Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Americans Laud Pentagon's Successful $40-60m Effort to Fix $150m-1b Mistake

Tuesday's report that the US Navy had successfully shot down one of its own rogue spy satellites has "skyrocketed" public opinion of military spending and the nation's budget priorities in general, several top-brass Pentagon officials announced earlier today. Lending credence to these claims were the words of a small panel of (mostly) ordinary US civilians who joined officials at the news conference held this afternoon.


According to a Feb 14 briefing by Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey, the decision to destroy satellite "USA 193", which malfunctioned within hours of its launch in Dec 2006, hinged
on:
The likelihood that the satellite, upon descent to the Earth's surface, could release much of its 1000-plus pounds of hydrazine fuel as a toxic gas [over, as Gen. James Cartwright added] an area, say, roughly the size of two football fields [in which the effect on bystanders] could in fact be deadly.
The mission to destroy the satellite, which appears to have cost between $150m and $1b to build in the first place, is estimated to have cost an addition $40-60m, but in the opinion of Iowa City, IA-based schizophrenia researcher Matt Fargus, it was "worth every penny". Dr Fargus, who's currently struggling to renew his research funding, commented that, while the combined cost of building and then destroying USA 193 may in of itself have covered a proposed $1.1b funding increase for the NIH vetoed by President Bush last November, he's nonetheless pleased with the Pentagon’s efforts. “Put it this way”, he said, “would you rather fund groundbreaking medical research into a disorder that only affects maybe 100,000 new patients in the US each year, or would you use that hard-earned money to potentially save millions of taxpayers' lives from a hydrazine-infested clusterfuck that they’d spent millions of dollars to bankroll into space in the first place?"

Endeavors such as the building and destroying of USA 193 will continue to be covered if Congress approves funding requested by President Bush for Fiscal Year 2009, a fact not lost upon poor college-aged adults – one of the key demographics groups to have rallied behind the Pentagon in recent days. Take 19-year-old Winchendon, MA-native Jim Cano, who’s deferring a year and working full-time in hopes of affording a four-year college tuition next Fall. “At first I was pissed", said Cano, "that Bush requested a combined $21.1b just for 'space-based capability' and missile defense funding, which alone could pay for 414,131 students to attend Harvard this year, but that was before I realized how badly those funds are needed by our military. Look, I don't know if other countries like Russia and China have the capability to launch poisonous satellites of hate into space, but we sure as shit do. And it's comforting to know, I think, that we have the means to protect ourselves from ourselves should we do so again in the future".

Missile defense funding comprises less than 5% of the $515.4b requested by Mr Bush for the Dept of Defense’s 2009 “base budget”, which does not include an additional $70b – a figure that some feel is unrealistically low – requested for ongoing efforts in the Global War on Terror. If approved, this would vastly increase overall US military spending, which the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated (as of 2006) already exceeded military expenditures of the next 14 highest countries combined.

But Brenda Moakley, a 35-year-old single mom from Olympia, WA, says she's cool with that. Moakley, who works two jobs in order to raises her three kids, commented: “Initially, I couldn't understand why the President supported a 1-yr, $35.9b pay hike for the DOD, but vetoed a bipartisan-proposed 5-yr, $35b funding increase for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which would have allowed someone in my income bracket to receive subsidies to help cover my kids' healthcare costs. But then I heard about USA 193 and got to thinking about how moot affordable health insurance would be if my kids and I were killed by a US-made, 1000-lb death comet unleashing holy hell on our apartment complex. Priorities, people!"

Even 80s pop icon Prince, whose presence added some star power to the panel, couldn't conceal his delight over the Pentagon's recent success, even though his 1987 hit single "Sign o' the Times" included the verse:
A sister killed her baby cuz she couldn't afford 2 feed it
And yet we're sending people 2 the moon
In September my cousin tried reefer 4 the very first time
Now he's doing horse, it's June
Today, however, Prince remarked, "I used 2 think ending hunger and poverty deserved as much priority as star wars and national defense, but then yesterday, having just finished a game of b-ball with the Revolution, I was watching that YouTube clip of the satellite's takedown. Afterwards, as I pondered my reflection in the gentle waters of Lake Minnetonka, it suddenly hit me: Prince, you're the one who's been doing horsethis missile shit is cool, crazy cool. So I say let's go crazy, America! Let's get nuts!"

Monday, February 18, 2008

Not Your Grandmother's American Gladiators

It’s typically only once every four years that I truly invest in a sporting event (FIFA's world cup), but that pattern ended last month when a renaissance of American Gladiators (AG) muscled its way onto my TV and into my heart.

Headlines last Fall of a Gladiators comeback compelled me to actually pinch myself, lest it all be a dream. But when I heard its co-host would be none other than "The Immortal" Hulk Hogan, I knew no mere pinch would suffice, and instead injected three cc's of steroids into my left bicep. When I still didn't wake up, I knew it was the real deal -- and brother, there's been gladiator blood pumping through these pythons ever since!

