Theory on Everything

Disclosure

2009-10-06T22:14:00.000-07:00

I don't receive a damn thing for free to endorse, and I don't exactly do much product endorsement. Rest assured, if the former condition ever changes I will be so giddy that disclosing the fact will be no trouble.

Buy a Bobblehead, Help out the Philippines

2009-10-01T22:43:00.000-07:00

I'm somewhat saddened and embarrassed that, after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina touched the US so deeply an gave rise to worldwide support, coverage of a similar disaster in the Philippines on American TV has been at best light. Really, it's been closer to non-existent. The Philippines is not some country "Americans have never heard of." Filipino-Americans number in the Millions and the US has ties with the nation going back to the Spanish-American War.

That our media can barely bother to cover Ondoy should not be the final word in how Americans see their Filipino friends and family. I urge all Americans to help out, be it via Red Cross donation or perhaps by buying a Bobblehead:

Here's where to go if you want to buy and help some people out.

Always remember

2009-09-11T10:42:00.000-07:00

Don't Abuse It
Don't Cheapen It
Don't Co-Opt It
Don't ever Forget It

Theory: The Navy needs ACES on its roster.

2009-07-17T23:58:00.000-07:00

I originally had a somewhat tortured, convoluted comparison of a USN Carrier Air Wing and a MLB pitching staff, but I've mercifully killed it and left this little intro as a reminder to myself to stay away from such things. Either you like the ACE acronym or you don't, my selling it to you is a waste of everyone's time.

Despite what Ron Pearlman tells you at the beginning of Fallout games, war does indeed change. The goals, the rules, the weapons, and the strategies change. War becomes more diverse, a winning strategy on one battlefield will get you nowhere on another. One war might be between neighbors, the next between a superpower and loose global network of terrorists. To remain capable in the era of modern wars means becoming versatile and adaptable.

The United States Navy is the largest in the world, the only real global navy left and the military sea arm of the world's only superpower. All that means it sees a lot of work, in a diverse range of missions and environments. To better handle this workload, and to attempt to keep costs in check, the equipment the Navy buys needs to move away from specialization and towards adaptability. The Littoral Combat Ship is an early effort to do just that, and while the program has its issues the Navy is to be commended for seeking adaptability with the LCS. Unfortunately, the modular "tailor your weapon system to the mission" approach is lacking from jewel in their crown.

The pride and joy of the modern USN is its 11 supercarriers. These massive ships are mobile air bases, heavily defended and stocked with enough aircraft and munitions to fight a sizable war on their own. But they're not great at fighting a smaller war, and the reason is not a flaw of the ship as some suggest. The problem with US carriers is their air wing, it's a one-trick pony.

Shortly, the CVW will consist of exactly 3 fixed-wing aircraft: Derivatives of the F/A-18 Hornett, the C-2 Greyhound, and the E-2 Hawkeye. The C2 is the Carrier Onboard Delivery, a carrier-compatible cargo plane, and the E-2 is a flying radar. That means every other fixed-wing mission falls to an F-18 derivative. For an aircraft that started out life as a lightweight, single-seat fighter, that's a great deal to ask. The result is that there's a number of missions not being done on Carriers anymore, and others whcih the CVW should be looking at but isn't, because they just can't get an F/A-18 airframe to do it well.

Fixed-wing ASW is gone from the CVW, making the Navy reliant on Subs; which are hard to coordinate with and a limited commodity, land-based aircraft; which need a land base somewhat nearby, and the short-range ASW of helicopters; which are themselves facing a full docket of missions. A specialized fixed-wing ASW platform exists, the S-3 viking, but the cost in money and deck space to keep them in the inventory was too much to keep them around.

The AC-130 fleet is the most overworked weapon system in the US inventory, a precision air support weapon platform which can loiter overhead for hours, on call to smash a heavily defended position or snipe a few guys running down the road without harming the mosque a few yards away. They are hugely in demand, but buying more has proven problematic. They cost more to operate than smaller strike aircraft and the cargo planes they're based on, and require a large dedicated crew. The Air Force and Special Forces have been toying with a smaller gunship, based on the the C-27J, but it's been stalled by other budget priorities. The Navy has no comparable aircraft, they should but don't. But when Marines created a add-on kit for their KC-130J tankers under the Harvest Hawk program, they may have shown the way forward.

There's been a program called the Common Support Aircraft twisting in the wind for awhile now, but it never gets anywhere. The reasons given are legion, but I believe that the jack-of-all-trades, rather than a modular, approach is to blame. Jacks of all trades are expensive, problematic, and often fail expectations. After a few fiasco, nobody wants to go down that path again. What the Navy needs to do is take a page from Harvest hawk, and its own LCS program, and create a series of "modules" or "kits" to address its forsaken missions using a common aircraft.

Theory: The Navy needs ACES on its roster.

I envision system I call ACES-XX. The program would take a page from LCS and consist of 2 parts: the aircraft and mission kits or "modules" to fit the aircraft to the mission.

The aircraft is a straightforward flying box with wings, roughly the same size as the current C-2 Greyhound to maximize the usable volume without taking up too much hangar/deck space. With modern engines, aerodynamics, and composite materials, a pretty good combination of range and payload ability should be in the cards. I'd shoot for over 15,000 lbs at 2,000 nmi sans external payload drag considerations. If CFM follows through with their propfan research for the commercial sector, I'd aim to include that technology as well.

A large aft cargo ramp and door a la the C-2 would be plenty for loading/unloading modules. Add in a large centerline ventral hatch, not a bomb bay to be opened in flight but rather an access to the exterior for modules. The plane crew could remove the hatch on deck and place whatever the module of choice has been designed to place there, then replace it for no-module flight. Rounding everything out would be a crew door on the port side and a wing hardpoint outboard of either engine.

I'd shoot for 3 kits initially: ELINT/SIGINT, ASW, and Ground Attack/ASuW. Each would bring all the sensors, processing power, and crew stations needed. Power is a space-hog, but with the dimensions size cargo/module bay I'm looking at it shouldn't be a problem.

Notional Configurations

C-XX: The basic airframe, with no module installed and center hatch in place. The same system used to accommodate loading and securing mission modules could be used to move and secure cargo, litters, and seating. A replacement COD for the aging C-2 fleet.

E-XXA: ELINT/SIGINT module to replace the old ES-3A. A "keel" of sensors could be fit in the centerline access, and the module bay would have room for copious amounts of signal processing hardware and the crew to man it.

S-XX: ASW module to replace the S-3B. Fixed wing sub hunting is currently gone from carriers, a victim of budgets and space. But as a module, it could make a comeback. The centerline access would make an ideal place for a surface-search radar and sonobouy dispenser, and the wing hardpoints would give the ability to carry torpedoes.

A-XX: Ground Attack/ASuW module. New capability. The USMC wants gunships so badly they're putting guns on tankers. The SOF community tried to get more from the Air Force, but the AC-XX program was cut just about to death. A module for ACE, however, would cost much less. A cannon firing through the crew door, weapons pylons on the wing hardpoints, and a FLIR pod (+ another weapon?) through the centerline access would give you one hell of a nice little gunship.

At some point, with the platform mature and understood well, I'd add

E-XXB: AEW module to replace the E-2 Hawkeye. This could be started immediately as a low-priority/long-dev module, but really this would be best left until later when a Hawkeye replacement really becomes a priority. The benefits of greater range, space, more power, and new radar would give it a leg up over current E-2 upgrades. In particular, if a MP-RTIP-style radar could be deployed through the centerline access, the E-XXB could gain the ability to track both air and sea/land targets.

As an added bonus, the wing hardpoints would enable ACES to carry buddy stores for aerial refueling when not using them otherwise, freeing the strike aircraft from that mission. Fuel bladders and feed hookups in the cargo/module bay is another possibility, but that may be going too far.

So, for 4 modules you get 5+ configurations. Say you put 6 of these on the USS Ford when its complete, those 6 aircraft with modules will give the CVW the flexibility of 30 specialized aircraft. Ok, the modules themselves take up space so you probably wouldn't want to carry all 4 for each plane. But if 6 planes is giving you the flexibility of 15-20, you're still way ahead.

There is precedent here, the Navy's own MH-60 program is merging all fleet helicopters into just the MH-60S for transport duty and the MH-60R for rotary ASW, ASuW, and gunship duty using, you guessed it, the appropriate kits. If the basic SH-60 had been designed from the outset for it, the need for a distinct R and S wouldn't even be needed. ACES would be designed for modularity from the outset, so one aircraft can handle the full load.

Don't think I forgot about the guys in colored shirts. With ACES, they only have to learn one aircraft and keep one set of spares around! Ok, so loading and unloading the modules would be new, sorry.

Theory: The Green Movement will succeed in ending the current Iranian Regime..

2009-06-19T23:04:00.000-07:00

This blog, like many others, has gone Green. Solidarity with those living a world away, who I have never met and likely never will, today marching and facing down oppression. My best to them, Free American to many Iranians fighting for Freedom.

If you're reading this blog odds are you know about the events of the past week. If not take a few minutes and read back through a week of Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, which summarizes it far better than I ever could. So, knowing what's going on you're likely wondering: can they do it? Can the "Green Movement" topple the government Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Can change their government and they bring real reform to Iran? Can protesters on the street topple a regime which boats religious, military, militia, police, and "Revolutionary Guard" forces?

Well, it's happened before. In 1978-79 the Islamic Revolution toppled the previous Iranian regime, a fairly half-assed monarchy propped up by Western allies. That's well known, what some seem to forget is that it started much like the early days of the Green movement, with angry protesters. The guerrilla attacks, fractionating power structure, and the famous hostage-taking were all latter events of the IR. In the early days, it was protests against policies of the Shah's government, then protests against the crackdowns against the earlier protests, then paralyzing strikes and protests which incapacitated the regime.

But there have been other protests in the 30 years since, and the government hasn't fallen. Clearly, it takes a special circumstance. Does that exist now? Will these crowds keep growing until they wash the Ayatolla's crew out of power, dissipate into irrelevance, or be crushed in a bloody mess?

Theory: The Green Movement will succeed in ending the current Iranian Regime.

