The Day of The Doctor! (With No Doubt Massive Spoilers, So Don't Click Until You've Seen It.)

Right.

This is going to be loaded with spoilers, so I will provide plentiful whitespace and meaningless blather to prevent burning the eyeballs out of anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

For the love of God, please don't read this without watching it first.

As a spoiler-less soundbite review, Day of the Doctor was amazing.

I was not disappointed.

For further spoiler-free information, this episode demonstrated that it had been in planning for a very, very long time.

After watching the episode, and looking back, there have been clues salted through the show, leading to this episode, as far back as the end of David Tennant's time on the show at an absolute minimum.

Is that enough blather to prevent spoilers showing on Facebook?

We shall see.

So, as far back as Christopher Eccleston, the Doctor has referred to the day when he "destroyed" the Time Lords and the Daleks.

And yet, Gallifrey was put into a Time Lock, a frozen instant in which it continues to exist outside the continuity of Time, and while that's absence, that's certainly not destruction... Is it?

That's a bit of dialogue ambiguity that's been ongoing in the show since the very beginning of the new series, and the element of the Doctor's regret for the destruction of his people...

...Which doesn't make sense if they were trapped in a Time Lock...

Watching the show, I didn't catch it.

Maybe you didn't either.

Maybe you did, and I'm a doofus; it happens. (12.7% of the time. That's just science.)

So, here comes the build-up towards The End Of Time, and we get the drums, we get the Master, we get the whole reincarnation plot, we get Rassilon...

...We get a massive, orchestrated subterfuge designed to draw attention away from the inconsistency between the continued existence of Gallifrey, and the "I destroyed my own people," angst.

And that's been a theme all through the Eleventh Doctor's time, hasn't it? Cracks in the universe, inconsistencies, paradox; literally every plot involving Amy and Rory revolved around inconsistencies in one way or another, and Clara is the "Impossible Girl," whose entire existence is a flaw in the universe...

...Because they've been playing a giant "hide in plain sight" gambit with the fact that Doctor Who cannot have simultaneously destroyed Gallifrey and saved it.

It's an inconsistency that they specifically warned us about; the whole episode of The End Of Time was a huge clue.

When these factors are brought together, they point to a contradiction: in the life of the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Doctors, they've carried both realities within them - Gallifrey exists, Gallifrey was destroyed; the Time Lords exist, all the Time Lords were killed at the hands of the Doctor.

Which means that the showrunners have been planning this moment, this resolution, for at least 8 years.

I admire craftsmanship, when I can find it.

And to see them resolve it, to see them tie those threads together, with the heart they demonstrated there - "This time, you don't have to do it alone."

I could not be more satisfied. This was all I could have asked for, and more.

I can't wait to see how they explain Clara.

Three Equally Good Titles Means You Get "You Fool! NIMBY Douchebags Are A Thing!"

So, after reading the article I'm about to discuss, I came up with three titles for this post, all of which I felt had merit.

First, "NIMBY Strikes Yet Again," because NIMBY is a thing. (Not In My Back Yard, if you didn't know.)
Second, "Hipster Douchebags Smite Themselves" because, well, you'll see.
And third, "You Fool! Why Would You Build It In LA?" because... Well, I want to put on record my opinion that any company that builds anything industrial in Los Angeles is run by misbred, illiterate monkeys who are doing this to show off for the ladies rather than for any legitimate business reasons.

So, for those of you who are already confused as to what I'm blathering about, you can go look up the term "Srirachapocalyse." Or, you know, I will save you the time.

Basically, the popular and distinctive chili sauce sriracha, currently experiencing a massive upswing in popularity due to a tremendous outpouring of support by 20-30 somethings who think of themselves as amateur foodies, is in danger of huge price spikes and supply shortages thanks to a small group of Los Angeles residents.

See, in the U.S., sriracha sauce is primarily manufactured and distributed by a single company: Huy Fong, Inc. They're the ones with the green cap and the rooster on the label.

Although Huy Fong has been happily churning out their condiment for years from a single facility in Rosemead, CA, which has been in operation since 1986 without issue or complaint, they recently invested a tremendous amount of money to build a new, larger facility in Irwindale, CA, to handle the increased demand.

And that's where they ran into trouble.

See, sriracha sauce's popularity has taken off in recent years - so much so, that just since Q3 2012, the number of commercial food items using sriracha as an ingredient have more than doubled. This is almost entirely due to its popularity among 20-30 year olds; it's a fad food.

But the same people who love to eat the stuff in job lots, also don't want the facilities which manufacture it anywhere near their homes.

So, they began filing increasingly ludicrous air quality complaints against Huy Fong.

Why do I say they're ludicrous?

Well, it's a facility that processes hot peppers, to make hot sauce. So, saying there's a discernible odor is reasonable.

Claiming that it's poisoning the air so badly that asthmatics and small children can't go outside their homes is simply ridiculous.

But the business of government, at least in California, is to hold your precious little hand and wipe away your tears, and soothe your boo-boo.

So, the South Coast Air Quality Management District sent a team of investigators to see what was going on.

They couldn't smell anything.

So they went back again, and the second time, they said there was a faint, garlicky smell.

None of them were hospitalized, unable to exit their vehicles, or otherwise inconvenienced.

They found that there was insufficient evidence to cite Huy Fong for a violation of any kind.

And they went away.

Huy Fong responded to the complaints regardless, installing augmented air filtration throughout the facility, and ensuring that they were in compliance with all relevant and pertinent codes, requirements, and laws. This facility is critically important to them; it has enabled Huy Fong to triple their expected production for next year.

But this was not enough for the residents of Irwindale, because they didn't actually have an issue with the smell, or any kind of air quality issue.

They just want the factory gone.

So they got the Irwindale City Attorney to file a lawsuit against Huy Fong, once again alleging that they were causing air quality problems, and demanding that the plant be shut down until Huy Fong provides evidence that they are addressing the issue...

...Even though they've already addressed it once, even after the city inspectors were unable to detect an actual problem.

See, here's the thing.

Complaining, "it smells like garlic! Yuck!" doesn't get anything done; the city mostly doesn't care.

Claiming that it's actually a health risk to residents will get some action taken...

...But see, if you claim there's a health risk, that's easily disproven.

For me, it's hard to call the company a bad guy, at all, considering they installed extra air filtration after the complaints even though the inspectors found no problems.

But if you just don't want to live next to an icky factory, where they make stuff, which is gross, then the company's attempts to resolve your imaginary problems will of course never be successful, since your real issue is with the existence of the company, not an air quality problem.

For proof? The inspectors who couldn't detect a smell were standing less than 20 feet from the factory's exhaust system outlet.

So: they want the condiment, they just don't want to be anywhere near where they make it.

Not In My Back Yard.

And they'll be the first ones in line to screech about how unreasonable the company is for raising prices, too, I'd bet.

Fucking hipsters.

As a (near) final note, the city of Philadelphia, and the city of Denton, Texas, have both offered to host Huy Fong should the company decide they're tired of California's utterly silly government and residents. One City Councilman of Philadelphia, in particular, pointed out that they have tremendous areas of unoccupied, zoned industrial property available, and offered the following:

"so you never have to worry about upsetting your neighbors again."

Denton, Texas, said they would be delighted to host the 50 year-round, and 60 additional seasonal, jobs, as well as noting that they had plentiful sites away from residential areas, and that the Denton recycling plant specifically had the capability to handle the bottles used by Huy Fong.

