 Jan 86 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jan 86 May 87 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
May 87 Apr 88 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Apr 88 Jun 89 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jun 89 Jun 90 Student, Command and Staff Course, United States Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
Jun 90 Apr 93 Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia
Apr 93 Nov 94 Commander, 2d Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 94 Jun 96 Commander, 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis , Washington
Jun 96 Jun 97 Senior Service College Fellowship, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University , Cambridge , Massachusetts
Jun 97 Aug 99 Commander, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Aug 99 Jun 00 Military Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, New York
Jun 00 Jun 01 Assistant Division Commander (Operations), 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait
Jun 01 Jul 02 Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
Jul 02 Sep 03 Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Sep 03 Feb 06 Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Feb 06 Jun 08 Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Aug 08 Jun 09 Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Jun 09 Present Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS:
S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area , Korea (Feb 81-Mar 82, Captain)
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia Jun 90-Apr 93 Major/Lieutenant Colonel)
Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 01-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington , DC (Jul 02-Sep 03, Brigadier General)
Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg , North Carolina (Sep 03-Feb 06, Brigadier General/Major General)
Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations
Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina (Feb 06-Jun 08, Major General/Lieutenant General)
Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC (Aug 08-Jun 09, Lieutenant General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09-Present, General)
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS ASSIGNMENTS DATE GRADE
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia (Jun 90-Mar 91, Major)
Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait (Apr 01-Jun 01, Brigadier General)
Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (May 02-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09- Present, General)
US DECORATIONS AND BADGES:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
_________________________________________________________________
Obama Biography:
Birthplace: Location remains questionable.
Proof of United States Citizenship hasn't been provided.
Education: Columbia University , Harvard Law School . Records never produced, attendance remains questionable.
Military Career: None
Business Career: None
Political Career: Community organizer, Chicago, 1983-86; civil rights attorney, Chicago, 1991-96;
University of Chicago, lecturer, early 1990s-2004; Illinois State Senator, 1996-2005; U.S. Senator, 2005-2008; President 2008
The wrong guy resigned.
I'm a big believer in the idea of civilian leadership of the military, since the overwhelming majority of national revolutions start as a military coup d'etat. But at the same time, I really wish the United States Military would at least make some more noise. After all, their oaths are to defend the CONSTITUTION, not the administration, and I have to believe that dissatisfaction with the administration and its policies (as expressed by McChrystal) are FAR more widespread among people in uniform than most of the civilian populace would believe. Which is worrisome, if you step back and take a look at history, both in the long-view, and in recent development. There are wheels within wheels, rolling forward, and with some ominous signs.
Take this, for example: A lot of what the military does these days is domestic supervision and civil rights enforcement. "Police actions." Expert efforts by armed men to compel a populace to toe a line set by a government that the populace will now live under. American national policy in response to terrorism has become to conquer "rogue states" and set up republics, with the hope that the local people suddenly overcome generations of torture, coercion, and repression to step up, participate, and toe the line. And the military stays there until they do, killing dissidents and counter-revolutionaries as necessary.
Currently, the military is tasked with supporting several national transitions from totalitarian regimes to republic nations, with armed men on hand to enforce the rights of the populace. The United States military has had a couple practice runs at making it happen: Iraq, Afghanistan, and handful of Central American dictatorships. I see the possibility that they might just be warming up for the Main Event, inside our national borders. Overseeing a political transition here on the home front. Of course, the Law forbids such things. Posse Comitatus. But whatever; those are just words in books.
There is, of course, the very likely chance that elections are going to provide the necessary relief without the need for any "police actions" here locally. But is that correction of the problem, or just a new group of people at the wheel of a Federal Machine running out of control? This is just me talking, of course, but history suggests the inevitability of a nation deploying military forces internally, against the nation's own populace. It hasn't happened in the United States, not in any large degree, at least. But we've only been around for about 250 years. We haven't reached that critical mass of national political/civil clusterfuck where something has to give between the demands of the government and the desires (rights?) of the people. Yet. But again, history suggests the inevitability. It took centuries, but the Legions did eventually march into Rome. And to great fanfare from the populace. I see that as a possibility.
The flip side of the coin is that, while they have been acting to support the rights of people against totalitarianism, the United State Military has gained a LOT of expertise in tracking down and dealing with political dissidents. You know: those people who refuse to toe the line that Washington has drawn. Those poor dumb fucks who think that they were doing just find before all this shit came along, and who cling to the way things were Before. Those who resist "re-education," perhaps to the point that they take up arms against the New Order, and get hunted down by highly-trained, well-armed uniformed men. The military gets used these days to build republics where there used to be autocracies. But it's gaining one hell of a skill-set in the process.
Which makes for an interesting quandary here in the United States, about how that skill-set might ultimately be used. When the Legions come home under arms, are they going to settle in Washington to oversee a change in power, from a dysfunctional tyrannical set of overlords to a legitimately free republic? Or are the Legions going remain under the command of Caesar? Might they be sent to "pacify" Arizona, based on local recalcitrance on immigration issues? Or be deployed to Texas, to halt secession and/or to "guard" strategic oil reserves? What orders might be issued, in pursuit of "the common good," and to combat "treason?"
And should any of this ever come to pass, tomorrow or a century from now, who would you rather have calling the shots? Should the American Military be called upon to maintain peace inside the United States, would you want someone like Barack Obama at the head of the War Machine, deciding how troops are deployed and towards what ends? Or would you rather have someone like General McChrystal leading the way forward?
There is no easy answer, of course. And more than anything else, I wonder if this train of thought might be spun into a novel that would sell well enough to spare me the trouble of a day job.
General Stanley McChrystal Biography
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/
Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan
United States Army
SOURCE OF COMMISSIONED SERVICE: USMA EDUCATIONAL DEGREES
United States Military Academy - BS - No Major
United States Naval War College - MA - National Security and Strategic Studies
Salve Regina University - MS - International Relations
MILITARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses
United States Naval Command and Staff College
Senior Service College Fellowship Harvard University
FOREIGN LANGUAGES:
Spanish
PROMOTIONS DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
2LT 2 Jun 76
1LT 2 Jun 78
CPT 1 Aug 80
MAJ 1 Jul 87
LTC 1 Sep 92
COL 1 Sep 96
BG 1 Jan 01
MG 1 May 04
LTG 16 Feb 06
GEN 11 Jun 09
FROM TO ASSIGNMENT:
Nov 76 Feb 78 Weapons Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Feb 78 Jul 78 Rifle Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Jul 78 Nov 78 Executive Officer, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 78 Apr 79 Student, Special Forces Officer Course, Special Forces School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Apr 79 Jun 80 Commander, Detachment A, A Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Jun 80 Feb 81 Student, Infantry Officer Advanced Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia
Feb 81 Mar 82 S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area, Korea
Mar 82 Nov 82 Training Officer, Directorate of Plans and Training, A Company, Headquarters Command, Fort Stewart , Georgia
Nov 82 Sep 84 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart , Georgia
Sep 84 Sep 85 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, Georgia
Sep 85 Jan 86 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jan 86 May 87 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
May 87 Apr 88 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Apr 88 Jun 89 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jun 89 Jun 90 Student, Command and Staff Course, United States Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
Jun 90 Apr 93 Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia
Apr 93 Nov 94 Commander, 2d Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 94 Jun 96 Commander, 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis , Washington
Jun 96 Jun 97 Senior Service College Fellowship, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University , Cambridge , Massachusetts
Jun 97 Aug 99 Commander, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Aug 99 Jun 00 Military Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, New York
Jun 00 Jun 01 Assistant Division Commander (Operations), 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait
Jun 01 Jul 02 Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
Jul 02 Sep 03 Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Sep 03 Feb 06 Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Feb 06 Jun 08 Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Aug 08 Jun 09 Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Jun 09 Present Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS:
S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area , Korea (Feb 81-Mar 82, Captain)
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia Jun 90-Apr 93 Major/Lieutenant Colonel)
Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 01-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington , DC (Jul 02-Sep 03, Brigadier General)
Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg , North Carolina (Sep 03-Feb 06, Brigadier General/Major General)
Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations
Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina (Feb 06-Jun 08, Major General/Lieutenant General)
Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC (Aug 08-Jun 09, Lieutenant General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09-Present, General)
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS ASSIGNMENTS DATE GRADE
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia (Jun 90-Mar 91, Major)
Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait (Apr 01-Jun 01, Brigadier General)
Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (May 02-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09- Present, General)
US DECORATIONS AND BADGES:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
_________________________________________________________________
Obama Biography:
Birthplace: Location remains questionable.
