CB and I were talking about the insurance industry the other day, and she raised the point that nobody who's in any sort of sales or customer-service industry today has the slightest clue what's is like to actually have to work hard to get results. Really. There have been hiccups here and there, but the American economy has been booming for decades. People - even those who are conveniently labeled 'low income,' either for political or for other purposes - generally have no problems making ends meet, and squeezing substantial luxury into those ends.
This is not to say that there are no people in this country who cannot make ends meet, and who literally go hungry because there is no money left at the end of the month for food. Those people do exist, and in increasing numbers. But I honestly believe that's a fairly recent development. Up until very recently, you had to go WAY down to a very small percentage of the populace before you got to a demographic too broke to indulge in some level of luxury consumerism. Until recently 'poor' meant that someone's 40" TV was a projection model rather than a flat-screen, that they only had basic cable, and had to suffer through the inconvenience of a single car shared by the whole family. Tough times indeed.
Living on the recently-ended unending prosperity of unlimited credit limits, nobody really had to work to sell much of anything, including luxury goods. Nobody had to go out and court the public in any involved way to get goods to move. All anyone really had to do was make the goods or services available, and find a way to inform the public that they were available. Work hard to SELL something? Why bother? If Douchebag Consumer A, here before you at this moment, is unwilling to swipe his card to take a (whatever) home, no problem. Douchebag Consumer B, who will walk in the doors momentarily, won't hesitate for a second before adding a token additional amount to his already crushing credit burden, so he can take a (whatever) home. Regardless of whether he actually needs it, and sometimes regardless of whether he actually wants it, there's a good chance that he'd buy it, just because it's there, and with no need for any more of a sales pitch than putting on the shelf in front of him. That's how fat our economy was. To a large degree, it still is.
Take the pornography industry, for example. Talk about a discretionary expense; it's pure hedonism. If ever there was a economic niche that people would cut from their budgets, THIS IS IT. Yet even today it's a multi-billion dollar a year industry. According to some statistics, over $3,000 is spent on porn EVERY SECOND. This, coupled with other obvious points, and you really have to wonder. Like the fact that over 50% of Americans are technically obese, and the fact that people of hypothetically 'limited means' will pay $40 a month for a gym membership they use once a week. Mebbe this country might actually benefit from some LEGITIMATE lean times - not to be confused with the present - where we might be compelled to lose a few pounds, cut a few luxuries, and actually earn the money we spend as a society, rather than just piling up debt. While a slight necking down of NINJA and similar credit lines has supported more and more of that last point occurring, neither of the subsequent two points seem to be gaining any traction. There is no impetus for anyone to be lean and efficient to be successful, a situation which continues to persist.
With the general availability of credit, and with the government's ever increasing support of Robin Hood economics, I don't see how anything is going to change, and certainly not until there is at least one more substantial credit-market crash. We are so used to rampant consumerism, and so enabled to overspend by creditors (even today), that we as a culture are going to spend until we literally can spend no more. Seriously, the dollars in your bank account are of value only because every other currency on earth sucks even worse than dollars do. Every single asset underlying the value of dollars is horrendously over-extended. Strangely, the best thing to do in times like this is to actually have dollars on hand (cash). Let me know if you want to hear the reasoning.
I'm not sure I have any real point to offer from all this; the real reason I got launched onto this train of thought was from dealing with idiotic sales people and poor customer service habits that about here in Vegas. I'm sure its worse elsewhere, so I'm sure you have it locally too. Wouldn't it be nice if people actually treated you like they NEEDED your money and your business, instead of treating you like they're doing you a favor by deigning to accept your money and your business?
Friday, December 9, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
My Man-Crush on Christopher Nolan
I just watched Inception for about the 20th time. I suspect that it's going to become one of those movies that, when I see it's on, I can't help leaving the TV on that station to let it play out. Short list of movies that are like that. Thomas Crown Affair. Fight Club. How to Train Your Dragon. Jaws. Avatar. A few others. All of them masterpieces, and each in their own way. The only thing all of them have in common is, interestingly, great and distinctive musical scores.
What I love about Inception is the depth. The clear thought that was put into every angle, every character. I blogged what is now years ago about American culture, portrayed through movies, using Fight Club as the halcyon example of how action drama can be elevated to art, not just through violence, explosions, and camera tricks, but through depth and nuance that are sometimes hard to see. Fight Club has enough depth that a college-level literature course could spend a month on it. Inception has more. Even having had a few glasses of wine, I don't think I can adequately convey just how highly I think of these movies.
In any rate, Inception director Chris Nolan will be releasing another Batman movie in the not-terribly-distant future (July, 2012). Fairly little has been released about the plot and storyline. Christian Bale will be back as Bruce/Wayne Batman, and it will feature both major and obscure villains from Batman mythology: Selena Kyle (catwoman, played by Anne Hathaway) and Bane (played by Tom Hardy). Quite a lot of Nolan veterans in the cast, besides Bale and Hardy, including Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard. (Could be the booze, but I find myself contemplating Ellen Page in a Batgirl costume. Mebbe seen Whip It too many times. I have a thing for petite willful women, and Page would kick the hell out of Alicia Silverstone's air-headed version.) All in all, the only sour note so far has been that Nolan plans the movie as a vehicle to conclude his take on Batman.
While I have no doubt whatsoever that Nolan will continue to make excellent films - with a few inevitable side-steps along the way - I'm interested to see how he plans to tie a bow around his Batman universe. I expect it to be outstanding, hopefully enough to satisfy Batfans for the next 10 years or so. Nolan abandoning the franchise unfortunately means that Warner Brothers/DC will hire some over-hyped douchebag to take another run at directing the character for however long the public will buy tickets; whoever happens to be the current incarnation of Joel Schumacher, circa 1995. Len Wiseman is probably near the top of the list. Or somebody from his stable, like Markus Nispel. Fair to say that one or (if we're very lucky) two worthy follow-ups are likely, inevitably followed by a steaming pile of dog-shit that will bury further attempts at comic-book movies for a decade. One-liners and chase-scenes will be offered as substitutes for dialog and drama, with the usual results. Gotta love Hollywood, eh?
But we will get one more Nolan rendition of Batman. So. My prediction: the Nolan Batman storyline will conclude with some great pulling-the-wool-over-the-eyes. Some great deception or obfuscation, which comes at great cost to a central character, but which frees them at the same time. All of Nolan's films highlight the concept that ignorance is bliss, which must sometimes be inflicted on others. The stories convey that reality is subjective. They involve situations where creating (or adopting) the reality that is required involves sacrificing a reality that most people would call "real." Leonard Shelby found his happiness by choosing to ignore and leave behind the reality he has been seeking for years. Likewise, Dominic Cobb found happiness when (by implication) he stopped caring whether or not his reality was real in the grander sense (the significance of the still-spinning top is not that it's still spinning, but rather that Cobb is no longer watching to see if it topples). In The Dark Knight, the reality of Harvey Dent's end was intentionally concealed, at great cost to Our Hero. Both Insomnia and The Prestige likewise have pervasive themes of obfuscation and subjective interpretation of "truth" and "reality." Nolan LOVES the emotional impact of a character transcending reality, by disregarding it. The Dark Knight Rises will be the same.
In interviews, Nolan has asserted that - unlike in comics, where storylines necessarily proceed into perpetuity - movie franchises must have some reasonable closure. I like to think if anyone can wrap up Batman with a clever, impossible to follow twist (which leaves Batman alive, as there must ALWAYS be a Batman), Nolan is the man for the job. Ideally, Nolan will create a storyline that will be difficult enough to follow-up on that the inevitable next director will decide to approach the character from a totally different angle. But alas, the sort of dipshits who will line up for the Batman director job in Nolan's wake are not the type to try to do something original.
But hey, it's about time for us to move past superheroes anyway, since we've pretty much used that up. Seriously, if we're resorting to Thor and Captain America, what's next? Aquaman? Seems we've also been through wizards and dragons, pirates, vampires, zombies, slasher horror remakes, and space drama all within the last decade. Could be mistaken, but its been over a decade since The Matrix, so I believe we're due for some man-against-the-world martial arts action flicks.
What I love about Inception is the depth. The clear thought that was put into every angle, every character. I blogged what is now years ago about American culture, portrayed through movies, using Fight Club as the halcyon example of how action drama can be elevated to art, not just through violence, explosions, and camera tricks, but through depth and nuance that are sometimes hard to see. Fight Club has enough depth that a college-level literature course could spend a month on it. Inception has more. Even having had a few glasses of wine, I don't think I can adequately convey just how highly I think of these movies.
In any rate, Inception director Chris Nolan will be releasing another Batman movie in the not-terribly-distant future (July, 2012). Fairly little has been released about the plot and storyline. Christian Bale will be back as Bruce/Wayne Batman, and it will feature both major and obscure villains from Batman mythology: Selena Kyle (catwoman, played by Anne Hathaway) and Bane (played by Tom Hardy). Quite a lot of Nolan veterans in the cast, besides Bale and Hardy, including Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard. (Could be the booze, but I find myself contemplating Ellen Page in a Batgirl costume. Mebbe seen Whip It too many times. I have a thing for petite willful women, and Page would kick the hell out of Alicia Silverstone's air-headed version.) All in all, the only sour note so far has been that Nolan plans the movie as a vehicle to conclude his take on Batman.
While I have no doubt whatsoever that Nolan will continue to make excellent films - with a few inevitable side-steps along the way - I'm interested to see how he plans to tie a bow around his Batman universe. I expect it to be outstanding, hopefully enough to satisfy Batfans for the next 10 years or so. Nolan abandoning the franchise unfortunately means that Warner Brothers/DC will hire some over-hyped douchebag to take another run at directing the character for however long the public will buy tickets; whoever happens to be the current incarnation of Joel Schumacher, circa 1995. Len Wiseman is probably near the top of the list. Or somebody from his stable, like Markus Nispel. Fair to say that one or (if we're very lucky) two worthy follow-ups are likely, inevitably followed by a steaming pile of dog-shit that will bury further attempts at comic-book movies for a decade. One-liners and chase-scenes will be offered as substitutes for dialog and drama, with the usual results. Gotta love Hollywood, eh?
But we will get one more Nolan rendition of Batman. So. My prediction: the Nolan Batman storyline will conclude with some great pulling-the-wool-over-the-eyes. Some great deception or obfuscation, which comes at great cost to a central character, but which frees them at the same time. All of Nolan's films highlight the concept that ignorance is bliss, which must sometimes be inflicted on others. The stories convey that reality is subjective. They involve situations where creating (or adopting) the reality that is required involves sacrificing a reality that most people would call "real." Leonard Shelby found his happiness by choosing to ignore and leave behind the reality he has been seeking for years. Likewise, Dominic Cobb found happiness when (by implication) he stopped caring whether or not his reality was real in the grander sense (the significance of the still-spinning top is not that it's still spinning, but rather that Cobb is no longer watching to see if it topples). In The Dark Knight, the reality of Harvey Dent's end was intentionally concealed, at great cost to Our Hero. Both Insomnia and The Prestige likewise have pervasive themes of obfuscation and subjective interpretation of "truth" and "reality." Nolan LOVES the emotional impact of a character transcending reality, by disregarding it. The Dark Knight Rises will be the same.
In interviews, Nolan has asserted that - unlike in comics, where storylines necessarily proceed into perpetuity - movie franchises must have some reasonable closure. I like to think if anyone can wrap up Batman with a clever, impossible to follow twist (which leaves Batman alive, as there must ALWAYS be a Batman), Nolan is the man for the job. Ideally, Nolan will create a storyline that will be difficult enough to follow-up on that the inevitable next director will decide to approach the character from a totally different angle. But alas, the sort of dipshits who will line up for the Batman director job in Nolan's wake are not the type to try to do something original.
But hey, it's about time for us to move past superheroes anyway, since we've pretty much used that up. Seriously, if we're resorting to Thor and Captain America, what's next? Aquaman? Seems we've also been through wizards and dragons, pirates, vampires, zombies, slasher horror remakes, and space drama all within the last decade. Could be mistaken, but its been over a decade since The Matrix, so I believe we're due for some man-against-the-world martial arts action flicks.
Monday, October 24, 2011
The TwiHards
I do occasionally consider a change of career. Lately, I've been spending some time thinking about becoming a telephone psychic, since I can read a tarot deck, and since I learned that some of them charge $600 per hour. No, that's not a miss-print. There are people in the world who make $10 PER MINUTE to shuffle cards and talk on the telephone. I'm thinking maybe that could be me. Could even work out pretty well: I tend to come across pretty well on the phone, when people can't see me rolling my eyes, nor see the mocking expression on my face. This seems important, since those would be common occurrences when addressing people who accept and rely on advice from a deck of cards in the making of decisions. I think that career could be a real possibility.
Of course, I've always been candid about my intended fall-back career: writing B-movie scripts and trashy romance novels. This is the excuse that I offer for having recently picked up and read CB's copies of 'Twilight,' and the following works. Of course, I use 'works' in the loosest possible sense of the term.
My overwhelming response is to wonder at the success of that series of books. I have considered that the average high schooler can barely read, and that their emotional state renders most of them clinical sociopaths from the ages of 14 to 22 (assuming they outgrow it at all), but still. Endless drivel about how Bella simply looks at Edward, and has to take a second or two before she remembers how to breath? How she can't imagine life without him? Endless prattling about how gorgeous he is and how she really can't believe that he's into her? How of course she forgives him for everything he does, immediately, mostly because she doesn't think she deserves him at all? Really? REALLY? This is the sort of writing that earns the author millions?
I'm not sure why this should surprise me, but it kinda does. Maybe I'm a bit of a snob about my literary tastes( or maybe not), but these books are... awful, actually. I sincerely hope that Steph Meyer is one of those authors who thinks its hilarious that her readers are as devoted as they are.
I suspect that part of the issue is my admitted problems dealing with the teens-to-early-20s demographic as a whole. Hell, even as I was reading the books, it seemed a bit creepy to me that Edward, over 100 years old, was in love with a 17 year old girl. Okay, it was more than just a bit creepy, even (or perhaps, especially) when you consider that the author is Mormon and presumably open-minded about unions spanning generation gaps. I was a bachelor well into my 30s, and - living in Las Vegas - had pretty broad dating opportunities. It really didn't take long at all for me to adopt the firm guideline of a maximum allowable age gap of 6 years or so. Really, what were we going to talk about if I had finished law school before she finished high school?
Along those lines, what exactly is it that Edward and Bella connect over? Really, I'm curious. Reading both the language and between the lines, it seems he puts up with all of the drivel and bullshit that makes up her life as a 17-year old high school girl because she smells good. She puts up with all of his condescension, control-freak tendencies, and general douche-baggery (of which there is plenty), mostly because he's gorgeous. While I'm pretty sure that these sorts of arrangements underlie most if not all high-school relationships, I'm not sure that it's healthy for girls to be willing to commit themselves to such deals for all eternity.
So while all this strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that teenage readers would eat up with a spoon, it still depresses me that this is the sort of thing topping best-seller lists. And all in all, it really shouldn't surprise me that the Team Edward vs. Team Jacob debate really gained as much traction as it did. That's gotta be right up there with Survivor, American Idol, and Seinfeld in terms of contrived drama, with the added benefit of being expressed in small words, nearly all of which are known and/or can be sounded out by the target audience.
While real literary analysis is probably not warranted, I'm not going to be able to help myself from wading into the themes. Naturally, there is the almost-universal zero-to-hero angle you find everywhere from the Chronicles of Narnia to Harry Potter, but - interestingly - I think that's one of the more believable angles of the Twilight books. As someone who moved from a big city to a small town, I have no problem believing that a 5.5 to 6 in a big metropolitan pond suddenly rates an 8.5 to 9 in a small pond.
The close corollary 'I-can't-believe-something-this-good-is-happening-to-me' theme is there, in spades, and seems to be the driving force between the Bella/Edward thing as a whole. Seriously, if you took out the drama and dialogue (again, using terms loosely here) about how they REALLY DO love each other, and remove all exchanges where one is assuring they other they they really do want to be together, what all is left?
