Big Bang News

According to Yahoo news, a big leap forward happened in science recently, in that scientists at CERN were able to create AND CONTROL an anti-matter atom for an appreciable period, purportedly long enough to perform qualitative analysis of the atom and its interaction with other forces. While it is possible that these recent published findings will go down the trail blazed by Pons and Fleischmann (google them), recent lab results are reported to include creation and substantial maintenance of a complete anti-hydrogen atom. This is a big step.

For those of you not of the science-fiction geek sect, anti-matter has been a favorite hypothetical sci-fi power source for years, particularly for things like interplanetary and/or interstellar travel. The theory is that when anti-matter comes into contact with "normal" matter, both are annihilated in toto, releasing energy on a scale offered by Einstein: The energy generated equals the mass of the matter consumed times the square of the speed of light. Since the speed of light is a really big number, this annihilation of matter results in a LOT of energy compared to the amount of material involved in the reaction. Hypothetically, only a relatively small amount of anti-matter would be enough to push an object from one star system to the next in a space of time measured in periods shorter than geological epochs. The starship Enterprise, for example, has at its heart a matter/anti-matter reactor, and even legitimate scientific theorists who posit ideas for travel between star systems (some of which are pretty interesting; google 'Alcubierre drive') generally concede that anti-matter is one of the few reactions known to man that would produce sufficient energy to reach the required velocities, and/or to generate the exotic matter/energy fields needed to simultaneously exploit and not fall victim to pesky little things like the gravimetric effects of relativity.

Here in the real universe (at least on this planet) anti-matter spent decades as a fantasy substance, where it was theorized to exist, but remained unobserved. Then it spent years at a hypothetical substance, as scientists were able to create anti-particles (anti-protons, anti-neutrons, etc.), but fell short of creating an actual atom. The first complete anti-hydrogen atoms were first created in 2002, but nobody could really be sure, since too short an interval existed between the creation of the anti-atom and its subsequent annihilation. While the energy levels in the observed reaction (i.e., the annihilation) supported that what was being generated was, in fact, anti-matter, nobody could trap the anti-atoms long enough to perform any detailed scientific analysis. That's the problem that's being worked on currently, with results being gotten. By freezing the anti-atom down to just half a degree above absolute zero (-272.5 degrees C), scientist have been able to create and trap complete anti-matter atoms for periods measured in actual seconds.

Rationally speaking, anti-matter as an energy source is horse-shit, and will remain so for at least a few more generations. Generating anti-matter takes vastly more energy than is released by the matter/anti-matter reaction that follows - notwithstanding the direct application of Einstein's matter/energy conversion rate - even before you consider the energy costs of cooling the anti-matter to near absolute zero to trap the atom. Barring some amazing breakthrough that makes the stuff easy to produce and store, we're going to keep burning oil for fuel. Hell, we can't even figure out a way to produce normal hydrogen cheaply and efficiently enough to use it as an energy source, much less anti-hydrogen.

But in theory at least, analyzing anti-matter will provide insight into the nature and properties of matter itself, in the literal sense. Meaning that science here on earth is seeking to explore the circumstances and context of how matter is actually created and/or destroyed. Did Ben Franklin know what he was getting us in to when he went and flew a kite in a thunderstorm? Who knows where this might lead us.

Dear Santa...

For Christmas this year, I would like:

A pony (or just a saddle for Griffin)
An Ipad
Fable III for Xbox 360
Lego Harry Potter Years 1-4 for Xbox 360
Rusack Vinyards 'Anacappa'
Digital calipers (on sale at thinkgeek.com)
Clothes that CB approves of
New digital camera
'Darkwar' by Glen Cook
'Lost' Seasons 4, 5 & 6 on DVD
A big-ass gaudy walking stick to go with my pimp suit
Bulk .45 ACP ammo (cheap stuff for plinking)
A mechtechsys.com carbine upper for a Glock 19 receiver
Hank Burgoyne II's head on a platter
A good dress watch
Membership at Desert Sportsman
An electric sander (Dewalt makes a nice 1/4-sheet pad sander)
New candle for my office (something with an oceanic theme. Or else dryer-sheet scented.)

More on the Bourgeois

A little while ago, I posted on the decadence of the Roman Empire prior to its fall, and questioned whether those enjoying the decadence and ignoring the masses either realized what was coming, or would have cared if they did know.