Proof of United States Citizenship hasn't been provided.
Education: Columbia University , Harvard Law School . Records never produced, attendance remains questionable.
Military Career: None
Business Career: None
Political Career: Community organizer, Chicago, 1983-86; civil rights attorney, Chicago, 1991-96;
University of Chicago, lecturer, early 1990s-2004; Illinois State Senator, 1996-2005; U.S. Senator, 2005-2008; President 2008
The wrong guy resigned.
I'm a big believer in the idea of civilian leadership of the military, since the overwhelming majority of national revolutions start as a military coup d'etat. But at the same time, I really wish the United States Military would at least make some more noise. After all, their oaths are to defend the CONSTITUTION, not the administration, and I have to believe that dissatisfaction with the administration and its policies (as expressed by McChrystal) are FAR more widespread among people in uniform than most of the civilian populace would believe. Which is worrisome, if you step back and take a look at history, both in the long-view, and in recent development. There are wheels within wheels, rolling forward, and with some ominous signs.
Take this, for example: A lot of what the military does these days is domestic supervision and civil rights enforcement. "Police actions." Expert efforts by armed men to compel a populace to toe a line set by a government that the populace will now live under. American national policy in response to terrorism has become to conquer "rogue states" and set up republics, with the hope that the local people suddenly overcome generations of torture, coercion, and repression to step up, participate, and toe the line. And the military stays there until they do, killing dissidents and counter-revolutionaries as necessary.
Currently, the military is tasked with supporting several national transitions from totalitarian regimes to republic nations, with armed men on hand to enforce the rights of the populace. The United States military has had a couple practice runs at making it happen: Iraq, Afghanistan, and handful of Central American dictatorships. I see the possibility that they might just be warming up for the Main Event, inside our national borders. Overseeing a political transition here on the home front. Of course, the Law forbids such things. Posse Comitatus. But whatever; those are just words in books.
There is, of course, the very likely chance that elections are going to provide the necessary relief without the need for any "police actions" here locally. But is that correction of the problem, or just a new group of people at the wheel of a Federal Machine running out of control? This is just me talking, of course, but history suggests the inevitability of a nation deploying military forces internally, against the nation's own populace. It hasn't happened in the United States, not in any large degree, at least. But we've only been around for about 250 years. We haven't reached that critical mass of national political/civil clusterfuck where something has to give between the demands of the government and the desires (rights?) of the people. Yet. But again, history suggests the inevitability. It took centuries, but the Legions did eventually march into Rome. And to great fanfare from the populace. I see that as a possibility.
The flip side of the coin is that, while they have been acting to support the rights of people against totalitarianism, the United State Military has gained a LOT of expertise in tracking down and dealing with political dissidents. You know: those people who refuse to toe the line that Washington has drawn. Those poor dumb fucks who think that they were doing just find before all this shit came along, and who cling to the way things were Before. Those who resist "re-education," perhaps to the point that they take up arms against the New Order, and get hunted down by highly-trained, well-armed uniformed men. The military gets used these days to build republics where there used to be autocracies. But it's gaining one hell of a skill-set in the process.
Which makes for an interesting quandary here in the United States, about how that skill-set might ultimately be used. When the Legions come home under arms, are they going to settle in Washington to oversee a change in power, from a dysfunctional tyrannical set of overlords to a legitimately free republic? Or are the Legions going remain under the command of Caesar? Might they be sent to "pacify" Arizona, based on local recalcitrance on immigration issues? Or be deployed to Texas, to halt secession and/or to "guard" strategic oil reserves? What orders might be issued, in pursuit of "the common good," and to combat "treason?"
And should any of this ever come to pass, tomorrow or a century from now, who would you rather have calling the shots? Should the American Military be called upon to maintain peace inside the United States, would you want someone like Barack Obama at the head of the War Machine, deciding how troops are deployed and towards what ends? Or would you rather have someone like General McChrystal leading the way forward?
There is no easy answer, of course. And more than anything else, I wonder if this train of thought might be spun into a novel that would sell well enough to spare me the trouble of a day job.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
La Migra
These days, my main source of news is actually Yahoo News. I spend pretty much all day every day shining a chair with my ass, staring at a computer, and plotting world domination. Staring at a computer all day, I find that while most mainstream news services are either disgustingly revolutionary (MSNBC) or frighteningly reactionary (FOX), Yahoo at least puts up the articles from both sides. This is good for me, if for no other reason than that both sides provide no end of comic relief and eye rolling.
Among the gems that appeared this week was notice that the President and Justice Department are challenging Arizona's new law granting police authority to explore the citizenship status of person who give cause for the officers to question the suspects legal standing to be in the United States. Personally, I think this is Obama in a nutshell: the Arizona voters passed the law and continue to support it with an impressive majority. While management of immigration is a Federal chore, Obama himself has admitted that the Federal government is handling it badly. The Consitution expressly says that States have the power to enact and enforce the law within their own borders. In effect, there doesn't seem to be even a little bit of basis for a Washington politician to tell the people of Arizona that no, they're not really in charge of their own state. But no matter. Barack doesn't like it, so it's going to have to go.
Have I mentioned my thoughts on secession lately? Once upon a time, I thought that there's no way that a state would seriously consider departing the United States over the course of my lifetime. Now, I'm not even sure we'll get the to end of Obama's presidency before there are rumblings, especially along southern-border states that are being saddled with healthcare and benefits for illegal aliens while being told by the Federal government that they're going to have to shut down their oil industries. I guess the worry is that our kids will not be able to pay off all this debt Obama is running up if they're busy dealing with global warming, whenever (if ever) it actually arrives.
But going back to the immigration thing, I'm not sure I'm a supporter of the Arizona law (I grew up in California, and am a firm believer that the quality and cheapness of California's unsurpassed produce is largely a result of migrant labor), but I absolutely support that Arizona can pass that law if they see fit. But more than anything else, I think the way the debate appears in public forums says a lot about the difference between Republican and Democratic mindsets. In their article posted on Yahoo News ("As Dems lay low, GOP hits Obama on Arizona lawsuit,") the AP stated:
"But some Democratic strategists say the GOP is playing a dangerous game. Past GOP bids to crack down on illegal immigration have driven Latino voters into Democrats' arms, as was seen most dramatically in California in the 1990s. And Americans who are most passionate about illegal immigration tend to be reliable Republican voters anyway, and not up for grabs, these strategists say.
"There's no evidence that Republicans have been able to turn this issue into a winning issue in a general election," said Simon Rosenberg, who follows immigration matters as head of the liberal-leaning group NDN. If top Republicans keep pounding the issue, he said, it could increase Democratic turnout in Texas, Arizona, Nevada, California and possibly other states."
That's actually cut and pasted from the article.
I find it hugely ironic (and very insightful) that the GOP position is based on things like separation of powers, legal prerogatives of the states, and the legality of Arizona's actions. You know: the LAW. Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to care about the law. They're in it for the votes, and their analysis focuses not on whether or Arizona's statute (or the challenge to it) have legal standing, but on whether or how Arizona's statue can be spun into a mass-media sound bite. Is that the real difference between the left and the right? The Right seems to care about the LAW. The left seems to care about what is POPULAR at any given moment.
The left is in power currently, and it's showing. We don't have time to do things legally, so lets forget about the laws and do what we want. *Sigh.* So much for being a nation of law, not of men.
Among the gems that appeared this week was notice that the President and Justice Department are challenging Arizona's new law granting police authority to explore the citizenship status of person who give cause for the officers to question the suspects legal standing to be in the United States. Personally, I think this is Obama in a nutshell: the Arizona voters passed the law and continue to support it with an impressive majority. While management of immigration is a Federal chore, Obama himself has admitted that the Federal government is handling it badly. The Consitution expressly says that States have the power to enact and enforce the law within their own borders. In effect, there doesn't seem to be even a little bit of basis for a Washington politician to tell the people of Arizona that no, they're not really in charge of their own state. But no matter. Barack doesn't like it, so it's going to have to go.