It's tough to quantify what makes a successful revolt, rebellion, coup d’état, uprising, whatever. Coups with seemingly substantial military backing have failed, rabbles with all the military bearing of an angry line cook have succeeded. What it takes is a certain x-factor, something that keeps people going: legitimacy in the eyes of the people. If the people see a cause as just, it will go a long way.

The Green movement has a large support base which sees it as legitimate, and just as importantly sees the government opposing it as illegitimate of late. The fairly blatant election fraud was bad enough, but the vicious attacks by the Baseej militia and Khamenei's "shut up and do as you're told" reaction to the opposition's pleas for a fair hearing have only painted the regime as desperate and power-hungry. The Greens, in contrast, have gone to great lengths to show that they do not seek bloodshed, and only want their grievances addressed. In addition to crowds marching in the hundreds of thousands, millions more Iranians reportedly believe the Regime stole the election and haven't been dissuaded of this.

At this point, the Greens are somewhat in control of the final outcome, while the Khamenei regime is in control of what happens right now. As the more righteously motivated group, the Greens can bestow legitimacy on this government or the next. The government can either keep things peaceful and work toward compromise, or set off a bloodbath. A bloodbath would forever rob this regime of legitimacy and probably damn it to a tumultuous and bloody decline, despite having been in power for over 30 years they'll appear the usurpers. If they seek compromise, they can seek to incorporate enough Greens into their regime to secure the government's standing with the people, but they'll be sacrificing their unilateral control to do so. There's also a good chance they'll collapse in on themselves before it happens.

So, whatever the specific outcome, the current regime is doomed. They can negotiate in hopes of surviving in partnership with the Greens, they can start a violent crackdown which will only make their decline slower and bloodier, or they can be ousted. But they really can't win, the Green Movement will be the end of the current regime.

I hope that violence doesn't come, and compromise or at least peaceful transition are attained. Unfortunately, I fear the blood will flow.

Theory: Ares V is critical for NASA's future, and must move forward.

2009-06-03T17:19:00.000-07:00

Wednesday? Yeah, I know, but I missed May entirely due to an excruciatingly long road trip and a (fruitless) spate of interviews.

Hat tip to newpapyrus over at Daily Kos, who inspired me to finally get this post together after chewing on it for about a week.

NASA's current Manned Space Program looks much like it has for the last 30 years:

Yep, the Space Shuttles. Oh sure we have a Space Station now, but it's an international outpost reliant on the Shuttle and international partners' spacecraft to keep resupplied. To launch someone into space, right now we have the Shuttles. And the Shuttles are no longer getting the job done. Never designed to do anything but, well, shuttle people and cargo from the Earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), they've proven costly and inefficient at even that. Paying for Shuttles has meant the death of programs beyond LEO, and the Shuttles' own shortfalls have meant the deaths of 2 whole Shuttle crews.

This all in mind, then-President George W. Bush launched what we know today as Project Constellation, a program to move NASA's manned space efforts from the LEO-only Shuttles to a system which could at minimum take over the cargo and crew-launching from them and then take on new missions to the Moon and potentially Mars. Constellation consists of an updated version of the classic Apollo spacecraft know as Orion to carry crew, a small crew-only rocket to launch it, and a Cargo launcher meant to loft big payloads like a moon ship which the crew would meet in space. To save money and leverage existing knowledge, both rockets would use updates on technology which the Shuttle has used for years.

The crew rocket Ares I is actively in development and actively under fire. While not a bad idea on paper, the rocket's been dogged by problems popping up under scrutiny. But NASA's fate isn't tied all that closely to Ares I. There are plenty of potential substitutes, notably the Atlas V and Delta IV EELVs used by the United States Air Force. There's even an unlikely long-shot in the form of Falcon 9, a privately-developed launcher. If Ares I dies, Orion or something similar can still be flown.

But the cargo rocket is another matter. Called Ares V, it's a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle designed to put an amazing four hundred thousand pounds into orbit. There has never been another rocket as capable as Ares V, and NASA needs it to succeed in the future.

Theory: Ares V is critical for NASA's future, and must move forward.

There are calls for the cancellation of Ares V, stemming from the high cost of designing it, of renovating infrastructure to support it, and from the time it will take to put together. These calls are wrong.

Saturn was the primary Launch architecture of NASA for less than 15 years. STS has been the primary launch architecture for more than 30. Lets be realistic: NASA's next big rocket may be IT for the next 40-50 years. We'll be stuck with what we have, there likely won't be money to design a new one for a long, long time. We need a Booster which can carry NASA for that amount of time, which can carry the payloads of tomorrow. That is Ares V.

The very infrastructure improvement costs being cited in Ares-V bashing are a selling point to me. Infrastructure improvement spending in FL and LA, in particular, are MASSIVE selling points. We're in a time of economic trouble, and the best thing the Government can do when spending money is make sure it's spending money which creates jobs quickly now, and secure jobs going forward. New Crawlers? Pad enhancements? More staff and tooling for Michoud? Yes, please! Ares V gives a shot of new jobs to bring it into service, and then will need a stable workforce to sustain it for decades.

Time is an illusion, and arguments that another heavy lifter could beat Ares V to the pad are seeing things. Ares V has a huge amount of support from the industry and uses evolved forms of existing hardware which will be developed together to create the booster. That's a smart plan. Attempting to re-arrange existing parts in a new way to save time (like DIRECT) isn't likely to save the time you'd think, a heavy-lift booster isn't Fantastic Contraption creation, you can't just rearrange parts and expect them to automatically work the way you want. Similarly, doing something nutty like an EELV with half a dozen cores is just asking for trouble.

Having mentioned DIRECT, a word on it. NO. DIRECT makes big claims about small costs and large launch numbers, but so did the Shuttle program back in the early days. I find their cost, time, and capacity projections too fantastic to be credible, and even if they hit "most" instead of "all" their targets it means a huge blow compared to having Ares V. The Maximum-lift Jupiter is proposed to top out at half the current baseline Ares V's OVER FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS to LEO. Respectable, but limited in comparison. 2 launches will ALWAYS cost more than one, not to mention the penalty of having to carry fuel and hardware for orbital rendezvous (negatively impacting mass to be used on the actual mission). Sure, you can put up whatever shiny launch frequency projections you want, but I'll counter with the history that has shown (with shuttle and the fairly frequent Apollo launches before that) NASA simply doesn't sustain that kind of schedule.

DIRECT in a vaccum isn't a bad architecture, and if flag-platning onthe Moon were NASA's only goal it could be arguable more cost effective. But for putting big habitats in orbit and on The Moon, for putting really big science packages in orbit and on The Moon, and most imporantly for going BEYOND The Moon, Ares V is the way.

I will say that I agree Ares V has one shortcoming: it's currently not planned to be man-rated. The theory is that it will be the big-lifter, but smaller, lower-cost rockets will launch the crew to meet their craft in orbit. Fine for small crews, but someday we might want to put crews up which are in the double figures, and Ares V could do that if we plan ahead. So go for it, man rate it or at least plan for a man-rated Ares V-B

NASA should be going for innovation and breaking new ground, rather than trying shoestring itself to orbit with existing tech (and ultimately saving neither time nor money). Sure, it costs money, but this is NASA and this is what they're supposed to be doing. Want to build a bare-bones, off the shelf, just-barely heavy launch vehicle? Get a private company to do it. THEY can work in a profitable way. As government entity, NASA shouldn't be expected to worry about that. NASA should be aiming higher. Admittedly, Ares V isn't warp drive. But it is innovation, and it is Critical for NASA's future.

Theory: The LCS will evolve from 2 hulls for the same role to 2 hulls for 2 roles

2009-04-23T11:56:00.000-07:00

Part Two of my LCS thoughts. A related post on Littoral Groups/Networks may follow, but I want to take that from a perspective of Roles/Missions rather than Platforms/Programs.

The current Littoral Combat Ship program has produced two hulls: Lockheed's LCS-1 with a steel semi-planing monohull, and General Dynamic's LCS-2 with an aluminum trimaran. Both fill the same basic physical requirements: sufficient space for the LCS Mission Modules*, Small Boats, and Aviation in a hull weighing about 3000 tons and capable of "40+" knots. And, insanely enough, they seem to so far be capable of hitting those marks. Costs and delays are getting plenty of press, and with good reason, but a more fundamental problem is what those specs mean.

LCS is intended to downselect to a single hulll, either LM's or GD's, and press forward with one hull meant to be an anti-pirate/insurgent patrol boat, a Unmanned Vehicle mothership, a mine/sub-hunter, a host for VBSS teams, and a small aviation platform. And that's before the USMC, which has expressed an interest in creating an LCS module, gets involved. Many of the above missions can be performed by the same hull, even performed well by using a single platform intelligently. But all of them?

It looks to me that as LCS moves forward with their early prototypes and the Navy gains experience working those missions, we'll see a move away from the single-hull idea. Instead, the 2 hulls may well grow apart, as they migrate to different ends of the Littoral Spectrum.

Theory: The LCS will evolve from 2 hulls for the same role to 2 hulls for 2 roles

Lets look at one of the critical conflicts of the current one-hull concept: The balance between Size, Speed, Cost, Crew conflict. To fit the electronics, the Boats, the Modules, Aviation, and the FUEL, the hull needs a fairly large amount of dedicated space. To adequately crew the ship, modules, helicopters, and boats, a fairly sizable amount of berthing space is required. To power the ship's electronics and allow it to reach 40+ knots carrying all the above, requires large and expensive power plants and an expensive specialized hullform. Putting that all together to proper Navy standards has meant cost overruns and potential shortfalls. The prototypes' range and speed may be lower than hoped, their ability to carry the Mission Modules is subject to debate, and observers have noted that the hulls may be severely undermanned for their intended missions.

Now, lets see where the various LCS missions group together. I consider the VBSS, Insurgent/Pirate Patrol, Brown-Water MIW, Small-UxV hosting, and potential USMC missions to be highly compatible. They don't need helicopters, they don't need a ton of module space. All they need is a fast, agile, and durable hull, weapons suitable to defend against small craft, and good onboard sensors. The Blue/Green MIW, ASW, and Aviation missions are likewise very compatible. They all need a ton of space for robots, equipment, sophisticated sensors, helicopters, fuel, and crew, but don't need the high sprint speed or brown-water ability.