It became clear within a few minutes of its debut (on Jan 6) that AG Mach II had undergone some changes (since it last aired in 1996), no doubt in an attempt to render the show more palatable to its 21st century audience. The contestants’ human-interest montages, for instance, were noticeably more “reality”-based (and the gladiators’ bodies a bit less so, dare I presume?). But some things never change in Gladiator Arena, like its ability to inspire everyday people to reach down deep, achieve the impossible, and thus become a modern day Russell Crowe.

Take last night's season finale, in which lowly Chicago athletic instructor Evan Dollard and Oregon soccer mom Monica Carlson eliminated The Eliminator to become the show's newest champions. Their prize: $100,000, a new 2008 Toyota Sequoia, the right to become a Gladiator next season and -- most crucially, I think -- the chance to do some serious "hanging and banging" in the gym with The Hulkster.

As for the actual Gladiators, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion heading into this season that none within the new crop could possibly challenge the original season's Malibu (see video below) for the title of "coolest gladiator ever". Nonetheless, the 2008 generation has certainly impressed. Heading the pack, without question, is the 6'4" 225-lb Wolf (pictured above). A perfect hybrid of carnivorous beast and gifted showman, Wolf particular excels in Hang Tough, in which he consistently "claws and paws" his prey, thus inflicting them with "the mange", but not before he first makes them -- as The Hulkster so eloquently put in last night -- swing around "like a monkey who couldn’t find a banana anywhere in the jungle".

Season Two can't come soon enough...



Mike-Michael (not pictured) fills in the gaps for brumpelstiltskin and Mic's Tape; he's as uncommitted to a topic as he is a first name.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Fifty Years of Shammy Awards

Last night the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences concluded its 50th annual presentation of the Grammys by awarding “Album of the Year” (AOTY) to 67-year-old Jazz legend Herbie Hancock (right). By doing so, the recording industry once again indulged its penchant for bestowing its highest honor upon artists who are far past their prime. Other recent examples include U2 in 2006, Santana in 2000, and Bob Dylan in 1997. Oh, and Ray Charles in 2005, who was particularly past his prime (i.e., deceased).

All of this leads me to question if the Grammys are even valid.

Scientists often use the term “validity” to describe whether something (e.g., a test) truly measures what it claims to measure. If a research group wishes to publish findings on, say, happiness, it’s essential that they first conceive a means of actually defining and measuring happiness. With that in mind, it’s difficult to conceive of a scientific journal – with the possible exception of the British Annals of Horse Shite (BAHS) – that would pay even the slightest bit of attention to Grammy et al.

To support the above statement, I’ve enlisted the aid of Acclaimed Music (AM), a website run by a Swedish statistician that mathematically combines every conceivable music critics list (ever!) in an attempt to conclusively determine “The Most Recommended Albums and Songs of All Time”.

A quick comparison between the yearly AM lists and the Grammy list yields an interesting finding. Specifically, between 1959 and 2008 there were precisely two AM “most acclaimed” albums – Michael’s Jackson’s Thriller (1982) and Lauryn Hill’s The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill (1998) – that also won AOTY. Two! That’s a 4% agreement.

To be fair, there are an additional nine AM toppers that were at least nominated for the top Grammy. The earliest such example is Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music (1962) by then-32-year-old Ray Charles. Had he won, he would have done so while still at the height of his creative powers. While the Academy
opted instead that year for The First Family (a comedy album by the infamous Vaughn Meader), they would make it up to Charles 42 years later, which he surely would of appreciated had he still been alive.

So what does inform the industry's decision making process if not the critics? One possible answer lies within the pages of Billboard Magazine. Take, for instance, its annual year-end list of the US’ best-selling albums. A quick analysis reveals that no less than 7 AOTY winners were the previous year’s #1 breadwinner for the music industry. Two additional winners
Henry Mancini’s The Music from Peter Gunn (1958) and Alanis Morissette’s Jagged Little Pill (1995)would go on to become top seller for the year in which they won. Mariah Carey has been thrice nominated for AOTYmost recently in 2005 for The Emancipation of Mimiall for albums that: (a) finished first (x2) or second (x1) on the Billboard list, yet (b) failed to even be ranked by Acclaimed Music.

What does it say about the Grammys that – according to the above analysis anywayalbum sales are ~4x better than critical consensus at predicting who wins?



MC Gallagher
(left) is resident music nerd for Mic's Tape and a founding member of BrumpelStiltskin.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

In Support of Obama (a.k.a. Barack the Casbah!)

Out of the crowded (albeit increasingly thinning) field of 2008 US Presidential contenders, I have decided to support Barack Obama.

The overriding rationale for doing so concerns certain deep-seated ideological divides that I believe form the underlying impediments to positive change in both the US and abroad. Such “divides” include, e.g., democrat v republican, secular v religious, and the "West" v Islam. It is my firm belief that Mr Obama is the candidate most uniquely qualified to unite people of opposing worldviews, and thus begin to bridge these gaps.