Have I mentioned my thoughts on secession lately? Once upon a time, I thought that there's no way that a state would seriously consider departing the United States over the course of my lifetime. Now, I'm not even sure we'll get the to end of Obama's presidency before there are rumblings, especially along southern-border states that are being saddled with healthcare and benefits for illegal aliens while being told by the Federal government that they're going to have to shut down their oil industries. I guess the worry is that our kids will not be able to pay off all this debt Obama is running up if they're busy dealing with global warming, whenever (if ever) it actually arrives.
But going back to the immigration thing, I'm not sure I'm a supporter of the Arizona law (I grew up in California, and am a firm believer that the quality and cheapness of California's unsurpassed produce is largely a result of migrant labor), but I absolutely support that Arizona can pass that law if they see fit. But more than anything else, I think the way the debate appears in public forums says a lot about the difference between Republican and Democratic mindsets. In their article posted on Yahoo News ("As Dems lay low, GOP hits Obama on Arizona lawsuit,") the AP stated:
"But some Democratic strategists say the GOP is playing a dangerous game. Past GOP bids to crack down on illegal immigration have driven Latino voters into Democrats' arms, as was seen most dramatically in California in the 1990s. And Americans who are most passionate about illegal immigration tend to be reliable Republican voters anyway, and not up for grabs, these strategists say.
"There's no evidence that Republicans have been able to turn this issue into a winning issue in a general election," said Simon Rosenberg, who follows immigration matters as head of the liberal-leaning group NDN. If top Republicans keep pounding the issue, he said, it could increase Democratic turnout in Texas, Arizona, Nevada, California and possibly other states."
That's actually cut and pasted from the article.
I find it hugely ironic (and very insightful) that the GOP position is based on things like separation of powers, legal prerogatives of the states, and the legality of Arizona's actions. You know: the LAW. Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to care about the law. They're in it for the votes, and their analysis focuses not on whether or Arizona's statute (or the challenge to it) have legal standing, but on whether or how Arizona's statue can be spun into a mass-media sound bite. Is that the real difference between the left and the right? The Right seems to care about the LAW. The left seems to care about what is POPULAR at any given moment.
The left is in power currently, and it's showing. We don't have time to do things legally, so lets forget about the laws and do what we want. *Sigh.* So much for being a nation of law, not of men.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Lost
I almost never watched "Lost" when it was actually on TV, but it's near the top of the list of things that I've been turned on to since finding love. It's up there along with trashy romance novels and pop-culture vampires (of the trashy-south vampire variety, not the teeny-bopper sparkly variety). Not quite sure what all this says about me, but I've never really cared what my likes and dislikes say about me in the past, and I don't plan to start now.
So. Lost. I'm working my way through the DVDs of past seasons, and am most of the way through Season 2. I like the show, especially the fact that nobody on the island seems normal in any way, shape, or form. True to real life, everybody has their back-story, secrets, hang-ups, and damage. I like that. I also like that the character flaws are consistent from one season to the next. Jack's inability to decide whether or not he's really in charge (or whether he wants to be). Sawyer's inability to decide if he wants to be loved or hated. Kate's inability to decide whether she loves or hates Sawyer. And Locke... ... ... Yeah. Locke.
But I've got to say that I wish I could meet the character, Michael, just so I could punch that motherfucker in the throat. And I felt that way even before "Henry" escaped from the hatch. Seriously, how is it that Michael manages to do exactly the wrong thing at every turn, mostly fuck up the wrong thing he decides to do, blame everyone else for what's going on, and still sound sanctimonious? Oh and that whiny half-yell of his when he gets excited.
Punch. In. The. Throat.
I really don't know how his story is going to end, but unless he and Sayid have a little sit-down involving pliers and sharp instruments, it's not going to be nearly what he deserves. Although I do draw some content from that conversation he had with Echo about the young boy who was afraid the slain dog would be waiting from him in the afterlife. The implications of that were cool, as were Michael's dry heaves after the discussion ended. Made me smile.
Mike, here's to hoping Ana Lucia really is waiting for you to arrive.
So. Lost. I'm working my way through the DVDs of past seasons, and am most of the way through Season 2. I like the show, especially the fact that nobody on the island seems normal in any way, shape, or form. True to real life, everybody has their back-story, secrets, hang-ups, and damage. I like that. I also like that the character flaws are consistent from one season to the next. Jack's inability to decide whether or not he's really in charge (or whether he wants to be). Sawyer's inability to decide if he wants to be loved or hated. Kate's inability to decide whether she loves or hates Sawyer. And Locke... ... ... Yeah. Locke.
But I've got to say that I wish I could meet the character, Michael, just so I could punch that motherfucker in the throat. And I felt that way even before "Henry" escaped from the hatch. Seriously, how is it that Michael manages to do exactly the wrong thing at every turn, mostly fuck up the wrong thing he decides to do, blame everyone else for what's going on, and still sound sanctimonious? Oh and that whiny half-yell of his when he gets excited.
Punch. In. The. Throat.
I really don't know how his story is going to end, but unless he and Sayid have a little sit-down involving pliers and sharp instruments, it's not going to be nearly what he deserves. Although I do draw some content from that conversation he had with Echo about the young boy who was afraid the slain dog would be waiting from him in the afterlife. The implications of that were cool, as were Michael's dry heaves after the discussion ended. Made me smile.
Mike, here's to hoping Ana Lucia really is waiting for you to arrive.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Da Kings
I'm a hockey player, and grew up in California during the Gretzky era. This means that I'm a Kings fan, and abhor the mere mention of the Mighty Ducks. Yes, they are still the Mighty Ducks, even if they have tried to distance themselves from their Disney roots by changing their name to the Anaheim Ducks. That they've won a Stanley Cup while neither the Sharks nor the Kings have climbed the mountain is something that causes me to occasionally wake up in cold sweats, a feeling not uncommon for fans of teams to never have won the Cup in their lifetimes. This is not a short list of teams.
For a lot of years, the Kings were not really worth following. They had serious problems, starting in the 90's when they were being "managed" by the McMaster of Disaster. They haven't been worth consideration for over a decade, notwithstanding the occasional playoff upset of a powerhouse like Detroit.
But they made the playoffs this season, and I'm actually excited about the King's prospects next season. A little while ago, they opened their eyes as an organization to one of the great truisms of sports. A team might be bad for a game or ten based on the players not coming through the way they're supposed to. A team might be bad for a month or ten if the coaching staff is not coming through the way they're supposed to. But if a team is bad for a year or ten, it's because the management and ownership are not coming through the way they're supposed to. I'll spare you examples of this, but trust me when I say there are MANY, and offer only the current halcyon exemplars: the Oakland Raiders, the Los Angeles Clippers, and the Baltimore Orioles.
The Kings seem to have realized that while they might not quite fall into that group, they weren't far above it, and under new ownership, did something about it. They went out and hired a guy to run the team who actually knew what he was going: Dean Lombardi, who was just coming off building the San Jose Sharks into perennial contenders. Not surprisingly, things started to turn around, and on much the same script, as Dean started building a new team, from the net forward, by drafting well, building a young core, and cherry-picking free agents based on character and need rather than on flash and flare.
For the first time in living memory, the Kings don't have a goaltending dilemma. The current starter, John Quick, was on the Team USA roster for the Olympics, and while not as good as the American starter (Ryan Miller), he deserved to be there. Excepting the number in the "wins" column, Quick's numbers were not overwhelming, but he was playing behind a young team under a new coach. More importantly, if you watched Kings games, you noticed Quick's habit of making big saves at the right time. Stopping breakaways or other great shots that would have been game-winners, kind of thing. Numbers aside, he made big saves when his team needed a big save, and that says a lot.
This is actually a bit of a problem, since Quick was not supposed to be this good. He was just supposed to be a temporary fix while the King's goalie of the future, John Bernier (the first draft pick made after Lombardi took the helm), got a little seasoning in the minors. Bernier saw only limited NHL action this season, but his numbers were spectacular (3-0-0, 1.30 goals against average, .957 save percentage). Moreover, he's been on a career track as a star, whereas - again - Quick kind of came out of nowhere. The end result is that the Kings could have a serious dilemma in goal, not in their usual fashion of trying to find a guy good enough to get wins, but in trying to decide which guy is the best guy to get wins. They also have a guy named Erik Ersberg who didn't play much, but who came through big when they needed him, and statistically was about as good as Quick.