As the Navy tests their prototypes and learns how to work in the Littorals again, I think the above "clusters" will begin to stand out. When chasing fast boats or operating in the extreme littorals, the speed of LCS1/2 will be lauded while the size and overly lightweight construction will not. While operating as a mothership, launching and recovered unmanned systems and helicopters, their size will be welcomed but the compromises for speed lamented.

At some point, the idea of a downselect will die. At first, we'll still have 2 over-lapping designs. But if the lessons learned from the early hulls are applied intelligently, we'll see them diverge. One will grow smaller, lighter, and lose the focus on work associated with the MIW/ASW Mission Modules. The other will loose the high speed requirement and embrace the larger crew and space needed to be a Mothership. Eventually, when the follow-on program occurs years down the road, the 2 LCS hulls will be 2 distinct classes with only heritage in common.

*The Mission Modules are currently:
MIW: A mine-hunting suite using UUVs and Helicopter-borne sensors. Includes EOD detachment
ASW: A sub-hunting suite also using UUVS and Helos. Includes Towed Array and Torpedos
AsuW: A weapons suite of small missiles and cannon tailored to fight small boats, plus UxVs to hunt them

Theory: Use the program we have to build the ships we need.

2009-04-21T22:32:00.000-07:00

This is Part One of a 2-part LCS posts. Part One is essentially how I think we should move forward, Part Two attempts to forecast the outcome of taking such a route.

One of the more distressing trends I've noticed in Naval Analysis and Blogging of late is the immediate degeneration of the LCS discussion into a discussion of what to do "when LCS is cancelled." I've got news for you, if some part of that discussion doesn't include the words "add 3-5 years of discussion and budget-wrangling before a decision is arrived at" you haven't been paying enough attention of late. Worse, the calls for LCS cancellation most often have less to do with the idea of a Littoral Combatant program (which most support in some form) and more with the fact that they don't like either of the LCS prototypes which have been built so far. There's plenty not to like about the LCS prototypes, and it's (very) unlikely everything wrong gets corrected quickly, but they are in the water, and LCS is a program building and testing ships right now.

I think part of the debate shaking out this way is due to a perception that the LCS hulls are the Alpha and Omega of the LCS program, and the specific success or failure of LCS-1 and LCS-2 are the success or failure of the US Navy's LCS program. I disagree, in the current age of Spiral Development and ships built in incremental "flights" I'm fairly sure we can accept the prototypes AS prototypes and move on with the program to build the littoral hull(s) we want.

Theory: Use the program we have to build the ships we need.

With the stipulation that they're less than ideal, in fact probably far from ideal, going ahead by building the LCS in batches/flights and developing from one to the next we keep the industry in business and give the Navy a chance to learn by doing. We currently, we're trying mainly putting the Littoral Combatant missions either with a abbreviated batch of small gunboats or with 9,000-ton AEGIS Battleships (to use the Galrahn rating system). We're learning nothing solid about creating, training, or maintaining a Littoral fleet this way, and may in fact be learning the wrong lessons. With LCS putting hulls in the water we can learn those lessons and apply them to follow-on Flights as well as to decisions about logistics, littoral fleet organization, etc. Without, we have to guess.

From an Industry point of view, sitting around waiting for another program of record is, shall we say, less than appealing. In particular, calling the LCS a failure and cancelling it is going to create a firestorm among its supporters in Congress, who will fight fiercely to protect the jobs and money associated with LCS. Then as a new program is started there will be a whole new round of jockeying to prevent the money flowing out until sufficient diligence is done, jobs are protected, blowhards speeches about Pork are made, and assurances made that this time "we'll get it right." Meanwhile the shipyards are left waiting, and re-start costs to get them back into the swing on military contracts pile up.

There's another side to staying with LCS and developing rather than a clean-sheet or existing design: there is no more unity on what needs to come after LCS than there was in the lead-up TO LCS, likely there is less. Talk to 50 Naval Analysts (or maybe just naval blog commentors) and you'll hear everything from thousands of swarming speedboats to FAC-Ms to a European -style frigate. I'm a fan of healthy debate, but the debate right now consists of spamming .PDFs of various ship designs or congressional testimony back and forth, not as likely to produce a superior design as it sounds. What the debate needs is reports coming from the hulls in the water and the crews serving on them, US Navy and/or USCG crews.

Notice that nowhere in this post do I defend the LCS prototypes as "fine" or any variation on that theme. The key here is to learn as LCS progresses and apply those lessons to the hulls LCS builds going forward. But this can be done and the results can be quite good, can be the Littoral combatants that we need in the fleet. And by building the fleet from lessons learned, rather than throwing another dart at the board, we avoid having to return to all this again when "what we should do when LCS is cancelled" falls flat on its face.

Theory: It's time to "waste" $300 Million USD to save a grand old gal

2009-03-14T21:22:00.000-07:00

I'm somewhere between amused and distressed by Conservatives claiming President Obama has broken a vow to eliminate all Earmarks from federal spending. Amused, because it was John McCain, not Barack Obama who declared all Earmarks evil. Distressed, because as Candidate Obama pointed out: Earmark reform is vital, but Earmarks themselves aren't the problem. Good money on good programs is a GOOD THING. Job Creation/retention is a GOOD THING especially in a Recession. And unfortunately, getting the (for example) Honorable D-Bag from Alabama to vote in favor of any funding for any other state appearing in the main budget is at it's least a chore. Barring an outbreak of selflessness in the Congress, Earmarks for good programs are still needed.

So, we've established that Earmarks are not inherently evil and will do good. So, I want to put one in. Yeah, that's right. John Q. Nobody from Nowhere Special USA wants to put an Earmark in. Not a cheap one either, but if it makes you feel better it's not a grant to Me, Myself, and I Associates. In fact, I'm willing to bet a good number of fellow Americans would co-sign on this Earmark today, and perhaps a very large number once they've heard the background on it. So here goes.

Theory: It's time to "waste" $300 Million USD to save a Grand Old Gal

Moored at Pier 82 in South Philly for the past 13 years, a majestic site sits slowly deteriorating. The SS United States, pride of America's Postwar shipbuilding industry, holder of the Eastbound Blue Riband once and Westbound to this day, largest Ocean liner ever constructed in the US, fastest Ocean Liner ever. And she needs our help.

The "Big U" cannot be replaced, she's a completely unique and completely American piece of history. That she's even survived to this day is nearly a miracle. Her smaller predecessor, SS America, had a similar life. After Liners gave way to Cruisers, she bounced around in uncertainty until being destroyed in the Canary Islands. Her contemporary, SS Independence, was snuck out of the country recently by her owners and may be scrapped at nearly any time. Such dismal fates await SS United States if she is left to twist. Norwegian Cruise Lines, which most recently purchased her, appears to have done so under the false pretenses of restoring her. Tim Colton postulates with some authority that she was a ploy to win NCL political support for bringing more foreign-built ships to service in the US. In the current economic climate, they're likely to sign off on the first deal that crosses their desk with no thought to the ship.

So, I want to waste $300 Million USD to buy SS United States from NCL and restore her to a preservable condition. Preserved, she'd be America's Ship once again. I don't think running her again is practical nor prudent, too much risk would be associated with operating her, not the least of which would be some future Administration deciding to sell her and starting the whole circus again. Park her in Washington DC, on the waterfront which the District is trying to revitalize. Make her a Destination, fit her out to teach Americans that we a a seafaring people, and that many Great Ships have been built right here by American hands.

$300 Million isn't much to ask for all the above. But throw on the practical side of the argument. Restoring The Big U would take hundreds of workers putting in thousands of man-hours. Preparing her new permanent home would take more. And add a staff to maintain and present her going forward. JOBS are a reason to pay this money, hundreds of jobs requiring skilled and unskilled labor at a time when too many people need work. If no other, today that should be argument enough.

It's time regular Americans got to put an Earmark in our Government's Budget, and this is what I want it to be. Saving an American Icon, a piece of our National History which is in distress. Agree with me? Call your Congress Critter. Write the President. Or Just Sign On.

My thanks to the SS United States Conservancy for proving the Petition.

Theory: It's high time Puerto Rico became the 51st State

2009-02-28T22:25:00.000-08:00

"Under Article IV, Section Three of the United States Constitution, which outlines the relationship among the states, the Congress has the power to admit new states to the union. The states are required to give "full faith and credit" to the acts of each other's legislatures and courts, which is generally held to include the recognition of legal contracts, marriages, and criminal judgments. The states are guaranteed military and civil defense by the federal government, which is also obligated by Article IV, Section Four, to "guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." New states are admitted into the Union by the precedents and procedures established by the Northwest Ordinance. Following the precedent established by the Enabling Act of 1802, an Enabling Act must be passed by Congress as a prerequisite to admission. The act authorizes the people of a territory to frame a constitution, and lays down the requirements that must be met prior to consideration for statehood."
-Wikipedia

Increasing the number of States in the United States of America hasn't been done since August 21st, 1959. Actually, not all that long ago in the Grand Scheme of things. And lumping Alaska in as a "batch" with Hawaii (being admitted earlier that same year), the previous such round admissions was 47 years prior in 1912. Well, it's been 50 years since Hawaii are we ready for another round?

In reality, it takes more than the above legal requirements to admit a state. Congressional willingness to pass an Enabling Act is a large stumbling block. That provision prevents, for better or worse, the far-flung and sparsely populated island territories of the Pacific from having much chance. There's also the aspect of political balance, members of respective parties have become increasingly hostile to granting the other side anything. Since very few territories, commonwealths, or even states even get close to a 50/50 political split, you can see the problem. The Congressional hurdle has kept Washington DC in a remarkably odd legal limbo for over 200 years, though perhaps finally granting them representation is sufficient. It should be noted, however, that was only possible with an "equal concession" granted.*

But there's a relatively large (would rank 27th in population of all 51 states if admitted), economically diverse (if not yet powerful), and politically diverse candidate just all set and ready to go.