Answer: pretty much all that's left is another blatantly stereotypical meme: the internal and external conflicts over the wonderful-backup-boyfriend-she-doesn't-love. Oh, Jacob is so wonderful and always there and always saying the right thing and clearly, horrendously in love with Bella. As he is clearly the 'nice' one among her dateable prospects, he gets exploited mercilessly while she languishes over the gorgeous guy she loves. She doesn't WANT Jacob, she just NEEDS him for the actual emotional parts of a relationship, and to fill her pay-attention-to-me quota while Edward is off being dark and moody. This, of course, is all part of the love held for these books by young readers: pretty much every girl (or indeed, every PERSON) on earth will at some point have a hypothetically dateable prospect who loves them, who they don't love, but from whom they love attention. (Admit it, you've put some quality people in the 'friend zone' while you chased someone just like them, but not them. Doing so does not make you a bad person, it just makes you human.) So of course readers eat it up and keep buying books while Jake loves Bella and Bella loves the attention. And since he says he only wants her company, he's getting a positive quotient out of it, notwithstanding overt emotional leeching.
This, obviously, comports nicely with the teenage female world-view. While I haven't actually been able to finish the series quite yet (I can only take fairly small doses at a time before I start getting dry-heaves) I have no doubt whatsoever about how the Edward vs. Jacob thing is going to end. Spoiler alert: Edward is going to get the girl. But I also have no doubt that - part and parcel to final resolution - Jacob will either find his own true love, or die a monumentally heroic death; those are the only resolutions that a teenage female reader would accept. After all, Jacob has been a dutiful and attentive lap-wolf, and the only unforgivable transgression he ever made - other than being a genuinely nice guy - was that he's not as dreamy as Edward. Sadly, I think a heroic death is more likely, since Jacob finding his own true love would mean him finding someone he likes more than he likes Bella. That concept would be a tricky sell to the audience in a first-person narrative based primarily on the mood swings of the narrator. How to make Bella happy about not just losing the relationship that's actually based on personal interaction, but losing that relationship TO ANOTHER GIRL? Thus, I fear that while Jacob will go out well, he is not long for the world.
Reading these books has provided me with some interesting insights in the cravings of the book-buying public, which I confess I lose sight of occasionally. Clearly, any effort I might make to become any form of main-stream writer is going to require overcoming internal psychological barriers about what is and is not publishable quality, and about what I will and will not be willing to have my name attached to. If nothing else, these factors pretty much guarantee that I will be publishing under a pseudonym.
Responses?
Of course, I've always been candid about my intended fall-back career: writing B-movie scripts and trashy romance novels. This is the excuse that I offer for having recently picked up and read CB's copies of 'Twilight,' and the following works. Of course, I use 'works' in the loosest possible sense of the term.
My overwhelming response is to wonder at the success of that series of books. I have considered that the average high schooler can barely read, and that their emotional state renders most of them clinical sociopaths from the ages of 14 to 22 (assuming they outgrow it at all), but still. Endless drivel about how Bella simply looks at Edward, and has to take a second or two before she remembers how to breath? How she can't imagine life without him? Endless prattling about how gorgeous he is and how she really can't believe that he's into her? How of course she forgives him for everything he does, immediately, mostly because she doesn't think she deserves him at all? Really? REALLY? This is the sort of writing that earns the author millions?
I'm not sure why this should surprise me, but it kinda does. Maybe I'm a bit of a snob about my literary tastes( or maybe not), but these books are... awful, actually. I sincerely hope that Steph Meyer is one of those authors who thinks its hilarious that her readers are as devoted as they are.
I suspect that part of the issue is my admitted problems dealing with the teens-to-early-20s demographic as a whole. Hell, even as I was reading the books, it seemed a bit creepy to me that Edward, over 100 years old, was in love with a 17 year old girl. Okay, it was more than just a bit creepy, even (or perhaps, especially) when you consider that the author is Mormon and presumably open-minded about unions spanning generation gaps. I was a bachelor well into my 30s, and - living in Las Vegas - had pretty broad dating opportunities. It really didn't take long at all for me to adopt the firm guideline of a maximum allowable age gap of 6 years or so. Really, what were we going to talk about if I had finished law school before she finished high school?
Along those lines, what exactly is it that Edward and Bella connect over? Really, I'm curious. Reading both the language and between the lines, it seems he puts up with all of the drivel and bullshit that makes up her life as a 17-year old high school girl because she smells good. She puts up with all of his condescension, control-freak tendencies, and general douche-baggery (of which there is plenty), mostly because he's gorgeous. While I'm pretty sure that these sorts of arrangements underlie most if not all high-school relationships, I'm not sure that it's healthy for girls to be willing to commit themselves to such deals for all eternity.
So while all this strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that teenage readers would eat up with a spoon, it still depresses me that this is the sort of thing topping best-seller lists. And all in all, it really shouldn't surprise me that the Team Edward vs. Team Jacob debate really gained as much traction as it did. That's gotta be right up there with Survivor, American Idol, and Seinfeld in terms of contrived drama, with the added benefit of being expressed in small words, nearly all of which are known and/or can be sounded out by the target audience.
While real literary analysis is probably not warranted, I'm not going to be able to help myself from wading into the themes. Naturally, there is the almost-universal zero-to-hero angle you find everywhere from the Chronicles of Narnia to Harry Potter, but - interestingly - I think that's one of the more believable angles of the Twilight books. As someone who moved from a big city to a small town, I have no problem believing that a 5.5 to 6 in a big metropolitan pond suddenly rates an 8.5 to 9 in a small pond.
The close corollary 'I-can't-believe-something-this-good-is-happening-to-me' theme is there, in spades, and seems to be the driving force between the Bella/Edward thing as a whole. Seriously, if you took out the drama and dialogue (again, using terms loosely here) about how they REALLY DO love each other, and remove all exchanges where one is assuring they other they they really do want to be together, what all is left?
Answer: pretty much all that's left is another blatantly stereotypical meme: the internal and external conflicts over the wonderful-backup-boyfriend-she-doesn't-love. Oh, Jacob is so wonderful and always there and always saying the right thing and clearly, horrendously in love with Bella. As he is clearly the 'nice' one among her dateable prospects, he gets exploited mercilessly while she languishes over the gorgeous guy she loves. She doesn't WANT Jacob, she just NEEDS him for the actual emotional parts of a relationship, and to fill her pay-attention-to-me quota while Edward is off being dark and moody. This, of course, is all part of the love held for these books by young readers: pretty much every girl (or indeed, every PERSON) on earth will at some point have a hypothetically dateable prospect who loves them, who they don't love, but from whom they love attention. (Admit it, you've put some quality people in the 'friend zone' while you chased someone just like them, but not them. Doing so does not make you a bad person, it just makes you human.) So of course readers eat it up and keep buying books while Jake loves Bella and Bella loves the attention. And since he says he only wants her company, he's getting a positive quotient out of it, notwithstanding overt emotional leeching.
This, obviously, comports nicely with the teenage female world-view. While I haven't actually been able to finish the series quite yet (I can only take fairly small doses at a time before I start getting dry-heaves) I have no doubt whatsoever about how the Edward vs. Jacob thing is going to end. Spoiler alert: Edward is going to get the girl. But I also have no doubt that - part and parcel to final resolution - Jacob will either find his own true love, or die a monumentally heroic death; those are the only resolutions that a teenage female reader would accept. After all, Jacob has been a dutiful and attentive lap-wolf, and the only unforgivable transgression he ever made - other than being a genuinely nice guy - was that he's not as dreamy as Edward. Sadly, I think a heroic death is more likely, since Jacob finding his own true love would mean him finding someone he likes more than he likes Bella. That concept would be a tricky sell to the audience in a first-person narrative based primarily on the mood swings of the narrator. How to make Bella happy about not just losing the relationship that's actually based on personal interaction, but losing that relationship TO ANOTHER GIRL? Thus, I fear that while Jacob will go out well, he is not long for the world.
Reading these books has provided me with some interesting insights in the cravings of the book-buying public, which I confess I lose sight of occasionally. Clearly, any effort I might make to become any form of main-stream writer is going to require overcoming internal psychological barriers about what is and is not publishable quality, and about what I will and will not be willing to have my name attached to. If nothing else, these factors pretty much guarantee that I will be publishing under a pseudonym.
Responses?
Friday, October 21, 2011
Jobs Loss, and the iHipster
Alas, technology mogul Steve Jobs has shuffled off the mortal coil. Besides (Steve) Jobs, the last decade has also seen the deaths of (Bob) Hope and (Johnny) Cash. With the loss of Hope, Cash, and Jobs, we seem to be descending ever faster into at least the first level of hell with the loss of things everyone loves. Given the rate of loss of the good things, I'm seriously worried that next up will be (Kevin) Bacon.
In any rate, the loss of (Steve) Jobs has of course signaled a plunge in Apple stock, notwithstanding that Jobs left the company's CEO seat in August. But he was still - technically - chairman of the board of the directors. Besides, Apple's stock, and its reputation as a whole, has historically been based on excellent marketing and hipster mystique, so was destined to drop when it's guru did. What I really wonder, like lots of other people, is where the company is going to go from here.
The initial technology developed by Apple (mostly by the Other Steve) was good, but not spectacular. Mostly, it was good because it could do about everything a PC could do, but could be produced out of the Other Steve's garage. Funny that developments in the meantime resulted in the tables being turned: over the years - and notwithstanding that the technology has been proprietary to Apple, while the PC has dozens of manufacturers - the Mac has become substantially more powerful a platform than can be provided by any popular software for the PC, but with the production cost far outstripping the PC, and the added problem that nobody outside Apple is able to provide decent tech support. Other than the computer graphics industry (which genuinely benefits from the increased processing power of Macs over PCs), pretty much everyone who uses a Mac is paying a huge markup for computing power far beyond their requirements. Really, other than playing computer games (which are processing-power intensive, because of the graphic interfaces) the average computer user needs a mp3 player, a word processor, email and internet applications, and possibly basic accounting software. Except for music and online functions, decent versions of all of those programs date back to the Commodore 64. None of those applications, including the music and online functions, really require gigacycles per second of processing power. Amazingly, the public managed to figure this out, and for lots of years (especially after the Windows OS made PCs about as easy to use as Macs), most people bought cheap PCs that could do everything they needed done, rather than expensive Apple/Mac computers that had capabilities they didn't really need.
But Apple and Mac computers re-entered popularity - not through financial or technological advance, but rather through hype and pop culture - when Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997. After helping found the company in the 70s, Jobs left Apple in 1985 to become the controlling shareholding of Lucasfilm's computer-animation spin-off. (Pixar. You may have heard of it. I think I might have mentioned the historic connection between Apple/Mac and the computer animation industry as well.) Getting him back as CEO resulted in substantial changes in Apple's operations, which we still see today. First and foremost, Jobs kicked off some truly spectacular ad campaigns, with a very specific target demographic. Way back when Apple was first successful, one of Jobs' programs was to get kids using computers: Apple donated thousands of Apple IIe desktops to public schools. I grew up in Sunnyvale, California (Google it). My elementary school, my junior high school, and my high school (which is the same high school that the Other Steve graduated from) had an Apple computer in every classroom which was almost never used, as well as a dedicated computer lab, where there were 20-30 more machines. This dates back to 1981, when ANY computer was really expensive, so this was not just a token outlay by Apple. But it turns out that one megacycle and 64 kilobytes of RAM was more than enough to get kids turned on by (or at least interested in) computers. Getting kids involved was explicitly part of Jobs' grand plan, based loosely on the Wayne Gretzky-ism of "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." Jobs is on-record as a huge fan of this quote.
So guess who Steve targeted his marketing towards when he re-took the helm at Apple? While Steve was busy at Pixar from 86 to 97, lots of kids who tinkered with Apple computers in grade school/junior high/high school grew up, got degrees, and started earning disposable income. People who who can't remember a world without Apple computers, finally at an age where they're climbing ladders, and making headway in wresting control of The Establishment away from the older generation(s). Chords were struck by commercials with young, hip, Justin Long - sporting zip-up hoodies and facial scruff with roots in Pearl Jam's 'TEN' tour - poking fun at a stodgy Bill Gates look-alike with pure dialog before a plain white background. Other ads were released on the exact opposite tack: purely technical (and spiffy) blue-screen transition work, set to catchy tunes from indie rockers, without even a voice-over. All of it was - in typical Steve Jobs fashion - innovative, fresh, and beautiful in subtly nuanced simplicity.
People ate it up, and we saw the culmination of Steve Jobs' decades-old efforts. Under the light of the Jobs 2.0 marketing campaign, and out of soil seeded with lavish outlay of the Apple IIe 20 years ago, we saw the birth of Steve Jobs' greatest and least appreciated creation: the iHipster. Apple under Steve Jobs pulled off the Oceans Eleven heist of the business world: it created a product, and then created the market for its own product. Sure, Apple made neat stuff, but lots of companies do that. That's not the remarkable part. The remarkable part was convincing the public that the iHipster was something they wanted to be, and that paying the premium for Apple stuff was TOTALLY worthwhile.
You know the iHipster. Odds are that you might be one. The young, savvy, technology user. The 20-40 year-old upper crust (and/or any pretenders thereto) of the Fight Club generation. Traveling light, fast, and green, thinking outside the box, and trying to break free of stagnation and stereotype. Nothing except Apple products will do for the iHipster. The iHipster thinks nothing of paying the markup for Steve's computers, phones, and other electronic toys. It's Apple. This is THE company of the generation. Started in a garage by a couple guys. Built from nothing except innovation. Non-establishment at its core. Dude, haven't you seen the commercials?
Brilliant.
Alas, alack, the King is dead. While he has already been cannonized in the computer world, Apple is now back were it was in 1985: with a good product and excellent goodwill, but without Jobs. I'm curious to see where things go from here, since the reality is that the iHipster image really has nothing to do with Apple's actual operations, or with any other reality. Indeed, Apple is every bit the corporate monster that the iHipster purports to rail against. Example: have you ever actually read the iTunes user agreement? All 68 pages of it? Suffice to say that if you have ANY worries about Big Brother, Dystopia, or the New World Order, you should be a hell of a lot more concerned about Apple than about the United Nations.
While Apple hesitates not at all to recruit talent with the innovation of its founders, and loves to point out that the company made millionaires out of lots of people, that's fluff. The truth is that Apple treats its employees like absolute dog shit. People are hired, assigned absolutely outrageous quotas, worked until they burn out, then fired based on their failures to meet the original outrageous quota. Oh, and any ideas that employees come up with while working at Apple (even those developed in the employee's own time, say, for example, while tinkering in the garage with their high school buddies) are contractually the property of Apple. Didn't you read that fine print? Their standard employee agreement is shorter than the iTunes contract. A bit.
Apple is currently green(ish), but only after it (and Jobs) was repeatedly and thoroughly lambasted by people who are legitimately green. While I don't doubt that Jobs owned a Prius, that's primarily for press-release purposes. (His usual ride was purportedly a $130,000 Mercedes.) Yes, he was paid ONE DOLLAR per year by Apple. But he also owned 5.4 million shares of Apple (currently trading at $405.80 per share) and another 138 million shares of Disney (currently: $35.39) from their takeover of Pixar, so bragging about earning just a dollar was really just a flaunting of how little he really needed payment at all. Without going into details, suffice to say that Jobs spent at least his share of time acting like a petty asshole (google 'Lisa Brennan-Jobs'), and really only got around to being charitable when he had so much money that he literally couldn't spend it all.
So, given that Apple's business current sales model is based largely on perception and/or illusion, and given that, while there are plenty of businessmen capable of running Apple, none of them look nearly as natural in a black turtleneck, 501s, and running shoes, I wonder what the future holds for Apple. Because while they are currently amazingly successful by any measure, the guy who made it all run is gone. Absent their guru - and setting aside the questionable points of the iReligion - is there someone ready and able to step up and convince the iHipsters that they need to keep paying the Apple markup?