Over the weekend, I went out to dinner with CB and her parents. We were celebrating several notable events, and went to Joe's Stone Crab. (NOT to be confused with Joe's Crab Shack. NIGHT and DAY.) (I met the Sommelier at jury duty earlier in the week - viva Las Vegas - and he set us up pretty well.) Between the four of us in attendance at Joe's, we had 24 oz. of fillet mignon, several lobster tails, a handful of stone-crabs claws, about 2 lbs. of Alaskan king crab legs (add two sticks of butter as condiments for the shellfish), and a concoction of potatoes, cheese, bacon, and sour cream that weighed about two pounds as well. Also a bottle of red. And a bottle of white. A plate of asparagus spears. And then there was pie. OH MY GOD, the pie. It literally defied description as to how good the pie was, except to assert that we all found room for some, even after the gluttonous frenzy of the preceding courses.

It was amazing, it was fattening, and I will savor recollection of every delicious bite every time I re-read this post. (Did I mention the pie?) And then the check came. For the price of our meal for four, a family of four could have eaten pretty well for literally a month.

I paid it without shock or hesitation.

I feel not the slightest bit guilty or apologetic about it. I bet the Romans were much the same.

How did we go from there to here?

"From each according to ability, to each according to need."

Although this passage is commonly attributed to Karl Marx, the phrase was actually (per most histories) coined by Louis Blanc, about a decade before Marx really climbed to the pinnacle of his soap-box. Blanc himself offered the phrase as a revision of a comment from a French utopian socialist (Henri de Saint Simon) who had the audacity to suggest that workers should be paid according to how much he works.

But although the line doesn't actually appear in the Communist Manifesto (1848), it is a principal underlying point of nearly every mainstream communist/socialist movement, philosophy, or ideal. Which I mean to include any time a tax dollar gets paid for the benefit or advantage of someone who doesn't pay taxes, or who otherwise fails to support themselves. Use of warm fuzzy "moral" arguments to argue that it is the responsibility of the capable to provide for the comfort and benefit of the incapable. Which is not something that I'm overwhelmingly adverse to. There are people who legitimately need charity, and there are a great many who can afford to give to charity. My objection comes when the idea becomes institutionalized to the point that the capable are REQUIRED to provide for the comfort and benefit of the incapable, whether they like it or not, and where there's only questionable differentiation between "incapable" and "disinterested."

But returning to the communist ideal expressed above, this was an idea that Americans railed against 50 years ago, universally and violently. You couldn't get a job in this country if you were associated with any sort of communist/socialist party. Wars were waged with little more justification than being part of the "war against communism." Aversion to this idea, and belief that a person was entitled to the benefit of their labor, was fierce, to the point that the United States went to the brink of nuclear war, and contemplated ending the existence of meaningful human civilization on this planet, rather than accept the concept.

So I think it's hilarious that "from each according to ability, to each according to need" has become a central tenant of American political thought and governmental efforts. We don't use those words, of course. Even if it were politically correct to call a duck a duck, we're much more sophisticated than to use the same failed slogans while we attempt to re-enact the same failed policies.

Because that is what we're doing. Lets make the successful pay higher taxes, BECAUSE THEY CAN. It should be their obligation to support the health and welfare of the HALF OF THE POPULATION that doesn't pay taxes at all. Fuck this whole privatized industry thing: lets get the automotive industry under Federal Control. Throw some more regulation on the banking industry. Oh, and about that whole health-care thing; successful people should be barred from paying their own money for procedures. Lets make the taxpayers buy coverage for everyone. Play some games with the billing structure so we can fit 30 million additional people into the healthcare system, regardless of whether they can pay. Never mind that the former Soviet Union - where living conditions are currently nearer to downtown Mogadishu than they are to downtown Chicago - should be lesson enough for any rationally thinking political scholar to write off Marxism/Leninism as a catastrophically bad idea. Never mind that there are five entire European countries on the verge of bankruptcy (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) from following these exact policies, Barack knows better. And, after all, he is NOT a communist. Just ask him. And of course, he'd never endorse the Marxist language, which remains anathema, even as he trumpets the Marxist ideal.

Fifty years ago, the administration was willing to destroy the world to protect us from this idea. Now, the administration is enacting this ideal, pretty much regardless of whether people want it or not.

*Sigh.* We have met the enemy. And he is us.

Addendum re: Shitty Sequels

After she read the prior post, CB (yes, the significant other has been assigned a code-name) pointed out to me a spectacular example of the trend I was describing. And it was a better example than any I used. Specifically, the Die Hard movies.