Theory: It's high time Puerto Rico became the 51st State

Since being taken from the dying Spanish Empire in the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico has been closely tied with the US. The United States Military has used the island Commonwealth for basing, training, and as a steady source of recruits. Tourism and immigration passing between Puerto Rico and the US have strongly tied it's people and culture into the great American Tapestry (my apologies for being so sappy, it fits). And Puerto Rico already participates in the US national government, though only through non-voting representation and without voting in Federal Elections. Sounds pretty state-ish already.

Why change the Status-Quo? Generally speaking, there are some bright points to Puerto Rico's current "unincorporated territory" status. For one, no Federal Income Tax. Cool, but they do pay other Federal Taxes. Where other independent, sovereign Caribbean states have been left to twist on the wind and suffered for it, the US has (usually) helped Puerto Ricans when asked and (lately) not treated them like savages in need of civilization. But without a concrete political status within the US or on it's own, the Commonwealth has suffered. States from the smallest to the least populace get a VOICE that none can deny, the ability to cast a vote and to speak as an equal on the floors of the Houses of Congress. Without those, it's too easy to be pushed aside. And they have been.

Why now? The pro-Statehood New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico now holds supermajorities in the Commonwealth's House and Senate, the Governor is an NPP member, and PR's non-voting member of the US House is as well. In the past, referendums on statehood have failed but narrowly, each time "status quo" edging out "statehood" while "independence" was far arrears. But these supermajorities, while probably not solely accomplished on the Statehood issue, seem to be big, fat signals that Statehood could be rising. Statehood is the principle Political Position of the NPP, I find it hard to believe such huge margins would be possible if a simple majority of Puerto Ricans overall did not support it.

On the other side of the coin, both major US Political parties' 2008 Election platforms had pro-statehood positions which advocated granting full annexation should the people of Puerto Rico so choose it. Could it be BS to score cheap Latino voter points? Very possibly, but the NPP consists of Democrats and Republicans both and has a fairly Centrist stance in comparison to US politics, so it would be hard for either US party to gripe.** I'd like to think that the prospect of making millions of new, 51-star flags would be a good economic stimulus as well.

So, it's time. If you're living in Puerto Rico, call up the NPP office or elected official nearest you and tell them to get that referrendum cracking. And if you live in the 50 current states, get ready for a new State Capitol to remember, new electoral math, new seats in the House and Senate chambers, tons of new flags, and oh yes, 4 million American Citizens emerging from legal limbo with a new state for us all to love, honor, defend, and give full faith and credit to.

*yes, folks, to grant full right of representation to American Citizens it was necessary to "bribe" the Republican Party with an extra red-state rep. Which is the anti-American Party , again?

**Expect the Republican Party to gripe a little, but ultimately vote in favor. They cannot regain any power in the Legislature or capture Presidency if they piss off Latino voters.

MMOs need to stop worrying about Retention and learn to love Achievements

2009-02-06T21:01:00.000-08:00

I'm back, apologies anyone who might actually read this blog, but getting laid off killed my enthusiasm for writing. Still working on that situation, but I felt getting back into the habit of doing this might be a nice little booster.

In addition, a shout-out to David Shuster, about the only TV pundit I've seen take up the cause of Rebuilding the Twin Towers. Thanks, David, keep the fight going and maybe the quest will actually get some traction behind it. God knows maybe 3 people read my post on it, lol.

To the topic:

Depth in an MMO is challenging. What do you offer a player outside the main quests? What keeps them going after hitting the level cap? The basicly answer to this is "raid" content (dungeon craws designed for large groups) and/or PvP content. But the way PvP and Raid content are presented has always been vexing to me. Defeating an enemy team, winning a match, beating a boss, or getting all the way through a multi-hour dungeon are accomplishments. But most MMOs to date simply treat them as "yet another thing you did." And by this I mean they become part of "The Grind." Dun Dun Duuuunnnnn.

The problem is that rather than having to add tons of Raid or PvP content, developers would rather you played the same over and over again. And to force you to do that, they add in some super-shiny loot or gear that you can ONLY get by playing them over and over and over and over and over and yes I'm doing this and over and over again. Fine in theory, very frustrating to the player in practice. Games should be fun, you should be able to access all they have to offer just by having FUN. But The Grind makes it feel like a job, and after you've already Ground all the way through to "endgame" having more grind staring you in the face feels pretty crappy. Worse is when the grind begins to take ridiculous proportions, like the infamous 40-man instances of WoW.

Theory: MMOs need to stop worrying about Retention and learn to love Achievements

Xbox Live, Steam, Playstation Network, etc have all implemented systems for rewarding players who get "achievements" playing their games. They don't offer any special bonuses, if you miss a few who cares? But you get a way of showing off what you've accomplished (points, titles, trophies, etc) and you (usually) get a handy menu listing what achievements you can attain next, giving your further playtime direction.

In a similar vein, look at the success Call Of Duty 4 has had. Even today, well after the launch of it's "successor" people are playing the hell out of it. Well after they've gotten all the gear, well after their "reason to keep playing" according to common MMO theory has gone, they're still in it. Why? It's STILL FUN. And along the way, they're earning non-gear badges which give nothing more than satisfaction. It's not about getting the bestsest, statiest gear (in fact not all you unlock along the way is good for much apart from bragging rights), it's about having fun playing the game and getting a nice pat on the back for doing so.

MMOs could easily embrace this concept, in fact some have in all-too-fleeting forms. But when you make them secondary to the gear/loot grind as in WoW, or turn them into an amusing but unstructured aside as in WAR (don't ever have awards then without information as to how you earn them, because most people won't bother finding out and if they don't know there's no incentive to get 'em) you're missing the point.

And there's another aspect to achievements: Meta-Rewards which don't affect balance. In XboX live, Points accumulated by completing achievements give you a total to brag about and money to spend. Neither affects your play or gives you an advantage playing, just options. In Valve's Team Fortress 2, accumulating achievements opens up class rewards which give you additional play options without giving you an unbalancing advantage against those who haven't gone as far.

So rather than perpetuating the gear grind, MMO developers, reward your players for playing! Give them titles or badges for achieving things in-game, with a list of the achievements they can earn and meta-rewards for completing more. Give them meta-rewards that open up more options without giving a simple gear advantage. Stop making MMOs a job the player has to pay for, and make it a fun environment which rewards time spent in it. Because that we want to pay for.

Theory: Don't Itemize, let the Players do it!

2008-11-14T21:55:00.000-08:00

Part 2 of my "Make a better MMO" series. Or is it my "shit you should think about when making an MMO" series. Hell, just call it the "MMO" series.

Itemization is an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, you have to do it because equipment is as much a part of the MMO experience as anything else, on the other hand it can be very time consuming to do, and with mixed reward. Some items in your MMO will be highly coveted, some will get used for a brief but glorious life, some will get tossed aside with nary a second glance. And unfortunately for your invested effort, planning for those 3 categories does not cover your ass. If your "super badass" axe has a stat that is perceived to be a crappy fit, players might end up ignoring it (at best they'll bitch about it....alot). And if your "vender fodder" helmet is the only one available under the right conditions, players who end up using it for awhile might start bitching about you not putting more effort into the model.

So you have the potential to put in a large amount of work and still get bitched at about it. Sound familiar? But wait, there's a way around all of that, and if you're making an MMO odds are you're already doing it!

Theory: Don't Itemize, let the Players do it!

Think about it, typically you don't pre-craft Characters for players in an MMO. You give them a choice of race, which is mostly aestetic, and a class, which gives them their archetype. They're given abilities as they level up, and especially in recent MMOs these abilities are supplemented by new skills which can be "bought" with points accrued during play. So why not make Equipment function the same way?

Imagine this: as a player plays through the early levels of the game, he/she completes quests/missions for each piece of equipment. Armor, Weapons, etc. But they only come from the quests, and they get only one of each. As soon as each piece is acquired, it begins to level and gain abilities with the player. And the player accumulates equipment points, in addition to skill points, during play which they can spend on customizing their items' look and/or stats.

There you have it, fairly simple. Give them their stuff blank and let them make of it what they will. To avoid the "Clone Trooper" syndrome, options for variety include putting in some alternate skins that can be acquired. To keep interest in quests/events add in ability tiers that give more and better abilities to equipment through later game content.

Think about what you'd save. Without "Junk" items, or even just hundreds of "useful" items to model, you're saving time and money. The "this shield looks just like the one I just ditched" headache goes away. And with players in charge of their equipment the same way they're in charge of their character, they gain a new level of immersion into the game.

Today is Election Day

2008-11-04T09:42:00.000-08:00

VOTE!!!!!

That is all.

Theory: The three keys to Making your IP work for an MMO

2008-10-10T23:38:00.001-07:00

"Traditional" MMOs are the most expensive games to make. They're the most time-consuming and labor-intensive games to make. When they fail it hurts hard, and even games well past their relevance date often dragged along on life support in hopes of recouping losses. And even worse, browser-based MMOs are raking in money with less outlay and fewer risks thanks to their free-to-play model (all revenue comes from ads).

So why make a traditional MMO? Well, not many people are, but those who still venture there do so because there is still money to be made, challenges to be overcome, and great games to be made. World Of Warcraft stands on top of the heap, millions of players pumping billions of dollars into Blizzard showing that the segment is not dead yet. It is, however, littered with the corpses and comatose bodies of failed competitors. If the segment is to survive WoW cannot be the only success, otherwise sooner or later it might be all there is.

In an effort to keep hopes for an MMO life beyond WoW alive, I'm going to do a short series of theories relating to developing new MMOs. Among them will be how to choose an IP and make it work, a new approach to leveling and itemization, a look on making depth work for everyone, and if I'm feeling really bold a look how to mae a PvP-focused MMO work in a PvE world.

Theory: The three keys to Making your IP work for an MMO

The Intellectual Property of your game IS the game. Period, thought over, move along. Still reading? Ok, the game's IP is its face. Its the first thing they see, it informs their opinion of the game, it is key to getting your game in the hands of consumers. As elsewhere in life, the people who'll go out of their way to look for inner beauty of the just-plain-ugly is too small to rely on.