It is Obama’s rhetoric and positions on two issues, in particular, that have shaped this belief in me:


Reconciling Faith & Politics: Unlike any other major Democratic politician I've seen, I believe that Mr Obama speaks genuinely and convincingly about faith. As a fellow left-leaning churchgoer (Russian Orthodox), I am deeply concerned about the mutual suspicion between religious and secular America, in particular the widespread belief – among both religious conservatives and secular liberals – that being religious and being politically progressive are mutually exclusive. Mr Obama addressed this issue in his June 2006 "Call to Renewal" address at a church in DC (video excerpt here, text here); his words foster my confidence in his ability to:
  • Narrow this divide by encouraging a fairer-minded, more inclusive debate about shared, universal moral issues; and
  • In the process, be an ambassador for the idea that traditionally liberal policies such as education, healthcare, non-discrimination, fighting poverty, anti-militarism, and the environment can be consistent with a religious (e.g., Christian, Jewish, Muslim) lifestyle.

Foreign Policy & National Security: While Mr Obama is no doubt committed to winning the war against terrorists, he believes that doing so requires more than simply "smoking them out of their holes". In his own words (from an Aug 2007 speech, details here), he said: "America must be about more than taking out terrorists [...] or else new terrorists will rise up to take the place of every one we capture or kill. That is why [...] my strategy will [include] drying up the rising well of support for extremism." He believes that it's in our national interest to restore our reputation in the world, in large part by "drying up" the root causes that threaten our security. Specifically, he routinely emphasizes addressing such issues as:

  • Re-engaging in dialogue and diplomacy with other countries, even our adversaries
  • Poverty reduction (e.g., in younger, struggling democracies like Iraq)
  • Global education (e.g., for children in the Middle East)
  • Expanding US presence in Africa (e.g., by engaging in the crisis in Darfur)
  • Worldwide disease prevention (e.g., fighting AIDS and malaria)
  • Reversing climate change (e.g., by working with Europe, China, and India to reduce worldwide carbon emissions)
  • Increased efforts to secure/eliminate nuclear weapons
In conclusion, though, may I just add that we in BrumpelStiltskin are not the most coercive tools in the shed. Thus, keep in mind that we'll respect whatever decision you ultimately make. That being said, we do hope you'll consider Mr Obama, both on Super Tuesday and beyond.




Michail
is resident political junkie for Mic's Tape. While the above words are his alone, he is pleased to reveal that all of BrumpelStiltskin has endorsed Mr Obama.

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Great Expectations

Two hundred years ago, it was practically imperative that one be a genius – and an ambitious one at that – if one wished for his or her musings to someday be accessible to millions.

Take, for instance, the great Dickens: Who, despite his family’s sentence to debtor’s prison at age 12, which sentenced him to many months hard labor
pasting labels on jars of shoe polish in a blacking factory (pictured, above right), still rose, by age 15, to the lofty position of law office clerk; Who, despite the duties of said position, which he found dull, still made time to (a) people watch the streets of London, thereby further freshening an already uncanny knack for character interpretation and (b) master, in defiance of minimal formal education, the stupendously sophisticated study of stenography, i.e., shorthand, thus securing the specific skill specified by his second “situation” as a Parliamentary court reporter; and Who, while amid said career as journalist, also managed, despite having never been given the recipe, to select from his mind’s market the choicest of ingredients and, with the page as his plate and a publisher as his garçon, began serving a public who, with appetite once whetted, never ceased to consume the most imaginatively delectable fictional creations the world had yet had, and perhaps ever will have, the pleasure of digesting!

And yet now, in 2008, any geek(s) off the street can, on a whim and at no charge, literally gain access to the world's eye at the click of a button. Case in point, it seems, is today’s (2.3.08) Blogger debut of Mic’s Tape, a new forum that aims to combine various elements (e.g., film, food, finances, poetry, politics and pop) into one cohesive presentation with the heartfelt sincerity of a prepubescent burning up disc one for his new girlfriend.

The brains behind the blog belong to one BrumpelStiltskin, or The BS, for short, the “world’s first blogging troupe of 26-year-old males”, or so they self-proclaim.

According to Mickens (pictured, left), the group’s literature guru and as of yet only identified persona, while The BS claim their own voice, they also intend to make no secret of their influences: “Take Dickens, for instance”, he said today, “We, too, although comparatively better educated yet lazier and more self-focused (some might even say oblivious), are not afraid to use wordiness to achieve great ends. Asked later about the critics who've already dubbed his troupe a "Monstrosity of Verbosity", an evidently confused Mickens smiled proudly, before adding: "Clearly, people like what they see".

Only time will tell if the brumpelstiltskin vision will turn out as "great" as they apparently expect it to be.