And as a final note: the courts agree with me, even if you think I'm overly harsh. The judge denied Irwindale's initial injunction.

They're trying again, though. Because they really, really want sriracha to be manufactured somewhere else.

A Brief Discussion Of Dog-ness

I want to preface this post by saying that, on balance, I am generally a cat person.

What I mean by that is that as a pet, I prefer a cat; they're way more low-maintenance, much more self-sufficient, cleaner, less noisy most of the time, less messy virtually all of the time, and generally, as a pet, to me personally, preferable.

I want that clearly understood, before I get going.

Because I want to explain why I have the utmost respect and admiration for the canine, and such a discussion requires a bit of perspective.

As a pet, for myself, dogs are... Less preferable. They slobber, they want to lick me right after they lick their own butt, they want to sniff things I don't want them to sniff, poop in places I don't want them to, chew up my shoes, make lots and lots of noise, require constant attention, and generally are much, much more work.

But that doesn't change my basic admiration for the quality of dog-ness.

Let me back up a bit.

I am messed up. Everyone who knows me, is at least peripherally aware of this, and I make no pretense at normalcy. But a component of that that others may have noticed, even if they never really analyzed it, is that I have serious difficulty forming emotional attachments to things, people, pets, whatever, to the degree that other people do.

I am, in part, a cat person because I understand and share a degree of cat-ness.

For most people, I can be friendly, provided you're rubbing my metaphorical fur the right way, but if you drop off the face of the earth tomorrow, there won't be tears. 

Yes, I recognize that that makes me a horrible person.

But here's the thing.

Whether or not you admit it to yourself, you feel the same way. Maybe not to the same degree as I do, but it's there nonetheless.

That guy who does your dry cleaning? Your real, legitimate concern if he suddenly vanished would be a vague concern over how long it will take to get your clothes back.

You don't have any real attachment to that person; because you have limited slots for such things and that person's degree of ongoing proximity to you is such that their priority is quite low.

Cat-ness.

Cats don't care about you; they care quite a bit about the things you do for them. A cat can find a mouse or bird if they get hungry; they don't need you, you're just a convenience. You change litter boxes and open cans of food, and that's all they care about; you're a convenient labor-saving device for a cat. "This back won't pet itself, you know!"

Some of you are nodding.

But here's the thing.

As much as I like cat-ness as a quality for a pet to have, dog-ness is way more admirable.

Dogs love you.

They love everything.

Dogs love chasing small animals. Eating grass. Pooping. Barking. Running. Lying down. Chasing things. Chasing themselves. Bushes. Fences. Open places in fences they can go through. You.

Mostly you.

But dogs are nature's fanboys and fangirls; everything under the sun is the best thing ever.

They are fanatically loyal to their owners; dogs will do things you'd think beyond the physical - or intellectual - limits of a dog, to protect or rescue a human in danger; willingly give their lives in your defense; face off against any challenger (small yapyap dogs have faced up to grizzly bears for their owners. I wouldn't do that for most people.)

And they love their owners with fierce, unrelenting, unconditional devotion and loyalty.

I admire the hell out of that quality of dog-ness.

Which is what makes animal abuse such a horrible thing.

If you abuse a dog, that animal does not possess the mental capacity to interpret that in any way other than "this is happening because I am a bad dog."

When you abuse a cat, it'll never come near you again.

When you abuse a dog, it'll come back, even with fresh whip marks, and lick your hands and try to understand what it did wrong.

And that makes abusing a dog ten times more contemptible.

A dog is - dog-ness is - the eternal, unlimited hope for redemption. Even if you hospitalized your dog, that dog will come back, hoping you will be a better person this time. The dog may not understand that, but that's what it represents; that's what dog-ness means.

And if you fail that test, you are lower than any other.

I am not a dog person. Dogs are noisy, attention-whoring, slobbery train wrecks.

And I am unreservedly on their team.

More than once, dogs - particularly "rescue" dogs, but any dog - with nasty reputations or good reasons to hate and fear humans, have come right up to me and sniffed, and immediately accepted me.

Because, regardless of my preference, they can tell the one relevant point about me:

I would never, ever abuse a dog.

Full stop.

I think less of anyone who does, even by hearsay; if I see someone abusing a dog, I will stop it. They might not - in fact, are very very likely not - to enjoy how I go about that.

Dogs can tell.

I am not a dog person. But I admire the hell out of the quality of dog-ness.

Dogs represent a walking, (slobbering, butt-sniffing) opportunity for anyone to redeem themselves, just a bit. They're a target; they will love you, obey you, and remain loyal, even if you treat them wrong, which means that - to someone who would do such things - the temptation is always there.

Redemption exists in making a choice not to do that. Not to BE that.

And that's only one of many, but it's a path to a certain degree of redemption that wouldn't, couldn't, exist without dog-ness.

They trust you, love you, obey, follow, and honor you; deserve it.

Dogs are good for your soul.

Representative Taxation As A Concept

Fair warning before I begin: even if you agree with my views here, the system I am describing in this article will, with likelihood approaching certainty, never exist in any country, anywhere, ever. Please bear that in mind as I describe it; there is no functional way to put this system in place in an existing country. A new country would have to be created, and that country would have to be created by people with the moral interests of their citizens at heart, rather than the governance and control of those citizens.

So take it as a hopefully interesting intellectual exercise.

As a rallying cry, the Founders put the phrase "No taxation without representation!" to good use.

I admire the results.

But these days, technology has advanced beyond what was possible in those days, and complications - both technological and political - have arisen that the Founders never envisioned, and never could have.

Accordingly...

There are a few base premises from which any source of government funding through taxation must be built if a society is to have any legitimacy at all.

First, the tax burden must apply in equal measure to all its citizens.

In recent years, many people have tried to pervert the intent of this concept, calling for "fairness," which they claim can be achieved by the most unfair of means - namely, applying progressively heavier percentages of the tax burden on individuals as their income goes up.

This is manifestly wrong; it relies on the false premise that "wealth" is inherently a property of the society, not of the individual whose actions have produced that wealth, and punishes them for their achievement, a standard guaranteed to produce mediocrity over the long term.

For the tax burden to apply in equal measure, the solution is simple; a flat tax. This can be nothing but fair, as 15% (pulling a number out of a hat,) of $100,000 is more than 15% of $10,000, and yet the impact in terms of the share of your earnings is identical.

Second, the items and services purchased through use of those tax funds must meet one of two standards: they must either benefit all citizens in equal measure, directly, or they must be chosen by the citizens whose funds are being used.

There are precious few things which meet the first standard; the roads, law enforcement, the military, emergency services; you can argue health care, if you are basing your idea on "citizens already pay for health care through their taxes, and as such there is no charge to them directly for such care, and health insurance has no need to exist," but putting that system in place would require a new nation to be constructed from the ground up; such an effort cannot succeed in this country thanks to the existing, entrenched interests. (Likewise the internet; you can make the argument that the internet is justified, if the government were to provide it at no additional charge to every citizen, but this is actually impossible, as not all citizens have homes; the best you can go for is only excluding the homeless, who quite frankly are already excluded from enough.)

Because there are so few things which meet the first standard, the second - through representation in Congress - has always been the primary standard for expenditure of "public funds."

I have a suggestion as to how that may better be accomplished.

Thanks to modern communications, recordkeeping, and use of computers for bookkeeping, there are new ways available for a citizen to represent their interests.