Here's the kicker, which will be an ongoing theme on the Kings: they're all young. Quick is 24. Bernier is 21. Ersberg would be traded if there were not a glut on free-agent goaltenders this season, but will likely be the odd-man out, since he's 28. For those who are not devotees of the game, NHL goaltenders don't usually reach their peak until they're 29 or 30. This bodes well.
Defense is not going to be a problem for the Kings either, per prior postings. Drew Doughty was a finalist for the Norris Trophy last season, awarded to the NHL's best defenseman. He's 20. Jack Johnson is a stud as well. He's 23. Doughty averaged over 24 minutes a game last season, and Johnson's average was over 22, Barring injury, both should keep the same form, and increase their minutes to 27 per game. That's about 55 man-minutes from two studs in their early 20s. There's only 120 man-minutes on defense in a game. There are no huge stars on the roster after those two, but Rob Scuderi is as solid as they get (20 minutes a game), and Sean O'Donnell can still get the job done (18 minutes). The Kings will still need to play some depth guys, but they won't need to play them much.
On right wing, they'll do fine. Team Captain Dustin Brown (age 25, 24 goals, 32 assists) is the sort of guy that the lack of has kept the Sharks from winning a cup; he led the league in hits last season, and makes a difference even when he's not scoring. Wayne Simmonds (age 20) came out of nowhere with 40 points last season and earned himself a spot on the second line. Justin Williams should be healthy again, and - when healthy - is a 30-goal scorer.
Left wing is a concern. Ryan Smyth is a bit long in the tooth (at 34), especially for the physical style of play he plays, but it was recently announced that he will remain captain of Team CANADA, so one would presume he's still got a little left. Like Brown, he's the sort of skate-through-a-wall kind of guy that makes the difference in crunch time. The supremely talented but extremely flaky Alex Frolov is leaving in free agency, but that might end up being addition by subtraction. The cupboard is pretty bare after that, which is why the Kings are in the lead to sign free agent Ilya Kovalchuk, who has been among the lead leaders in scoring for the last few years. We'll have to see how that goes.
At center, Anze Kopitar (age 22) led the Kings in scoring (34 goals, 47 assists). There was a time that he led the LEAGUE in scoring as well. He's only going to get better. Jarrett Stoll (age 28) is capable but not spectacular, as is Michal Handzus (age 34). They will chip a few in, play solid defense, and that's about it. At this point, the difference between the Kings and the teams that dominate the league is one more top-level center. Unfortunately, they don't grow on tree. Except in Pittsburgh, apparently.
All in all, expect the Kings to return to the playoffs next season. And the season after than. And the one after that.
For a lot of years, the Kings were not really worth following. They had serious problems, starting in the 90's when they were being "managed" by the McMaster of Disaster. They haven't been worth consideration for over a decade, notwithstanding the occasional playoff upset of a powerhouse like Detroit.
But they made the playoffs this season, and I'm actually excited about the King's prospects next season. A little while ago, they opened their eyes as an organization to one of the great truisms of sports. A team might be bad for a game or ten based on the players not coming through the way they're supposed to. A team might be bad for a month or ten if the coaching staff is not coming through the way they're supposed to. But if a team is bad for a year or ten, it's because the management and ownership are not coming through the way they're supposed to. I'll spare you examples of this, but trust me when I say there are MANY, and offer only the current halcyon exemplars: the Oakland Raiders, the Los Angeles Clippers, and the Baltimore Orioles.
The Kings seem to have realized that while they might not quite fall into that group, they weren't far above it, and under new ownership, did something about it. They went out and hired a guy to run the team who actually knew what he was going: Dean Lombardi, who was just coming off building the San Jose Sharks into perennial contenders. Not surprisingly, things started to turn around, and on much the same script, as Dean started building a new team, from the net forward, by drafting well, building a young core, and cherry-picking free agents based on character and need rather than on flash and flare.
For the first time in living memory, the Kings don't have a goaltending dilemma. The current starter, John Quick, was on the Team USA roster for the Olympics, and while not as good as the American starter (Ryan Miller), he deserved to be there. Excepting the number in the "wins" column, Quick's numbers were not overwhelming, but he was playing behind a young team under a new coach. More importantly, if you watched Kings games, you noticed Quick's habit of making big saves at the right time. Stopping breakaways or other great shots that would have been game-winners, kind of thing. Numbers aside, he made big saves when his team needed a big save, and that says a lot.
This is actually a bit of a problem, since Quick was not supposed to be this good. He was just supposed to be a temporary fix while the King's goalie of the future, John Bernier (the first draft pick made after Lombardi took the helm), got a little seasoning in the minors. Bernier saw only limited NHL action this season, but his numbers were spectacular (3-0-0, 1.30 goals against average, .957 save percentage). Moreover, he's been on a career track as a star, whereas - again - Quick kind of came out of nowhere. The end result is that the Kings could have a serious dilemma in goal, not in their usual fashion of trying to find a guy good enough to get wins, but in trying to decide which guy is the best guy to get wins. They also have a guy named Erik Ersberg who didn't play much, but who came through big when they needed him, and statistically was about as good as Quick.
Here's the kicker, which will be an ongoing theme on the Kings: they're all young. Quick is 24. Bernier is 21. Ersberg would be traded if there were not a glut on free-agent goaltenders this season, but will likely be the odd-man out, since he's 28. For those who are not devotees of the game, NHL goaltenders don't usually reach their peak until they're 29 or 30. This bodes well.
Defense is not going to be a problem for the Kings either, per prior postings. Drew Doughty was a finalist for the Norris Trophy last season, awarded to the NHL's best defenseman. He's 20. Jack Johnson is a stud as well. He's 23. Doughty averaged over 24 minutes a game last season, and Johnson's average was over 22, Barring injury, both should keep the same form, and increase their minutes to 27 per game. That's about 55 man-minutes from two studs in their early 20s. There's only 120 man-minutes on defense in a game. There are no huge stars on the roster after those two, but Rob Scuderi is as solid as they get (20 minutes a game), and Sean O'Donnell can still get the job done (18 minutes). The Kings will still need to play some depth guys, but they won't need to play them much.
On right wing, they'll do fine. Team Captain Dustin Brown (age 25, 24 goals, 32 assists) is the sort of guy that the lack of has kept the Sharks from winning a cup; he led the league in hits last season, and makes a difference even when he's not scoring. Wayne Simmonds (age 20) came out of nowhere with 40 points last season and earned himself a spot on the second line. Justin Williams should be healthy again, and - when healthy - is a 30-goal scorer.
Left wing is a concern. Ryan Smyth is a bit long in the tooth (at 34), especially for the physical style of play he plays, but it was recently announced that he will remain captain of Team CANADA, so one would presume he's still got a little left. Like Brown, he's the sort of skate-through-a-wall kind of guy that makes the difference in crunch time. The supremely talented but extremely flaky Alex Frolov is leaving in free agency, but that might end up being addition by subtraction. The cupboard is pretty bare after that, which is why the Kings are in the lead to sign free agent Ilya Kovalchuk, who has been among the lead leaders in scoring for the last few years. We'll have to see how that goes.
At center, Anze Kopitar (age 22) led the Kings in scoring (34 goals, 47 assists). There was a time that he led the LEAGUE in scoring as well. He's only going to get better. Jarrett Stoll (age 28) is capable but not spectacular, as is Michal Handzus (age 34). They will chip a few in, play solid defense, and that's about it. At this point, the difference between the Kings and the teams that dominate the league is one more top-level center. Unfortunately, they don't grow on tree. Except in Pittsburgh, apparently.
All in all, expect the Kings to return to the playoffs next season. And the season after than. And the one after that.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
I Wondered Where That Went...
I got an email from my dad this week, relating an interesting story. I'm pretty sure there aren't going to be any legal repercussions, since 1) any violated laws would be post facto, 2) there was no culpable intent, and 3) I would have been about 12 at the time of the at-issue events. Besides, the truth is the truth, I have no fear of it, and I think those of you who read this will find it amusing.