1. Choose a familiar, interesting IP. Blizzard's Warcraft universe had a huge following pre-WoW thanks to 3 generations of Warcraft RTS. Why is this important? Because odds are your MMO will launch with issues, and while plenty of people will pay $50+ bucks for an interesting unknown, they won't renew their subscription for a buggy, less-than-perfect unknown. But with an IP people enjoy being a part of, you can buy yourself time to fix. WoW didn't have the smoothest launch in the history of MMOs, but it was sustained at least in part on its IP until it became the stable beast it is today. Conversely, Vanguard suffered a well-publicized crappy subscriber retention after their buggy launch because there was nothing beyond the game's mechanics to keep people coming back.

It's not a fix-all, it primarily buys you initial sales and time. But that can get you pretty far. Star Wars Galaxies tried hard to shoot itself in the foot with its Jedi nonsense, but thanks to being Star Wars they bought enough time to try numerous solutions (see below why they were ultimately futile).

Note that this is getting worse as time marches on. WoW's success, and the continuous stream of non-MMO new releases mean consumers are much less liekly to stick around unless they have a good reason to. A familiar and interesting IP can be part of that reason, something new that nobody has an interest in likely won't.

2. Do not use an IP with a "hero" archetype which you can't let everyone use. SOE learned this lesson, learned it hard. In the Star Wars universe, jedi are a select group. In the time period of Star Wars Galaxies, they are a select and exceedingly rare group. Thus, the game was developed with steep and convoluted requirements to make a Jedi, and harsh death penalties for them, in hopes the Jedi population would be small. STUPID. Everyone wants to be a Jedi, or at least have the option of being a Jedi. Are smugglers like Han Solo cool too? Sure, but a really cool matchbox car is not a replacement for a new Convertible. SOE could have developed the game with a Star Wars time period where Jedi were pletniful, could have made excuses for plentiful Jedi (not geek-friendly but consumer-friendly), or looked elsewhere for an IP. Limiting the class everyone wants to play so that not eveyone can play it is just asking for pain.

Note that specific characters are completely possible to avoid. Dark Age of Camelot got by just fine without everyone wanting to play Arthur or Merlin specifically, becuase it just makes sense. But if it had tried to limit players from being Knights or Wizards at all, who would have stuck around? The City of Heroes and the upcoming other Superhero MMOs let you be Superheroes even if you can be a specific one from your favorite comic book. Imagine how they'd do if you started out as "just a person" and had only a chance of becoming a Hero?

3. Control your IP completely. As I said above, Jedi in Star Wars Galaxies' timeframe were rare, putting them in the position that lead to their self-immolating decision. That is just the most visible of numerous problems adapting an IP created and/or controlled by someone else to your game. Without complete freedom to put "making the game fun" before "making the game fit," you're screwed.

Returning once again to Wow: Blizzard created the Warcraft IP, it can do anything it wants with it. Aliens from another planet? Done. Motorcyles? Why not. Factions unbalanced becuase one side's creatures acutomatically look better? Move a Sexy race to the other side. No crime, no foul, just fun and money.

Theory: The Twin Towers are The Best Solution for Ground Zero

2008-09-12T23:41:00.001-07:00

7 Years after September 11th, 2001 no gleaming symbol of American perseverance and defiance grows from the ashes of Ground Zero. Instead, a few meager meters of steel have only just begun to rise above the great wound. The Freedom Tower and its 3 nameless companions are still more plan than product. And the project has been beset by delays, infighting, and a general apathy that does not befit the grand ideal of undoing the damage of that day.

Why? A myriad of reasons, really. But one holds court over all the others: the current plan to rebuild the World Trade Center is the wrong one. Oh, the Freedom Tower sounds great in a press release, much the same way Freedom Fries seemed to. But there has never been a great public movement to rally behind it, and for good reason. The Freedom Tower looks like nothing special, like it leaped out of the portfolio of some foreign architectural firm. Its 3 companions are even worse, modest skyscrapers which will not even contribute to the Manhattan Skyline. There's no unique identity, no soul, no sense of regaining what we lost. Just a building complex sitting next to somber memorials.

But there's an alternative out there, one which was born the same day the Towers died. There are risks, and given the current state of the Rebuilding, costs. But it has the opportunity to light a fire under the project, to unite the public behind it, and provide a true Symbol when one is so sorely needed.

Theory: The Twin Towers are The Best Solution for Ground Zero

Rebuild the Towers. Not replicas, there is much to change. They must be stronger, safer, built with the knowledge of 36 years and 1 terrible day. Build each next to the footprint of its forerunner, place memorials to the old towers at the base of the new ones so that visitors may look up with pride and hope even while remember the Fallen. Restore the skyline which was changed, restore the twin symbols of freedom and free trade which were lost.

The idea of resurrecting the towers was put off in the early days by commercial interests. The developer that held the lease on the WTC cite didn't believe he could fill reborn towers given the threat of terrorists trying to attack them again. Multiple modest towers could be more easily filled, while a single "symbolic" building which wouldn't need full occupancy. The problem is, few are lining up for Freedom Tower, and the costs associated with a building which is only partially commercial mount with ever review. I couldn't say if businesses would be more likely to refill new Twin Towers, but even if they don't I'd rather have the Twin Towers losing money than Freedom Tower.

There's also an opportunity to make the Twin Towers' rebirth a National cause, as opposed to a beleaguered local effort. In the grand scheme of the Federal Budget, assuming some of the construction costs for the WTC would be a drop in the bucket. And there's likely to be plenty of national support for such an expenditure. Heck, a Presidential Candidate could probably score some easy points with a good cause by calling for an end to the current scheme and a nationally-supported effort to restore the Towers.

Work has already begun on the site, costs mount every day the Freeom Tower plan stays the course. But, as our most recent 9/11 anniversary showed, very little has actually been accomplished. There's still time, we can still Rebuild and we should still Rebuild. The only question remains, will we?

NEVER Forget

2008-09-11T00:28:00.000-07:00

Don't Abuse It
Don't Cheapen It
Don't Co-Opt It
But Most Of All, NEVER Forget It

Fantasy Shipbuilding

2008-08-25T16:13:00.000-07:00

Breaking a long hiatus, a departure from the normal format, and exercising the Gray Matter.

The following post is in response to the challenge posed Here by Galrahn.

My "Fantasy" shipbuilding plan for FY10-FY14

FY10 - 12 ships + 4 Patrol Craft $12.28 billion + $2 billion CVN = Over budget $1.28 billion

1 Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) (1 v .9)
4 LCS (GD)(4 x .55)
2 Virginia class (SSN) (2 x 2.0)
1 Joint High Speed Vessel (1 x .2)
2 LPD-17s (2 x 1.7)
2 LCS MMC (LM) (2 x .75)
4 Expeditionary Patrol Craft (EPC) (4 x .02)

FY11 - 13 ships + 4 Patrol Craft $12.48 billion + $2 billion CVN = Over budget $1.48 billion

1 Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) (1 v .9)
1 Large Medium-Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) (1 x .5)
4 LCS (4 x .55)
2 Virginia class (SSN) (2 x 2.0)
1 Joint High Speed Vessel (1 x .2)
2 LCS MMC (LM) (2 x .75)
2 LPD-17s (2 x 1.7)
4 Expeditionary Patrol Craft (EPC) (4 x .02)

FY12 - 11 ships + 4 Patrol Craft $13.48 billion + $2 billion CVN = Over budget $2.48 billion

2 LCS (GD) (2 x .55)
2 LCS MMC (LM) (2 x .6)
2 Virginia class (SSN) (2 x 2.0)
1 Joint High Speed Vessel (1 x .2)
2 LPD-17s (2 x 1.7)
1 LHA-6 (1 x 3.5)
1 CVN78
4 Expeditionary Patrol Craft (enhanced M80) (4 x .02)

FY13 - 13 ships + 4 Patrol Craft $12.58 billion + $2 billion CVN = Over budget $1.58 billion

1 Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) (1 v .9)
1 Large Medium-Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) (1 x .5)
2 Virginia class (SSN) (2 x 2.0)
1 Joint High Speed Vessel (1 x .2)
2 LPD-17s (2 x 1.7)
2 LCS (GD) (2 x .55)
4 LCS MMC (LM) (4 x .6)
4 Expeditionary Patrol Craft (EPC) (4 x .02)

FY14 - 10 ships + 4 Patrol Craft $13.58 billion + $2 billion CVN = Over budget $2.58 billion

2 Virginia class (SSN) (2 x 2.0)
1 LHA-6 (1 x 3.5)
2 LPD-17s (2 x 1.7)
4 LCS MMC (6 x .6)
1 Joint High Speed Vessel (1 x .2)
4 Expeditionary Patrol Craft (EPC) (4 x .02)

Over Budget: $9.4 Billion over 5 years

Galrahn himself provides the best argument for the large Amphibious contingent:

The idea here is to build 1 LPD-17 in FY09, and have 19 by FY14, purchasing towards a force of 8 LHDs, 4 LHAs, 19 LPD-17s, and 8 LSD-41s for a total amphibious force of 39, as it requires 17 ships for 1 MEB. The 4 LSD-49s would be utilized as Naval offshore staging bases, Global Fleet Stations, unmanned systems support platforms, manned systems support vessels, soft power projection, and other naval roles as primary duty but would retain optional amphibious capacity as necessary.

Excellently put, and quite on-point. As does Galrahn, I push back JCC while embracing "real" LHAs, maximum SSN construction, and sealift. However, I sacrifice 1 LCS and push 4 MMCs back beyond this timeline to pay for EPCs and cut the overall budget overrun down.

The EPC is imagined as an M80 Stiletto which has been enhanced with a couple remote weapons turrets and includes compact mission modules for supporting UAV, USV, and SPECOPS missions. They could be deck-loaded and shipped to a specific theater, or they could operate from the well decks of Amphibious ships which do not have their Marines embarked. The price is a huge guess, essentially just doubling the M Ship Co. estimate of $10 million per hull, because I have yet to see a comprehensive effort to cost out a class of operational M80s.

