• Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form
Recent blog posts

It is natural for many people to want to muzzle the people they disagree with. Rather than debate, or tolerate, or ignore, there is a large contingent that would just as soon forcibly shut up their dissidents with the aim of creating society in their image, no exceptions.

And so, in a culture of supposedly free speech where this isn't legal (yet), we instead have "political correctness" where social pressure is applied to people who don't toe whatever party line is being applied at the moment.

The story goes that after an endless parade of euphemism, careful expressions and purposeful waterings down of ideas are foisted on the people by an enlightened few, paradise shall follow soon after. But, of course, we're talking about people here, so paradise is never found. Instead, the mandarins who came up with "mentally-handicapped" decide that they need some more press, so they come up with "differently-abled", or that Halloween costume depictions of a historical figure are insensitive. Maybe the term "mandarin" is insensitive.

So, rather than promoting a polite society, it does quite the opposite. Political correctness only serves to supercharge the old, insensitive speech and habits of the past. 

By making simple words and ideas completely taboo, they become completely taboo, which in a world of gigantic, Photoshopped naked people having simulated sex on every imaginable screen, billboard and printed article, is an awfully rare concept. Practically nothing is forbidden except politically incorrect speech, and that makes it tremendously powerful.

In the 1970's, a flamboyant racist might be discredited, as Earl Butz was in 1976 when he privately remarked that "I'll tell you what the coloreds want: a tight pussy, loose shoes and a warm place to shit." He resigned, and that is about right in my opinion. It took zero courage to privately say what Butz said in 1976, and so it only revealed his massively poor opinion of black people.

On the other hand, in 2015, when a person picks up this glowing Excalibur of wild, vulgar ideas, people can't help but stand slack-jawed in amazement as someone actually has the gall to publicly say such things. 

The national attention and breathless coverage of the unapologetic Trump campaign is amazing, as he drives his 10 million ton gaffe-train through the now-delicate national psyche, throwing out Mexican rapists and banning Muslims all along the way.

Unfortunately, it belies audacity and fearlessness to defy political correctness and say bigoted things. Perhaps it also belies stupidity, but for the billions in free press that Trump has been getting, it mostly seems to be clever. A careful Trump campaign would have gone nowhere.

Before the advent of social shaming, a bigoted statement only spoke negatively about the speaker. Now the speaker is ensconced in a sense of social rebellion, plucking the forbidden fruit, and appearing to have a great deal of courage, foolhardy or not.

If someone uses politically incorrect language, you might be right to assume they mean what they say, since there is tremendous social cost assigned to using it. Such language is expensive, powerful and rare, and it holds more effect over people than any other speech. Rather than muting the bigot, political correctness has only served to attract attention to and amplify the bigots words to a much greater extent than ever before.

Hits: 717
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

Much like every other organization created by old white men for the benefit of said old white men, Hollywood is chiefly populated by old white men, and their slightly less-old white male protégés. And, much like every other organization created by old white men for the benefit of themselves, it is currently the target of a large number of social justice warriors that would like to see the color, age and gender of those at the helm changed. More often than not, there seems to be a sense that the old white guys need to be unseated, or some sort of entertainment-industry affirmative action program needs to dictate quotas to the industry. This is, naturally, nonsense.

So what is the solution to getting more movies produced and directed by women and racial minorities, starring women and racial minorities? More women and racial minorities should make movies. It is currently legal in all 50 states for women and non-white people to purchase and use cameras, and then distribute their movies to every person on earth with an internet connection. Near-professional level equipment can be bought for a few thousand dollars and video editing software is pre-installed on most computers. Let's not forget that the Blair Witch Project required a camcorder and some teenagers running around in the woods. It made almost $250 million at the box office.

In Hollywood, there absolutely are wild racial stereotypes for any character other than a white male, there are almost only flat female characters who exist exclusively to lend credibility to the male hero, and there is a near total absence of anything other than white male directors and producers. This is a fact. Tellingly, there are many blockbuster movies that don't pass the Bechdel Test, where two named female characters have a conversation about something other than a man. That is ridiculous, but to expect a bunch of old guys to change their tune when that tune has made them billions of dollars is also ridiculous. If there is a market for movies involving interesting female characters, or Asian guys who don't use computers and math to help the white male lead, the barrier to entry has never been lower.

Instead of waiting for geriatric men to stop making prequel sequel sequels to a successful franchise they started 25 years ago, and hoping they bend to pressure from Twitter users to stop casting a younger version of themselves as a hero, it is incumbent on the disenfranchised movie-lovers themselves to make the movies they wish were being made. Will the special effects be worse? Yeah. Will you star alongside Brad Pitt on your first Youtube short? Probably not. But, most everyone in Hollywood today got their start making crummy short films with zero budget. Importantly, though, they made crummy short films people wanted to watch, and their empires were born. The rest of them didn't make it.