In any rate, the loss of (Steve) Jobs has of course signaled a plunge in Apple stock, notwithstanding that Jobs left the company's CEO seat in August. But he was still - technically - chairman of the board of the directors. Besides, Apple's stock, and its reputation as a whole, has historically been based on excellent marketing and hipster mystique, so was destined to drop when it's guru did. What I really wonder, like lots of other people, is where the company is going to go from here.
The initial technology developed by Apple (mostly by the Other Steve) was good, but not spectacular. Mostly, it was good because it could do about everything a PC could do, but could be produced out of the Other Steve's garage. Funny that developments in the meantime resulted in the tables being turned: over the years - and notwithstanding that the technology has been proprietary to Apple, while the PC has dozens of manufacturers - the Mac has become substantially more powerful a platform than can be provided by any popular software for the PC, but with the production cost far outstripping the PC, and the added problem that nobody outside Apple is able to provide decent tech support. Other than the computer graphics industry (which genuinely benefits from the increased processing power of Macs over PCs), pretty much everyone who uses a Mac is paying a huge markup for computing power far beyond their requirements. Really, other than playing computer games (which are processing-power intensive, because of the graphic interfaces) the average computer user needs a mp3 player, a word processor, email and internet applications, and possibly basic accounting software. Except for music and online functions, decent versions of all of those programs date back to the Commodore 64. None of those applications, including the music and online functions, really require gigacycles per second of processing power. Amazingly, the public managed to figure this out, and for lots of years (especially after the Windows OS made PCs about as easy to use as Macs), most people bought cheap PCs that could do everything they needed done, rather than expensive Apple/Mac computers that had capabilities they didn't really need.
But Apple and Mac computers re-entered popularity - not through financial or technological advance, but rather through hype and pop culture - when Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997. After helping found the company in the 70s, Jobs left Apple in 1985 to become the controlling shareholding of Lucasfilm's computer-animation spin-off. (Pixar. You may have heard of it. I think I might have mentioned the historic connection between Apple/Mac and the computer animation industry as well.) Getting him back as CEO resulted in substantial changes in Apple's operations, which we still see today. First and foremost, Jobs kicked off some truly spectacular ad campaigns, with a very specific target demographic. Way back when Apple was first successful, one of Jobs' programs was to get kids using computers: Apple donated thousands of Apple IIe desktops to public schools. I grew up in Sunnyvale, California (Google it). My elementary school, my junior high school, and my high school (which is the same high school that the Other Steve graduated from) had an Apple computer in every classroom which was almost never used, as well as a dedicated computer lab, where there were 20-30 more machines. This dates back to 1981, when ANY computer was really expensive, so this was not just a token outlay by Apple. But it turns out that one megacycle and 64 kilobytes of RAM was more than enough to get kids turned on by (or at least interested in) computers. Getting kids involved was explicitly part of Jobs' grand plan, based loosely on the Wayne Gretzky-ism of "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." Jobs is on-record as a huge fan of this quote.
So guess who Steve targeted his marketing towards when he re-took the helm at Apple? While Steve was busy at Pixar from 86 to 97, lots of kids who tinkered with Apple computers in grade school/junior high/high school grew up, got degrees, and started earning disposable income. People who who can't remember a world without Apple computers, finally at an age where they're climbing ladders, and making headway in wresting control of The Establishment away from the older generation(s). Chords were struck by commercials with young, hip, Justin Long - sporting zip-up hoodies and facial scruff with roots in Pearl Jam's 'TEN' tour - poking fun at a stodgy Bill Gates look-alike with pure dialog before a plain white background. Other ads were released on the exact opposite tack: purely technical (and spiffy) blue-screen transition work, set to catchy tunes from indie rockers, without even a voice-over. All of it was - in typical Steve Jobs fashion - innovative, fresh, and beautiful in subtly nuanced simplicity.
People ate it up, and we saw the culmination of Steve Jobs' decades-old efforts. Under the light of the Jobs 2.0 marketing campaign, and out of soil seeded with lavish outlay of the Apple IIe 20 years ago, we saw the birth of Steve Jobs' greatest and least appreciated creation: the iHipster. Apple under Steve Jobs pulled off the Oceans Eleven heist of the business world: it created a product, and then created the market for its own product. Sure, Apple made neat stuff, but lots of companies do that. That's not the remarkable part. The remarkable part was convincing the public that the iHipster was something they wanted to be, and that paying the premium for Apple stuff was TOTALLY worthwhile.
You know the iHipster. Odds are that you might be one. The young, savvy, technology user. The 20-40 year-old upper crust (and/or any pretenders thereto) of the Fight Club generation. Traveling light, fast, and green, thinking outside the box, and trying to break free of stagnation and stereotype. Nothing except Apple products will do for the iHipster. The iHipster thinks nothing of paying the markup for Steve's computers, phones, and other electronic toys. It's Apple. This is THE company of the generation. Started in a garage by a couple guys. Built from nothing except innovation. Non-establishment at its core. Dude, haven't you seen the commercials?
Brilliant.
Alas, alack, the King is dead. While he has already been cannonized in the computer world, Apple is now back were it was in 1985: with a good product and excellent goodwill, but without Jobs. I'm curious to see where things go from here, since the reality is that the iHipster image really has nothing to do with Apple's actual operations, or with any other reality. Indeed, Apple is every bit the corporate monster that the iHipster purports to rail against. Example: have you ever actually read the iTunes user agreement? All 68 pages of it? Suffice to say that if you have ANY worries about Big Brother, Dystopia, or the New World Order, you should be a hell of a lot more concerned about Apple than about the United Nations.
While Apple hesitates not at all to recruit talent with the innovation of its founders, and loves to point out that the company made millionaires out of lots of people, that's fluff. The truth is that Apple treats its employees like absolute dog shit. People are hired, assigned absolutely outrageous quotas, worked until they burn out, then fired based on their failures to meet the original outrageous quota. Oh, and any ideas that employees come up with while working at Apple (even those developed in the employee's own time, say, for example, while tinkering in the garage with their high school buddies) are contractually the property of Apple. Didn't you read that fine print? Their standard employee agreement is shorter than the iTunes contract. A bit.
Apple is currently green(ish), but only after it (and Jobs) was repeatedly and thoroughly lambasted by people who are legitimately green. While I don't doubt that Jobs owned a Prius, that's primarily for press-release purposes. (His usual ride was purportedly a $130,000 Mercedes.) Yes, he was paid ONE DOLLAR per year by Apple. But he also owned 5.4 million shares of Apple (currently trading at $405.80 per share) and another 138 million shares of Disney (currently: $35.39) from their takeover of Pixar, so bragging about earning just a dollar was really just a flaunting of how little he really needed payment at all. Without going into details, suffice to say that Jobs spent at least his share of time acting like a petty asshole (google 'Lisa Brennan-Jobs'), and really only got around to being charitable when he had so much money that he literally couldn't spend it all.
So, given that Apple's business current sales model is based largely on perception and/or illusion, and given that, while there are plenty of businessmen capable of running Apple, none of them look nearly as natural in a black turtleneck, 501s, and running shoes, I wonder what the future holds for Apple. Because while they are currently amazingly successful by any measure, the guy who made it all run is gone. Absent their guru - and setting aside the questionable points of the iReligion - is there someone ready and able to step up and convince the iHipsters that they need to keep paying the Apple markup?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
The Road Here
“It was not their irritating assumption of equality that annoyed Nicholai so much as their cultural confusions. The Americans seemed to confuse standard of living with quality of life, equal opportunity with institutionalized mediocrity, bravery with courage, machismo with manhood, liberty with freedom, wordiness with articulation, fun with pleasure - in short, all of the misconceptions common to those who assume that justice implies equality for all, rather than equality for equals.”
― Trevanian, Shibumi
After my recent ramblings about economics, and in the course of several vacations (to say nothing of having 'news' inflicted upon me pretty much every day), I'm thinking more and more about the United States in decline. And we've done it to ourselves.
My summer included such things as trips to Hoover dam. And riding the gondola from the shores of Lake Tahoe up to Heavenly. On various occasions, CB noted how remarkable it was that humanity was capable of building things like that, notwithstanding that most people on the streets cannot be trusted to tie their own shoes. To a large degree, America's creation of great works comes from allowing the best and brightest to succeed, by giving them means and resources to rise above the staid masses of mediocrity.
But somewhere along the way, we've turned into Ayn Rand's America from Atlas Shrugged. At some point, the balance of power changed. Rather than all of us benefiting from the capability and industry of the unleashed best and brightest, we've shackled the best and brightest, barring them from rising above the mediocrity. The Hoover dam represents one of the greatest investments ever made by the United States. Yes, $50 million was a lot of money in the 1930s. But that bad boy has been providing vast amounts of cheap electricity, uninterrupted, for SEVENTY YEARS. It would NEVER be approved for construction in America today. No way. Would never even make it out of committee. Hell, even the gondola at Heavenly; can you imagine the paperwork, environmental impact studies, and Sierra Club lawsuits that would be involved in building a chain of chairlift towers and machinery over several miles, from the heart of a California municipality up to a Nevada ski area on the other side of a mountain ridge? Civil building permits. State approval from both California (where the downtown lodge is in South Lake Tahoe) and Nevada (where the slopes are). Federal approval, since you've got a business enterprise spanning state lines. No way you're going to get all that; the construction costs would be dwarfed by the "campaign contributions" you'd need to make just to get permits and approvals from local, state, and federal politicians.
Doesn't matter that the end result (either Hoover dam or the Heavenly gondola) is a veritable cash cow, with returns vastly exceeding start-up costs. Regulations have been enacted. "Interested" parties need opportunity to voice their concerns and to be appeased. The ambitious and capable who might get the job done will not be allowed to do so, because power has shifted into the hands of the lesser minds, who's primary concern is and has always been the maintenance of the status quo.
Once upon a time, kids in American schools were convincingly told that they could grow up to be anything. And they could. Then. Do well in school. Start a business. Make millions.
These days, our educational system is more interested in pretending that kids of different intellect and capabilities are all the same, and as a result focus their efforts on the lowest common denominator. They're not allowed to leave a child behind. No matter that some such children are disinterested, delinquents, or just simply fucking morons, they MUST be nursed through the system. Sorry; we're going to have to cancel the AP programs. We need that money to triple the size of the remedial programs, which are not going to be able to squeeze blood from stones regardless. The government has So Ordered.
Starting a business used to be the American dream. Be your own boss, and do what you love. For the most part you can forget about that. You need permits. You need to adhere to the regulations. Face the inspections. Hire the requisite demographics, regardless of their qualifications. And even if you do all that, you can forget about making the millions. Our government has taken the overt position that small businesses are a good thing (never mind those issues listed above), but big businesses should bear the costs of public healthcare, welfare, and payment of the national debt, whether they like it or not. The government has So Ordered.
Existing "big businesses" will never face this in any meaningful way. They can simply move their operations overseas and/or exploit tax loopholes crafted especially for them. Your business, as a NKOTB graduating from "small" to "big," is unlikely to have those options. Should your "small" business be successful, and then become a "big" business (in the discretion of a government strapped for cash and free to change its arbitrary classifications pretty much at will), you will be ripe for plundering. At that point, taxes will come crashing down, and make you wonder if maybe you should ELECT to cut back your productivity, to stay a "small" business. Thus, and amazingly, American politics and economics dictates that if you own a business, it's in your interest to KEEP IT SMALL.
All in all, it's probably easier to work for somebody else, and let them deal with that bullshit. Or better yet, you should try to get a government job, which doesn't pay all that well, but from which it is pretty much impossible to be fired, regardless of your productivity/incompetence ratio. (See, e.g., United States Department of Energy.)
In the end, even the best and brightest these days are steered into middle-management jobs in "industries" that produce nothing but paperwork (I'm not passing judgment, since I'm in such an industry), where they expect grand salaries (again, not passing judgment, since I have such expectations). Those less than the best and brightest will have the same expectations (they're just as good as anyone else! Their parents, teachers, and politicians all said so!). Even they can rest assured that - just like in school - the government will make sure that they get the same benefits and treatment as everyone else. The government has So Ordered.
Given this situation, the sad result will be ongoing plundering of the capable by the mediocre. We see incompetent employees kept on, riding the coat-tails of their more capable co-workers, because The System won't let them be canned for their bullshit and incompetence. We see bosses who's primary job is finding employees smarter and more capable than they are, and taking credit for those employees' efforts, while convincing the employees that they're lucky to have a job at all. We see a national tax system where less than half of the populace actually pays taxes, and were politicians talk not about getting more of the populace to contibute, but about getting the contributing populace to CONTRIBUTE MORE.
Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
― Trevanian, Shibumi
After my recent ramblings about economics, and in the course of several vacations (to say nothing of having 'news' inflicted upon me pretty much every day), I'm thinking more and more about the United States in decline. And we've done it to ourselves.
My summer included such things as trips to Hoover dam. And riding the gondola from the shores of Lake Tahoe up to Heavenly. On various occasions, CB noted how remarkable it was that humanity was capable of building things like that, notwithstanding that most people on the streets cannot be trusted to tie their own shoes. To a large degree, America's creation of great works comes from allowing the best and brightest to succeed, by giving them means and resources to rise above the staid masses of mediocrity.
But somewhere along the way, we've turned into Ayn Rand's America from Atlas Shrugged. At some point, the balance of power changed. Rather than all of us benefiting from the capability and industry of the unleashed best and brightest, we've shackled the best and brightest, barring them from rising above the mediocrity. The Hoover dam represents one of the greatest investments ever made by the United States. Yes, $50 million was a lot of money in the 1930s. But that bad boy has been providing vast amounts of cheap electricity, uninterrupted, for SEVENTY YEARS. It would NEVER be approved for construction in America today. No way. Would never even make it out of committee. Hell, even the gondola at Heavenly; can you imagine the paperwork, environmental impact studies, and Sierra Club lawsuits that would be involved in building a chain of chairlift towers and machinery over several miles, from the heart of a California municipality up to a Nevada ski area on the other side of a mountain ridge? Civil building permits. State approval from both California (where the downtown lodge is in South Lake Tahoe) and Nevada (where the slopes are). Federal approval, since you've got a business enterprise spanning state lines. No way you're going to get all that; the construction costs would be dwarfed by the "campaign contributions" you'd need to make just to get permits and approvals from local, state, and federal politicians.
Doesn't matter that the end result (either Hoover dam or the Heavenly gondola) is a veritable cash cow, with returns vastly exceeding start-up costs. Regulations have been enacted. "Interested" parties need opportunity to voice their concerns and to be appeased. The ambitious and capable who might get the job done will not be allowed to do so, because power has shifted into the hands of the lesser minds, who's primary concern is and has always been the maintenance of the status quo.
Once upon a time, kids in American schools were convincingly told that they could grow up to be anything. And they could. Then. Do well in school. Start a business. Make millions.
These days, our educational system is more interested in pretending that kids of different intellect and capabilities are all the same, and as a result focus their efforts on the lowest common denominator. They're not allowed to leave a child behind. No matter that some such children are disinterested, delinquents, or just simply fucking morons, they MUST be nursed through the system. Sorry; we're going to have to cancel the AP programs. We need that money to triple the size of the remedial programs, which are not going to be able to squeeze blood from stones regardless. The government has So Ordered.
Starting a business used to be the American dream. Be your own boss, and do what you love. For the most part you can forget about that. You need permits. You need to adhere to the regulations. Face the inspections. Hire the requisite demographics, regardless of their qualifications. And even if you do all that, you can forget about making the millions. Our government has taken the overt position that small businesses are a good thing (never mind those issues listed above), but big businesses should bear the costs of public healthcare, welfare, and payment of the national debt, whether they like it or not. The government has So Ordered.
Existing "big businesses" will never face this in any meaningful way. They can simply move their operations overseas and/or exploit tax loopholes crafted especially for them. Your business, as a NKOTB graduating from "small" to "big," is unlikely to have those options. Should your "small" business be successful, and then become a "big" business (in the discretion of a government strapped for cash and free to change its arbitrary classifications pretty much at will), you will be ripe for plundering. At that point, taxes will come crashing down, and make you wonder if maybe you should ELECT to cut back your productivity, to stay a "small" business. Thus, and amazingly, American politics and economics dictates that if you own a business, it's in your interest to KEEP IT SMALL.