The LCS -> GD and MMC -> LM decision is mostly industry-based, Bath gets to build the GD LCS design through FY13 , then CG(X) construction begins in FY15. Combined with DDG/CG modernization and satellite LPD-17 contracts, BIW should be fine. LM builds 2 USN MMCs a year from 2010-2012 plus exports, increasing to 4 USN MMCs a year in 2013 and beyond. This is also my preference operationally, as it gives the LCS Independence's bigger flight deck, useful for the "+" in "MIW+" missions, meanwhile MMC gets strike-length VLS and easier SPY-1K integration.

Although I couldn't comfortably fit them into the 5-year budget, I'd like to see a commitment to a new class of Hospital ships to replace Comfort and Mercy, preferably based on existing commercial technology and possibly sacrificing size to increase the number of vessels to 4, in this time frame even if construction is deferred until later.

In addition, I'd add the following outside of the USN shipbuilding budget:

FY10-FY-14 - 17 United States Coastguard Vessels - $3.08 Billion
15 Fast Seaframe Cutters (WFSC) (15 x .075)
2 Heavy Icebreakers (WAGB) (2 x . 925)

The WFSC is essentially a Coastie Sea Fighter, with the Mission-Module support replaced by permanent berthing and aviation support and a Medium-Caliber gun added. The range, speed, and low cost of the design makes it great both in Guard roles at home as well as alongside the Navy in peace-fighting, maritime security, and humanitarian missions abroad. Rather than try to force the Sea Fighter into the USN force structure and budget as an unrated combatant, or trying to up-rate the design at the danger of setting off an out-of-control price spiral, the Coastie option gives the Navy access to Sea Fighters when it might need them and keeps them "out of the way" when it doesn't.

The Heavy Icebreakers are expensive, but with the current WAGB fleet already nearing retirement/rebuild time and a greater focus on Arctic resources, it is pretty clear new vessels can't wait forever.

Theory: The B-1R is the solution to 3 big problems.

2008-05-16T22:36:00.000-07:00

The United States Air Force has a number of issues right now. Budget battles over fighters, bombers, cargo planes, and tankers. At the same time, its facing image problems as observers question its mission focus. The ongoing War is draining funding, and the way they run their procurement programs is under scrutiny. Into this atmosphere, 3 especially big problems sit before them.

First is the large and growing likelihood that the USAF simply won't have all that many fighters in the near future. Original plans were for over a mix of 2,400 F-22s and F-35s (mostly the cheaper 35s) plus alittle over 200 F-15Es, which are technically dual-role though almost exclusively used as strike aircraft. 2,600 fighters is a large number, but consider that they can't all be in the same place at the same time. They're spread across conflicts that span the world, and some have to stay home to protect this country. Take a possible enemy like China (get off my back, its just an example), who has north of 1,700 fighters all in one country and you see that 2,600 doesn't seem all that big. Now, consider that with budget cuts and program scale-backs, the total USAF fighter force could be as low as 1,500 F-22s/35s/15Es. Even with the US Navy, allies, and stealth fighters designed to take out 6 or more enemies each, there's a real possibility that the sheer weight of numbers could temporarily overwhelm our fighters and lead to massive casualties.

The second problem is the Bomber fleet. Bombing is the mission that the USAF does the most, in big wars and small. But the way bombing is applied to modern warfare is changing, and the current USAF inventory lacks in an area of growing importance.

Precision weapons, "smart bombs," are crucial to the USAF fighting wars. Against large, "big war" opponents smart bombs are force multipliers that give smaller forces the ability to do more damage by putting every weapon on target. Against insurgencies or "targets of opportunity" like a certain tall Saudi being spotted in a house, smart bombs give you the ability to hit your target and not the innocent civilians that may be around it. The problem is, current UAVs and fighter-bombers don't carry many weapons, and Strategic Bombers which carry more are too slow to survive in a hostile environment or react quickly to new targets. An initiative, called "prompt Global Strike," intended to use global-range (think ICMB) weapons with non-nuclear warheads to address these shortcomings, but for a laundry list of reasons it currently out of favor.

Finally, there's the Tanker scandal. I'll weigh in minimally on this, but to say that it's been a bungle from the get-go. Changing requirements, changing plans, promises kept and broken. In the end, Boeing's 767 design lost to an Northrup-Gumman/EADS A330 derivative. Since then, Boeing's been stirring the pot, trying to get the decision overturned. As one of the United States' biggest and most visible companies, with a long history of government work, arguments that they should get some consideration aren't entirely groundless. And any reversal, were it to happen, would jsut lead to the same from NG/EADS.

Three big problems, which could be addressed separately. But is there a magic bullet, one possible solution to all 3 issues? Yes, its called the B-1R.

Theory: The B-1R is the solution to 3 big problems.

The B-1 has had a long and far from smooth history. Originally, the B-1A was a supersonic strategic bomber, legacy of the XB-70 program. Intended to dash into Soviet airspace at Mach 2 with a nuclear payload, drop it, and then dash out. But cost inflation and the increasing ability of Soviet air defenses against high, fast targets doomed the B-1A. Enter the B-1B Lancer; a subsonic (with supersonic dash), low-level bomber with reduced Radar Cross Section (RCS) meant to sneak in under Soviet radar and deploy cruise missiles. Since its entry to service, however, the B-1B has become a star dropping conventional precision weapons. In particular, it has the ability to carry a large payload, loiter over a battlefield, and dash quickly to new targets that no other aircraft in the USAF can duplicate.

But the B-1B is also maintenance-heavy and getting worse so with age. Plans were to draw it down to retirement (in favor of the much older but fairly reliable B-52) until the current War broke out and showed off its utility. Even with its performance, though, a quarter of the fleet is still in mothballs to save money. As long as its in the air, pilots and planners love it. But when it's stuck on the ground, not so much.

So, what is B-1R and how does it help solve problems? B-1R is a new version of the B-1 airframe (either built new or rebuilt from the current fleet) proposed by Boeing that can carry a huge precision strike weapon load, a large array of air-to-air missiles, and supercruise to keep pace with modern fighters or respond to targets of opportunity.

The precision strike ability allows the B-1R to replace the capable B-1B at lower maintenance costs (new aircraft designed with experience from the B), higher payload, and higher speed (supersonic cruise and Mach 2.2 dash) to support the smart-weapon carrier needs of the USAF going forward.

The air-to-air payload allows the B-1R to augment the USAF fighter force by acting as a "missile truck." Using the engines and radar from the F-22 program, it would streak in at supercruise behind F-22s and F-35s, receiving targeting data from the fighters to salvo off its missiles at large enemy aircraft formations. Unlike cargo craft or converted airliners proposed for this role in the past, the B-1R would be fast and agile enough to survive a high-threat environment, and its mission flexibility gives it a cost-benefit advantage over platforms that aren't multi-mission.

The company proposing B-1R, Boeing, is the same which is dragging out the Tanker struggle. But if the lucrative tanker contract were replaced with another, like supplying 100 new bombers to the Air Force, Boeing could likely be convinced to drop their complaints. It may seem counterproductive to "buy off" Boeing, but if you're getting a quality product there's not much downside.

The B-1R is not the only solution, but it is at present the best. Stealth fighter derivatives will never have the payload to match up and likely aren't going to cost much less when all is considered. Converted Commercial/Cargo platforms would be useless in high-threat environments, and unable to keep up with fighters or instant targets. B-2 derivatives would be too expensive and slow, B-52 variants too slow and without cost advantage. B-1R gives a perfect storm of capabilities derived from a proven design, and from a contractor that's in need.

Theory: The inconsistency of Officiating in sports can't be tolerated in the Information Age

2008-04-18T21:44:00.000-07:00

The Information Age is an interesting time. A tool so basic and yet so simple as a place to host home videos online has the power to reshape lives, just ask former Senator George Allen. Figures and statistics of all kinds are accessible to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Yet the infinitely expanded availability of information has not yet led it to be utilized universally. There are still institutions which chose to say that "less is more," or worse "there's no reason to fix what isn't broken." The problem is, of course, that we now have the information to tell us that it is broken.

Needless to say, I could focus that opening on any number of targets. But there's one sector I have in mind, precisely because it likely wasn't the first to pop into your head. Sports!

Theory: The Inconsistency of Officiating in sports can't be tolerated in the Information Age

Watched a major sporting event lately? Don't you just hate when a close call goes against your team? What about a not-close call? How often have you though "Boy, they sure messed that up, but it would have been worse if they'd check because getting the call right would ruin the game!" Yeah, I thought so. Traditionally, the "Purity of the Game" argument has stood steadfast in the way of changing "the way it's done." And in the past, with no ammunition to counter with, nothing has surmounted that obstacle. But now, time and technology have launched us right past it.

In the past, the only evidence you had that an official blew a call was your own lying eyes. TV was the first hole in the dam, as anyone could watch an Instant Replay and see what really happened. TV Replays became so prevalent that American Football could no longer rely on the call on the field in "big call" situations, and a formula was cooked up by which NFL and NCAA football officiating could be "checked" by Replays. The problem is that Replay, while a first and giant Step, is still dependent on a person's lying eyes, biases, and character to make a personal judgment call. In other words, it wasn't enhancing the officiating so much as giving it a second chance to get the call right. Sure, with and without this many games go by without much controversy and with few mistakes. However, flubbed calls have survived Instant Replay in football, and were it to spread to other sports they would be in the same boat.

Don't think for a moment that this is a non-issue. Players' livelihood comes from their performance, which can be greatly warped by poor officiating. Anyone who's been to a Soccer match anywhere outside the US or a youth sports match will tell you that the outcome of a call can have violent consequences among the more rabidly invested. And the sports themselves suffer in popularity when officiating is obviously bad, because nobody wants to invest time and money in their game of choice if they feel the guys in the Officials' uniforms and not the players are determining the outcome.

What's needed is more objective tools, digital officiating aids designed to give a simple answer to a simple question. Did he touch the line before he caught the ball? Did the ball hit in or out of bounds? Strike or Ball? These are questions are paramount to their games, and yet they're also amazingly simple. With the right instrumentation a laptop-sized CPU could handle most such calls in most such sports without breaking a sweat. I don't mean to replace human officials outright, rather I look to the example of the manufacturing industry. Menial yet essential tasks are automated, human interaction is to control, assist, and do the jobs which still require gray matter.