With something like 85 percent of the world population being non-white, and slightly more than half of everyone being female, there is no shortage of potential audience. So, instead of nagging at old white dudes to change the industry that has been so good to them, it's time for everyone else to start telling their own stories. The time has never been better, and it has never been easier to reach an audience.

Hits: 2454
0

Donald Trump, whether he knows it or not, has embarked on the largest, most expensive practical joke in world history. The joke, of course, is on anyone who believes that voting for the right politician with the right plans will end up improving their lot in life.

Here are some things that actually helped improve people's lot in life: the plow, the steam engine, oil refining, antibiotics and the microprocessor. Here is a short list of things that never helped anyone but themselves and the monied interests: politicians.

And so, the billionaire loudmouth from New York continues to appall the world as he conducts what will likely end up being a surreal moment in national history. On paper, he may be the worst imaginable traditional candidate conceivable, given his checkered personal and professional life, a total lack of Red-Tie Republican chops (flip flopping stances on everything, major contributor to Hillary Clinton). But, somehow, he has turned his total lack of credibility into a kind of punk rock rebellion against his taupe competitors. 

How much do you hate Hillary?

Cruz: I voted against her bill to expand mortgage financing to blahdeeblahdeeblah.

Trump: I invited her to my wedding and gave her a pile of money. I'm rich and smart.

Instead of calculated answers to minimize risk, he has been piling on with commentary about Mexican rapists.

Instead of giving one hot damn about his appearance, he continues to look like Donald Trump.

Instead of apologizing or backtracking, he has been doubling down. Don't like the term "anchor baby"? I'm using it.

Any minute now, I'm thinking he'll just start publicly denying that he's running for president, or ever did. Just to jerk people around. 

Hits: 75
0

In the arena of pop music, one songwriter stands above the rest, with 54 songs in the top 10. It isn't Madonna, it isn't Elvis. It isn't even the Beatles, combining the talents of John Lennon and Paul McCartney. It is Max Martin. That's not a stage name for someone you've heard of.

Max Martin has the audacity to hail from Sweden, and while you may not know the man, you know his music whether you like it or not.

If you've heard the Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Kelly Clarkson or even Bon Jovi, you've heard Max Martin's work. 

Martin's pop wizardry obviously stands alone in the music world simply by the scale of his successes, but what is truly remarkable is his notable lack of failures. Rather than the shotgun approach of writing hundreds of songs and seeing what sticks, Martin might only step in for four songs on an album, and three of those songs end up being the hits. Martin writes the hits, other people write the duds. 

It is no lucky accident, apparently, that Martin seems to have had an uninterrupted stranglehold on the world of pop music. Max Martin writes a half dozen songs for one artist, who then experiences wild success until Martin stops writing for them. At that point, they appear fall off the map until he writes another song for them.

Discovered by the fabulously named Denniz Pop (likely not his birth name), the classically trained Max Martin continues to write #1 hit after impossibly catchy #1 hit, each successive artist as clay in his masterful hands.

I had assumed, wrongly, that all of the pop music coming over the top 40 stations over the past 20 years had been the product of many minds all following a sound-alike trend. However, it appears that the reason everything sounds the same is that it the top 40 is actually the brainchild of a single man astride the pop music world in a way that has never before been achieved.

And, remarkably, while he may be a household name in the production studios the world over, he has remained relatively unknown, and has never ventured into the songwriter-performer role.

Perhaps it would be too easy for him.

Hits: 1881
0

As Donald Rumsfeld famously said to excuse the lack of appropriate armor on soldiers Humvees in Iraq:

...you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time...

During explanations for the United States' multi-hundred billion dollar military budget, you'll hear words like "combat ready" and "preparedness", describing how the United States could be invaded at any time, or (more likely) need to invade someone else at a moment's notice. Unfortunately, during this endless period of preparation for an unknown conflict, tremendous expense and effort is wasted in creating and maintaining systems for which there is and sometimes never will be any need.

First, the tank. Tanks, on the face of things, look like something a military should have. Tanks helped win World War II, and tanks look awesome. Legacy, not necessity, states that the US military must maintain a giant fleet of excellent tanks. However, modern warfare isn't fought on slow-moving fronts like World War I and II. Tanks are terrible in the 360 degree urban warfare of the 21st century. They are nothing more than slow-moving, high-value targets. Without a near-limitless budget, and with a war-by-war evaluation of needs, the Abrams tank never would have been considered or built, much less maintained in service for 30 years. 

But, considered, built and maintained it was. Mostly because there were armored divisions, and the Patton tank was getting old, not because we were fighting armies with better tanks. It was considered moot, apparently, that nuclear war would not be fought on any front, and any time we were actually facing the Soviet army we would be engaged in nuclear war. There would never be time for tanks, fighting, or deployment. World War III would be fought in an afternoon, and so considerably destroy both sides ability to wage war that there wouldn't be much further discussion.