When I was between the ages of about 6 and 16, my family lived in Northern California, in a quiet little residential neighborhood. VERY quiet. Tree-lined streets. Four schools, two churches, a candy store, a pet store, and a public park all within easy walking distance. THAT kind of quiet. I haven't been back there more than a handful of times in the last 15 years, but of course I remember it well.
So I grew up there with my two brothers, SW and GL, in a house with a big yard. The time frame included our pre-teen and teenage years, and this was LONG before 9-11, way back when you could buy real-looking toy guns that didn't even have bright-orange muzzles. As a family with three boys, we had plenty of those, and all sorts of other things that modern soft sensitivities and political-correctness have long since eradicated from the face of the earth.
Of course me, my brothers, and our friends would get tired of soccer, tag, whiffle-ball, and other sports, and would chase each other around with toy knives/swords/guns, and re-enact scenes from GI Joe, Robotech, Thundercats, or whatever. We were active boys. We didn't even have cable, just pirate HBO on a wood-cabinet TV without a remote, and neither SW's Atari 2600 nor (later) my NES really captivated us that much.
But we did have all sorts of toys that got us outside and running around, and not just sports gear. Among the cool shit that we had, thanks to having the usual male fascination with Army/Navy surplus stores, was some stuff that could only questionably be called "toys." For example: dummy grenades. (Google it.) Which are, in fact, actual United States Military surplus hand grenades, lacking only fuses, primers, and explosives. They are just like the ones you see on TV, with a cast-iron "pineapple" fragmentation case, aluminum fuse-body and safety spoon, and a locking pin, complete with the steel pull-ring. They look, feel, and ARE exactly like the real thing, except that they don't explode. Me and my brothers had a few of them, and they were BAD ASS. I've taken a quick look online, and looks like they're still legal to buy and own in most places, and are selling for about the same price that me, GL, and SW paid for ours, circa 1989: less than $10. In any rate, as pre-teen/teen boys, we were somewhat less than diligent about storage and/or maintenance of our toys - including our dummy grenades - which would routinely be lost, found, lost again, found again, etc. over the course of months and years. Perhaps you can see where this tale is going.
Fast forward to the present. My dad is still in touch with one of our old neighbors in that area, who told him that a few days ago, there was a bit of a ruckus at our old house. Police cars blocking the streets, a fire truck, two command vehicles, and a bomb-squad truck. (Although not huge, the town is rich from computer money, and has SPECTACULAR police and fire infrastructure. And there's a firehouse about 300 yards down the street from the house, by the way.)
Apparently, the family that now owns the house was digging in the flower-beds doing some re-planting (honestly, I bet I could guess the spot to within 5 yards), and unearthed what looked exactly like an unexploded hand grenade. It was just like the ones you see on TV, with a cast-iron "pineapple" fragmentation case, aluminum fuse-body and safety spoon, and a locking pin, complete with the steel pull-ring. Unlike my parents, would would have just rolled their eyes, the current residents did not consider munition-handling to be a routine part of gardening. They were a bit concerned with what they had found, and responded appropriately. I have no doubt that it once belonged to me and my brothers, and had been lost in action in the course of one of the wars we fought in that yard. Yes: A toy grenade that me and my brothers lost 20 years ago was the cause of a scare in a quiet suburban town.
Yeah. Sorry about that.
I really do feel bad about this. While I have to say it is a bit funny, I'm sure it really scared the shit out of bunch of people, and wasted a few man-hours of police time to get it sorted out. That having been said, I really wish I could have the grenade back, as a keepsake from my childhood, and generally cool memento.
When I was between the ages of about 6 and 16, my family lived in Northern California, in a quiet little residential neighborhood. VERY quiet. Tree-lined streets. Four schools, two churches, a candy store, a pet store, and a public park all within easy walking distance. THAT kind of quiet. I haven't been back there more than a handful of times in the last 15 years, but of course I remember it well.
So I grew up there with my two brothers, SW and GL, in a house with a big yard. The time frame included our pre-teen and teenage years, and this was LONG before 9-11, way back when you could buy real-looking toy guns that didn't even have bright-orange muzzles. As a family with three boys, we had plenty of those, and all sorts of other things that modern soft sensitivities and political-correctness have long since eradicated from the face of the earth.
Of course me, my brothers, and our friends would get tired of soccer, tag, whiffle-ball, and other sports, and would chase each other around with toy knives/swords/guns, and re-enact scenes from GI Joe, Robotech, Thundercats, or whatever. We were active boys. We didn't even have cable, just pirate HBO on a wood-cabinet TV without a remote, and neither SW's Atari 2600 nor (later) my NES really captivated us that much.
But we did have all sorts of toys that got us outside and running around, and not just sports gear. Among the cool shit that we had, thanks to having the usual male fascination with Army/Navy surplus stores, was some stuff that could only questionably be called "toys." For example: dummy grenades. (Google it.) Which are, in fact, actual United States Military surplus hand grenades, lacking only fuses, primers, and explosives. They are just like the ones you see on TV, with a cast-iron "pineapple" fragmentation case, aluminum fuse-body and safety spoon, and a locking pin, complete with the steel pull-ring. They look, feel, and ARE exactly like the real thing, except that they don't explode. Me and my brothers had a few of them, and they were BAD ASS. I've taken a quick look online, and looks like they're still legal to buy and own in most places, and are selling for about the same price that me, GL, and SW paid for ours, circa 1989: less than $10. In any rate, as pre-teen/teen boys, we were somewhat less than diligent about storage and/or maintenance of our toys - including our dummy grenades - which would routinely be lost, found, lost again, found again, etc. over the course of months and years. Perhaps you can see where this tale is going.
Fast forward to the present. My dad is still in touch with one of our old neighbors in that area, who told him that a few days ago, there was a bit of a ruckus at our old house. Police cars blocking the streets, a fire truck, two command vehicles, and a bomb-squad truck. (Although not huge, the town is rich from computer money, and has SPECTACULAR police and fire infrastructure. And there's a firehouse about 300 yards down the street from the house, by the way.)
Apparently, the family that now owns the house was digging in the flower-beds doing some re-planting (honestly, I bet I could guess the spot to within 5 yards), and unearthed what looked exactly like an unexploded hand grenade. It was just like the ones you see on TV, with a cast-iron "pineapple" fragmentation case, aluminum fuse-body and safety spoon, and a locking pin, complete with the steel pull-ring. Unlike my parents, would would have just rolled their eyes, the current residents did not consider munition-handling to be a routine part of gardening. They were a bit concerned with what they had found, and responded appropriately. I have no doubt that it once belonged to me and my brothers, and had been lost in action in the course of one of the wars we fought in that yard. Yes: A toy grenade that me and my brothers lost 20 years ago was the cause of a scare in a quiet suburban town.
Yeah. Sorry about that.
I really do feel bad about this. While I have to say it is a bit funny, I'm sure it really scared the shit out of bunch of people, and wasted a few man-hours of police time to get it sorted out. That having been said, I really wish I could have the grenade back, as a keepsake from my childhood, and generally cool memento.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Diax's Rake
With the sole exception of experience, intelligence is by far the most valuable commodity on the planet. This is due in large part to it being rare. That rarity is a bit of a mystery from a physics and chemistry standpoint. Aside from various congenital defects and instances of injury, most human brains are really very similar. While there are demonstrable physical differences between a healthy brain and one suffering from some sort of aphasia, the brains of most cardiothoracic surgeons are physically indistinguishable from the brains of most convenience store clerks. And if the subjects are both male, odds are that both of them spend about equal amounts of time thinking with (or about) their dicks. So it seems a bit odd that we’ll trust one to cut open a chest and fiddle with our internal organs, while we don’t trust the other to give us correct change for a Slurpee.
There are certain instances where unusual brain chemistry and neurotransmitter functions rig the game (google “synaptic plasticity”), creating people with photographic or eidetic memories. There are also ways to cheat at the intelligence game. This notably includes studying, but that’s a lot of work, beyond the interest of most people. But if you’re willing to make an effort, there are all sorts of cool things you can do with information media, mnemonics, and mental constructs (google “memory palace”) to capitalize on the generally holographic functioning of human thoughts and memory. Properly used (or even used at all), they can make you a lot smarter. Pretty much everybody’s brain will have some form of input that it prefers, and if you can figure out how your brain best absorbs and organizes information, you can suddenly get drastically smarter than you might have thought possible. Or at least you’ll be able to make yourself look a lot smarter to people around you, which is almost the same thing.