The next time you have a free afternoon, put an MLB Baseball game on the TV. Now take a laptop or PC near the TV and open the home team's web page. There should be a link for "Gameday Pitch-by-Pitch" which will open a simple little Flash window. Gameday gives a fairly accurate reading of where the ball crosses home plate, as well as what the call was. Now watch the calls on the TV and on Gameday and compare. How often does the Ump mess up? How often are two similar pitches/locations called two different ways? How often does this happen in a critical moment for either team? Then, after the game, ask yourself how hard it would be for this little window to be used as a tool for making the game better. How hard would it be to give the Ump a simple tool like a little hand screen to double check his gut against? How much would that little screen improve the call of the game, how little would it affect the "Purity" of it?

The Information to make Officiating better is there, we have the technology to access it quickly and efficiently with little to no obstruction to the games themselves. Now its time that we give our pastimes, our leisure spectacles, this little enhancement that will bring the games back to the players and away from the issues that bad officiating brings to them.

My apologies

2008-04-05T22:12:00.000-07:00

For the extended ToE delay, I'm battling some health problems right now which have been leaving me too tired or too out of it to write intelligently (as if I have in the past) for the blog. Today was a much better day, hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to put fingers to keys for an entire post.

Theory: In Politics, You can't sling mud and then complain when you get dirty

2008-03-15T00:01:00.000-07:00

What goes around comes around. Its a simple fact of life, and it's not changing any time soon. The idea of attacking a candidate's position is part of politics, as is standing up for your candidate as a supporter. Doing those things gives the opposition license to do the same, not to attack you personally. And if you do attack them personally, you have given them full rights to return the favor.

A good example is the blogger rivalry between Clinton and Obama supporters. The progression began when Obama supporters began pointing out that he will likely (recently, he will almost certainly) end the primary season with more delegates, and with more states, and either tied or ahead in "the popular vote." As such, they began to more fervently call for Sen. Clinton to withdraw, instead of attempting to invent, lets say "unconventional" paths to the nomination. Sure, not everyone was nice about it and there was plenty of argument for Clinton to stay in. But, almost immediately, Clinton supporters began accusing Obama supporters of being "cultish" in their devotion to the Senator, and that's where it jumped off the rails.

As I said, there were plenty of arguments to make for Clinton staying in the race. Over time, her increasingly sharp negative attacks and the decreasing likelihood of her winning anything without a massive Superdelegate coup d'état have diminished these, but the argument is still valid. Accusing someone of being in a cult, however, has nothing to do with any of those, and offended Obama supporters quickly began to retaliate. Then, Clinton supporters began calling foul and decrying this "unwarranted hostility." This of course got the other side even hotter as they were now not only being called cultists, but unfairly rude and hostile cultists.

Now, Clinton Bloggers are often posting long, woeful rants about how they've been treated and declaring from their "high ground" that they're going to only blog on openly pro-Clinton sites. Worse, some are calling their moves by high-minded terms like "walkout" or even "strike," implying both that they are somehow in the same boat as oppressed labor unions when they simply go blog somewhere else and that when the sites they're leaving "clean up their acts" they'll return.

Theory: In Politics, You can't sling mud and then complain when you get dirty

I'm a Barack Obama supporter and local Volunteer. I'm not paid, and my work so far has consisted of making phone calls and working at his few visits to my state during the primary season. I believe in my candidate, and I fight for him as I am able. I've slung my fair share against Senators Clinton and McCain. But what I don't do is belittle my opposite numbers in their camp. We're both doing the same thing, for the same reasons, and its our views which divide us. Sure, I believe fervently in my cause and wish they'd see my way, but until they do I won't knock them for doing the same work I do.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a singular view. Increasingly, it seems as if there's no end to bloggers and talking heads who find it completely acceptable to sling the rankest kind of mud, not at a candidate or campaign but against their opposite numbers within, and then bitch to no end when it comes back at them. Guess what, it happens. And if you want your candidate to win you'll need many of those "lowlifes" that you're decrying to vote their favor. The way to get that to happen is to respect them, and to give as good as you get when they come at you. If you think you can get away with one-way pissing, or if you tell them they all suck and then bolt, you've accomplished nothing other than proving what a pompous ass you are.

Don't knock others and they won't knock you, knock others only if you're willing and able to take what they give back. Anything less and you're doing a disservice to yourself and your cause. I say this in hopes the Obama supporters won't repeat the Clinton supporters' mistake, and in hopes that the Clinton supporters will roll up their sleeves and quit weeping about what they sow.

In closing, I have a message for bloggers and speakers who run to more comfortable surroundings with a parting "I'm better than you because I'm doing this" rant:

If you can't handle the flame of dissent, and decide to only go where everyone's gonna love every word you speak or write and love YOU as a result, you're not on strike. You're not on some holy crusade. You're not even "doing the right thing." You're just doing the same thing every Fox News employee does every day they drive to the office.

Theory: What we say, teach, and do about Marriage need an overhaul

2008-03-03T20:44:00.000-08:00

Before this trip, I told myself not to overreact. I knew going in that 2 long flights, 10+ hours trapped in a rental car's back seat, and a very poorly planned/executed wedding wasn't going to put me in the best of moods. I hoped in doing so to keep my head, to stop myself from ranting. All that, and a good night's sleep back in exile, and I'm still not sure I shook it all. This will be a long one. I'm also trying a new format, to help me organize my thoughts, but no guarantees the first time out.

I'm not from a broken broken home, I'm not gay, and I'm not "against" marriage. I hope to fall madly in love with a hot-ass woman and live out my life with her. That said there are many things about marriage which I find off-kilter, problematic, or just plain wrong. Many ills are blamed for destroying our idealized, Rockwellian image of marriage. But in reality, that idealism is in many ways just as much to blame.

Theory: What we say, teach, and do about Marriage need an overhaul

Part 1, Divorce - Unfortunately, the mainstream message about Divorce is still deeply rooted in religion. In other words, all Divorce is bad, high divorce rates are bad, and we should never prepare/teach young couples about Divorce lest it poison their relationship somehow. Annulments, or their equivalent, are good because they're granted by the issuing church and only when "it can be proved the marriage occurred under false pretenses." IN other words, a couple can ONLY separate in situations of abuse (sometimes), polygamy (in most churches), or falsehood (sometimes bribes). The line essentially becomes that there's no way a couple can be in love when they're 20 and grow apart years later unless something destructive is involved.

Of course, the high divorce rate clearly puts lie to the above, the over 50% of marriages which end don't all involve the above. Humans live an incredibly long time these days, and over the 50 to 80 years they live after marriage much can change. Expecting all of that to be ignored creates unhealthy conditions. Setting such a high bar for ending a marriage plants a seed in the minds of participants that if they're thinking about ending the marriage they must be in the wrong. How many battered women stay in abusive homes because they feel they can't leave?

Are children better in a happy marriage than a divorce? Sure. Are they better in abusive homes? Of course not. What about loveless marriages? Households where the spouses fell trapped in their relationship? Things get murkier. Worse, because there's such a negative stigma attached to marriage, how much worse for the children when one does end? Mental anguish, legal fighting, and uncertainty just compound everything.

While we're touching on the legal fracas, the adversarial system has a couple holes too. While lawyers exist to zealously defend their clients, the mandates and Canons of law are overly biased toward conflict. Lady Justice may be blind, but that doesn't mean she chooses to ignore details. If we're going to make amicable, mutually-agreed on divorce possible, we have to remove the idea that any divorce will involve great legal and financial hardship. If a spouse feels their savings and livelihood will be destroyed via the process of divorce, they'll stay with a marriage which they probably shouldn't.

Part 2, Sacrament versus Institution - As long as I'm tearing down the house, this part can't be ignored. The Sacrament of Marriage exists in whichever Church ordains it, but the Institution of marriage exists in the Laws create by we low humans. Church and State are separate, we're under no obligation to favor one religion or another. Should God exist and he find our Laws unfavorable, he may even punish those who break His law. But if God exists he gave us Free Will, his greatest and most important gift, he doesn't force anyone to follow his laws in life.

Of course, I'm talking about expanding the Institution of Marriage. There are hundreds of thousands of couples already in the US who live and grow together, but to whom the rights and responsibilities of full Marriage. Because "partners" aren't legally "spouses" they live in a second class denied rights on separation and death. Consenting, informed adults are denied access because churches/faiths they don't belong to decree it. How come the Separation of Church and State doesn't go both ways? How come we can't declare a coupling Legal Marriage, with no requirement that any faith recognize it? That Word, that coupling, belongs singularly to no faith or creed, but the reaction is always that moving the Institution and the Sacrament the least bit apart will somehow affect the Sacrament.

I cannot say that our old Divorce Rate metric will improve. in fact I think rates may even increase as peaceful, mutual separation is facilitated. But Happiness will go up. Abuse will go go down. Healthy households will grow while the destructive shrink. And we might just all be better for it. Why do I say this? Because I advocate nothing other than Fairness, Justice, Freedom, and Equality, 4 things which together have built all the great things about our society.

Theory: Sins of a Solar Empire tells of things to come

2008-02-27T22:00:00.000-08:00

I'm attending a wedding 1,500 miles from my comfy dungeon this weekend so I thought I'd do a before and after theory this week. Warning: The after will likely cover weddings and/or marriage.

Sins of a Solar Empire (Sins) is an amazing new product by Ironclad Games which just about sets a new standard. The easy way to describe it would be a Real-Time Strategy (RTS) game with 4X (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate) gameplay, but that wouldn't quite do it justice. Unlike RTS games, Sins has the full compliment of 4X play like trade, diplomacy, research, and strategic warefare. And unlike Turn-Based Strategy (TBS) games which have traditionally featured all the above, all action is real-time and in-engine.

What you get for all those features is great fun. Without turns, the strategic game feels much less drawn-out and much more involved. You know you can't take forever because your opponents are on the move, and they won't wait, while quotes for build/research time have much more meaning. With good AI for your units, you can check in on battles on the fly and make adjustments if needed, or get "down" and manage the battle more carefully for best results. Instead of grabbing arbitrary resource "points," you send your forces out to seize actual territory, like planets.