As such, I think our entire system of taxation and government funding should be scrapped.

From the flat tax, a fixed percentage of the funds from each citizen should be assigned to each of the "universal benefit" functions of government; say 25% each to health care and the military, another 15% to law enforcement, and another 10% to emergency services; a further 10% - and never more than that - should be used to maintain the machinery, staffing, payroll, and function of the federal government itself.

That leaves 15% of each individual's funds.

That 15% should be a mandatory contribution to the society, whose use can be determined by the individual.

For example, each year with your tax form, you receive a ballot, offering a list of the discretionary programs offered by the government, as well as the option to turn over the remaining funds, or any part thereof, to one of the universal benefits.

Upon receipt, your funds are diverted as you selected.

Under this system, none of the various government departments possess the capacity to borrow money; they cannot operate on credit, full stop. Each project, plan, agency, or idea, must operate within a fixed budget each year, because there are no further funds.

...This seems weirdly limiting, until you understand that this process necessarily makes the "business" of government entirely predicated on the rational self-interest of the persons employed in any capacity by that government.

As things stand now, the federal employees have no real reason to know, care, or even think about, whether the country as a whole prospers.

Under the system I am describing, if they do well, and the country as a whole benefits, then people's incomes rise - which inherently raises the budget the government has to make out paychecks to those employees.

If it does not, they do not - and the federal budget correspondingly suffers.

Thus, each individual federal employee has their own best interest at stake; they have a vested interest in doing the very best job, at their job, of which they are capable, because their ability to pay bills and eat depends in direct measure on the success of their performance.

At the same time, projects - like the programs collected under the rubric of "welfare" - which do not offer benefit to each citizen, are funded in the exact measure the citizens who pay into the system are willing to pay for them.

Currently, you see, your tax dollars, and those of businesses, fees at the gas pump, and everywhere else the government soaks you that you don't necessarily see, go into a giant slush fund, from which Congress pays for, well, whatever they want. This is not "representation," as witness the fact that Congress' approval rating stands around 9% right now.

But think of this.

Right now, welfare fraud is a thing - but it's practically impossible for Joe Average to get any hard facts and figures on how prevalent it really is, because both the major political teams have issues with honesty and truth; they both lie through their teeth in any way they think makes them look good, is what I'm trying to say.

But voluntary allotment of funds from your taxes, essentially eliminates the ability of anyone to "ride" welfare; there's simply not enough money in the system to provide for that. This changes welfare programs into something inherently structured to provide strictly temporary assistance, while allowing them to continue to exist.

Or maybe citizens will voluntarily allot more money to those programs.

Either way, the money those programs get, is all there is.

Someone who could work - able-bodied adult, in other words - who doesn't, can receive only so much help as their fellow citizens are willing to give them freely.

This is fundamentally different from the current system, under which they spend literally a trillion-plus dollars a year on such programs whether or not you want to give them money for that, based on the threat of force and coercion.

Under my system, you are still required to pay taxes; that doesn't change. The AMOUNT you would pay would change drastically, and more importantly, you would have control over any funds that aren't returned to you directly in the form of services only a government can provide.

Personally, I am a horrible person, who feels that there is no such thing as a paying job that is beneath the dignity of a thinking person who desires to continue to eat, and as such, I would commit no funds of mine to support people who do not agree with me; my funds would be entirely spent on the military and law enforcement.

The lovely thing about my system as described here, is that if you choose to devote the entirety of your "discretionary" contribution to welfare programs, you can.

You can choose to do that.

As I can choose not to.

See, the fact that it's voluntary makes all the difference.

And in this day and age, the possibility of each citizen representing themselves actually exists.

As such, it is a moral obligation on the part of our society - a society based entirely on the concept of voluntary, elective social obligation - to provide each citizen with the ability to represent themselves in this way.

The fact that such individual self-representation does not yet exist merely stands to prove that our government has lost sight of those ideals, and instead is pursuing an agenda of control and gradual tyranny.

The Moral Value Of Firearms

Now, some of you may look at that title and think "Errrr, wat?"

Some of you may think you know where I'm going with this.

Some of you may actually know.

We'll see.

So, a few weeks ago, I was riding in my truck with two coworkers, one who is a good friend, and one who was a relative stranger. My friend and I were discussing the idea of "weapons of mass destruction," and why they are morally different from, say, a rifle.

For those of you who don't know, the difference is simple; a rifle can be aimed. WMDs cannot, in any meaningful way. A firearm is a weapon which can be used against single targets, allowing the user to limit its impact to morally allowable combatants, that being soldiers.

WMDs cannot; by their nature, their effects are uncontrollable; the person who uses such a weapon accepts in advance that collateral damage - civilian collateral damage - will happen; he or she accepts in advance that they are setting off a device of destruction whose effects cannot be controlled, limited, targeted; they're using a weapon whose intent and purpose, whose reason to exist, is to create horror.

Therefore, they are not morally the same.

So, fine and good, but listening in to our discussion gradually had the effect of perking up the ears of our other coworker, who began somewhat shyly to issue forth questions from the back seat.

She asked first, "So, WMDs are different from guns, because guns can be targeted, and I get that, but... Why not ban guns? If your purpose is self defense, why isn't a knife or baton enough?"

And I said, "Will you let me expound a bit? That's an important question, and the answer isn't short."

She made the mistake of agreeing.

So.

You may not realize this, but human beings are equal only in the eyes of the law.

Some are taller, therefore having a longer reach; some are stronger, some are quicker, some are better trained; but we're all different.

So melee weapons are a fool's game.

Wait, wait, let me back up a bit and try that again.

In a world where guns don't exist, and hand to hand is all there is, everything you have belongs not to you, but to the first bigger, stronger person who attacks you.

Wait, wait, that's not how I want to say this.

Ok, let's put this in perspective.

Let's use a real-world example. Say we have a fit, well-trained, ~20-year-old American who got busted out of the Army in one corner, and an average woman in her 30's in the other. She has money, and he's been broke for months and doesn't have a great sense of moral conviction.

She's armed with a knife.

He wants her purse.

He approaches, threatens her, she pulls her knife.

Now, in the comforting fantasyland a lot of people seem to live in, this evens the odds instantly, and he will of course back off.

In real life, however, he's quite likely to take the knife away from her, and then hurt her quite badly while he takes her stuff; she would have been better off to throw her purse at him and run away.

Please note I am not advocating anything as a course of action yet. That part comes later. I'm just describing the likely outcome.

Now, change it up a bit. Same two, but this time, when he threatens her, she pulls a gun.

He's way, way more likely to run away instead of attacking.

Why?

Simple. A gun has range. In order for you to attack with a knife...

...Well, the Army has a saying about opponents who are equally armed; "If the enemy is in range, so are you."

And at that point, training, physical fitness, strength, size, skill, simple bulk, all come into play.

If a good small man fights a good big man, assuming equal levels of skill, the big guy usually wins; in hand-to-hand, strength matters.

But.

A gun doesn't require hand to hand. A gun requires moral conviction - "defending myself is the right thing to do" and a couple of pounds of pressure from your index finger.

Even if the perp is wearing Kevlar, if you zap him center mass, he's going to fall on his ass, and be extremely disinterested in continuing to pester you. Regardless of caliber; you shoot someone, they're pretty much done for the duration of that fight, or at least long enough for you to get away.