But most of that applies to abstract knowledge and information, not day to day functionality. By and large, I think day-to-day intelligence boils down to simply paying attention. The sad fact is that the vast majority of people - including doctors and lawyers at least as much as gas station attendants - spend a sizable portion of their lives staring off into space, not paying attention to what’s going on around them, and/or unable to hear ANYTHING over the should of how awesome they are. In The Rules, this is referred to as “The Star Of The Show” phenomenon. People stop and have conversations in the entryways of major department stores, not only not caring that they’re blocking the sole entrance to a 40,000 square foot establishment, but not even noticing that there are people walking the earth other than their own all-important selves. People wait in line at Starbucks, thinking evil thoughts about how long the people in line ahead of them are taking, and then get to the front of the line, and need to take a few moments to decide just what they want. Oh, and then dig into their pockets or purses for another minute, since they are going to have to pay, aren’t they? Just a second please, while they fill out a check.
Today, while I was attempting to order a double-double during the lunch rush, the line of 8 people got held up for literally two minutes, because the guy at the head of the line didn’t have quite enough money to pay for his order. He was trying to summon his wife over to the counter, so she could make up the difference. They had a yelling conversation across the restaurant, while she refused to leave the table she had staked out, for fear that someone else would take it while they went through the hassle of actually PAYING for the food they were hoping to enjoy there. I’m not just making this shit up, and I’m sure that everyone who’s reading this has a few anecdotal gems to share. People who send text messages while driving. Customer service “specialists” who don’t know a goddamn thing about how their own business works, and are completely incapable of addressing the situation you’re presenting, except to assure you that “your business is very important to us.” Whatever.
And we all do it. We can’t help it. We all have those moments where we space out and do stupid shit that needlessly delays, halts, or complicates the lives of those around us. It’s genetic: we’re human. Really, the best we can hope for is to have fewer and shorter spells in that mindset than those around us.
The truth is that if you can consistently manage to be just a little smarter than those around you, pretty much everything in life gets much, MUCH easier. You get through airport security much more easily if you’ve already untied your shoes, and tucked your wallet, watch, belt, and cellphone into the luggage going through the scanner. You can do all that BEFORE you get in line, you know. Really. You don’t need to wait until you’re standing at the metal detector before realizing that the change in your pocket is a problem, and could just as easily be jingling inside the pocket of your carry-on.
Heavy traffic is a lot easier to negotiate when you put away your cell-phone, turn off the radio, and actually pay attention to what’s going on around you. Indeed, if you’re paying attention, pretty much any instance of moving among the masses from Point A to Point B becomes a matter of finding the best ways to side-step any given knot of people (read: idiots) who almost always have only general idea where they’re going, and not much thought or imagination at all about how they’re going to get there.
When I have kids, the first and foremost lesson that I will teach them is to try to be just a little bit smarter than the people around then. They don’t have to be brilliant or exceptional. They don’t need to be superstars. Hell, they’re even entitled to their allotted moments of pig-headed stupidity, same as everyone else. But being successful in any given field of endeavor, and in life in general, is as simple as just being, on average, a little tiny bit smarter and more on the ball than the competition. And it’s really not all that hard. Look around, for Christ’s sake. You telling me that it’s really that tough to rise above what you see?
Life is about problem-solving. So be better than average. You don’t need to be great, just better than the people around you. You just need to be smart enough to notice what’s actually happening, instead of just thinking about what you wish were happening. You need to be able to come up with some rational explanatory theory for problems and situations you must deal with (Occam’s Razor is usually a good place to start, with “user error” and/or “human stupidity” as the go-to explanations). Then you need to be able to come up with a plan to solve the analyzed problem (or at least a plan to remedy the at-issue symptom). And it needs to be a workable, simple plan, not whatever it is that James Bond or Walker, Texas Ranger, would do.
It helps if you can also come through with occasional flashes of brilliance, especially in clutch moments. You know: those bits of work-product that make eyebrows rise, and people say “wow, that’s good shit.” Turns out that if demonstrate the ability to come through with absolutely spectacular results in your field, you will only actually have to do so once or twice in any given work year. And in the meantime, you will be able to get away with vastly more bullshit and slacking than colleagues or co-workers who can’t or don’t come through with those sorts of gems.
But other than that, you only want to be a LITTLE smarter than people around you. Not a LOT smarter, since that leads to a whole other set of problems. You end up with Dr. Temperance Brennan and Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D., type characters. You know; those dumb fucks who think that people mean the actual words they say. (“You have a ‘Sarcasm’ sign?”) Not so good. So I’m not talking mutant-smart here. Just Yogi, smarter-than-the-average-bear type. The one who sees the world a little better, while not just seeing numbers. Donald Trump, not Alan Greenspan.
It’s also important not to be so smart that you can’t get away with playing dumb. Because in terms of practical utility, acting convincingly dumb ranks just behind being consistently smart. It’s a great card to be able to play, and it will almost always work, especially if you can also throw in an admission that it’s your fault, and that you’ll do whatever it takes to make things right. The best way that I’ve found to get out of a jam is to simply fall on my sword and admit to the boss/opposing counsel/the court that, hey, I kinda fucked this up, can I have a mulligan? It’s DEFINITELY not something that you can overplay without consequences, but shit happens both because of things we do, and in spite of things we do. Playing dumb and/or admitting dumbness will get you through a lot of shit, especially if you don’t have to do it very often. Never underestimate people’s willingness to occasionally forgive you when presented with an opportunity to do so magnanimously and from on-high. And don’t get me wrong if I’m presenting this as an easy or fun out. Because it’s not. It’s actually pretty humiliating acting dumb and/or admitting that you’ve been dumb. But it works. It’s nice when people think highly of you, and that you’re clever and on the ball. Really, it’s very flattering. But it’s a hell of a lot more useful when the other guy thinks you’re an idiot.
Those are lessons I will instill in my children: just pay a bit more attention than people around you, and you will get most things right. When you get something wrong, and have been caught at it, just admit you’re wrong, and make it right.
As an incidental point, these lessons to my prospective children will be followed by a closely related lesson: the best way to live a life free of serious strife, worry, or work is to go into a field based on and driven by human idiocy, insecurity, or greed. Law. Politics. Mass media. Insurance. Psychology. Medicine. Those fields will ALWAYS be growth industries, by simple operation of scalar economics: there is no conceivable limit on mankind’s ability to cause needless strife, blow things out of proportion, need bailing out, and/or need hearing that things are going to be okay, and it’s not their fault. If you can get into any of those fields, and still be just a little smarter than the people around you, you’re going to do okay. The philistines will rob each other blind to pay you your salary.
Lots of people like to spout philosophical drivel about the point where the angel meets the ape. For my part, I’m more interested getting and keeping me and my family fed and happy. And it’s really not that tough to live well and be happy.
There are certain instances where unusual brain chemistry and neurotransmitter functions rig the game (google “synaptic plasticity”), creating people with photographic or eidetic memories. There are also ways to cheat at the intelligence game. This notably includes studying, but that’s a lot of work, beyond the interest of most people. But if you’re willing to make an effort, there are all sorts of cool things you can do with information media, mnemonics, and mental constructs (google “memory palace”) to capitalize on the generally holographic functioning of human thoughts and memory. Properly used (or even used at all), they can make you a lot smarter. Pretty much everybody’s brain will have some form of input that it prefers, and if you can figure out how your brain best absorbs and organizes information, you can suddenly get drastically smarter than you might have thought possible. Or at least you’ll be able to make yourself look a lot smarter to people around you, which is almost the same thing.
But most of that applies to abstract knowledge and information, not day to day functionality. By and large, I think day-to-day intelligence boils down to simply paying attention. The sad fact is that the vast majority of people - including doctors and lawyers at least as much as gas station attendants - spend a sizable portion of their lives staring off into space, not paying attention to what’s going on around them, and/or unable to hear ANYTHING over the should of how awesome they are. In The Rules, this is referred to as “The Star Of The Show” phenomenon. People stop and have conversations in the entryways of major department stores, not only not caring that they’re blocking the sole entrance to a 40,000 square foot establishment, but not even noticing that there are people walking the earth other than their own all-important selves. People wait in line at Starbucks, thinking evil thoughts about how long the people in line ahead of them are taking, and then get to the front of the line, and need to take a few moments to decide just what they want. Oh, and then dig into their pockets or purses for another minute, since they are going to have to pay, aren’t they? Just a second please, while they fill out a check.