Again, we were talking about how some ideas and storylines are so good they become cultural icons. We were talking about how storylines can evolve when people who care about the storyline are given creative authority to develop the storyline. And we were specifically talking about how things absolutely fall into the shitter when creative authority is turned over to some pop-culture asshole who cares more about pandering to the masses than about developing the storyline.

Now. Die Hard. Remember John McClane from the first (1988) movie? Got invited to a party by mistake by his wife's boss. Didn't even know for sure if he was welcome at his wife's house. Regular guy, shitty job that he can't help loving, with some every-day marital problems. Yeah, the storyline was no better than the typical action move flick, but it managed to not violate the laws of physics overmuch. Alan Rickman was great as the iconically sleazy Hans Gruber. Willis and (director) John McTiernan managed to plausibly sell the idea that McClane was just a regular guy doing the best he could, which ended up being good enough. And - notably - by the end of the movie, McClane could barely walk because he feet were so shredded.

Good shit.

Of course, by the time the fourth movie rolled around (directed by Len Wiseman, whose fame is based almost entirely on how good his wife looks in skin-tight leather), McClane was knocking helicopters out of the sky by jumping cars into them - he was out of bullets - and wrestling jet planes with his bare hands. Really? REALLY? But hey, those one-liners sure were great, weren't they? And those crashes and explosions? Wow. CGI has really come a long way since "Tron."

As for his own efforts regarding furtherance and/or damage to icons, McTiernan himself should probably be killed for his 2002 remake of "Rollerball" (which is unwatchable for the entirety of the movie that doesn't feature a naked Rebacca Romjin-Stamos). But McTiernan himself has sparked several other Hollywood icons ("Predator," and the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan movies), and I personally think his 1999 remake of "Thomas Crown Affair" was better than the (1968) original. And he undoubtedly believed in John McClane as an every-man character, doing his best to deal with extraordinary events.

Wiseman, not so much.

The fact that "Live Free or Die Hard" was a commercial success and was at least fun to watch doesn't change the fact that it was as completely divorced from reality as was "Batman & Robin." Neither does it change the fact that it was as removed from the McTiernan original as "Generations" was from "Wrath of Khan." Rather, and as with certain Star Trek movies, the commercial success came from the quality of the original, rather than the quality of the sequel. But at least commercial success means that Wiseman won't have to publicly apologize for his conduct.

Unfortunately, Wiseman has already won new gigs as a director, and was penciled in to do the film adaptation of the Xbox "Gears of War" game. Fine and good, since this was unlikely to do any damage to extant Hollywood movie icons. Alas, Wiseman walked away from the project after he realized that "Gears of War" would go the way of the "Resident Evil" flicks: fun to watch, but utterly devoid of both reality and intellectual content. While Wiseman already has that style down pat after his personal Die Hard foray, he apparently conceded inability to make a successful movie when denied a $200-million budget, the "Die Hard" name, Bruce Willis, and/or Kate Beckinsale in tight outfits. Fingers crossed for him to stick to the "Underworld" thing. Although even his wife has departed from that franchise, which really speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Cultural Evolution. Through IP Theft.

Hollywood has never been shy about stealing shit that looked good, and trying to make it into something better. I generally support this trend, although even an idiot would have to concede that the results are sometimes mixed, at best. But I suppose it needs to be, given the scope of the ongoing theft of intellectual property. How many of Shakespeare's plays have been "adapted" into modern cinema? How many different versions of Dangerous Liasons have been made? There's a bunch of generally shitty movies (notably "A Fist Full of Dollars" and "Last Man Standing") that are bad remakes of a great film called "Yojimbo." (By the way, the greatest writer-director who ever lived was not named "Lucas," "Spielberg," "Hitchcock," or "Cameron." Rather, he was a Japanese guy named Akira Kurosawa.)

Obviously, the transition sometimes doesn't take very well, since Hollywood packages things into 2-hour packages. The goal is usually something that's easily digestible by the lowest common denominator movie-goer, who's idea of non-movie entertainment is "Jersey Shore." Two hours is a good space of time to tell a story, yes. But it's not nearly enough time to build a world, a practice which will ever remain the province of the novelist. I contend, for example, that NOBODY builds worlds like Glen Cook. But none of his stuff would make a good movie.