...A lot of guys mock smaller caliber weapons as "girly guns." GOOD. If a female can be comfortable with a bitty .22, let her. I guarantee if she shoots you in the face with a 22, you will be just as dead as if I tag you with a .45 jacketed hollowpoint, and - and this is the important bit - she will have successfully defended herself.

Paint the fucking thing pink if it makes her willing to carry it.


Put Hello Kitty decals on the goddamn thing, I don't care. Because the point of a gun is protection.

You see, a gun is a tool nearly unique in human history in its capacity to level the playing field.

If you have a gun, and you're farther than a couple of yards away, it literally doesn't matter anymore how fit, fast, strong, or deadly in hand to hand your target is, if you commit and can point your finger correctly, they're dead, or at least unable to pursue.

Which is the whole fucking point. 

Any other tool leaves the potential victim at far greater risk. Mace? Some people can resist it. Pepper spray hurts me like a motherfucker, but I guarantee you can spray me full in the face and I can still take you.

Tazers are likewise iffy. Again, they hurt like hell, but unless they're super juiced up - like, beyond what the cops can legally carry - it's possible to drive through it.

Batons? Knives?

I don't recommend you come at ME with that stuff, anyway, but you're free to think it makes you Billy Badass if you want.

A gun is different for the same reason longbows - and to a smaller extent, crossbows - were responsible for the demise of the mounted knight as a force for battlefield control. It takes less training, less skill, less time, less effort...

In fact, anyone can pick up a gun, and defend themselves successfully.

What do I recommend?

I recommend - to everyone, regardless of gender, skill level, age, or circumstance - to take a firearm safety course.

Learn about them. You won't be as scared, if they're familiar to you.

Then go to a shooting range and beg for help. I flatly guarantee that the proprietors of any such establishment that's open to the public will quite happily take you in and help you find a firearm that is comfortable for you to use; right size, not too much recoil, not too loud (for those easily startled,) even, as I previously mentioned, the right color.

Carry a gun.

You have that right; the entire intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee forever your right to defend yourself, even against your government.

Because our Founders understood the moral value of firearms, too; firearms are the only tool, the only weapon, that puts an average citizen on a relative plane of force with those who would victimize them. No other means of defense can do so; only a firearm has the ability to give Joe or Jane Average the ability to protect their lives and property against an assailant with a good chance of preventing harm entirely.

They created the Second Amendment to write that protection - that specific protection - into the most basic of our country's laws. They did so not because they thought the courts and police would be unable to deal with street crime, but because they had just fought a ruinous war against a tyrant whose first step was to try to disarm them, so they couldn't defend themselves.

And they were afraid that despite all the protections they'd built in to our government, at some future point, such a war might need to be fought again.

And they acted specifically to give us the best chance in such a conflict that they could.

The moral value of firearms is that they alone, unlike any other tool, can secure your right to your life, which is the fundamental, inherent right upon which all other rights are based.

They are the only tool that gives you parity of force; no other device can do this.

So carry one.

And if anyone tells you guns should be banned, you shouldn't be asking about school shootings, gun-free zones, or statistics.

You should be asking, "what agenda do you wish to pursue that requires me to be unable to stop you?"

Dating And Gender Roles, And Why Equality Means Things

So, today, in another context, a question got asked:

"What do you think about women paying for dinner when out on a date?"

And my first response was if they want to pay for it they're certainly welcome to, but that's not necessary.

And then I saw a flood of comments expressing annoyance that this apparently never happens.

And then I saw a comment, from a woman, that got me over here typing.

Because she said, and I quote:

Keep wishing. The onus is on him to impress me. Why would I date a cheapskate when a million other guys are willing to buy me a cheeseburger?

Awesome.

So, to you, a man is, and should be, an ambulatory wallet?

This is exactly what you're saying, here, because if you can only be impressed by him paying for things, then he has no value to you except as a function of his financial success.

Let's take a step back. We shall return, I promise.

First, let's look at the currently in vogue notion that relationships should be equal partnerships.

My lovely wife has, as her eventual intent, the goal of ensuring my career success to such an extent that I can financially provide for our family, while she acts as my support system at home, providing food, shelter, clothing, and emotional support.

In other words, the traditional "homemaker" gender role.

I have no problem with this, because provided I actually get that support, I have no problem providing financially.

I will note, here, that "freedom of choice for women" clearly doesn't extend to choosing the traditional gender role because that's her personal preference, as she gets a blizzard of negativity from a whole assortment of women anytime she says anything expressing this preference of hers in public.

But at any rate, if I am providing financial stability, and she is providing the support system that enables me to do so, that IS, specifically and exactly, an equal partnership. We're not identical, but we are equal. I consult her before making any decisions that can affect both of us, and I take her advice more often than not.

But obviously we're inherently unequal because of our chosen roles within our family.

Don't worry, we'll come back to that too.

When two people start dating, having one of those people say to the other that they're replaceable at the drop of a hat, and therefore required to put on a show, lowers us to the level of animals.

Wave shiny feathers, get laid.

The initial phases of a relationship are when both people are supposed to be learning about the other, learning if they're compatible, learning to get along.

The last thing you want to say is something that conveys an impression this negative.

Some guys might blow it off if you say this to them, ladies. They might say something like, "that's what women are like, anyway."

You know what they're saying?

They're saying they think you're less than they are. They're saying they think of you as a sexually appealing magpie, easily bribed into mating with shiny string, or colored bits of glass, because you have no mind, no worth other than sex, no value.

They're saying that your own words to them have confirmed that impression of you.

Is that what you want?

We'll come back to that.

See, what this is really about is the message.

Not just as you send it, but as others receive it.

These days, people are all about how you're perceived by others; don't be rude, don't be dismissive, don't objectify...

...Wait a second.

Hold onto that word "objectify."

My wife sends me a message, every time we talk about our roles and goals within our relationship.

She says to me, in different, usually longer, words,

"I love you, and even though I absolutely hate the environment I have at work, I am fully committed to our success as a family, and to supporting you; so as your financial success increases, I will take over a greater share of the domestic chores, so you can concentrate on work without worrying about those things."

This is a message I can totally respect.

What I say back, in different, usually longer, words, is:

"I love you, and because of this, I will take on the tasks you specifically hate, so you don't have to; I trust you to have my back, and support me in the ways I need, so that I can take those tasks off your shoulders permanently, and replace them with responsibilities you are happier with."

This is a message she can totally respect.

This does not diminish either of us in any way. My financial contributions, and her domestic contributions, are valued by both of us, and both of us are respected as individuals and as family members.

But let's bring back that word.

"Objectify."

I am not an object, to my wife. I am her partner. She trusts me to fulfill my role in our chosen relationship, values my contributions, values me.

But when you go on a date and say "I'm here, impress me!" You just told that guy he is an object to you; a wallet.

Being objectified is bad when men do it to women; it's just as bad when women do it back.

When you objectify a man by telling him to his face that he has no value to you other than a financial one, he objectifies you right back; he may not spell it out for you, but the instant you make a statement like that to a guy, you turn into a rented sex object that makes noise.

Some of you may have gone "hey!" at that last sentence.

But I urge you to really assess what you're saying, when you tell a guy that you, inherently, have no need to impress or get to know him; you have no need to be interested by the things he says, no need to be interested in his priorities, concerns, likes, dislikes, preferences about anything, or anything at all that's relevant other than his bank balance.

When you say that, you are telling him that he can never trust you, ever.

He can never depend on you when times get tough, ever.

He will never get, from you, the kind of support I get from my wife daily.