Today, while I was attempting to order a double-double during the lunch rush, the line of 8 people got held up for literally two minutes, because the guy at the head of the line didn’t have quite enough money to pay for his order. He was trying to summon his wife over to the counter, so she could make up the difference. They had a yelling conversation across the restaurant, while she refused to leave the table she had staked out, for fear that someone else would take it while they went through the hassle of actually PAYING for the food they were hoping to enjoy there. I’m not just making this shit up, and I’m sure that everyone who’s reading this has a few anecdotal gems to share. People who send text messages while driving. Customer service “specialists” who don’t know a goddamn thing about how their own business works, and are completely incapable of addressing the situation you’re presenting, except to assure you that “your business is very important to us.” Whatever.
And we all do it. We can’t help it. We all have those moments where we space out and do stupid shit that needlessly delays, halts, or complicates the lives of those around us. It’s genetic: we’re human. Really, the best we can hope for is to have fewer and shorter spells in that mindset than those around us.
The truth is that if you can consistently manage to be just a little smarter than those around you, pretty much everything in life gets much, MUCH easier. You get through airport security much more easily if you’ve already untied your shoes, and tucked your wallet, watch, belt, and cellphone into the luggage going through the scanner. You can do all that BEFORE you get in line, you know. Really. You don’t need to wait until you’re standing at the metal detector before realizing that the change in your pocket is a problem, and could just as easily be jingling inside the pocket of your carry-on.
Heavy traffic is a lot easier to negotiate when you put away your cell-phone, turn off the radio, and actually pay attention to what’s going on around you. Indeed, if you’re paying attention, pretty much any instance of moving among the masses from Point A to Point B becomes a matter of finding the best ways to side-step any given knot of people (read: idiots) who almost always have only general idea where they’re going, and not much thought or imagination at all about how they’re going to get there.
When I have kids, the first and foremost lesson that I will teach them is to try to be just a little bit smarter than the people around then. They don’t have to be brilliant or exceptional. They don’t need to be superstars. Hell, they’re even entitled to their allotted moments of pig-headed stupidity, same as everyone else. But being successful in any given field of endeavor, and in life in general, is as simple as just being, on average, a little tiny bit smarter and more on the ball than the competition. And it’s really not all that hard. Look around, for Christ’s sake. You telling me that it’s really that tough to rise above what you see?
Life is about problem-solving. So be better than average. You don’t need to be great, just better than the people around you. You just need to be smart enough to notice what’s actually happening, instead of just thinking about what you wish were happening. You need to be able to come up with some rational explanatory theory for problems and situations you must deal with (Occam’s Razor is usually a good place to start, with “user error” and/or “human stupidity” as the go-to explanations). Then you need to be able to come up with a plan to solve the analyzed problem (or at least a plan to remedy the at-issue symptom). And it needs to be a workable, simple plan, not whatever it is that James Bond or Walker, Texas Ranger, would do.
It helps if you can also come through with occasional flashes of brilliance, especially in clutch moments. You know: those bits of work-product that make eyebrows rise, and people say “wow, that’s good shit.” Turns out that if demonstrate the ability to come through with absolutely spectacular results in your field, you will only actually have to do so once or twice in any given work year. And in the meantime, you will be able to get away with vastly more bullshit and slacking than colleagues or co-workers who can’t or don’t come through with those sorts of gems.
But other than that, you only want to be a LITTLE smarter than people around you. Not a LOT smarter, since that leads to a whole other set of problems. You end up with Dr. Temperance Brennan and Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D., type characters. You know; those dumb fucks who think that people mean the actual words they say. (“You have a ‘Sarcasm’ sign?”) Not so good. So I’m not talking mutant-smart here. Just Yogi, smarter-than-the-average-bear type. The one who sees the world a little better, while not just seeing numbers. Donald Trump, not Alan Greenspan.
It’s also important not to be so smart that you can’t get away with playing dumb. Because in terms of practical utility, acting convincingly dumb ranks just behind being consistently smart. It’s a great card to be able to play, and it will almost always work, especially if you can also throw in an admission that it’s your fault, and that you’ll do whatever it takes to make things right. The best way that I’ve found to get out of a jam is to simply fall on my sword and admit to the boss/opposing counsel/the court that, hey, I kinda fucked this up, can I have a mulligan? It’s DEFINITELY not something that you can overplay without consequences, but shit happens both because of things we do, and in spite of things we do. Playing dumb and/or admitting dumbness will get you through a lot of shit, especially if you don’t have to do it very often. Never underestimate people’s willingness to occasionally forgive you when presented with an opportunity to do so magnanimously and from on-high. And don’t get me wrong if I’m presenting this as an easy or fun out. Because it’s not. It’s actually pretty humiliating acting dumb and/or admitting that you’ve been dumb. But it works. It’s nice when people think highly of you, and that you’re clever and on the ball. Really, it’s very flattering. But it’s a hell of a lot more useful when the other guy thinks you’re an idiot.
Those are lessons I will instill in my children: just pay a bit more attention than people around you, and you will get most things right. When you get something wrong, and have been caught at it, just admit you’re wrong, and make it right.
As an incidental point, these lessons to my prospective children will be followed by a closely related lesson: the best way to live a life free of serious strife, worry, or work is to go into a field based on and driven by human idiocy, insecurity, or greed. Law. Politics. Mass media. Insurance. Psychology. Medicine. Those fields will ALWAYS be growth industries, by simple operation of scalar economics: there is no conceivable limit on mankind’s ability to cause needless strife, blow things out of proportion, need bailing out, and/or need hearing that things are going to be okay, and it’s not their fault. If you can get into any of those fields, and still be just a little smarter than the people around you, you’re going to do okay. The philistines will rob each other blind to pay you your salary.
Lots of people like to spout philosophical drivel about the point where the angel meets the ape. For my part, I’m more interested getting and keeping me and my family fed and happy. And it’s really not that tough to live well and be happy.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Ramblings. Mostly on Sports.
I've been told that I need to write about something other than politics. Which is a bit problematic for me these days, since a lot of the things that piss me off and get me thinking fall into the general categories of 'politics,' 'economic,' and 'human stupidity.' Which, as above, I'm supposed to try and avoid writing about.
Apparently, the end result of being barred from writing about anything is that I don't really write about ANYTHING. So time to get back on the horse, and failing a specific subject, I shall simply ramble. Mostly about sports.
FIRST: I remember way back when, in the early 90s, the Chicago Blackhawks had by far the best power-play in the known universe. They were scoring shitbags of goals, even in an era were GAAs hovered around 4.0. I remember some (non-Chicago) coach being asked about it, and the coach in question responded, "Yeah, if I had Gary Suter and Chris Chelios running the points on my powerplay, we'd be pretty good too."
I remembered this statement while watching Game 3 of the VAN/LAS playoff series on monday. The Kings powerplay went 3 for 3 that night. The LONGEST amount of penalty time that passed with a man in the box before they scored was about 43 seconds. In game 1, they were 2 for 3 on the powerplay. They only scored 2 powerplay goals (in 6 opportunities) in Game 2, making them 7 for 12 for the series. Yes, the worst game they had so far involved only 2 power play goals. Their conversation rate for the series: Over 50%. That is OBSCENE. Especially since Vancouver is not bad at all. Their goalie was the starter for Canada's Olympic Gold Medal team. (He got pulled in the second period in Game 3.) Henrik Sedin led the NHL in scoring during the regular season. He's got no goals and three assists IN THE SERIES.
All of this is just a long way of saying that Drew Doughty and Jack Johnson are REALLY good. So long as they are standing at the points, the Kings powerplay is right up there with the best in ability to score. And so long as those guys are playing 25 minutes a night, a lot of big-money scorers are going to hate playing against the Kings.