Second, take a look at the strategic bomber. The B-52 was devised in the late 1940's, has been in service since the mid-1950's, and has never been truly needed. The B-2 stealth bomber was devised in the 1970's and has been used occasionally, but being nearly 40 year-old technology, it doesn't represent the best means of landing a bomb on a target. Putting men in planes and dropping bombs on targets dates back to World War I, and is so much riskier to air crews than launching cruise missiles that it is almost unbelievable we still maintain manned bombers. But, the B-29 was getting old, so the Air Force started looking for the B-52. 

Third, fighter jets. The last time a US Air Force pilot was outclassed by another aircraft was in the Vietnam war. Ever since, the airborne threats the USAF has faced have been surface-to-air missiles, or somewhat pathetically, the exact same aircraft they faced in Vietnam. Placing a man in an airplane to go shoot down another airplane has been out-of-date since the early 1970's when surface-to-air missiles really started getting good. Since then fighter pilots have depended on fighting spectacularly poor enemies with no anti-aircraft capabilities, and even then, typically using the fighter jets as light bombers.

What is going on here? There is no role, and there has been no role for fighter jets since the Nixon administration, but still, the F-35 next-next-next-next generation fighter is still being procured (at tremendous expense). Wouldn't it be better to focus on jam-up anti-aircraft missiles?

Finally, the aircraft carrier. The purpose of the aircraft carrier is to be a forward base for the US military anywhere in the world, and its main capability is to launch aircraft carrying ordinance into enemy territory. Consider, though, the ratio of money spent on the chain of systems used to land a warhead on a truck in Iraq and the size and cost of the warhead itself. It would appear that multiple billions of dollars were spent in landing $20 worth of explosives in the lap of the target. Considering that unmanned drones can fly around the world and land ordinance anywhere already, and that the US military has bases in just about every country in the world, what exactly is the boat for? The jets flying off of the boat? Wouldn't a remote control missile launched from a base in Turkey take out 99 of 100 middlemen in the world's most expensive weapons delivery platform?

There is almost self-evidently a better way to accomplish the tasks currently being performed with 1940's strategy, but worse than that, our weapons systems are enormously vulnerable to out-of-the-box thinking that uses modern technology.

In World War II, the Allies were startled by the effectiveness of the so-called Banzai attack. This was nothing more than a fearless, mass charge of Japanese soldiers, frequently after they'd run out of ammunition. Swords drawn, they would rush the British and American soldiers by the hundreds. And, with expert marksmanship and supreme cool, it was possible to repel most attacks for the most part, but between the large number of attackers and small amount of time the Allied soldiers had to shoot all of them before they made contact, the Japanese frequently scored some kills as well. Since World War II, the Banzai attack has reappeared a few times, but most all soldiers prefer to surrender to suicide, and so US military doctrine has not strongly considered massed suicide attack.

But robots don't care if they die.

In every case, between tanks, fighter jets, bombers and aircraft carriers, the concept of massed attacks by very low-value targets has not been considered, and there is no plausible defense planned against thousands of tiny, cheap unmanned attackers.

A jet costs the US taxpayer around $100 million dollars. I can purchase a quadcopter online for $500. That is a 200,000 to 1 ratio of cost. Let's imagine a mass-produced anti-aircraft drone with more serious performance would cost $5000. Now, the ratio is only 20,000 to 1. Imagine a cloud of 10,000 drones, hovering over Tehran. As US aircraft are spotted, each drone would begin to close in, significantly slower than the target jet, but in their masses, they would intercept the jet. They could arrange themselves in a 1 kilometer grid, with one occupying every 20 foot square. Targeting the jet intakes, each individual could move very slowly, and still land exactly where it needed to be at exactly the right time. Even with a 5000 to 1 kill ratio, which the jet fighter is not sufficiently equipped to do, victory belongs to the drones. Even moreso with bombers.

Similarly, rigid inflatable boats with outboard engines and a 600 pound warhead could be sent out by the tens of thousands against an aircraft carrier, for the cost of tens of millions of dollars, as opposed to billions and billions for the aircraft carrier. While the aircraft carrier might be faster, and the grid of destroyers defending it might take down hundreds of the boats, or even thousands, there is simply not enough ordinance on board, nor enough men to target each boat to take down every one of them.

Since no country has the wealth to fight toe-to-toe with the US and create rival aircraft carriers and stealth bombers, they will be forced to take the inexpensive Banzai route. Large, high-value targets will have no place in the battlefield of tomorrow, as thousands of men aboard will be forced to risk their lives to fight off unmanned, nearly zero-value attackers in nearly limitless supply. Even the smaller targets, the Humvees and individual soldiers, may have to consider pigeon-sized drones carrying single-shot .22s and hand grenades, hovering overhead in swarms.

Hits: 2796
0