The most important part of all this BS is that you don't feel left out of the game. Are there more complex TBS or quicker RTS games out there? Surely, but when you're building your empire you won't sigh every time a simulated battle goes awry, when you're victorious on the battlefield you won't be left to sit on your hands during a long cinematic or intro to the next battle. Its a complete experience.

Theory: Sins of a Solar Empire tells of things to come

Sins' contribution is better understood after a brief look at Strategy in gaming. The two principle archetypes of Strategy gaming in the "video game universe;" RTS, best exemplified by the Command and Conquer or War/StarCraft series and TBS, led by the Civilization series, are pretty well established and pretty distinct. There are line-crossers, like the Total War series which has successfully incorporated an RTS game and TBS game in the same title. Generally, however, the two have stayed apart.

This creates a bit of a problem, as the two genres have had to make compromises that can feel pretty limiting. In TBS games, "battles" are most often simulated, not fought, leaving the player to feel a prisoner of the random number generator as their shiny, modern army is taken down by guys with spears. In RTS games, the legendary "4X" gameplay which is so compelling on TBS's huge, strategic scale is distilled down to a mad rush for "resource" points. In TBS, you have plenty of time to plan out grand strategies but there's little sense of urgency and you often have no chance to make a difference "on the battlefield," while RTS has you so focused on micromanaging the battlefield that a minor knock against your game plan can leave you seriously crippled.

As I mentioned, Total War has recently made a stab at these shortcomings by essentially shipping an RTS and TBS in the same box, but it doesn't quite hit all the bases. The strategic turn-based format still robs the game of pace, and the separate nature of the battle game gets annoying. You either have to fight every battle 100% through personally (which means loading, positioning, fighting for an extended period, mop-up, and then loading back again), or you have to accept the standard TBS battle-simulator and worry about the random number generator killing you.

Sins' addressing of these shortcomings, and in such a compelling way, tells of many great things to come in gaming. For the longest time, shortcomings of various genres have been accepted as "just part of the territory" and allowed to fester. And truthfully, there's incentive to do so, the games have sold and many have sold well, the time and money needed to work it out has led devs and gamers alike to just accept things as-is. But Sins has shown that you don't have to accept anything in gaming; as technology and innovation progress just about every roadblock can be overcome.

There are plenty of other crutches in other gaming genres, but Sins has shown that some of the biggest and most established can be overcome. That tells me good things really are coming, and not just re-hashing of the same old things we've already sen. Now, bring on Spore!

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

Post-Script: Did I miss the bus that took everyone to "Will Arnett is an Acting/Comedy God" land? I liked Arrested Development, hated The Brothers Solomon, but suddenly the guy's everywhere and everyone's fawning all over him...its bordering on creepy.

Theory: Racism among gamers, not games themselves, needs attention

2008-02-15T21:12:00.000-08:00

The exploits of He Who Shall Not Be Named are well known, and generally any discussion about gaming and the behavior of gamers will tend to revolve around the man and his odd crusade. Unfortunately, such discussions tend to focus exclusively on the content of the games themselves, and arguments like his tend to bear some resemblance to "Game X contains Y therefor its bad for children and young people." As a result, real issues involved in gaming tend get drowned out.

I'll preface by saying I'm an avid gamer, and not a "casual" or "carebear" by any stretch. In fact, my WoW Guild prides itself on being Evil. There's no need to be "nice" all the time, Schadenfreude is its own reward. But, dear readers, there's a fucking LINE.

Theory: Racism among gamers, not games themselves, needs attention

Racism has no place in modern society. Its that simple, really. No good comes from it, and its never invoked except to hurt. Worse, racism seems to breed; the more it is allowed to go on the more there is. But when you go log onto any console FPS multiplayer, and a fair number of PC ones as well, you will find it everywhere. Names, clan tags, text, audio, imagery, anything and everything that can be plastered with hate is. This is what's wrong with gaming right now, this is what we should all be working to correct, and yet how much is really getting done?

Gamers like to talk about how silly legislation involved the content and sale of games is, and they're absolutely right. Gamers come from all age groups, as long as parental and personal responsibility is upheld, the content of games doesn't need to be heavily policed. But while we brag about being responsible and mature enough not to go shooting up malls because we saw it in GTA, we're failing to live up to that boasting while we're playing. How often have you just tolerated blatant racism just because you couldn't be bothered to make the fuss required to be rid of it?

I often hear people tell little horror stories about this stuff, invariably followed with a short laugh or just a slowly shaken head. But when I ask what they did about it most often I get "well, I muted him" or "well, I left the game." Ok, that solved the problem for you, what about everyone else. What about the kids who are hearing this shit from guys with big kill ratios and start imitating it? What about the people who see this and are themselves the minority or ethnicity that this hate's being spewed at? A little action from each of you would add up to a big difference, if you can be bothered.

Free speech is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, but this isn't about prosecution, my aim isn't to punish racists for what they say (as appealing as it may sound). But if we make racists as unwelcome as their hate makes others, then we'll accomplish much. If we don't give them a place to spread hate, we'll keep it contained. They'll still believe what they believe, say what they say, and only they can change that. But if we deny them their forum, we'll make sure they can't recruit, or indoctrinate, or influence, on our time.

Next time you encounter this, how about telling the guy to fuck off? How about voting to kick him every time you're able? How about raising merry hell with the game's host until he boots the racist asshole? How about sending a quick email or PM to a moderator telling them about it? How about, the next time you're rolling your eyes over another Jack story, you take a minute to go clean up your favorite server? Gamers are many and that makes us Mighty, lets use that for something constructive and burn racism out wherever we find it.

Theory: "Fixing" our Nomination process is easy, not making it worse is hard

2008-02-13T21:19:00.000-08:00

Whew, finally. Still another to come this Friday.

Primary and Caucuc elections to select the party Presidential Election Candidate nominees in the United States are conducted by state governments on behalf of political parties. But, there's little control or even heavily regulation them, it is the parties themselves which set the rules nationally and on a state level. The reason is simple: the parties should have as much say as possible in who their nominee is. However, there's plenty of opportunity for problems, and 2008 has been full of them.

For years, a consistent issue with the nomination process for both parties has been the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire put their contests far out in front of the rest of the nation. From Iowa and New Hampshire's point of view, the move was a boon as the press and campaign attention from being "The First in the Nation" gave a financial as well as PR boost. But for the rest of the country, the result was less than stellar. Being first and by so much meant that the winners of the races for both parties would have a huge momentum advantage in the press, often greatly benefiting their campaign. Iowa and New Hampshire, however, are not the most ethnically nor economically diverse states in the Union, and many have questioned why they should hold so much influence over the race.

For 2008, the Democratic Party's National Committee (the DNC) tried to re-map their race to add more influence from a more diverse cross-section of America. So they shuffled some races, most notably promoting Nevada's state caucus forward. This ended up setting off a torrent. Iowa and New Hampshire moved their elections up even further, the "Super Tuesday" contest in February became clogged with contests, and then the biggest shoe dropped. Florida and Michigan decided to move their contests ahead into the earliest weeks of the contest, right around the same time the DNC had moved Nevada to. Since their delegate totals were larger than Nevada, such a move would have essentially put Nevada's contest back into obscurity. The DNC warned them to keep their contests back, to let Nevada and its diverse population have its say, or else. The states moved anyway, and in response the Party vowed not to give their delegates a say in the nomination.

Now, Florida and Michigan (with the backing of a pretty biased Hillary Clinton Campaign) are screaming for their delegates to be seated, observers are calling the process a circus, and voters from both parties are still complaining that their votes aren't all equally counted. So a call has gone out for the process to be fixed, which it should, but care should be given to any such solution, as it could end up making things even worse.

Theory: "Fixing" our Nomination process is easy, not making it worse is hard

A common argument made is for their to be a "National Primary Day" as there is a National Election Day. But as our national elections have shown, single-day votes aren't immune to controversy. Big states drown out small states in importance, the outcome is overly influenced by last minute events, the legendary "October Surprise," and with some states' outcomes becoming known well before the polls close in other the influence on the latter's voters can be even more detrimental than results that have days or weeks to be absorbed.

Simply clumping all the races together simply won't get the job done. In the national election, when there's only 2 (viable, usually) candidates going head-to-head, the shortcomings are survivable. But part of the nomination process is to pare down a relatively large field of candidates down to the one which best represents their party's voters. Without time an preliminary contests to reduce the field, the result will likely often be multiple candidates in the running after election day, but without a clear winner. If that happens, the fate of the candidates will come down to the party conventions, which are another can of worms.

Without a clearcut winner by the end of the primary and caucus elections, the National Convention for the party will have to select the Party's nominee. The delegates of the various states will be influenced, cajoled, threatened, and maybe even bribed into casting their votes one way or another. The whole democratic process will become a contest of who can best get a relative handful of people in a room behind them, not the best way to select a candidate. Whatever reforms made to the party elections, they must preserve the goal of having an elected nominee, or at least a clear-cut front-runner ready for confirmation, before their convention.

Finally, there's the cross-aisle effect. In a one-day Primary, neither party will know whom the other has nominated before the other. While ideally, this sounds like a recipe to nominate "The Most [Insert Party Here] Candidate," in reality the process is about the parties selecting candidates that will win in November, even if it means sacrificing some of their ideals to that end. Without knowing their opponent, or even likely opponent, the parties and their members aren't likely to be pleased nominating in the blind.

I cannot say exactly how to make the process work optimally for both parties, it may take a long time and many false starts to get it all "right." But I can say what sort of things we'll need to see. The process does have to still occur along a time line rather than one day, to keep the parring-down process and cross-aisle effect. Small states should have influence over the race, so they need to have votes early in the process and away from big-state dates. A national authority needs to be empowered to both set and police the dates for the contests. Lastly, a rotation needs to be given to the races, so that while the races are nominally grouped the same way every election cycle the actual contests vary to allow the the most states to benefit from the "best" slots over time.