All in all, it's probably easier to work for somebody else, and let them deal with that bullshit. Or better yet, you should try to get a government job, which doesn't pay all that well, but from which it is pretty much impossible to be fired, regardless of your productivity/incompetence ratio. (See, e.g., United States Department of Energy.)
In the end, even the best and brightest these days are steered into middle-management jobs in "industries" that produce nothing but paperwork (I'm not passing judgment, since I'm in such an industry), where they expect grand salaries (again, not passing judgment, since I have such expectations). Those less than the best and brightest will have the same expectations (they're just as good as anyone else! Their parents, teachers, and politicians all said so!). Even they can rest assured that - just like in school - the government will make sure that they get the same benefits and treatment as everyone else. The government has So Ordered.
Given this situation, the sad result will be ongoing plundering of the capable by the mediocre. We see incompetent employees kept on, riding the coat-tails of their more capable co-workers, because The System won't let them be canned for their bullshit and incompetence. We see bosses who's primary job is finding employees smarter and more capable than they are, and taking credit for those employees' efforts, while convincing the employees that they're lucky to have a job at all. We see a national tax system where less than half of the populace actually pays taxes, and were politicians talk not about getting more of the populace to contibute, but about getting the contributing populace to CONTRIBUTE MORE.
Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Decline
The sad truth of the matter is that the United States is a nation in decline. Not that it's effecting me a whole lot, of course. While I'm not without my own financial woes or looming problems, I got launched on this train of thought while enjoying CB's company over another exceptionally bourgeois weekend at the Red Rock Hotel and Casino. In fact, this recent trip put the last trip to shame from a culinary perspective, yet somehow managed to cost slightly less than our last similar outing. Go figure. In any rate, the only real issue I've had lately with finances is wondering whether or not the dollar is going to be worth anything after any given day of stock market activity, and whether or not I just just simply spend every dime I have, and convert hypothetical solid liquidity (which is becoming more and more a contradiction in terms) into tangible chattels.
But while watching our national debt issues being spun by the media and politicians, and with The United States of American being declared a bad credit risk, I got to considering the long-term future of the United States. At least for the time being, we are a nation in decline, with the greatest evidence being the general disparity between parents and their adult children. Rather than parents moving in with their children as they grow physically infirm, adult children are moving back in their parents, because the parents are financially firm. These days, children aspire to the levels of success achieved by mom and dad, rather than dazzling mom and dad with successes and the reaching of new heights.
To a certain degree, this trend of parents having to play host and financier to their insolvent adult children is a little dose of justice. In many cases, the success and stability currently enjoyed by elderly Americans exists because they've spent their lives gathering wealth in an economy based largely on borrowing from the future. Only fair that they help out the younger generations, since those younger generations are charged with paying off the debt incurred by the older generations. The American populace and government has spent $14 trillion that they didn't actually have in order to get where they are.
From my own financial perspective, this is not an overwhelming problem. Both CB and I are highly educated, capable, and motivated when we need to be. So long as the legal and associated system remains operating in any meaningful form, we will be able to get desk jobs. And if there are no desk jobs, we'll find work doing other things, since we also have too much pride to spend substantial time on any sort of wellfare. To one degree, this means that we will feel the effects of a national economic decline worse than others, since we will remain in the minority who work, pay taxes, and so forth. But it also means that we will never be dependent on parents or Big Brother for our meals and comforts.
But beyond the issue of how to make ends meet (which I'm not worried about except insofar as I might have to eat more grains and veggies and less filet mignon), I've been thinking about the future because CB and I have been seriously discussing the issue of children, which has me thinking about the world such child(ren) might be brought in to.
Given the Way of Things, the United States economny may be unlikely to recover. On paper, the United States is over $14 trillion in debt, and that doesn't count toxic assets held by banks and other financial centers. The reason that Bank of America owns thousands of foreclosed upon homes: it LITERALLY cannot afford to put them on the market. So long as no new valuation is assigned to a property (as is the case in a sale), the theoretical value is the most recent purchase price. The reason that we are where we are is that nuances of the '90s and 00s financial booms supported vast overvaluation of real estate. Your took out a loan. The bankers used the value of your mortgage note as capitol, which was loaned to others. The higher property values rose, the more capitol the banks were able to generate for loans in vestments.
Then the crunch came and passed. Houses are no longer worth the price of the loans given to buy the property. What does that say about the value of the loan (which is secured by the property), which the bank lists as a debit to balance some credit? Much of the "money" in circulation is supported by only by a bank's listing of a loan value. If the house underlying that loan is foreclosed upon and sold, the bank needs to admit that it's accounts are undercapitolized, as the actual value of the debits not longer meets the actual value of the credits. Multiply this by the millions of homes and properties that the banks gave loans on, which are no longer worth the value lent. So the banks allow those properties to sit empty, to preserve the lie that they are an asset, rather than a liability. The sad truth of the matter is that many of the property loans made in the last decade or so are upside down, and represent financial liabilities, which banks are listing as actual assets. The privately owned totality of the United States is, to one degree or another, a toxic asset.
So. Besides the $14 trillion that we acknowledge as national debt, there is the hole that represents the cumulative liability of every upside-down property in the free world. More and more Republicans are likely to be elected to office with hard-line positions on debt management, but the truth of the matter is that we really have overspent to the point of no return. Nobody really wants to stop spending, much less start paying off debt. The only real question seems to be how long we can preserve the lie that our books balance, and thereby prevent the sudden and catestropic loss of value of every account evidenced only by a dollar value in a computer somewhere.
I think this will actually last quite a while, since - with the wonders of our global economy - everything in the world is valued in dollars, and NOBODY really wants to own up to the lie we've all been living. So we will keep spending, allow interest to continually accrue, continue to borrow more money to pay existing liaiblities, and so forth. It will get really fun if interest rates rise. Anecdotal note: the United States nation debt is largely funded with T-bills and other notes based on variable rates (prime), currently dirt-cheap at 3% or less. If the interest rate rises to as must as 5.7% (which is the average for the last 20 years or so), the United States debt will grow by $5 trillion in the next decade, BASED ON INTEREST ALONE. So realistically, the United States Treasury CANNOT raise the interest rate, which takes away a check-and-balance on the financial system, with all sorts of interesting consequences on inflation and other financial factors.
Given the numbers, the still-hidden toxic assets, and the inability of elected officials to make hard decisions (the ones that cause austerity for the electorate), one would think it must necessarily come to an end, and perhaps sooner rather than later. Eventually, people are going to realize that a dollar is no longer worth a dollar, and slowly, steadily, move their assets into other values, while shifting their liabilities into dollars. That's the hope for an orderly transition; that the change happen slowly, rather than catastrophically. The worst case is a sudden upheaval, which might result from such things as Texas Secession, or China calling its loans due.
But alas, like Rome, the Holy Roman Church, and the British Empire, the United States will ultimately decline and be subsumed. A younger, healthier world leader will arise, and human existence will continue on as it always has. Until the zombies come, that is.
In the end, I guess what I'm really wondering is, in the course of maximizing the ability of my hypothetical child(ren) to succeed, should I or should I not be considering a move to another country? Or at least to Texas?
But while watching our national debt issues being spun by the media and politicians, and with The United States of American being declared a bad credit risk, I got to considering the long-term future of the United States. At least for the time being, we are a nation in decline, with the greatest evidence being the general disparity between parents and their adult children. Rather than parents moving in with their children as they grow physically infirm, adult children are moving back in their parents, because the parents are financially firm. These days, children aspire to the levels of success achieved by mom and dad, rather than dazzling mom and dad with successes and the reaching of new heights.
To a certain degree, this trend of parents having to play host and financier to their insolvent adult children is a little dose of justice. In many cases, the success and stability currently enjoyed by elderly Americans exists because they've spent their lives gathering wealth in an economy based largely on borrowing from the future. Only fair that they help out the younger generations, since those younger generations are charged with paying off the debt incurred by the older generations. The American populace and government has spent $14 trillion that they didn't actually have in order to get where they are.
From my own financial perspective, this is not an overwhelming problem. Both CB and I are highly educated, capable, and motivated when we need to be. So long as the legal and associated system remains operating in any meaningful form, we will be able to get desk jobs. And if there are no desk jobs, we'll find work doing other things, since we also have too much pride to spend substantial time on any sort of wellfare. To one degree, this means that we will feel the effects of a national economic decline worse than others, since we will remain in the minority who work, pay taxes, and so forth. But it also means that we will never be dependent on parents or Big Brother for our meals and comforts.
But beyond the issue of how to make ends meet (which I'm not worried about except insofar as I might have to eat more grains and veggies and less filet mignon), I've been thinking about the future because CB and I have been seriously discussing the issue of children, which has me thinking about the world such child(ren) might be brought in to.
Given the Way of Things, the United States economny may be unlikely to recover. On paper, the United States is over $14 trillion in debt, and that doesn't count toxic assets held by banks and other financial centers. The reason that Bank of America owns thousands of foreclosed upon homes: it LITERALLY cannot afford to put them on the market. So long as no new valuation is assigned to a property (as is the case in a sale), the theoretical value is the most recent purchase price. The reason that we are where we are is that nuances of the '90s and 00s financial booms supported vast overvaluation of real estate. Your took out a loan. The bankers used the value of your mortgage note as capitol, which was loaned to others. The higher property values rose, the more capitol the banks were able to generate for loans in vestments.
Then the crunch came and passed. Houses are no longer worth the price of the loans given to buy the property. What does that say about the value of the loan (which is secured by the property), which the bank lists as a debit to balance some credit? Much of the "money" in circulation is supported by only by a bank's listing of a loan value. If the house underlying that loan is foreclosed upon and sold, the bank needs to admit that it's accounts are undercapitolized, as the actual value of the debits not longer meets the actual value of the credits. Multiply this by the millions of homes and properties that the banks gave loans on, which are no longer worth the value lent. So the banks allow those properties to sit empty, to preserve the lie that they are an asset, rather than a liability. The sad truth of the matter is that many of the property loans made in the last decade or so are upside down, and represent financial liabilities, which banks are listing as actual assets. The privately owned totality of the United States is, to one degree or another, a toxic asset.
So. Besides the $14 trillion that we acknowledge as national debt, there is the hole that represents the cumulative liability of every upside-down property in the free world. More and more Republicans are likely to be elected to office with hard-line positions on debt management, but the truth of the matter is that we really have overspent to the point of no return. Nobody really wants to stop spending, much less start paying off debt. The only real question seems to be how long we can preserve the lie that our books balance, and thereby prevent the sudden and catestropic loss of value of every account evidenced only by a dollar value in a computer somewhere.
I think this will actually last quite a while, since - with the wonders of our global economy - everything in the world is valued in dollars, and NOBODY really wants to own up to the lie we've all been living. So we will keep spending, allow interest to continually accrue, continue to borrow more money to pay existing liaiblities, and so forth. It will get really fun if interest rates rise. Anecdotal note: the United States nation debt is largely funded with T-bills and other notes based on variable rates (prime), currently dirt-cheap at 3% or less. If the interest rate rises to as must as 5.7% (which is the average for the last 20 years or so), the United States debt will grow by $5 trillion in the next decade, BASED ON INTEREST ALONE. So realistically, the United States Treasury CANNOT raise the interest rate, which takes away a check-and-balance on the financial system, with all sorts of interesting consequences on inflation and other financial factors.
Given the numbers, the still-hidden toxic assets, and the inability of elected officials to make hard decisions (the ones that cause austerity for the electorate), one would think it must necessarily come to an end, and perhaps sooner rather than later. Eventually, people are going to realize that a dollar is no longer worth a dollar, and slowly, steadily, move their assets into other values, while shifting their liabilities into dollars. That's the hope for an orderly transition; that the change happen slowly, rather than catastrophically. The worst case is a sudden upheaval, which might result from such things as Texas Secession, or China calling its loans due.
But alas, like Rome, the Holy Roman Church, and the British Empire, the United States will ultimately decline and be subsumed. A younger, healthier world leader will arise, and human existence will continue on as it always has. Until the zombies come, that is.
In the end, I guess what I'm really wondering is, in the course of maximizing the ability of my hypothetical child(ren) to succeed, should I or should I not be considering a move to another country? Or at least to Texas?
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Game Theory in 2012
Game theory, as a field of intellectual study, spends a whole lot of time defining and mapping the way that forces interact, and how things could potentially go wrong. It's actually pretty boring to most people, since the models and theories of the field are generally pretty obvious, and since the math used to express the theories is appealing only to people who genuinely like working with math. But even though math generally sucks, most people can nonetheless appreciate game theory and its applications. Hell, Nash's Equilibrium theory was in fact generated in the course of discussing which girl of a group should properly be pursued, so as to maximize the chances of a drunken grad-student getting laid on a given Friday night at the bar.
The technical expression of the theory is that, in any given game, a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can to maximize their own returns, taking into account the decisions of the others. The application of the theory is that in a closed system and given a sufficient time-line, any number of competing factions openly pursing mutually exclusive benefit will reach a state of equilibrium, wherein each faction settles into a fixed strategy (accepting the payoff from such strategy), and abandons all other possible strategies as less productive than the chosen strategy. This state of equilibrium can in fact be proven mathematically, with all sorts of interesting implications in all sorts of different fields.
Insofar as it relates to trolling for co-eds on a Friday night at the bar, all this game theory shit is just a really long and complicated way of saying that unless Joe Schmoe is the one of the hottest and most desirable guys in the room, he's probably wasting his time hitting on one of the hottest and most desirable girls in the room, and any persistent attempt to do so is almost always contrary to anyone getting laid, particularly Joe.
Of course everyone at the bar is allowed to pursue whatever strategy they like, and can reach for whatever (or whoever) they think they can take. Given the fairly short timeline of a given Friday night, there will be the occasional incident where Joe hooks up with hot girls tacitly out of his league, and likewise there will be times where Joe must bottom-feed or else (gasp!) go home alone. But according to the theory (and the supporting mathematics), given a set time-line, the guys and the girls in the room are going to reach a state of equilibrium in pairing off, with each of guys and girls finding reasonable matches based on accepted norms such as one girl per boy, and whatever scale and degree of social/sexual male/female desirability as can be explored in the available time-frame. In the end, and given the available time-line before last call, game theory says that it's in Joe's best interest to be reasonable in targeting his efforts, spare himself the trouble of being shot down, and skip to the end-game where - ideally for Joe - he gets his pole waxed by the best girl in the crowd that he might reasonably win that night. This is not "settling." It's Joe playing the best game he can to reach the desired goal of the at-issue game, which for today's purposes happens to be trolling for meaningless ass in college bars.
And to think people say that analytical math is no fun.
Besides providing complex equations of largely indecipherable mathematical symbols, game theory provides language, terms, and descriptors to analyze interactions. This is important. Besides breaking down college bar meat-market dynamics, even. Any linguist can tell you that the complexity of a possible idea is inextricably linked to the ability of the thinker to form and articulate the idea. There's a clear chicken-or-egg relationship between thought and linguistics, regardless of whether development of language supports the development of new ideas or whether development of ideas spurs the creation of new language. Especially since, like the chicken and the egg, we've clearly reached a point where each follows the other. We need terms and language to express ideas. This art of idea building, by the way, is the real value of a liberal arts education: the ability to take fairly simple language and build it into ideas, which ideas can then be sold at value sufficient to spare one the burden of lifting heavy objects for a living. It works, trust me.
For an example of such an idea, created out of various simpler concepts, and built up in the hope that somebody might find it interesting enough to give or ascribe some form of value to (in this case, entertainment), take this:
The world is of course going to end soon. The Aztec calendar says so, and that was created using stone-age technology and astronomical observation. Given their primitive state, the Aztecs must clearly have known secrets of the universe beyond the grasp of current scientists and prognosticators. Or something. Even current prophets (profits?), burdened as they are by all the interference and clouding of their predictions by all that science shit of modern civilization, say The End Is Coming. Some of them go so far as to say that the rapture has already passed - with those Taken by God numbering so few that nobody has really noted their absence - and we are already into the trials and tribulations. Which aptly explains things like, for example, Casey Anthony.