After that, he may enter a relationship with you; he may take care of you financially; he may support you in ways that make you feel valued.

But he won't actually value you.

Because the very first thing you did was tell him that your affection is for sale.

You told him that the bar to entry isn't wit, or humor, or compatibility, but money.

That means you're for rent.

And nobody gets attached to the rental car.

If you want equal partnerships in your relationships, the last thing you want to do, ever, is to tell the guy that you're available as a rental.

As a man, I am happy to pay for a date. Even every date.

But when you make that a requirement - I must pay, or you'll walk, no matter how many dates we've had - then you've told me that you're for rent.

And I will expect that, like any other paid escort, you will fulfill your part of the bargain.

The Nerdgasmic High Test That Is Pacific Rim

So, those of you who pay any attention to my ramblings on or offline have no doubt heard me muttering about this movie for several months.

Pacific Rim.

Giant robots, fighting giant monsters, summer blockbuster, directed by Guillermo Del Toro (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth, The Orphanage,) what's not to like?

I am pleased to report:

Nothing.

There is nothing "not to like" in this movie. It's awesome from end to end.

Now, based on the trailers, I was expecting, frankly, a lot less than I got. I was expecting action, explosions, and giant robots fighting giant monsters.

I got that, in spades.

But there actually is a plot, and a lot more depth than I was led to expect by the trailers. In fact, I was quite happy to note that not only not ALL the awesome setpieces ended up in the trailers - MOST of the really slick sequences in the movie weren't revealed in the trailers. Which is a rare treat. A lot of movies these days spoil so, so much with the trailers that watching the actual movie feels a bit like a film-clip Where's Waldo? game, where you're trying to decide which trailer shots are in the actual film, and which got dropped in editing before the release.

Instead...

The basic premise is very simple. A portal, of unknown origin, opens on the floor of the Pacific Ocean.

Almost immediately, a giant monster, referred to by the Japanese "kaiju," or "giant beast," attacks San Francisco. It takes days to bring it down with conventional weapons, and the city - and several others - are destroyed.

Six months later, another kaiju demolishes the Phillipines.

Weeks after that, another attacks somewhere else.

In desperation, humanity develops the "Jaeger" program - giant robots - to respond.

That's all in the trailers. But I expect a lot of people who watched the trailers were curious as to why the Jaegers required TWO pilots, instead of one; this seems self-defeating.

So, the movie spelled that out right away; the brain capacity of a single pilot is not sufficient to carry the increased strain of piloting a system as complex and overpowered as a Jaeger without damaging the pilot; two pilots can share the strain and pilot successfully, but only if they're able to connect through the machine - essentially a machine-enabled telepathy - without drowning each other in memories, emotions, and fighting the machine instead of guiding it.

So at least there's some sort of fig leaf towards believability. And that actually becomes a major plot element; the capacity of the pilots to work together is not that common.

Both the Jaegers and the kaiju look great. Del Toro and his effects team, whoever they were, are unsung heroes of cinematography, who will undoubtedly not get the praise they deeply deserve for this movie.

Let me explain.

In this age of digital effects, creatures no longer have to be laboriously constructed by hand. This is true! But as the realism of the effects increases, the detail that has to be put into them to avoid the human brain's tendency to spot inconsistency grows exponentially. Del Toro's team put a tremendous amount of effort into getting the fine details of both machines and monsters to be consistent. (I can't use the term "right," here, because there's no "right" way to construct a giant monster other than "doesn't suck," which is pretty vague.)

I will engage, however, in a bit of vagueness here.

Remember Cloverfield?

Remember how unique and weird the monster was?

It stuck with you, because it had such a unique visual appearance, and yet managed on-screen to look alive, functional if awkward outside its natural environment.

Del Toro and his crew managed this feat, not once, but over and over. The kaiju look fantastic. Each monster is unique; each has different features - although there are common elements, which are explained - each looks realistic and functional, each moves in the manner anatomically suggested by the attachment of its limbs - this is not a small thing.

Remember that the single monster typically carries an entire movie.

Godzilla carried what, 50? 60? More? They milked the hell out of that rubber suit.

In Pacific Rim, each monster represents a feat of creature design equivalent to the Cloverfield monster, and there are tons of different ones in Pacific Rim.

To reiterate a point, this is not a small thing.

Also, they did well with the scale problem; most movies featuring giant anything end up letting the scale grow or shrink a bit depending on the shot they're taking.

Lake Placid leaps to mind.

Pacific Rim did a much better job with this, keeping sizes consistent throughout the movie.

Del Toro also quite clearly understands the most effective purpose and use of 3D, which is to enhance an already awesome shot. The best 3D, in my book, is when they use it to give each scene depth, without forcibly shoving it right up your nostrils. ("LOOK! My movie is in 3D! Here's something coming RIGHT AT YOUR FACE!!! Because it's 3D!!! Like it, fuckers!")

I don't recall a single "it's coming RIGHT AT YOUR FACE" moment in Pacific Rim, and enjoyed the 3D a lot more because of that.

Really, guys, it's 2013. I fucking know how 3D works. So does every potential audience in America. Setting your scenes so you can forcibly remind us that we're in a movie theater, watching a movie, because it's coming RIGHT AT MY FACE, may get an audience to jump, but it doesn't make your movie better. It just takes away from immersion.

I think the only detractions from immersion we really suffered in watching this movie was - from time to time - when I, or one of my friends watching with me, would say something along the lines of "fuck YEAH!" and the other two of us would turn to look, and whoooooo, we're in a theater.

Because otherwise I was  in a crowd, watching the stirring (and admirably brief, and thus character-consistent) "today we are CANCELING the Apocalypse!" speech.

There was more depth than I expected; the 3D rocked; the story was engaging, and better than I expected.

...I was expecting something that could adequately be expressed by the sound, "squeeThumpsqueeThump*WHAMWHAMWHAM*RAAAAWWWWWWRRRRRRRskritchBOOMyaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy!"

I got a lot more than I expected. Guillermo Del Toro fucking delivers, man.

The rumor mill, last I checked, says that Pacific Rim's larger-than-originally-expected budget was Del Toro's way of wasting the money he had put together for At The Mountains Of Madness, after the studios screwed with that project so hard he walked.

If this is how you waste money, dude, someone needs to give you a line on some venture capital. Waste some more fucking money. Because even when you're intentionally trying to piss away a huge budget, you make goddamn amazing movies.

For anyone who reads this, if you can tolerate 3D, go see this movie in 3D.

If not, just go see it.

Either way, it's worth every penny of your ticket price - and this may be the only movie this summer I say that about. It's certainly the only one so far.

A Random Letter To A Random Internet Person.

So, there I was, browsing along on the internet, wasting time on my day off, when I found this.

Now, at first, looking at this, I was going to post some kind of throwaway, simple "hope you feel better, buck up" kinda thing.

And for those of you who came here expecting that that's what this is, well, TL; DR: it isn't, and you'll probably leave disappointed; it's long and most likely not that relevant to you.

So.

Here's the thing.

I've been thinking about things recently that - in some ways - touch on this person's feelings; about the unrealistic expectations we give kids growing up, about the ways we set them up for crushing disappointment and humiliation later in life when they find out they don't really live in a plastic bubble of safety.

This person just expressed something - well - through photographs that made all those thoughts congeal together into something that I want to say, whether or not anyone's listening.

So, hey, Random Internet Person.

I get it.