I really don't think the Kings have what it takes to make a serious cup push this season. While Anze Kopitar is quickly becoming a elite-level center, they still lack the sort of scoring winger who will rifle in the clutch goals. (Expect GM Dean Lombardi to do something about that; he was the guy who brought Joe Thornton to SJ.) Right now, the Kings remind me of DET during the early years of the Yzerman era; the core is CLEARLY there, but they still need a few pieces.
SECOND: The NFL Draft is tomorrow. In prime time. Which I'm not a believer in, but what the hell. I admit to being way on the outside, but this looks like another Manning/Leaf dichotomy year, which will necessarily result in heads rolling in the front office of whoever ends up on the wrong side of that coin. While there will be 1 or 2 QBs touted QBs who shine, there will also be 1 or 2 touted QBs who bust, perhaps catestrophically.
My personal feeling, which I know is worthless, is that Sam Bradford is not going to be a star in the NFL. Nor is Tim Tebow. Both of them spent their entire collegiate careers playing substandard competition: running up the scores against Cupcake State and Whatsamatta U. Bradford spent his career calmly scanning the field for receivers while his All-American offensive line cracked heads in front of him. He has never had to deal with edge rushers beating the snap into the backfield. It will not be an easy transition. Tebow has never had success against pro-style defenses even in college, and has certainly never had to face tacklers as big, as fast, and as athletic as he is. Neither of them have had to deal with serious adversity at any point in their lives. All that is going to change, and I don't think it's going to be an easy transition.
If I had to take a QB this time around, it's be Clausen. Lots of starts playing in a pro-style offense, where the talent around him was good, but not leaps-and-bounds better than the guys on the other side of the ball. He might not have the numbers of the others, but the numbers that he does have seem a lot more likely to continue at the next level.
THIRD: I'm looking forward to beer and hotdogs in the sun at Minor League baseball games this summer. I'm not a fan of baseball. But I do like beer, hotdogs, and sunny days.
FOURTH: I frequently consider that, as a professional mercenary, my workload would drop by about 30% if there were even a slight increase in net human IQ. I spent pretty much all day today reviewing corporate records in a defamation and business tort case; over 1,200 pages, each requiring individual review for significance. Nearing the bottom of the stack, and none of the pages that I've seen have any immediately apparent relevance to any damages sustained by the Plaintiff. Yes, it is billable, but it would be nice if it were even a little bit PRODUCTIVE as well.
My other notable task today: dealing with a Plaintiff in a resolved case, who keeps calling my office. This is about the fourth time he's called, even though the message is always the same: "I'm sorry, [HT] cannot speak with you. Even though the formal lawsuit is resolved, you are represented by counsel for this affair. [HT] is required by law to limit communications to your counsel. If you have ongoing concerns, they need to be addressed through your own attorney."
I'm setting the over/under for about three days before he tries calling me again. While this is an even bigger waste of time than review of random documents, I do find it moderately amusing. I mean seriously, so far as he's concerned I'M THE BAD GUY! Neither he nor his attorney did their job in presenting his case. He was pretty much required to accept token settlement on the eve of trial, when it became apparent just how badly I going to beat him. At this point, months later, I know that he thinks his own attorney is trying to screw him. But he spent about $20,000 of other peoples' money trying to screw MY client (and doing a bad job in those attempts, to boot), so I can't figure out why he thinks that I would be even a little bit sympathetic to his plight. I mean really, WTF?
All for now. Gotta go walk my dog.
Apparently, the end result of being barred from writing about anything is that I don't really write about ANYTHING. So time to get back on the horse, and failing a specific subject, I shall simply ramble. Mostly about sports.
FIRST: I remember way back when, in the early 90s, the Chicago Blackhawks had by far the best power-play in the known universe. They were scoring shitbags of goals, even in an era were GAAs hovered around 4.0. I remember some (non-Chicago) coach being asked about it, and the coach in question responded, "Yeah, if I had Gary Suter and Chris Chelios running the points on my powerplay, we'd be pretty good too."
I remembered this statement while watching Game 3 of the VAN/LAS playoff series on monday. The Kings powerplay went 3 for 3 that night. The LONGEST amount of penalty time that passed with a man in the box before they scored was about 43 seconds. In game 1, they were 2 for 3 on the powerplay. They only scored 2 powerplay goals (in 6 opportunities) in Game 2, making them 7 for 12 for the series. Yes, the worst game they had so far involved only 2 power play goals. Their conversation rate for the series: Over 50%. That is OBSCENE. Especially since Vancouver is not bad at all. Their goalie was the starter for Canada's Olympic Gold Medal team. (He got pulled in the second period in Game 3.) Henrik Sedin led the NHL in scoring during the regular season. He's got no goals and three assists IN THE SERIES.
All of this is just a long way of saying that Drew Doughty and Jack Johnson are REALLY good. So long as they are standing at the points, the Kings powerplay is right up there with the best in ability to score. And so long as those guys are playing 25 minutes a night, a lot of big-money scorers are going to hate playing against the Kings.
I really don't think the Kings have what it takes to make a serious cup push this season. While Anze Kopitar is quickly becoming a elite-level center, they still lack the sort of scoring winger who will rifle in the clutch goals. (Expect GM Dean Lombardi to do something about that; he was the guy who brought Joe Thornton to SJ.) Right now, the Kings remind me of DET during the early years of the Yzerman era; the core is CLEARLY there, but they still need a few pieces.
SECOND: The NFL Draft is tomorrow. In prime time. Which I'm not a believer in, but what the hell. I admit to being way on the outside, but this looks like another Manning/Leaf dichotomy year, which will necessarily result in heads rolling in the front office of whoever ends up on the wrong side of that coin. While there will be 1 or 2 QBs touted QBs who shine, there will also be 1 or 2 touted QBs who bust, perhaps catestrophically.
My personal feeling, which I know is worthless, is that Sam Bradford is not going to be a star in the NFL. Nor is Tim Tebow. Both of them spent their entire collegiate careers playing substandard competition: running up the scores against Cupcake State and Whatsamatta U. Bradford spent his career calmly scanning the field for receivers while his All-American offensive line cracked heads in front of him. He has never had to deal with edge rushers beating the snap into the backfield. It will not be an easy transition. Tebow has never had success against pro-style defenses even in college, and has certainly never had to face tacklers as big, as fast, and as athletic as he is. Neither of them have had to deal with serious adversity at any point in their lives. All that is going to change, and I don't think it's going to be an easy transition.
If I had to take a QB this time around, it's be Clausen. Lots of starts playing in a pro-style offense, where the talent around him was good, but not leaps-and-bounds better than the guys on the other side of the ball. He might not have the numbers of the others, but the numbers that he does have seem a lot more likely to continue at the next level.
THIRD: I'm looking forward to beer and hotdogs in the sun at Minor League baseball games this summer. I'm not a fan of baseball. But I do like beer, hotdogs, and sunny days.
FOURTH: I frequently consider that, as a professional mercenary, my workload would drop by about 30% if there were even a slight increase in net human IQ. I spent pretty much all day today reviewing corporate records in a defamation and business tort case; over 1,200 pages, each requiring individual review for significance. Nearing the bottom of the stack, and none of the pages that I've seen have any immediately apparent relevance to any damages sustained by the Plaintiff. Yes, it is billable, but it would be nice if it were even a little bit PRODUCTIVE as well.
My other notable task today: dealing with a Plaintiff in a resolved case, who keeps calling my office. This is about the fourth time he's called, even though the message is always the same: "I'm sorry, [HT] cannot speak with you. Even though the formal lawsuit is resolved, you are represented by counsel for this affair. [HT] is required by law to limit communications to your counsel. If you have ongoing concerns, they need to be addressed through your own attorney."
I'm setting the over/under for about three days before he tries calling me again. While this is an even bigger waste of time than review of random documents, I do find it moderately amusing. I mean seriously, so far as he's concerned I'M THE BAD GUY! Neither he nor his attorney did their job in presenting his case. He was pretty much required to accept token settlement on the eve of trial, when it became apparent just how badly I going to beat him. At this point, months later, I know that he thinks his own attorney is trying to screw him. But he spent about $20,000 of other peoples' money trying to screw MY client (and doing a bad job in those attempts, to boot), so I can't figure out why he thinks that I would be even a little bit sympathetic to his plight. I mean really, WTF?
All for now. Gotta go walk my dog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)