Of course, they're all idiots. Everybody who still has a brain knows that When The End Comes, it's going to be zombies. In some ways, the Zeds have already taken over the world, and are making substantial headway in their efforts to appropriate, control, or nullify all brains not already under their sway. Don't say you haven't been warned.
Whatever. But with The End of Days looming, I suppose it behooves us to do our best to look forward to the What Might Bes. Now then, continuing in the liberal arts trend of cobbling together ideas, slapping on a coat of paint, and trying to sell them for more than there actually worth: Among any number of other theories and guidelines, Game Theory postulates that the effect of a breakdown in any system is based on the degree of the breakdown, and the pervasiveness of the system. This is just a complex way of saying that the breakage of important shit matters more than the breakage of trivial shit.
Take religeon, for example. Except for the families of those involved, nobody game a damn about those crazy Heaven's Gate guys with their shiny Nike's and $5.75 to pay Chiron's toll for a seat on Hale-Bopp. Too small a sample, too far on the fringe, and the end result is just a lot of off-color humor and a house destined to appear on Ghost Hunters. Nobody really takes religion seriously as a defining bedrock of society, and even hard-core types will generally admit that the whole "creation of the world in 7 days" thing is a metaphor, rather than how things actually went. Among all our institutions and factions, church is typical a middle-weight at most, and theological developments almost never make a difference in our world.
But there have been times when religious developments have literally reshaped the world. Not so much recently, but discussed before, there was a period measured in centuries when the Catholic Church was the defining power in the lives of the entirety of the western world. So much so that it was largely unthinkable that its strength over peoples' lives would change. Entire generations pledged fealty, and parties were held where dissenters were hanged, set on fire, or just tortured until they toed the line. The Church was EVERYTHING, and while there were always factions and objectors, nobody took any of them seriously.
Of course, it didn't last. The system became so large, complicated, unwieldy, and internally non-supporting and/or nonsensical that the catholic church fragmented from within, and created its own worst enemy (Protestantism). Which internal fracturing of an institution in itself is an inevitability, by the way. But with the rise of Protestantism and the concurrent fracturing of the mighty pillar of Catholicism, there was utter chaos. The church was the central pillar of the European world. Deprived of the stability of that foundation, a whole series of wars swept through Europe (the Hundred Years War), with the end result of religions - the prior BMOC - losing nearly all of their political standing, in favor of the still-persisting model of Nation-States based on local political representation of the populace.
The leadership and influence of the catholic church was so pervasive, so ingrained into European society, that its breakdown was catastrophic. The breakdown itself resulted in a century of warfare between the nations and modes of thought that stepped in to fill the power vacuum, and the end result was an entirely new political-social structure. Not coincidentally, pundits of the collapsing Catholic Church were not shy about trumpeting the apocalypse and subsequent End of Days. For them, it was.
Applying to the present this lesson regarding a central pillar of society breaking down, ask yourself: what article, institution, or thing is so pervasive in our society and in the world today that its breakdown would throw the world into chaos? What loss or breakdown would create a power-vacuum so vast as to spawn a hundred years of war among contenders to assume ascendance? Narrowing the issue to 2012, is there some pillar of our modern world, upon which rests unimaginably vast systems and balances, which appears to be cracking, and where the collapse would result in large-scale re-organization and re-calculation of the haves and have-nots of the world as a whole?
The answer is YES. And the pillar in question is the dollar.
The technical expression of the theory is that, in any given game, a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can to maximize their own returns, taking into account the decisions of the others. The application of the theory is that in a closed system and given a sufficient time-line, any number of competing factions openly pursing mutually exclusive benefit will reach a state of equilibrium, wherein each faction settles into a fixed strategy (accepting the payoff from such strategy), and abandons all other possible strategies as less productive than the chosen strategy. This state of equilibrium can in fact be proven mathematically, with all sorts of interesting implications in all sorts of different fields.
Insofar as it relates to trolling for co-eds on a Friday night at the bar, all this game theory shit is just a really long and complicated way of saying that unless Joe Schmoe is the one of the hottest and most desirable guys in the room, he's probably wasting his time hitting on one of the hottest and most desirable girls in the room, and any persistent attempt to do so is almost always contrary to anyone getting laid, particularly Joe.
Of course everyone at the bar is allowed to pursue whatever strategy they like, and can reach for whatever (or whoever) they think they can take. Given the fairly short timeline of a given Friday night, there will be the occasional incident where Joe hooks up with hot girls tacitly out of his league, and likewise there will be times where Joe must bottom-feed or else (gasp!) go home alone. But according to the theory (and the supporting mathematics), given a set time-line, the guys and the girls in the room are going to reach a state of equilibrium in pairing off, with each of guys and girls finding reasonable matches based on accepted norms such as one girl per boy, and whatever scale and degree of social/sexual male/female desirability as can be explored in the available time-frame. In the end, and given the available time-line before last call, game theory says that it's in Joe's best interest to be reasonable in targeting his efforts, spare himself the trouble of being shot down, and skip to the end-game where - ideally for Joe - he gets his pole waxed by the best girl in the crowd that he might reasonably win that night. This is not "settling." It's Joe playing the best game he can to reach the desired goal of the at-issue game, which for today's purposes happens to be trolling for meaningless ass in college bars.
And to think people say that analytical math is no fun.
Besides providing complex equations of largely indecipherable mathematical symbols, game theory provides language, terms, and descriptors to analyze interactions. This is important. Besides breaking down college bar meat-market dynamics, even. Any linguist can tell you that the complexity of a possible idea is inextricably linked to the ability of the thinker to form and articulate the idea. There's a clear chicken-or-egg relationship between thought and linguistics, regardless of whether development of language supports the development of new ideas or whether development of ideas spurs the creation of new language. Especially since, like the chicken and the egg, we've clearly reached a point where each follows the other. We need terms and language to express ideas. This art of idea building, by the way, is the real value of a liberal arts education: the ability to take fairly simple language and build it into ideas, which ideas can then be sold at value sufficient to spare one the burden of lifting heavy objects for a living. It works, trust me.
For an example of such an idea, created out of various simpler concepts, and built up in the hope that somebody might find it interesting enough to give or ascribe some form of value to (in this case, entertainment), take this:
The world is of course going to end soon. The Aztec calendar says so, and that was created using stone-age technology and astronomical observation. Given their primitive state, the Aztecs must clearly have known secrets of the universe beyond the grasp of current scientists and prognosticators. Or something. Even current prophets (profits?), burdened as they are by all the interference and clouding of their predictions by all that science shit of modern civilization, say The End Is Coming. Some of them go so far as to say that the rapture has already passed - with those Taken by God numbering so few that nobody has really noted their absence - and we are already into the trials and tribulations. Which aptly explains things like, for example, Casey Anthony.
Of course, they're all idiots. Everybody who still has a brain knows that When The End Comes, it's going to be zombies. In some ways, the Zeds have already taken over the world, and are making substantial headway in their efforts to appropriate, control, or nullify all brains not already under their sway. Don't say you haven't been warned.
Whatever. But with The End of Days looming, I suppose it behooves us to do our best to look forward to the What Might Bes. Now then, continuing in the liberal arts trend of cobbling together ideas, slapping on a coat of paint, and trying to sell them for more than there actually worth: Among any number of other theories and guidelines, Game Theory postulates that the effect of a breakdown in any system is based on the degree of the breakdown, and the pervasiveness of the system. This is just a complex way of saying that the breakage of important shit matters more than the breakage of trivial shit.
Take religeon, for example. Except for the families of those involved, nobody game a damn about those crazy Heaven's Gate guys with their shiny Nike's and $5.75 to pay Chiron's toll for a seat on Hale-Bopp. Too small a sample, too far on the fringe, and the end result is just a lot of off-color humor and a house destined to appear on Ghost Hunters. Nobody really takes religion seriously as a defining bedrock of society, and even hard-core types will generally admit that the whole "creation of the world in 7 days" thing is a metaphor, rather than how things actually went. Among all our institutions and factions, church is typical a middle-weight at most, and theological developments almost never make a difference in our world.
But there have been times when religious developments have literally reshaped the world. Not so much recently, but discussed before, there was a period measured in centuries when the Catholic Church was the defining power in the lives of the entirety of the western world. So much so that it was largely unthinkable that its strength over peoples' lives would change. Entire generations pledged fealty, and parties were held where dissenters were hanged, set on fire, or just tortured until they toed the line. The Church was EVERYTHING, and while there were always factions and objectors, nobody took any of them seriously.
Of course, it didn't last. The system became so large, complicated, unwieldy, and internally non-supporting and/or nonsensical that the catholic church fragmented from within, and created its own worst enemy (Protestantism). Which internal fracturing of an institution in itself is an inevitability, by the way. But with the rise of Protestantism and the concurrent fracturing of the mighty pillar of Catholicism, there was utter chaos. The church was the central pillar of the European world. Deprived of the stability of that foundation, a whole series of wars swept through Europe (the Hundred Years War), with the end result of religions - the prior BMOC - losing nearly all of their political standing, in favor of the still-persisting model of Nation-States based on local political representation of the populace.
The leadership and influence of the catholic church was so pervasive, so ingrained into European society, that its breakdown was catastrophic. The breakdown itself resulted in a century of warfare between the nations and modes of thought that stepped in to fill the power vacuum, and the end result was an entirely new political-social structure. Not coincidentally, pundits of the collapsing Catholic Church were not shy about trumpeting the apocalypse and subsequent End of Days. For them, it was.
Applying to the present this lesson regarding a central pillar of society breaking down, ask yourself: what article, institution, or thing is so pervasive in our society and in the world today that its breakdown would throw the world into chaos? What loss or breakdown would create a power-vacuum so vast as to spawn a hundred years of war among contenders to assume ascendance? Narrowing the issue to 2012, is there some pillar of our modern world, upon which rests unimaginably vast systems and balances, which appears to be cracking, and where the collapse would result in large-scale re-organization and re-calculation of the haves and have-nots of the world as a whole?
The answer is YES. And the pillar in question is the dollar.
2012 Campaigns. Already.
I already hate the fact that next year is an election year. And it makes me wonder exactly what the fuck is going wrong with our electoral system that nobody can seem to come up with a decent presidential candidate, even when they only have to make the effort once every four years.
Lets take a look at the recent elections. Remember two presidential elections ago, when George W. was the incumbent? Nobody approved of the job he was doing. Everybody thought he was a moron. His political grounding was limited to his family name and his days in college splitting eight-balls with Ivy-leaguers from similar families. Hell, as president he spent more time ON VACATION than any president up to that time (although this record has already been broken by Barack Obama), and the country seemed to function better when he WASN'T in the White House making decisions. If ever there was a winnable election for the Democrats against an incumbent president, that was it.
And who was the best candidate the Dems had to offer against a known buffoon? John Fucking Kerry. Mr. Waffler extraordinaire, and the only human being on the planet who was less impressive on mass media than was the idiot sitting president. Well played, Democrats. Well played.
Fast forward four years. The Democrats, smarting from the result that Kerry - their career-politician mouthpiece - lost to a known moron, go in the absolute opposite direction, and rally behind Barack Obama. Who cares that he has no real experience in politics. Who cares that none of the ideas of his platform withstand even cursory application of reason. He will get 1) the black vote, 2) the mexican vote, and 3) the liberal white vote, by simple dint of his skin color. All fluff, no substance, and he didn't even pretend that he had something other than all fluff and no substance. A black man, with no political track record or hard-money corporate support, fresh off a blood-bath primary win over Hillary. If ever there was an election that the Republicans should be able to win, you would think this was it.
Who, pray tell, was the best the Republicans could produce to oppose him? John Fucking McCain. The guy who couldn't even beat out George W. for the nomination last time around, and who in the meantime had gotten no younger, no more media friendly, and no more mainstream than his conservative Arizona senatorial constituency required him to be. Well played, Republicans. Well played.
Things are gonna be different in Mattopia. First of all, digital media will be barred from all campaign speeches and debates. No teleprompters. No ear-bud radios. Not even aides holding up cards for the candidate to read from. Each politician can have as many note cards and cheat-sheets as he can carry with him to the podium, but once he's there and proceedings are underway, he must either continue with what he has, or yield the floor. There will be gaffes. There will be blunders. But the people will see and hear that actual candidate's position on whatever the topic of discussion might be, not a prepared speech or position statement. The political handlers will need to educate the candidate on the issues, and work with him to prepare a position, rather than simply having him read the words off the teleprompter. If nothing else, it will guarantee a higher standard of intelligence than most elected officials in the world, since Mattopian elected political officers will at least be smart enough to deliver a speech from memory and note cards.
I'm not sure this will result in any less douchebaggery in politics, but if nothing else, we should get plenty of laughs at the expense of politicians forced to address issues based on their own intelligence and preparation, rather than their ability to convincingly act like they give a shit while reading a prepared speech.
Lets take a look at the recent elections. Remember two presidential elections ago, when George W. was the incumbent? Nobody approved of the job he was doing. Everybody thought he was a moron. His political grounding was limited to his family name and his days in college splitting eight-balls with Ivy-leaguers from similar families. Hell, as president he spent more time ON VACATION than any president up to that time (although this record has already been broken by Barack Obama), and the country seemed to function better when he WASN'T in the White House making decisions. If ever there was a winnable election for the Democrats against an incumbent president, that was it.
And who was the best candidate the Dems had to offer against a known buffoon? John Fucking Kerry. Mr. Waffler extraordinaire, and the only human being on the planet who was less impressive on mass media than was the idiot sitting president. Well played, Democrats. Well played.
Fast forward four years. The Democrats, smarting from the result that Kerry - their career-politician mouthpiece - lost to a known moron, go in the absolute opposite direction, and rally behind Barack Obama. Who cares that he has no real experience in politics. Who cares that none of the ideas of his platform withstand even cursory application of reason. He will get 1) the black vote, 2) the mexican vote, and 3) the liberal white vote, by simple dint of his skin color. All fluff, no substance, and he didn't even pretend that he had something other than all fluff and no substance. A black man, with no political track record or hard-money corporate support, fresh off a blood-bath primary win over Hillary. If ever there was an election that the Republicans should be able to win, you would think this was it.
Who, pray tell, was the best the Republicans could produce to oppose him? John Fucking McCain. The guy who couldn't even beat out George W. for the nomination last time around, and who in the meantime had gotten no younger, no more media friendly, and no more mainstream than his conservative Arizona senatorial constituency required him to be. Well played, Republicans. Well played.
Things are gonna be different in Mattopia. First of all, digital media will be barred from all campaign speeches and debates. No teleprompters. No ear-bud radios. Not even aides holding up cards for the candidate to read from. Each politician can have as many note cards and cheat-sheets as he can carry with him to the podium, but once he's there and proceedings are underway, he must either continue with what he has, or yield the floor. There will be gaffes. There will be blunders. But the people will see and hear that actual candidate's position on whatever the topic of discussion might be, not a prepared speech or position statement. The political handlers will need to educate the candidate on the issues, and work with him to prepare a position, rather than simply having him read the words off the teleprompter. If nothing else, it will guarantee a higher standard of intelligence than most elected officials in the world, since Mattopian elected political officers will at least be smart enough to deliver a speech from memory and note cards.
I'm not sure this will result in any less douchebaggery in politics, but if nothing else, we should get plenty of laughs at the expense of politicians forced to address issues based on their own intelligence and preparation, rather than their ability to convincingly act like they give a shit while reading a prepared speech.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Lord Stanley's Cup, 2011
The Boston Bruins have won the Stanley Cup, defeating the Vancouver Canucks in seven games to hoist the oldest trophy in sports. As expected, the Vancouver fans did not take it well. The ensuing riots resulted in several cars overturned and set on fire, but only a relative minimum of looting and stabbings. It would be nice for a Canadian city to take defeat with class and dignity, but Vancouver's playoff run including remarkable degrees of diving, flopping, and even BITING in the face of the opposition, so what can you do. And the rioting would have been vastly worse following any of a championship loss by any of the Montreal Canadians, the Toronto Maple Leafs, or the Dallas Cowboys.