The expectation you've been given is all roses and sunshine and happy panda bears and smiley faces; you've graduated, you're ready to take your first steps into the big world out there and have nothing but parties and people throwing money and fame and happiness and success at you because you're awesome.

And the way you're feeling right now doesn't jive with that at all.

Well, since your dad's not here to give you great advice, I'll do my best to contribute some; you'll have to judge for yourself if it's something he would have said, or meant.

Uncertainty is what being an adult IS.

If you're a sane, responsible human being, you are, always, on some level, aware of how many ways things can go wrong, how many risks there are in every decision, how many chances you take even going outside, much less trying the kinds of things you do as an adult: get a new job, move to a new city, start a new relationship.

That can be terrifying, especially if it's your first time doing the ropewalk without a net.

But guess what?

The way you handle that uncertainty is what shows the world who you are.

A lot of people dive for cover when they realize what they're really looking at; move back in with their parents, live in the basement, hide until they're 40 or can't anymore.

I'm hoping you're better than that.

Because those risks are what pays off, in every way that means anything. Sure, that new job may turn out to suck. It could also lead to fulfilling a lifelong dream; you WILL NOT KNOW until you give it a shot. Sure, staying out of the world of responsibility is safer, but you're not really living when you're busy hiding.

Sure, that new city may turn out to be full of bad experiences for you. Or you could meet the love of your life - who you never would have met, staying home; you WILL NOT KNOW until you give it a shot.

Sure, that new relationship could leave you sad, lonely, and hurt. Or it could be something that enriches every day of your life going forward; you WILL NOT KNOW until you give it a shot.

So think of it this way.

Growing up, the world around you - obviously not your dad, who seems to have had his head screwed on straight, but everyone else - gave you this rosy picture of Life After School. And you bought it, at least a little, because it sure sounds awesome.

Now you're bumping into the realization that if you fall, it's a long, long way down.

And that's scary.

But courage only exists where fear does.

You aren't being brave if you're not afraid; you're either unaffected, sociopathic, or too dumb to know better.

But if you can look at the world - risks and all - square in the eye, crack your knuckles, and get down to work, regardless of uncertainty, fear, worries, or anything else that might hold you back, you're a thousand times closer to achieving your dreams, whatever they may be, than you are hiding in a basement because it's "safe."

And those of us who have chosen to do the same thing are way more likely to offer care, concern, and help to someone we see trying and struggling, than we are to those who spend all their effort and time on avoiding anything risky.

Take those first steps.

Scares and all, the world is a beautiful place. Love exists. Happiness exists. For every risk, every chance, every choice, there is a potential reward out there that makes every step on the way there worth it...

...But only if those steps get taken.

Be brave. Be strong. Nothing can stand up to the power of the human will, if you can focus it on your goals.

Never, ever let your fear stop you from trying. Ever.

Be unstoppable.

Today In Illogical Argumentativenessness And Angerfried Furiosity.

So, one thing that always grinds my gears is when I see conservatives oppose gay marriage. Or, you know, more accurately, "marriage equality," because that's what it is.

Sometimes it pisses me off more than others.

Mostly, I react by sighing in exasperation and moving on, because I know that most people, regardless of political bent, are relentlessly stupid and prejudiced.

Sometimes, it comes from someone whose intellect, in other circumstances, I would normally respect.

THEN it pisses me off a bit more.

Yesterday, one of my acquaintances posted a "question" about gay marriage that I found intellectually dishonest, insulting to anyone with functioning brain cells, misleading, and generally hugely hypocritical given that same individual's previously stated views on other issues.

Which same was:

Can anyone tell me how "Definition of Marriage" violates the "Equal Protection" Clause? Every unmarried adult male has the ability to marry an unmarried unrelated adult female (and vice versa), REGARDLESS of race, age, creed, OR sexual orientation.

It took me a full fucking day to restrain my fury even to the extent that I have in the post below, which I'm sure anyone reading this will agree is "not very fucking much."

This is due to the fact that this individual - EXCEPT on this single topic - is someone with whom I agree almost every time; someone whose arguments - EXCEPT on this single topic - I consider well reasoned, well thought out, well phrased, and generally right; someone who - to other people, regardless of issue, frequently appears to be ideologically identical to me, because he uses many of the same arguments I do.

And yesterday I found out that this person doesn't understand the moral underpinnings of those arguments one tiny whit. This individual has been mouthing these viewpoints without comprehending their logical implications; without understanding how they relate to other ideas; why those ideas are important.

This offends me.

So after I got my fury under control enough to type in complete sentences, I wrote a reply to this individual.

I copied it below, leaving out only the individual's name; I did add one sentence to the end.

You guys tell me that you love it when I rant.

Game on.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want, first, to say that I normally agree with the things you post, dude.

But I will call you out when you're wrong.

You're wrong.

That's fine, this is America, and so you have a right to be as wrong in your personal opinions as you want to be, but that doesn't actually make them not wrong.

So.

There are so, so many problems with opposing the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want.

First, there's the fact that in order to believe that the government has the right to do this, you have to believe that the government has the right to control even the most fundamental activities of its citizens in ways that have drastic, immediate, permanent effects on them. I thought Republicans believed in personal responsibility, small government, and individual liberty?

I guess you mean that, you know, "except for the gays."

That's ok. You can admit that that's how you feel. We'll come back to that point, if you're not ready yet, though.

Secondly, there's the fact that in order to oppose the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want, you have to believe that their relationship somehow affects yours.

I only know one group which openly, publicly preaches that the actions of others have such weight, such power, over your actions and freedom of choice that something they do, entirely for themselves, in which you are not included, results in you having an irresistible compulsion from Heaven to change your OWN behavior; that would be Wahhabist Muslims.

I had no idea you were in the Islamic Brotherhood, my friend. I bet you didn't either, but how else do you explain this? Gays, getting married, somehow makes you gay through osmosis, and thus you will be forced by a mandate from On High to marry another man? Maybe you're thinking that it "devalues" your relationship, which is - just like theirs - inherently only the business of the individuals actually in it; this is ultimately silly, as it presupposes that the relationships of others affect your own in, again, irresistible ways. People exist who beat their wives; by your "logic," here, you would be forced to also beat your wife because they do.

Thirdly, in order to oppose the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want, you have to believe that other people should be required to conform to your own beliefs and behaviors, in effect saying that you, because of your religious beliefs, are in a position of sufficient inherent and natural authority over others that you have a right to choose their mates for them; as I recall, God had a few things to say about such presumption, in your own religious texts. Or does that count only if the text you're quoting supports your ideas?

As I recall, God had something to say about picking and choosing from his instructions as well.

Fourthly, in order to oppose the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want, you have to believe that you somehow have the right to make their choices - moral, ethical, sexual, and otherwise - for them. As human freedom is the bedrock of our society, the cornerstone, in effect, of our entire civilization, you're essentially arguing the Marxist-Leninist point that individuals HAVE no inherent rights, and that the entire structure of our society is based on a lie. Are you really sure you want to make that your argument so you can avoid having to hear a man utter the words "my husband?"

Fifthly, in order to oppose the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want, you have to believe that defining marriage as a special protected legal status that only exists between specified, arbitrarily defined sets of people, in direct violation of the Tenth and First Amendments, in direct violation - yes,  I will address it directly - of the equal protection clause by demanding that people behave in a way directly counter to their nature in order to conform to a standard designed specifically for people for whom that is not contrary to their nature, granting the government in perpetuity the power to define your relationship any way it so chooses by a simple majority of the imbeciles and morons we elect to Congress, somehow benefits society.