Similarly, the greatest graphic novel of of all time is, in fact, "Watchmen." Which was a high-budget B-movie, devoid of nearly all of the impact and insight of the printed work. The greatest anime artist is Masamune Shiro ("Appleseed," "Ghost in the Shell,"). None of his works made a decent transition onto the big-screen, and for pretty much the same reason: too much depth. While there are undoubtedly success stories (with "Lord of the Rings" at the top of the list of converted books, and "300" headlining the graphic novels-turned-movie field) those tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Its the same reason that movies based on books almost always suck. Hell, just read Dean Koontz' "Watchers," and then watch any of the several movies the book has spawned. Or better yet, just read the book.

All that having been said, I'm a big believer in the recycling of characters and of storylines. First of all, it works. Even if the most recent 'Star Trek' movie had totally sucked (which it distinctly didn't), people would have seen it in droves, just because it's Star Trek. (I am glad that it didn't suck. After "Undiscovered Country" and "Generations," I was genuinely worried that Star Trek might need to be retired for a decade, before another decent movie would get made.) But aside from commercial success, recycling of storylines allows the storylines to EVOLVE.

Continuing the the Star Trek example: An entire generation of nerds was raised on that shit. Some of those kids aspired to be screenwriters and directors. Some of them succeeded. Then another generation came along watching Next Generation. That generation had its aspiring screenwriters and directors as well. Some of them succeeded as well. Of course there were some hitches and mis-steps along the way ("Voyager,") but by and large, the best and the brightest of the Trekkies (read: Rick Berman) were given leave to develop the world presented to the public. Kids raised on that shit were allowed to develop that shit. To add depth. To fill in the grey areas. To take something that was an idea to their predecessors, but was a way of life for them, and to present it again, or anew. Development. Refinement. The best stuff being preserved and added to, while the questionable points (Deltans) were NOT included in the reprisals. Refinement. Development. Evolution.

You see the same trend in the Nolan "Batman" films. Did you ever watch the original (1966) Batman movie? It featured an exploding shark for example, hanging from a helicopter. Really. There's a reason nobody took another run at the character until 1989, and then it took a loopy guy like Tim Burton, and had Mr. Mom playing the lead. But whereas the original was really just an extra-long episode of the intentionally campy TV show, the Burton version pioneered a trademark of the modern superhero film: the backstory. Rather than just having the hero solve the crime, a la a Sherlock Holmes mystery, we see WHY Bruce Wayne became Batman. We get depth. We get ART. Kids who grew up taking comics seriously (and rest assured that little Timmy Burton read some comics in his day), making comic characters into something serious.

Of course, and predictably, the success didn't last for long, since it turned from sub-culture into pop culture. When the pop culture crowd took over, the sub-culture crowd that was driving the evolution and development of the storyline got drowned out. As is the nature of almost all sequels (watch the latest "Mummy" movie to catch this point), creative authority left the people who believed in the characters, and vested in people who were more interested in pandering to the lowest common denominator. End result: one-liners and explosions were written in where the original film had depth and dialog. With Batman in the 90s, it started going bad with "Batman Returns," when the villains went over the top unbelievable. The Penguin as a deformed and psychotic foundling was fine and good. Promising even. But people should have realized that it was time to go in another direction when the end of the movie included his corpse being reverently carried off by giant water-birds.

Alas, the movies didn't go anywhere but further down that road. Remember "Batman & Robin"? Of course Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't be expected to make any artistic contribution, but still. The combined tit and ass superpowers of Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone couldn't pull that shit out of the fire, notwithstanding skin-tight superhero/villain outfits. Seriously, how do you manage to fuck that up? Give me that cast and a $140 million budget, and I guarantee you I'll make a movie that doesn't suck, even if I have to squeeze Ahh-Nold in there somewhere as well. But most germane to today's point: the reigns of a cultural icon were turned over to someone who was clearly not a devotee of the icon, and shit tanked. "Batman & Robin" director Joel Schumacher was not a scholar of the subject, and was NEVER the right guy to add depth and development to the Dark Knight genre. So he tried to make up for his ignorance of the Batman mythos by throwing in big stars and action. Even though he did actually apologize for the movie, Schumacher got off easy by being allowed to still show his face in public.

But the game wasn't over. There was the release of "Batman Begins" in 2005, which (rightfully and thankfully) pretended that there had been no Batman movies since 1966. In the decade (or more) between decent screen outings, Batman had been kept alive in animated shows and features, but director Chris Nolan really came out of nowhere. And what did we get? A movie where Batman doesn't even appear in costume until more than halfway through the movie. Depth and development. Human heroes with human failings, and human villains with human inhumanity. Perhaps best of all, a story that doesn't routinely violate the laws of physics or physiology. And - not coincidentally - almost no one-liners. It was a runaway success, both critically and financially.