Personally, I'm glad Boston won. I am a Bruins fan, and have been since my early hockey memories of getting psyched up for games by playing NHL 94 on the Sega Genesis. BEST GAME EVER. EVER!!! Since we (like pretty much everybody) played in the no-line-changes mode, Boston was a great team to use in that game, since your lineup was Adam Oates centering Cam Neely and Joe Juneau, with Ray Bourque and Glen Wesley on defense. Detroit could field a pretty good team as well, if you moved Sergei Fedorov from the second line up to LW, but their D and goaltending were not great. Besides, the best breakthrough part about that game was the option of one-time shooting, and the Boston team was just so good at the short passing game that nobody could shut them down consistently.
Besides childhood video game memories, I like Boston as a city as well, especially since I don't have to suffer through the winters there. I will always remember the smells of that town: fried onions and unhealthy meat products. Mmmm. Makes me hungry just thinking about it.
And while the Bruins took their fare share of penalties and cheap-shots through the series, it would have been painful to watch the Canucks win. Seriously, check out some of the youtube videos of the dives taken by their players, trying to draw penalty calls. Maxin Lapierre embarrassed himself and his team with his conduct, and he wasn't even the guy who BIT an opposing player. As for Alex Burrow's biting, non-hockey fans might be swayed towards sympathy, since Patrice Bergeron did in fact have his hand in Burrow's face at the time. Unfortunately, those people don't know what they're talking about. Those sort of hand-in-the face incidents happen all the time, to the point that hockey culture has a name specifically for it (it's a 'face-wash'). If you watch a full game, especially a playoff game, you'll see at least one person getting a face-wash any time there's a scrum or a tangle, either before or after the whistle. Again, that shit happens ALL THE TIME, and the guy getting the face-wash almost always manages to NOT bite the hand being put in his face.
I thought it was funny that even career NHL guys providing commentary for the games thought it was disgusting that Burrow's didn't get suspended for the biting. I hope the league eventually explains the reasoning of the decision, and want to hear what they say. Because honestly, I think the conspiracy theorists might be right in pointing out that Burrows is a Canadian, playing for a Canadian team, against the Boston Bruins, in a league controlled from Canada by Canadians. Those conspiracy theorists might easily (and correctly) point out that the Bruins are BY FAR the most hated American hockey franchise, and also point out that no Canadian team has won the Cup since Montreal in 1993, and they really, REALLY want to bring the Cup 'home.'
But they really didn't deserve it this year. Seriously, if you want the 2011 Stanley Cup Final memorialized in a brief clip, do a youtube seach for "Thomas checks Sedin." In summary: Henrik Sedin (Vancouver's consensus best player) corrals a bouncing puck, and is pretty much all alone right in front of Bruin's goaltender, Tim Thomas. Thomas ignores the puck, and puts Henrik ON HIS ASS with a beautiful hit. It was awesome, and a good metaphor for how Thomas treated the Canucks throughout the series. But the best part is Henrik's reaction to the hit. Head down, cleaned out BY THE GOALIE, and put on his ass, what does he do? He embellishes the fall, throwing his legs up in the air, and staring at the ref hoping for a penalty call. Well played, Sedin. Well played.
So I love the fact that Boston won, and I love the fact that the Canucks lost. Better luck next year, Canada. I'm starting the think the curse of 'Le Trade' might be a national phenomenon, and not just about Montreal. Which I don't think is injustice, now that I think about it.
Personally, I'm glad Boston won. I am a Bruins fan, and have been since my early hockey memories of getting psyched up for games by playing NHL 94 on the Sega Genesis. BEST GAME EVER. EVER!!! Since we (like pretty much everybody) played in the no-line-changes mode, Boston was a great team to use in that game, since your lineup was Adam Oates centering Cam Neely and Joe Juneau, with Ray Bourque and Glen Wesley on defense. Detroit could field a pretty good team as well, if you moved Sergei Fedorov from the second line up to LW, but their D and goaltending were not great. Besides, the best breakthrough part about that game was the option of one-time shooting, and the Boston team was just so good at the short passing game that nobody could shut them down consistently.
Besides childhood video game memories, I like Boston as a city as well, especially since I don't have to suffer through the winters there. I will always remember the smells of that town: fried onions and unhealthy meat products. Mmmm. Makes me hungry just thinking about it.
And while the Bruins took their fare share of penalties and cheap-shots through the series, it would have been painful to watch the Canucks win. Seriously, check out some of the youtube videos of the dives taken by their players, trying to draw penalty calls. Maxin Lapierre embarrassed himself and his team with his conduct, and he wasn't even the guy who BIT an opposing player. As for Alex Burrow's biting, non-hockey fans might be swayed towards sympathy, since Patrice Bergeron did in fact have his hand in Burrow's face at the time. Unfortunately, those people don't know what they're talking about. Those sort of hand-in-the face incidents happen all the time, to the point that hockey culture has a name specifically for it (it's a 'face-wash'). If you watch a full game, especially a playoff game, you'll see at least one person getting a face-wash any time there's a scrum or a tangle, either before or after the whistle. Again, that shit happens ALL THE TIME, and the guy getting the face-wash almost always manages to NOT bite the hand being put in his face.
I thought it was funny that even career NHL guys providing commentary for the games thought it was disgusting that Burrow's didn't get suspended for the biting. I hope the league eventually explains the reasoning of the decision, and want to hear what they say. Because honestly, I think the conspiracy theorists might be right in pointing out that Burrows is a Canadian, playing for a Canadian team, against the Boston Bruins, in a league controlled from Canada by Canadians. Those conspiracy theorists might easily (and correctly) point out that the Bruins are BY FAR the most hated American hockey franchise, and also point out that no Canadian team has won the Cup since Montreal in 1993, and they really, REALLY want to bring the Cup 'home.'
But they really didn't deserve it this year. Seriously, if you want the 2011 Stanley Cup Final memorialized in a brief clip, do a youtube seach for "Thomas checks Sedin." In summary: Henrik Sedin (Vancouver's consensus best player) corrals a bouncing puck, and is pretty much all alone right in front of Bruin's goaltender, Tim Thomas. Thomas ignores the puck, and puts Henrik ON HIS ASS with a beautiful hit. It was awesome, and a good metaphor for how Thomas treated the Canucks throughout the series. But the best part is Henrik's reaction to the hit. Head down, cleaned out BY THE GOALIE, and put on his ass, what does he do? He embellishes the fall, throwing his legs up in the air, and staring at the ref hoping for a penalty call. Well played, Sedin. Well played.
So I love the fact that Boston won, and I love the fact that the Canucks lost. Better luck next year, Canada. I'm starting the think the curse of 'Le Trade' might be a national phenomenon, and not just about Montreal. Which I don't think is injustice, now that I think about it.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
So Long Osama
It's been quite a while since I've posted anything, and while quite a lot has happened in the meantime, I'm going to break my spell of silence not with personal anecdotes about relationships or human nature on display at Fenway Park. I'm still enjoying the former and contemplating context to describe that latter, so I will instead talk about something of temporal significance: the death of Osama Bin Laden. Let me warn you that this post is going to have some conspiracy theory overtones. Sorry about that, but it will almost certainly not be a conspiracy theory you've already heard. And as always, I admit that I might be wrong in suggesting such theories. My primary goal here in to inspire thought: Whether you believe me or not, THINK.
Now then. Osama.
The guy had been on the run for a decade since 9/11, and the biggest surprise to many people was that removing him of the mortal coil took as long as it did. Such surprise is warranted. I've posted in the distant past about America's ability to locate and keep track of things pretty much anywhere on the planet, so how is it that Osama was able to keep breathing for as long as he did? While the man didn't radiate gamma rays per se, you'd think there must have been something about him that we could use to find him.
Consider. America knew all about him, his beliefs, and his tendencies. We had our own contact with him, back when we were funding his efforts with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the early 80s. We were in possession of detailed information regarding his upbringing, education, personal and marital lives, political views, personal and professional associations, and even his physical quirks and mannerisms (he's left handed, for example). He was even nice enough to provide us with periodic updates on his thoughts, feelings, and appearance with his occasional videotaped diatribes. All in all, the guy lived a notable life for quite a while, cut quite a path, and left quite a trail.
For most of the populace, regardless of education levels, those sort of facts and details are little more than trivia. So the guy was a left-handed younger son of a Saudi price with a deep and abiding hatred of the US. We knew that. So what?
But bear in mind that the United States government maintains a dedicated staff of people who do nothing more than review those trivial details and build a composite of the person, from which real-world behavior can be extrapolated. FBI criminal profilers can assess facts and evidence, apply such facts and evidence to standardized (not to be confused as clinical - even the best in the business admit that criminal profiling is as much art as science) models of human thought and behavior, and extrapolate all sorts of details about an unknown criminal subject (an 'unsub'). To the point that they are able to reliably project things like the make, model, and color of the car that the unsub drives, as well as all sorts of other surprising (and surprisingly accurate) details. If you're interested in this subject, the FBI's criminal profiling guru (John Douglas) has written several books, any of which will provide you qulaity insight into the nature and study of human grotesquery. And those books (and the details therein) only address the relatively open-book projects and programs we see on weekly crime dramas. While our government is far from perfect, it's pretty good at getting smart people together and coming up with solutions to difficult problems, and is also pretty good at keeping those solutions under wraps for extended periods. (Google F-117.)
Don't doubt for a second that CIA analysts had an exceptionally detailed psych profile on friend Osama. ('CIA' is merely a convenient descriptor for whatever black department handles HUMINT these days; as a subject, human nature is not nearly so flashy as, e.g. jets and gadgets, so Langley - or wherever Uncle Sam delves the mysteries of the human mind - doesn't get nearly the press that Area 51 et al does.) Given detailed knowledge about Osama bin Laden's personal background, beliefs, tendencies, and proclivities, and given the availability of the best minds on the planet to review the data, don't you think we would have figured out some wheres and whens that he might be? Spot some exploitable trends or tendencies? Get a leg up on him? Even with the guy sleeping in a new bed every night? After all, what that means is more information coming in about beds he's slept in given various times, seasons, circumstances, and so forth, which is just more data for your profilers to consider. Add in human nature and the foibles of other people (collecting on rewards offered for information about Osama's whereabouts), and add in the technological abilities of the United States to monitor electronic and other communication, and it really is amazing that the guy stayed upright and at large for as long as he did.
I posit to you that, in more than a few instances over the last decade, the United States was fully aware of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts and was possessed of readily available means to shuffle him off, yet did not take those opportunities. As for the 'why,' I like to believe that it was not to preserve a threat and media vehicle which could be capitalized on for economic or political ends (although those might have been factors), but rather because it was of critical importance that Osama die the right sort of death.
Lesser terrorist leaders are routinely killed when air strikes or cruise missiles hit their cars, bunkers, homes, etc. The Administration (even dating back to Clinton) consider most terrorist eliminations as analogous to squishing distasteful insects: best done with minimal fuss. But for political and cultural reasons, I don't think that would do for Osama. Indeed, such efforts might have opened the door for more than just a martyr's death. Had bin Laden passed away quietly in the depths of a remote bunker - either of a natural death or of a fiery one - it would be far too easy for him to pass into legend. The man was already worshiped in that area of the world (for a variety of reasons), and a simple disappearance would allow him to become a modern-day folk tale. "Yes little Muslim children, the Americans are strong. But look at the great hero, Osama bin Laden. He is Out There Somewhere, kids, fighting The Good Fight, and sneering and laughing at their futile efforts to find him and stop him. Look at the great superpower, impotent against his faith, devotion, and cleverness. Now, let us talk about shedding the blood of the infidel, as commanded by the Prophet, and as demonstrated by Osama..."
Not so good.
Any sort of plausible deniability about his death would be capitalized on by a repressed culture so desperate for heroes that teenagers willingly blow themselves up to become one. Rest assured that somewhere there is a stack of video-tapes with pre-recorded messages and warnings from bin Laden, which might be periodically disclosed in "rebuttal" of reports of his death. We might see them yet.
Besides the risk of deniability, airstrikes are not especially impressive a way to kill a notable figure. They're very arms-length and impersonal, especially to a people (notably Afghans) for whom combat is a very hands-on experience, and where that experience includes torturing captives to death. Remember those CNN images of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogudishu? (By the way, their names were Randall Shughart and Gary Gordon. Worth not forgetting.) That dragging through the streets was par for the course for that part of the world. When Saddam Hussein was finally captured, the general sentiment in the middle-east was that the proper course of action was to kill him and drag his body through the streets in similar fashion, so there would be no doubt as to his death. That's the type of culture being dealt with here. Death of an enemy is something to be flaunted and celebrated. So raise your hand if you think people dissatisfied with a dictator's hanging would have been impressed with a hero dying death by air-mail?
No. For that kind of man, the risk of him becoming a legend was too great. There could be no bolt from blue or dagger in the night. The only way to hammer home the significance of his death would be for Osama to literally be hunted down and shot like a dog. Muslim children might still hear Robin Hood tales about Osama bin Laden, and how he fought against the Great Satan. But unlike Robin Hood, who passed into legend with Maid Marian, Osama bin Laden was hunted down. In a place he thought secret, under protection of his own men, and almost certainly under the protection of the local, state, and national governments he was in. Nonetheless, the Americans came in night, through the airspace "controlled" by his allies, in noiseless helicopters. They kicked down his door, killed all his men, and shot him in the face. THAT is a message that will not be lost on the Arab world: Osama bin Laden was not killed by American technology, by treachery, or by a long-range impersonal air-strike. Rather, his enemies defeated all his precautions, and an AMERICAN SOLDIER came into his house and shot him down where he stood. Think about that for a few minutes, Muslim children.
While there was no body dragged through the streets to proclaim his death, and while there's been widespread questioning of the decision to dump his body at sea, the terrorist movement doesn't even have a grave-site to commemorate the death of its greatest modern leader. He was given rites so his soul might be with Allah, youngsters, but those rites were had because his enemies allowed them, and his final resting place was not one of his choosing.
With all he had done, it was inevitable that Osama bin Laden would be labeled a martyr. But the fact remains that in the end, he was tracked down and killed by men who came into his home in the night. He put that end off for a years (living on the run), but the end came, and it was not a hero's death.
By and large, the United States could not have scripted a better ending to minimize the risk of his canonization and glorification-in-death. Which makes me wonder if the reason it took so long for it to happen was because the script couldn't be enacted until recently. And it's not like he was having much success with his ongoing terrorist jihad while we were waiting for circumstances to be just right, in the meantime. So why not take the time to do the job right?
Now then. Osama.
The guy had been on the run for a decade since 9/11, and the biggest surprise to many people was that removing him of the mortal coil took as long as it did. Such surprise is warranted. I've posted in the distant past about America's ability to locate and keep track of things pretty much anywhere on the planet, so how is it that Osama was able to keep breathing for as long as he did? While the man didn't radiate gamma rays per se, you'd think there must have been something about him that we could use to find him.
Consider. America knew all about him, his beliefs, and his tendencies. We had our own contact with him, back when we were funding his efforts with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the early 80s. We were in possession of detailed information regarding his upbringing, education, personal and marital lives, political views, personal and professional associations, and even his physical quirks and mannerisms (he's left handed, for example). He was even nice enough to provide us with periodic updates on his thoughts, feelings, and appearance with his occasional videotaped diatribes. All in all, the guy lived a notable life for quite a while, cut quite a path, and left quite a trail.
For most of the populace, regardless of education levels, those sort of facts and details are little more than trivia. So the guy was a left-handed younger son of a Saudi price with a deep and abiding hatred of the US. We knew that. So what?