As a "conservative," you're supposed to oppose huge expansions of state power. In fact, I've SEEN you make the argument - opposing huge expansions of state power - that the best reason to oppose them, is that they are huge expansions of state power. Obamacare leaps to mind.

Sixthly, in order to oppose the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want, you have to believe that holding any of these views does not make you a tremendous hypocrite on a hundred levels, and invalidate your own arguments on every other single political, moral, or ethical argument you've ever made.

Sadly, that's wrong too.

Now, you'll notice - maybe - that there IS one, simple, logically consistent, absolutely correct, non-hypocritical, politically and ideologically consistent way for you to argue that people shouldn't be free to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want.

Do you know what that is?

It's the argument that says that the government, at a federal level or any other, has no business legally recognizing human relationships and protecting them. Period. Full stop.

Sadly, that argument ALSO does away with legal protection for straight marriage, since straight marriage is a voluntarily entered, legally protected relationship between two adults.

Which, ultimately, means that in order to make that argument - the ONLY logically consistent argument against gay marriage that doesn't make you a huge hypocrite - you have to argue that you want the legal protections and recognition granted to straight marriages ended as well. Is that the argument you're making, here?

I didn't think it was.

Now, as promised, we return to the REAL argument you're making here, and in every post you make about this topic. Gays shouldn't be able to get married, because they're not REAL people.

It's ok. You can admit that that's what you're saying.

We're all waiting for you to have the intestinal fortitude, and the moral courage of your views, to come out in the open and just say it like that.

We all know that's what you really mean when you say these things.

We all think less of you for not being able to have the courage of your convictions and say so openly.

If you did, we'd think you're wrong, and ignore you, but we wouldn't really be MAD at you.

Well, except for ME. I will be - AM, goddammit - furious with you for being this idiotic. Because when you make that argument - "gays shouldn't get married because they're not REAL people" - you add one more voice to the chorus that thinks that EVERY ARGUMENT YOU'VE EVER MADE ON ANY TOPIC AT ALL is equally devoid of logic, good sense, and basic human decency.

And your OTHER arguments are NOT wrong.

Making this argument devalues every conservative who understands the moral basis of our system of government and our society itself.

You have a right, in the privacy of your own heart, to think gay people are somehow less than you. Less moral, less human, less in touch with their religion, what have you.

You do not - BY YOUR OWN CONVICTIONS, SIR, YOU DO NOT -  have the right to try to pass off your own ignorance and prejudice into law.

Learn the distinction between belief and legislation. Learn it well, and understand it. You dishonor yourself, and every view you've ever expressed, by your failure to comprehend this one.

An Idea That Would Forever Change An Industry... (Long, But Worth It, I Promise.)

You may remember, off in the distant past (or, at least, five years ago,) that I bitched and groaned about the fact that TV networks hate science fiction.

Specifically Fox, but this applies to all of them. They don't understand the demographic, the shows are expensive to make, the networks don't understand why they're always so low in the ratings despite apparently rabid fanbases, and the fans are hugely critical of the kinds of changes network execs like to make just because they like to make random changes.

I am going to explain these things, for the extremely unlikely chance that a network exec MIGHT read this does actually exist, and then I am going to follow it up with a design for a new kind of TV network - one which would forever change the landscape of television - and not one, but two interim plans, for those networks looking for a way to pick things up without totally redesigning their means of doing business.

And I will add to that with a recommendation for a specific company which should be following my plan for a new-model television network.

No spoiler: it's NOT a television - or Hollywood - company.

So, let's start with the reasons the TV networks tend to hate science fiction shows.

First, the demographic. As much as TV tries to portray themselves as knowing and loving the geeky side of the population, they don't. They're still trying to portray geeks as a sort of underground counterculture, with nifty inside jokes and weird lingo.

Here's a hint: when hundreds of millions of people "get" your Tarder Sauce reference - even if they call it "Grumpy Cat," - it's not counterculture anymore. It's mainstream. And this is one of the major things about Sci-Fi that's changed: it IS mainstream now. It needs more than "this is science fiction, people!" to make it edgy and entertaining.

Remember this bit in Cloverfield?

This is how a hell of a lot of people feel, now, when your gimmick is "and there's aliens in it!"

The reason Battlestar Galactica was the highest rated show in the history of the SciFi network was because there was more substance to it than just "robots...in....spaaaaaaace!" The show referenced mythology, current events, political theory, and had serious drama along with the special effects.

Which segues nicely into point two: The shows are expensive. And hell yeah they are. Because even though CGI and special effects in general have become far less expensive in the last decade, it's still not cheap to make things actually look GOOD. And it's not enough to make things look cheesy. Even Doctor Who - the BBC's perennial, iconic sci-fi show - got a lot prettier in a hurry once it started to get popular in America. (Which I understand annoyed the hell out of a lot of Brits, but it's a direct result of advertising dollars; Americans threw a lot more money at it than the BBC ever bothered with.)

Audiences want their shows to look realistic. Cool, yes, awesome, yes, but real. Obvious CGI work is as offputting on TV as it is in the theater, even if you're likely to be less picky about something you're seeing on cable than something you paid $20 to see in a theater. And thus, the expense of sci-fi shows is not only higher than, say, sitcoms or another Survivor clone, it's higher than the networks already think it is anyway, because one reason a lot of these shows don't get more audience attention is that their budgets aren't high enough.

Don't worry, this point will be relevant. I promise. But it will take me a minute to come back to it.

The next problem with sci-fi, for the networks, is that the shows they lavish money on and "give a shot" on the air always, always underperform. Always. They never, ever have the ratings their contemporaries in the timeslot have, and they cost a lot more.

So, what's up?

Well, we're back to not understanding the demographic again.

See, the Neilsen ratings rely on people who watch at the time the program originally airs, have a very limited sample size (25,000 families in the whole USA. That's 0.02%,) and don't track anything other than traditional TV viewing.

"But wait," you might be saying to yourself, "aren't all the cable and phone companies advertising how useful their products are for streaming video, like, say, TV shows? And doesn't all that streaming happen on devices that Neilsen doesn't track?"

Yes.

And that means those views don't count, from the point of view of the only data the networks are able to rely on to track viewership.

And which fans, which demographic, of all of the available ones, is most likely to watch TV shows on their phones, laptops, tablets, iPods, or God forbid desktops?

Geeks.

And what do geeks watch? Sci-fi, that's what.

So those shows get watched - and watched, and watched, and watched - and the networks know none of that. Those views don't count. Period, full stop.

As far as the networks know, those views didn't happen at all.

Which is why those awkward, high-budget shows so often get cancelled.

And finally, the people who are sci-fi fans are GEEK FANS. Geek fans tend to be weirdly obsessive over their favorite material. Which doesn't mean much when the material is original for the TV, but it's very risky when it comes to material adapted for TV from existing material with existing fanbases.

I'll use The Dresden Files as an example, since it's a pet peeve of mine.

The book series is hugely popular, and for good reason. They're well-written, engaging, feature huge, earthshaking confrontations between good and evil within a full and rich internal mythos, they're gritty, sarcastic, and fun as hell. I am a huge fan.

I'm not alone. They've been popular enough to spawn a role-playing game, a series of graphic novels (including a new series!) and sell millions and millions of copies of the books. The fourteenth full volume is just out, by the way.

So, when they adapt it to TV, they make...