Of course, it was followed (in 2008) by the consensus greatest comic-book move ever made, "The Dark Knight," which is also one of the highest-grossing non-James Cameron movie of all time. ("Avatar" blows everything away. It's not close, including "Titanic." Second place: "Titanic" blows away everything except "Avatar.")The success was predictable: the iron was hot, and the work was both darker, and more polished. Batman continues to be humanly conflicted, subject to pain and injury, and only minimally capable of bending the law of physics. It also helped that Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker... Yeah, you know what I mean. (I could write a bit about the Joker; let me know if you're interested.)

In any rate, Batman, Superman, James Bond, and so forth continue to be recycled by Hollywood. Sometimes, it doesn't go over so well, typically when the project is headed by someone who is not really that into the subject matter. But you put J.J. Abrams in charge of a Trek movie, and look what you get (interesting point: Abrams had stopped watching Trek movies after First Contact, on the basis that they had disconnected from the genre's roots). Put a nerd like Pete Jackson in charge of a Tolkien film, and look what you get. Good things happen when people who are passionate about a subject are given leave to do something with that subject. That's the real genius of Hollywood: allowing creative licence to people who will not just tell a story, but who will revolutionize the materials. Cultural evolution!

It's only when someone who either doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't care what they're doing is put in charge that things go awry. Alas, there are always a lot more idiots and assholes in the workforce than there are qualified experts. Other than ensuring that Joel Schumacher never directs again, there's not a lot we can do about this.

The Bourgeois and the Plebes

When I was back in Mr. Blair's 7th grade World History class, I remember being surprised at his description of the Roman Empire in the periods of its decline. His general position (necessarily general; he was teaching a bunch of 12 year olds) was that the Empire had become amazingly stratified, where there was the privileged class who spent most of their time pontificating and/or dealing with amorphous abstracts - art, politics, philosophy, law, etc. - and the rest of their time lounging in steam baths being catered to hand and foot.

In contrast to this elite, there was a remarkably small merchant and artisan class, and then a vast mob of the lower-class. The precursors of modern tenement buildings, packed to overflowing with people. Unskilled workers and slaves in cases where they were employed at all. This persisted for centuries: by dint of being lower classes, the lower classes lacked the structure to organize into any sort of legitimate political bloc. Besides, the consensus was that they really felt no great impetus to organize, since the Roman policy of panem et circenses (google it) kept them fed, entertained, and voting for endless continuation of benefits. Rome was, in fact, the precursor of the modern wellfare state.

Right up to the point that it all went up in flames, at least.

As I was hearing these lessons, even back before I turned into the bastard-coated bastard with hard bastard center that I am today, I wondered how the ruling classes could allow that level of stratification to exist? Even at the time, it occurred to me that a social model based on hand-outs and blood-sport entertainments had no sustainability. And how was it that there existed no substantial middle-class which the lower-class could aspire too? How could the overall leaders of the Empire not see what what was coming when there existed neither social mobility for the capable, nor economic flow other than Legion-enforced imperialism? Although the Empire persisted for centuries under that social model, it seemed clear that it did so partially because the Roman lower-class populace was unarmed, but mostly because the 500-year supremacy of the Legionary military system meant that Rome could have all its tangible needs met imperialistically, regardless of whether the need was Egyptian wheat for the masses or Persian luxury goods for the emperors.

Did the Romans really think that they could go forward into perpetuity, buying the votes of an ignorant public with nothing more than promises of a decent hand-out diet, and weekly spectacles of chariots and gladiator games? Where they so busy trying to keep a doomed system afloat that they didn't have time to consider the long-term results? Or was the leadership just so busy enjoying luxury and opulence that they truly didn't give much of a damn at all about the masses, except for the expectation that the plebes remember their place and keep their complaints to a minimum?

These thoughts occurred to me as I was spending a weekend lounging on the pool deck at Red Rock Resort and Spa, sipping beer and snacking on over-priced finger-foods delivered by scantily clad girls. It was a good time, and I heartily recommend it, even if there was no steam-room in evidence. I specifically recommend the fruit plate with the honey-yogurt dipping sauce. There were even gladiator games going on over the weekend, although we didn't watch them; since the Fertita clan owns both UFC and the Red Rock Resort, they were piping in a live video feed from Oakland.

Has humanity developed at all in the last 2000 years, or are we just recycled situations, and variations on a theme?