But bear in mind that the United States government maintains a dedicated staff of people who do nothing more than review those trivial details and build a composite of the person, from which real-world behavior can be extrapolated. FBI criminal profilers can assess facts and evidence, apply such facts and evidence to standardized (not to be confused as clinical - even the best in the business admit that criminal profiling is as much art as science) models of human thought and behavior, and extrapolate all sorts of details about an unknown criminal subject (an 'unsub'). To the point that they are able to reliably project things like the make, model, and color of the car that the unsub drives, as well as all sorts of other surprising (and surprisingly accurate) details. If you're interested in this subject, the FBI's criminal profiling guru (John Douglas) has written several books, any of which will provide you qulaity insight into the nature and study of human grotesquery. And those books (and the details therein) only address the relatively open-book projects and programs we see on weekly crime dramas. While our government is far from perfect, it's pretty good at getting smart people together and coming up with solutions to difficult problems, and is also pretty good at keeping those solutions under wraps for extended periods. (Google F-117.)
Don't doubt for a second that CIA analysts had an exceptionally detailed psych profile on friend Osama. ('CIA' is merely a convenient descriptor for whatever black department handles HUMINT these days; as a subject, human nature is not nearly so flashy as, e.g. jets and gadgets, so Langley - or wherever Uncle Sam delves the mysteries of the human mind - doesn't get nearly the press that Area 51 et al does.) Given detailed knowledge about Osama bin Laden's personal background, beliefs, tendencies, and proclivities, and given the availability of the best minds on the planet to review the data, don't you think we would have figured out some wheres and whens that he might be? Spot some exploitable trends or tendencies? Get a leg up on him? Even with the guy sleeping in a new bed every night? After all, what that means is more information coming in about beds he's slept in given various times, seasons, circumstances, and so forth, which is just more data for your profilers to consider. Add in human nature and the foibles of other people (collecting on rewards offered for information about Osama's whereabouts), and add in the technological abilities of the United States to monitor electronic and other communication, and it really is amazing that the guy stayed upright and at large for as long as he did.
I posit to you that, in more than a few instances over the last decade, the United States was fully aware of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts and was possessed of readily available means to shuffle him off, yet did not take those opportunities. As for the 'why,' I like to believe that it was not to preserve a threat and media vehicle which could be capitalized on for economic or political ends (although those might have been factors), but rather because it was of critical importance that Osama die the right sort of death.
Lesser terrorist leaders are routinely killed when air strikes or cruise missiles hit their cars, bunkers, homes, etc. The Administration (even dating back to Clinton) consider most terrorist eliminations as analogous to squishing distasteful insects: best done with minimal fuss. But for political and cultural reasons, I don't think that would do for Osama. Indeed, such efforts might have opened the door for more than just a martyr's death. Had bin Laden passed away quietly in the depths of a remote bunker - either of a natural death or of a fiery one - it would be far too easy for him to pass into legend. The man was already worshiped in that area of the world (for a variety of reasons), and a simple disappearance would allow him to become a modern-day folk tale. "Yes little Muslim children, the Americans are strong. But look at the great hero, Osama bin Laden. He is Out There Somewhere, kids, fighting The Good Fight, and sneering and laughing at their futile efforts to find him and stop him. Look at the great superpower, impotent against his faith, devotion, and cleverness. Now, let us talk about shedding the blood of the infidel, as commanded by the Prophet, and as demonstrated by Osama..."
Not so good.
Any sort of plausible deniability about his death would be capitalized on by a repressed culture so desperate for heroes that teenagers willingly blow themselves up to become one. Rest assured that somewhere there is a stack of video-tapes with pre-recorded messages and warnings from bin Laden, which might be periodically disclosed in "rebuttal" of reports of his death. We might see them yet.
Besides the risk of deniability, airstrikes are not especially impressive a way to kill a notable figure. They're very arms-length and impersonal, especially to a people (notably Afghans) for whom combat is a very hands-on experience, and where that experience includes torturing captives to death. Remember those CNN images of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogudishu? (By the way, their names were Randall Shughart and Gary Gordon. Worth not forgetting.) That dragging through the streets was par for the course for that part of the world. When Saddam Hussein was finally captured, the general sentiment in the middle-east was that the proper course of action was to kill him and drag his body through the streets in similar fashion, so there would be no doubt as to his death. That's the type of culture being dealt with here. Death of an enemy is something to be flaunted and celebrated. So raise your hand if you think people dissatisfied with a dictator's hanging would have been impressed with a hero dying death by air-mail?
No. For that kind of man, the risk of him becoming a legend was too great. There could be no bolt from blue or dagger in the night. The only way to hammer home the significance of his death would be for Osama to literally be hunted down and shot like a dog. Muslim children might still hear Robin Hood tales about Osama bin Laden, and how he fought against the Great Satan. But unlike Robin Hood, who passed into legend with Maid Marian, Osama bin Laden was hunted down. In a place he thought secret, under protection of his own men, and almost certainly under the protection of the local, state, and national governments he was in. Nonetheless, the Americans came in night, through the airspace "controlled" by his allies, in noiseless helicopters. They kicked down his door, killed all his men, and shot him in the face. THAT is a message that will not be lost on the Arab world: Osama bin Laden was not killed by American technology, by treachery, or by a long-range impersonal air-strike. Rather, his enemies defeated all his precautions, and an AMERICAN SOLDIER came into his house and shot him down where he stood. Think about that for a few minutes, Muslim children.
While there was no body dragged through the streets to proclaim his death, and while there's been widespread questioning of the decision to dump his body at sea, the terrorist movement doesn't even have a grave-site to commemorate the death of its greatest modern leader. He was given rites so his soul might be with Allah, youngsters, but those rites were had because his enemies allowed them, and his final resting place was not one of his choosing.
With all he had done, it was inevitable that Osama bin Laden would be labeled a martyr. But the fact remains that in the end, he was tracked down and killed by men who came into his home in the night. He put that end off for a years (living on the run), but the end came, and it was not a hero's death.
By and large, the United States could not have scripted a better ending to minimize the risk of his canonization and glorification-in-death. Which makes me wonder if the reason it took so long for it to happen was because the script couldn't be enacted until recently. And it's not like he was having much success with his ongoing terrorist jihad while we were waiting for circumstances to be just right, in the meantime. So why not take the time to do the job right?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Further Observations on How to Defeat Islamic Fundamentalism
Last month, I posted a blog on the theory that, based on both common sense and historical precedent, the way to bring about the end of Islamic Fundamentalism (and its associated terrorist tendencies) is to teach people to read.
Interesting developments have been transpiring in Islamic North Africa, where a grass-roots civil rebellion (with organization and publicity being managed primarily through Twitter, Facebook, etc.) brought about the resignation of an autocratic sovereign. While Tunisia is not an Islamic fundamentalist state (although it is 98% Muslim), it does share a great many tendencies of such states: weak economy, high unemployment, brazen corruption (to the point that the former government was often referred to as a 'kelptocracy'), widespread poverty, and extensive stratification of society, with the usual associated marginalization and "civil rights violations."
The people of Tunisia recently decided that they'd had enough, and protested (read: rioted) at levels sufficient to compel the President (who had been in place for decades, through the instrument of sham elections where his was often the only name on the ballot) to not only yield his seat, but also to flee the country. While it seems unquestionable that the protesters got a boost from extraterritorial interests, this change of power is remarkable in that it was CIVIL, and involved no overt action from anybody's military. Almost always, such sweeping changes in nations' political structure are based on military muscle, either from a foreign conquerer, or (much more often) through an internal coup d'etat. Ousted Tunisian President Ben-Ali himself came to power following a military coup in 1987. It is in fact exceedingly rare for PEOPLE to successfully take on their own government.
But it has happened.
Events in Tunisia show signs of shaking things up throughout the nearby world. Similar riots have happened in Algeria, and there has been widespread civil unrest in Jordan and Egypt as well. In Egypt, protests have included people setting themselves on fire, hypothetically emulating Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisia merchant who tacitly started the riots with a similar act, after Tunisian police confiscated his produce cart. Safe to say that the Muslim world as a whole is paying attention to what's been happening in Tunisia, and leaders are wondering how avidly their own populace is watching events.
Here's the part that I find interesting: like many Arab states, literacy in Tunisia has historically been very low, including the period (up until 1950) where it was a French protectorate. But since Tunisia gained sovereignty in 1950, every generation has seen marked increase in literacy. Among the youngest generation for which census information is available - those born in 1980-1984 - over 96% percent are literate in Arabic, and about three-quarters can read French as well. Even among women - almost always marginalized in Muslim states - over 90% are literate in Arabic, and 70% are additionally literate in French. (Ken Walters, International Journal of the Society of Language 163 (2003), pp. 85-87.) These numbers are superb for a tacit third-world country, and this is the demographic - the middle segment of the populace, currently in their 20s and 30s - who are the driving force behind this rebellion against an autocratic regime. Educated people in Tunisia decided that their government really DOESN'T know better, and did something about it.
So, as I was saying before. If the United States (and/or the world as a whole) wants to cut down the power of monolithic, autocratic, fundamentalist states, we should make every possible effort to teach people living under those states to read. It takes generations, but it works.
Interesting developments have been transpiring in Islamic North Africa, where a grass-roots civil rebellion (with organization and publicity being managed primarily through Twitter, Facebook, etc.) brought about the resignation of an autocratic sovereign. While Tunisia is not an Islamic fundamentalist state (although it is 98% Muslim), it does share a great many tendencies of such states: weak economy, high unemployment, brazen corruption (to the point that the former government was often referred to as a 'kelptocracy'), widespread poverty, and extensive stratification of society, with the usual associated marginalization and "civil rights violations."
The people of Tunisia recently decided that they'd had enough, and protested (read: rioted) at levels sufficient to compel the President (who had been in place for decades, through the instrument of sham elections where his was often the only name on the ballot) to not only yield his seat, but also to flee the country. While it seems unquestionable that the protesters got a boost from extraterritorial interests, this change of power is remarkable in that it was CIVIL, and involved no overt action from anybody's military. Almost always, such sweeping changes in nations' political structure are based on military muscle, either from a foreign conquerer, or (much more often) through an internal coup d'etat. Ousted Tunisian President Ben-Ali himself came to power following a military coup in 1987. It is in fact exceedingly rare for PEOPLE to successfully take on their own government.
But it has happened.
Events in Tunisia show signs of shaking things up throughout the nearby world. Similar riots have happened in Algeria, and there has been widespread civil unrest in Jordan and Egypt as well. In Egypt, protests have included people setting themselves on fire, hypothetically emulating Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisia merchant who tacitly started the riots with a similar act, after Tunisian police confiscated his produce cart. Safe to say that the Muslim world as a whole is paying attention to what's been happening in Tunisia, and leaders are wondering how avidly their own populace is watching events.
Here's the part that I find interesting: like many Arab states, literacy in Tunisia has historically been very low, including the period (up until 1950) where it was a French protectorate. But since Tunisia gained sovereignty in 1950, every generation has seen marked increase in literacy. Among the youngest generation for which census information is available - those born in 1980-1984 - over 96% percent are literate in Arabic, and about three-quarters can read French as well. Even among women - almost always marginalized in Muslim states - over 90% are literate in Arabic, and 70% are additionally literate in French. (Ken Walters, International Journal of the Society of Language 163 (2003), pp. 85-87.) These numbers are superb for a tacit third-world country, and this is the demographic - the middle segment of the populace, currently in their 20s and 30s - who are the driving force behind this rebellion against an autocratic regime. Educated people in Tunisia decided that their government really DOESN'T know better, and did something about it.
So, as I was saying before. If the United States (and/or the world as a whole) wants to cut down the power of monolithic, autocratic, fundamentalist states, we should make every possible effort to teach people living under those states to read. It takes generations, but it works.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Astrological Drama
Every few years or so, people in the media get around to noticing things that are new news to them, but which essentially amount to the ideas that water is wet and that the sky is blue. This week, there's apparently some big to-do about how the dates for the Zodiac have changed. About how, for example, someone who has always considered themselves to be a Virgo might now be a Leo, or any of the 11 other retrograde changes in someone's sign (Leo to Cancer, Cancer to Gemini, Gemini to Taurus, Taurus to Aries, etc.).
This is not really a big deal or cosmic event, and any astronomer and/or astrologer - be they amateur or professional - will just roll their eyes and sigh when the concept is mentioned. But journalists looking for readers tend to not know or care about actual facts, so they find a way to make it into a big deal when they can't find anything else to write about. Gotta love human nature, eh?
In any rate, the tacit "change" in the dates of astrological signs is the result of something call the Procession of the Equinoxes, which has been going on since the formation of our solar system. Over the course of a year, the sun moves through the entire 12 constellations of the zodiac in the sky, and traditionally your "sign" would be the constellation in which the sun stood on the day of your birth. Historical consensus is that the zodiac was developed by the Babylonians, about 3000 years ago. At that time, the start of Aries (which was the first day of the astrological year, and also the first day of spring) was measured by two astronomical events that essentially coincided. First, the sun - in its progression through the constellations that it makes (roughly) every year - passed from the area of stars that marked the constellation Pisces into the area of starts that marked Aries. Second, on about the same day, the sun crossed the ecliptic from south to north, which it does once every year, at the spring equinox. In ancient times, that day was called the "First point of Aries," and marked both the start of spring, and the start of the period where the sun was in the constellation Aries. Because the position of the sun and earth and stars in their eternal dance all lined up in that way at that time (3000 years ago), it was deemed important, and was set as the starting point of the Zodiac.
The problem is that we measure years based on the position of the earth relative to the SUN, rather than relative to the STARS. As we measure calendar years, the defining points are not the location of the sun in any given constellation, but instead are the equinoxes and solstices; the changing of the seasons. Because of the physics of planetary movement, there is a slight discrepancy between one calendar year (the time it takes the earth to make one complete orbit of the sun) and one "sidereal" year (the time is takes for the sun to make one complete circuit through the sky's constellations).
What this means is that there is a slight change in the position of the sun relative the the stars from year to year, called the procession of the equinoxes. For example - and as above - 3,000 years ago, the sun (when viewed from earth) passed from the area of the constellation Pisces into the area of the constellation Aries on about March 20, the vernal equinox. But if you happen to be paying attention to the sky this year (2011), the sun doesn't pass from Pisces into Aries until around April 18, weeks after the equinox (which is still on March 20). This is because in the last 3,000 years, the procession of the equinoxes means the stars behind the sun have slowly changed position, by about one degree every 72 years.
So the question is what day does someone's "sign" begin or end? Way back at the creation of the zodiac, that was an easy answer: the first day of Aries was BOTH the spring equinox, and the day that the sun passed from the constellation Pisces into the constellation Aries. But with the procession of the equinoxes, those two events no longer coincide: the spring equinox is now on March 20, but the sun doesn't pass from Pisces into Aries until April 18.
Most western astrology is (and has always been) based on the position that the start of the zodiac year (and the first day of Aries) is the spring equinox, rather than the date that the sun actually passes from Pisces into Aries. Since the equinox essentially always happens on March 20, and since the passage of seasons are much more noticeable here on earth than the movement of distant stars, we generally measure the zodiac the same way we measure years: by the SUN, not by the STARS.
So, the sun probably will not be in your "sign" on your birthday this year. But the sun was probably not in your "sign" on the actual day of your birth either. Since the calendar year and the zodiac year differ by less than one day every 70 years, the location of the sun relative to the stars on any given day is about the same today as it has been for decades. It's only when you measure time in centuries or millennium that the procession of equinoxes results in changes that the human eye can discern.
Periodic articles about signs "changing" reflect this difference in dates of the two central astronomical events: the equinox and the passage of the sun into the constellation Aries. All of the posts you see about the "new" dates for various signs are simply the dates that the sun is present in the various constellations. Use of those dates to define astrological signs ignores a central point of tropical astrology, which is that the first day of Aries is BY DEFINITION the spring equinox, with the other signs following in their various turns. Eventually, the procession of the equinoxes means that we will get back to square one, where the sun moves into the constellation Aries from the constellation Pisces on the same day as the spring equinox. But it is going to take a while, since the procession of the equinoxes makes one cycle every 26,000 years. We still have about 23,000 to go before we're back to that point.
In the meantime, your "sign" is still the same, so long as you apply the same definition of "sign" as you've been using your whole life, which is almost certainly based on the equinoxes. Regardless of the position of the stars bearing the same name as the "sign," Aries - by definition - starts at the spring equinox. If you want to calculate your sign based on the position of the stars rather than by the position of the sun (which is called the sidereal zodiac, as opposed to the tropical zodiac), then you can change your "sign." But even then, you've been that sign for your entire life, and the only thing you're actually changing is the definition you apply.