...random...

...changes...

...And this makes your ordinarily pretty calm sci-fi nerd explode with fury.

There's a character - Karrin Murphy - who is a petite blonde who looks like someone's kid sister.

This is relevant to her character, actually. Because her appearance is so harmless, she has to work much harder than normal to appear as competent as her competition in her job, which is a police officer. She's extra tough, hard as nails, and has tremendous reserves of intestinal fortitude, because she's always had to. She has to ALWAYS be better, just to keep up.

So for the TV show, they get a nearly six foot brunette, because...

...They couldn't find a short blonde girl in Hollywood? There wasn't any actual, relevant reason to make that change.

That's one; there were lots of other "minor" random changes to the source material.

So many that the author stated, when asked about it at a convention, that he thought of the TV show as existing in an alternate universe from the one he came up with.

Here's a clue, TV execs: that may fly with a Nicholas Sparks novel, but not so much with sci-fi. The fanbase won't stand for shameless, random debasement of the source material. They will accept changes for which there is a reason - as witness the changes that have been made to Game of Thrones, which the fans are fine with - but random jacking around with the source material annoys the fans, and that can doom your show in a heartbeat.

So. Having explained all these points... How does one compensate for them?

By changing the way you do your business, that's how.

Instead of relying on advertising dollars alone, relying on Neilsen data alone, relying on the same writers and the same budget limits and the same decisions that have doomed so many sci-fi shows before, try something new.

So, let's begin with the interim plans. First, the less-techy one, as pointed out by my lovely wife: make an On-Demand channel for viewer requested shows. They CAN track every time you select a show, and an episode, to watch, because they have to serve you the show, which means they have to know you're watching it. So, rate the shows that way.

Instant feedback on accurate audiences.

The more techy version: Crowdfunding.

Every series has a pretty fixed budget. Generally speaking, the producers of a new show know right away what they're looking at as far as expenses.

So, if the network wants to know if the fans are interested? Start a kickstarter. Hell, go whole-hog and... Wait, wait, no spoilers. I'll get to that.

Anyway, kickstarter: "This is how much we need to keep this show on the air!"

Hell, it took the fans of Veronica Mars - if you even remember that show, which is kind of the point - less than 12 hours to fully fund a theatrical movie, once the studio agreed to do a movie if they hit $2 million.

Read that again; the fans of that show - only three seasons, cancelled AGES ago (2007) and not that popular even when it was on - ponied up TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN TWELVE HOURS to get themselves more of what they loved.

For fuck's sake, why hasn't this been a thing before?

But there's a way to turn this into a new business model, in the exact spirit of venture capitalism that made this country great in the first place, if you're willing to shed the trappings of the traditional business model and start fresh.

See, you're used to thinking of a "TV station" or "network" as an always-on video stream, which plays whatever is on its schedule regardless of viewer interests.

Instead, look at Steam.

Steam does something very similar to what the networks should be doing, only they do it for games.

They start with Greenlight: instead of a game publisher looking at an indie game and going, "yeah, that seems ok, we'll throw money at it," they put up a demo, some media, information for the fans... And if it gets enough votes, they sell it on the Steam marketplace.

And anything you buy on Steam is available on any device capable of running the Steam client and the game.

For all the advertising, do you personally know anyone who actually watches new episodes of their favorite TV show on their mobile phone through "xfinity?" I don't, because most cellphone data plans don't get along as well with streaming video as they'd like you to think, and because xfinity in its current form openly sucks.

But you could, in theory, and that's a step in the right direction.

Abandon the old business model.

Start with budget. Decide on a dollar amount for new shows, first. Say, at random and completely pulling the number out of my butt, $5 million.

Then put the pilots up for fan votes, the same way Steam does for games. If a pilot gets votes, it has enough audience interest to justify a new series.

So, awesome: new show! Let's call our new show "The Irony Chronicles Killer" just for the sake of discussion.

Now that TICK has gotten audience interest, it gets its initial budget: $5 mil. The producers know they need roughly $200,000 an episode. Thus, their initial budget automatically buys them 25 episodes, guaranteed - enough for a full first season. Because this "network" is strictly demand-based, instead of played whether or not the audience watches, the network doesn't have any worries about scheduling; the show is available whenever and however fans choose to watch.

Each episode airs with a short commercial break before and after, but uninterrupted during the episode.

But Season 2 is up in the air...

So, they start a crowdfund.

A fairly structured crowdfund, with two "goal" tiers, and an escrow function.

So, the crowdfund starts the day the first episode airs. If they hit the first goal tier (ten percent or so of the full Season 2 budget) before the end of Season One, TICK is renewed, but will air with standard commercial breaks. If they hit the second goal tier - that being the show's anticipated full Season 2 budget - TICK is renewed for Season Two and will air commercial-free, just like Season One.

This allows the level of audience interest to determine the show's budget, and allows people who watch in non-traditional ways to make their "votes" count.

And it allows us to vote with our wallets on whether or not we want commercial breaks.

Personally, I hate commercial breaks. I don't pay a lot of attention to the ads that run before a show, but they don't actually BOTHER me. After largely switching to watching TV on DVD / Bluray, though, I will never like standard broadcasting as much ever again. Commercials fuck up the flow of the narrative completely.

At any rate, the crowdfunds for each season have built-in escrow for donated funds. Donors' information remains confidential, but is required, because in the event that neither target is met, the show in question will be cancelled after its currently funded run, and all funds placed in escrow for the following season will either be refunded to the donor, or moved into the fund for a different show at the donor's discretion.

To give you an idea how reasonable this could really be, for Veronica Mars: The Big Screen Movie Thinger, 40,000 people averaged $50 each to produce a movie budget of $2 million.

Granted, that's 12 hours. If they would have given it a bit longer, I'd bet they could have come up with a lot more funds, because even that show had a lot more than 40,000 people watching it, or it never would have made it to a third season in the existing network system.

So, if TICK - at $5 million a season - wants to get renewed, it needs 250,000 people in - call a season 26 weeks - the whole season to donate $2 each; then it airs with ads, to make up the rest of the budget. Or, if those same people cough up $20 each, it airs ad-free. There's no mid-season cancellation, since each season is fully funded in advance.

Now, you may have noticed my earlier references to Steam.

That's because there's another factor in the "fully funded" crowdfund I think this idea needs, which is that if you help crowdfund a show that gets picked up, or renewed, the portion you helped pay for should be added to your permanent media library for keeps.

For example, if you crowdfund the pilot, you get Season One. The second season? It's yours. Not so hot on a Season Three? Don't add it. Season Three plays once free, and convinces you, so you fund Season Four? Four is yours, too, and you can go back and buy Three later on.

Gee, that sounds awfully similar to the way Steam already operates, doesn't it?

Especially since any media in your permanent library is available for instant viewing on any capable device, anywhere, anytime... Just like Steam. And purchased episodes / seasons are 100% ad-free.

This is because I think the company that needs to be doing this - the company with the greatest chances of launching this idea and making it into something great - is the company responsible for Steam: Valve Software.

Hey, Gabe Newell! If you ever read - or hear about - this article, at least think about it, dude. You'd make bank; fully funded seasons means every time someone watches the ads at the beginning, your profits therefrom are pure gravy; you already know going in that every episode is paid for, and every cent you make is pure profit. Once the show is made, every episode or season you sell on the store and add to someone's library is ALSO pure profit for you.

And you'd be making way, way better television than the television companies currently are.