Hopefully I'm making this clear. But if not, the overwhelming point to take away from all this is that a slow news day will cause bored writers and columnists to try and make a big deal about pretty much anything, including astronomical/astrological points that have been in place since before any of us were born.
This is not really a big deal or cosmic event, and any astronomer and/or astrologer - be they amateur or professional - will just roll their eyes and sigh when the concept is mentioned. But journalists looking for readers tend to not know or care about actual facts, so they find a way to make it into a big deal when they can't find anything else to write about. Gotta love human nature, eh?
In any rate, the tacit "change" in the dates of astrological signs is the result of something call the Procession of the Equinoxes, which has been going on since the formation of our solar system. Over the course of a year, the sun moves through the entire 12 constellations of the zodiac in the sky, and traditionally your "sign" would be the constellation in which the sun stood on the day of your birth. Historical consensus is that the zodiac was developed by the Babylonians, about 3000 years ago. At that time, the start of Aries (which was the first day of the astrological year, and also the first day of spring) was measured by two astronomical events that essentially coincided. First, the sun - in its progression through the constellations that it makes (roughly) every year - passed from the area of stars that marked the constellation Pisces into the area of starts that marked Aries. Second, on about the same day, the sun crossed the ecliptic from south to north, which it does once every year, at the spring equinox. In ancient times, that day was called the "First point of Aries," and marked both the start of spring, and the start of the period where the sun was in the constellation Aries. Because the position of the sun and earth and stars in their eternal dance all lined up in that way at that time (3000 years ago), it was deemed important, and was set as the starting point of the Zodiac.
The problem is that we measure years based on the position of the earth relative to the SUN, rather than relative to the STARS. As we measure calendar years, the defining points are not the location of the sun in any given constellation, but instead are the equinoxes and solstices; the changing of the seasons. Because of the physics of planetary movement, there is a slight discrepancy between one calendar year (the time it takes the earth to make one complete orbit of the sun) and one "sidereal" year (the time is takes for the sun to make one complete circuit through the sky's constellations).
What this means is that there is a slight change in the position of the sun relative the the stars from year to year, called the procession of the equinoxes. For example - and as above - 3,000 years ago, the sun (when viewed from earth) passed from the area of the constellation Pisces into the area of the constellation Aries on about March 20, the vernal equinox. But if you happen to be paying attention to the sky this year (2011), the sun doesn't pass from Pisces into Aries until around April 18, weeks after the equinox (which is still on March 20). This is because in the last 3,000 years, the procession of the equinoxes means the stars behind the sun have slowly changed position, by about one degree every 72 years.
So the question is what day does someone's "sign" begin or end? Way back at the creation of the zodiac, that was an easy answer: the first day of Aries was BOTH the spring equinox, and the day that the sun passed from the constellation Pisces into the constellation Aries. But with the procession of the equinoxes, those two events no longer coincide: the spring equinox is now on March 20, but the sun doesn't pass from Pisces into Aries until April 18.
Most western astrology is (and has always been) based on the position that the start of the zodiac year (and the first day of Aries) is the spring equinox, rather than the date that the sun actually passes from Pisces into Aries. Since the equinox essentially always happens on March 20, and since the passage of seasons are much more noticeable here on earth than the movement of distant stars, we generally measure the zodiac the same way we measure years: by the SUN, not by the STARS.
So, the sun probably will not be in your "sign" on your birthday this year. But the sun was probably not in your "sign" on the actual day of your birth either. Since the calendar year and the zodiac year differ by less than one day every 70 years, the location of the sun relative to the stars on any given day is about the same today as it has been for decades. It's only when you measure time in centuries or millennium that the procession of equinoxes results in changes that the human eye can discern.
Periodic articles about signs "changing" reflect this difference in dates of the two central astronomical events: the equinox and the passage of the sun into the constellation Aries. All of the posts you see about the "new" dates for various signs are simply the dates that the sun is present in the various constellations. Use of those dates to define astrological signs ignores a central point of tropical astrology, which is that the first day of Aries is BY DEFINITION the spring equinox, with the other signs following in their various turns. Eventually, the procession of the equinoxes means that we will get back to square one, where the sun moves into the constellation Aries from the constellation Pisces on the same day as the spring equinox. But it is going to take a while, since the procession of the equinoxes makes one cycle every 26,000 years. We still have about 23,000 to go before we're back to that point.
In the meantime, your "sign" is still the same, so long as you apply the same definition of "sign" as you've been using your whole life, which is almost certainly based on the equinoxes. Regardless of the position of the stars bearing the same name as the "sign," Aries - by definition - starts at the spring equinox. If you want to calculate your sign based on the position of the stars rather than by the position of the sun (which is called the sidereal zodiac, as opposed to the tropical zodiac), then you can change your "sign." But even then, you've been that sign for your entire life, and the only thing you're actually changing is the definition you apply.
Hopefully I'm making this clear. But if not, the overwhelming point to take away from all this is that a slow news day will cause bored writers and columnists to try and make a big deal about pretty much anything, including astronomical/astrological points that have been in place since before any of us were born.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The Threat of Manbearpig, and the Gore Effect
There are a great many things that threaten ongoing large-scale human life on this planet. Really, there are. All you have to do is spend some time watching the Discovery Channel or any of its progeny, all of which seem to base their marketing strategy on propagation and exploitation of paranoia. What with American's ongoing fascination with morbidity, they seem to be doing okay. After all, why would people tune in to something as boring as a CNN report on dozens killed and a hundred thousands homeless from flooding in Brisbane? What people really want to watch is an analysis about how a planet-killing asteroid could be hurtling towards the earth this very moment at 9 billion miles an hour, poised to snuff out all higher life on this planet. Who cares about economic calamity in Europe or rioting in Tunisia when there's programming available about possible ways that the Mayan end-of-time prediction might come to pass next year. Never mind mudslides killing hundreds in Brazil, don't you know that the entire Yellowstone caldera is poised to blow, plunging the world into a century of darkness? And lets not forget about bird flu. And swine flu.
Of course, the prospect of cosmic, geologic, or viral calamity notwithstanding, it's safe to say that the greatest threat to ongoing human life on this planet is probably humanity itself. This brings us to my my personal favorite extinction myth: global warming. My favorite because it manages to do the absolute most with the absolute least of any secular disaster theory in human history, and because - given that it's based on human activities - it can actually be parleyed into a tool to control peoples' minds and/or activities. I'm sure you've heard the sales pitch: "YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM!!!" This expression is almost always followed closely by: "DO WHAT I SAY, OR ELSE OUR CHILDREN ARE DOOMED!!!" In fact, the latter usually follows the former so closely that no verifiable or quantifiable scientific support is ever offered proving that the problem exists at any more than a hypothetical level. But we can't dwell on that now, we don't have time! To stave off the calamity looming in the next century, we need to get people toeing the line we set RIGHT NOW!
Ahhh, human nature at its finest.
Regardless of what pundits say, the only scientifically verifiable point about the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere is that they have kept Al Gore socially relevant well past his use-by date, by offering the masses nothing more substantial than fear-mongering and portents of dread. Good on him for avoiding actual work by recycling the same tactics of just about every fire-and-brimstone religion/personality cult in human history. And he does score points for coming through with some fuzzy-science reason, rather than the traditional tidings of the Second Coming, pending race war, or opposing the New World Order. That some scientists are willing to say that his tidings of woe are scientifically possible sets him apart from Charles Manson or Jim Jones, even if it doesn't set him any higher than Charles Manson or Jim Jones.
Unfortunately, all signs point towards Al actually believing the bullshit he's spewing, and - equally unfortunately - the nature of Al's bullshit means that he's unlikely to do us the favor of trying to hitch a ride on the tail of Hale-Bopp (google it). Alas, and in the true spirit of his Democratic Party roots, Al is going to save us from ourselves, whether we like it or not. All that we have to do is pony up billions to support his programs, change our entire lives and economy to match his green utopia ideas/ideals, and acknowledge that he's right and everyone else is wrong. And how could he be wrong? He was the one that took the initiative in inventing the Internet, for Gods sake!
What a fucking douche bag.
As recently as 25 years ago, the scientific community was abuzz with the possibility of a coming ice age. Whoops. But trust them, they've got it right this time! After all, a newly completed study has found that even if all industrial emissions of greenhouse gases cease by 2100, earth's sea-level will rise by 13 feet by the year 3000! Never mind that the best we can manage is an educated guess as to whether we'll get rain or sunshine next week. Never mind that we have no means whatsoever to even estimate locations, magnitudes, or paths of hurricanes or tornadoes that might happen next year. Trust us when we tell you that we're going to be totally fucked in 1,000 years, UNLESS WE ACT NOW.
If you want some hilarious reading, google "Gore Effect." It turns out that there is a statistical correlation between Al Gore appearing at an area to address global warming, and that area immediately or concurrently suffering unseasonably cold weather. I'm not asserting that there is a causal link between the two. That would imply the work of a Higher Power with a truly divine sense of humor, a point I'll not trumpet, even though I happen to believe it.
So I'm not saying that there is a causal relationship between Al speaking and local cold weather following. I'm just observing that there is a statistically demonstrable relationship between the two. This is significant, since it's exactly those sort of statistical relationships that Al's minions rely on in creating their models and projections of future meteorologic trends and events. Nobody really knows how or why global weather works the way it does. Scientists just have documentation and equations which show that weather tends to follow certain trends, and that certain events tend to work (or at least portend) demonstrable changes on or in such trends. But if general statistical relationships can be relied on in forming weather projections, the Gore Effect (as such a relationship) indicates that we already have a solution for global warming. We just have to schedule more speaking engagements for Al, to enjoy the cold weather that tends to follow him. Reliance on the Gore Effect as a solution for global warming is about as scientifically supportable as asserting global warming as a realistic threat to humanity.
Science is a good thing, and can demonstrate all sorts of verifiable explanations for all sorts of observable events. But the fact of the matter is that when the goal is to assess actions and interactions of ANYTHING too large to be studied in the confines of a controlled lab environment, the greatest controlling force in most studies is the belief and expectations of whatever scientist (or other figure) is conducting the analysis. This is important to keep in mind whenever you hear hear analysis of weather, economics, politics, or relationships. In all of those areas, the interaction of the various forces drastically exceed our ability to comprehend the equation, much less interpret definitively the effects of changes in any single factor. While studies of weather, economic, politics, and relationships does enjoy status as sciences, there's a reason those fields are differentiable from fields like chemistry, physics, or any "hard" science where tests can be performed under controlled conditions. Absent the ability to test theories under controlled conditions, "sciences" are largely just educated conjecture based on statistical trends, rather than on demonstrable relationships.
Keep this in mind when reading the results of soft-science research studies. (Especially ones where the scientists proclaim that they found evidence to support their own pet theories, since such "studies" are almost always fudged to reach the conclusions the "scientist" wants to find.) Until human consciousness and intelligence grows large enough to encompass the equations as a whole, all those studies are just a step above astrology.
No denying the entertainment value, though.
Of course, the prospect of cosmic, geologic, or viral calamity notwithstanding, it's safe to say that the greatest threat to ongoing human life on this planet is probably humanity itself. This brings us to my my personal favorite extinction myth: global warming. My favorite because it manages to do the absolute most with the absolute least of any secular disaster theory in human history, and because - given that it's based on human activities - it can actually be parleyed into a tool to control peoples' minds and/or activities. I'm sure you've heard the sales pitch: "YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM!!!" This expression is almost always followed closely by: "DO WHAT I SAY, OR ELSE OUR CHILDREN ARE DOOMED!!!" In fact, the latter usually follows the former so closely that no verifiable or quantifiable scientific support is ever offered proving that the problem exists at any more than a hypothetical level. But we can't dwell on that now, we don't have time! To stave off the calamity looming in the next century, we need to get people toeing the line we set RIGHT NOW!
Ahhh, human nature at its finest.
Regardless of what pundits say, the only scientifically verifiable point about the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere is that they have kept Al Gore socially relevant well past his use-by date, by offering the masses nothing more substantial than fear-mongering and portents of dread. Good on him for avoiding actual work by recycling the same tactics of just about every fire-and-brimstone religion/personality cult in human history. And he does score points for coming through with some fuzzy-science reason, rather than the traditional tidings of the Second Coming, pending race war, or opposing the New World Order. That some scientists are willing to say that his tidings of woe are scientifically possible sets him apart from Charles Manson or Jim Jones, even if it doesn't set him any higher than Charles Manson or Jim Jones.
Unfortunately, all signs point towards Al actually believing the bullshit he's spewing, and - equally unfortunately - the nature of Al's bullshit means that he's unlikely to do us the favor of trying to hitch a ride on the tail of Hale-Bopp (google it). Alas, and in the true spirit of his Democratic Party roots, Al is going to save us from ourselves, whether we like it or not. All that we have to do is pony up billions to support his programs, change our entire lives and economy to match his green utopia ideas/ideals, and acknowledge that he's right and everyone else is wrong. And how could he be wrong? He was the one that took the initiative in inventing the Internet, for Gods sake!
What a fucking douche bag.
As recently as 25 years ago, the scientific community was abuzz with the possibility of a coming ice age. Whoops. But trust them, they've got it right this time! After all, a newly completed study has found that even if all industrial emissions of greenhouse gases cease by 2100, earth's sea-level will rise by 13 feet by the year 3000! Never mind that the best we can manage is an educated guess as to whether we'll get rain or sunshine next week. Never mind that we have no means whatsoever to even estimate locations, magnitudes, or paths of hurricanes or tornadoes that might happen next year. Trust us when we tell you that we're going to be totally fucked in 1,000 years, UNLESS WE ACT NOW.
If you want some hilarious reading, google "Gore Effect." It turns out that there is a statistical correlation between Al Gore appearing at an area to address global warming, and that area immediately or concurrently suffering unseasonably cold weather. I'm not asserting that there is a causal link between the two. That would imply the work of a Higher Power with a truly divine sense of humor, a point I'll not trumpet, even though I happen to believe it.
So I'm not saying that there is a causal relationship between Al speaking and local cold weather following. I'm just observing that there is a statistically demonstrable relationship between the two. This is significant, since it's exactly those sort of statistical relationships that Al's minions rely on in creating their models and projections of future meteorologic trends and events. Nobody really knows how or why global weather works the way it does. Scientists just have documentation and equations which show that weather tends to follow certain trends, and that certain events tend to work (or at least portend) demonstrable changes on or in such trends. But if general statistical relationships can be relied on in forming weather projections, the Gore Effect (as such a relationship) indicates that we already have a solution for global warming. We just have to schedule more speaking engagements for Al, to enjoy the cold weather that tends to follow him. Reliance on the Gore Effect as a solution for global warming is about as scientifically supportable as asserting global warming as a realistic threat to humanity.
Science is a good thing, and can demonstrate all sorts of verifiable explanations for all sorts of observable events. But the fact of the matter is that when the goal is to assess actions and interactions of ANYTHING too large to be studied in the confines of a controlled lab environment, the greatest controlling force in most studies is the belief and expectations of whatever scientist (or other figure) is conducting the analysis. This is important to keep in mind whenever you hear hear analysis of weather, economics, politics, or relationships. In all of those areas, the interaction of the various forces drastically exceed our ability to comprehend the equation, much less interpret definitively the effects of changes in any single factor. While studies of weather, economic, politics, and relationships does enjoy status as sciences, there's a reason those fields are differentiable from fields like chemistry, physics, or any "hard" science where tests can be performed under controlled conditions. Absent the ability to test theories under controlled conditions, "sciences" are largely just educated conjecture based on statistical trends, rather than on demonstrable relationships.
Keep this in mind when reading the results of soft-science research studies. (Especially ones where the scientists proclaim that they found evidence to support their own pet theories, since such "studies" are almost always fudged to reach the conclusions the "scientist" wants to find.) Until human consciousness and intelligence grows large enough to encompass the equations as a whole, all those studies are just a step above astrology.
No denying the entertainment value, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)