Fifty Divided By Fifty

I can tell you plain and simple why our empire has gone into decline: because the devil is in the details, and we just can't be bothered with that sort of piddly crap anymore.

Case in point: the title and tagline of the recent film 50/50. Everyone knows Asian kids are better at math, right? So ask any Chinese second grader what the likelihood is for an event with a probability of 50/50, and he'll^* tell you it's 1. That is, the outcome is given. Because 50/50 is a fraction, and fifty divided by fifty is one. Child's play.

Having screened the film myself, I can tell you that this was not the intent of the title. The movie is about how the kid from Angels In The Outfield might not live until the credits. The title is a reference to the phrase "50-50," an American colloquialism dating from 1913^** used to describe even odds. As in, there's a 50% chance he'll live and a 50% chance he'll die.

In probability terms, his odds are 50:50. That's "fifty to fifty against." As in, if he lived a hundred times, he'd die fifty of those times.

So why the glaring typographical error? I posit that it's because we're Americans and we don't give a damn about math or technical accuracy -- and why should we? Iceberg, Goldberg.

Then there's the tagline: "It takes a pair to beat the odds." Ha ha, I get it. It's a plague on words. "A pair" might refer either to the film's two male costars or to proverbial testicles. But here's the thing -- you can't beat even odds. The outcome is as likely to occur as it isn't. We're talking about the only kind of odds that aren't in anybody's favor -- they're dead even. There's nothing to beat.

Right now you probably think this stuff is nitpicky... you also probably always lose at craps because you love flinging chips at the dealer and screaming "HARD WAYS!"

I'd lay ten to one that the Chinese steamroll us over the next few decades.

--Dan Colgate

---

^* Any given Chinese second grader is most likely male.
^** Per Merriam Webster.

IS IT RACIST? Episode 2: The NAACP, Kirtland High School fans

Welcome to another edition of IS IT RACIST?

In this series, I, Dan Colgate, examine hot-button current-events kerfuffles generated by somebody (usually a famous person or a counter-racist group spokesperson) crying racism. I will then apply my Intercultural Relations expertise (OK, bachelor's degree) to the issue and return a verdict on whether we're dealing with actual racism or just stupid bullshit.

Actual racism is a terrible disease and ought to be eradicated. Just as racism is much, much more dangerous than, say, a wolf, we here at Objectable Content believe crying racism is also much, much more dangerous than crying wolf.

If you don't know what crying wolf means, it refers to this story about a little boy who wanted attention, so he lied about seeing a wolf when there wasn't one. Over and over again. And then, one time, he actually did see a wolf, but nobody believed him, and so the boy's lust for attention resulted in horrible, violent, gruesome death for him and everyone he cared about.

Anyway, please enjoy IS IT RACIST?

---

IS IT RACIST? Episode 2:
The NAACP, Kirtland High School football fans

Background: Roderick Coffee, speaking on behalf of the NAACP, condemns this hand-made sign as "racial intimidation, ethnic intimidation":

The sign reads "YOU MAD BRO?" For more, see:

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-kirtland-painsville-harvey-offensive-sign-text,0,996270.story

So... IS IT RACIST?

[drumroll...]

NO!

Thanks for tuning in, and we'll see you next time on IS IT RACIST?

--Dan Colgate

Passion != Obsession

I recently came across a game tester job posting that specified as a requirement, "hardcore gamers only who play a minimum of 30 hours per week".

Personally, I love video games. I consider myself someone who is very passionate about them. Still, I don't play a minimum of 30 hrs/week -- to me, that seems unrealistic. Not that I've never logged 30 game-hours in a single week, but we're talking about a standard weekly minimum here.

I mean, who does anything besides sleep or work for a minimum 30 hrs/week? I suppose such a scenario is theoretically possible. Assuming a full-time work week, you could still log 30 hours of playtime as long as you spent 8 hrs/day on the weekends, plus around 3 hrs/weeknight. Or 10 hrs/day on weekends and 2 hrs/weeknight.

But doesn't that sound awful? To me, it's depressing. You wouldn't have any life outside of video games. I guess it's an obsessive culture is like that, and plenty of those people are out there. More likely, candidates who qualify for this position only work part-time, or not at all, so 30 hrs/week isn't as much to ask.

I resent it, though. It reminds me of Hollywood, where people habitually confuse passion with obsession. The conclusion that "passion naturally leads to obsession, thus they are one and the same" is a non sequitur fallacy.

There's a parallel here with Martin Luther's (originally, St. Paul's) distinction between faith and works. While faith will likely be reflected in works, works don't prove faith, works can exist without faith, and works are subsidiary to faith. So we are not saved by our works, but by our faith, which is why it was wrong for the Catholic church to profit from the sale of indulgences.

An intense foodie who truly loves food isn't expected to prove it by eating constantly. Nor does an eating obsession doesn't prove that you're passionate about food. Obsession only proves that you're obsessive.

Maybe it's just the nature of competitive fields -- they have the luxury of requiring people to be "experts," and the only way somebody gets to be an expert is 10,000 hours of practice. So the industry self-selects for borderline-psycho, super-intense, obsessive nerd-types with no life and no hope of relating to most of humanity. And then they're expected to create relatable art.

That's fracked up, if you ask me.

--Dan Colgate

IS IT RACIST? Episode 1: Naomi Campbell, Cadbury

Welcome to the first edition of Objectable Content's (hopefully) recurring feature: IS IT RACIST?

In this series, I, Dan Colgate, will examine hot-button current-events kerfuffles generated by somebody (usually a famous person or a counter-racist group spokesperson) crying racism. I will then apply my Intercultural Relations expertise (OK, bachelor's degree) to the issue and return a verdict on whether we're dealing with actual racism or just stupid bullshit.

Actual racism is a terrible disease and ought to be eradicated. Just as racism is much, much more dangerous than, say, a wolf, we here at Objectable Content believe crying racism is also much, much more dangerous than crying wolf.

If you don't know what crying wolf means, it refers to this story about a little boy who wanted attention, so he lied about seeing a wolf when there wasn't one. Over and over again. And then, one time, he actually did see a wolf, but nobody believed him, and so the boy's lust for attention resulted in horrible, violent, gruesome death for him and everyone he cared about.

Anyway, please enjoy IS IT RACIST?

---

IS IT RACIST? Episode 1:
Naomi Campbell, Cadbury

Background: Naomi Campbell is upset with Cadbury for running this ad:

For more, see:

http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/now/naomi-campbell-vs-cadbury/123

So... IS IT RACIST?

[drumroll...]

NO!

Thanks for tuning in, and we'll see you next time on IS IT RACIST?

--Dan Colgate

Damn the House for De-Funding NPR!

I'm sure a lot of people will be writing about this topic more eloquently, backed up with data and dollar amounts and pie charts and well-reasoned arguments why de-funding NPR is a completely stupid, evil, backward move on the part of the House. I just wanna get my two cents in.

Are you serious? You want to kill NPR? To save money? That's a lie and you know it. Just watch this for explanation.

The argument that "NPR can fund itself" is also bafflingly stupid. If the organization receives no national public funds, what exactly is national public about it?

What you really want is to jump on the excuse to eliminate a pesky competitor of all the non-public, corporate-funded media outlets. Because the corporations got you elected and keep you in power and are making you wealthier day by day.

It should by now be completely obvious to all Americans that our government no longer adheres to the principles this country was founded upon, and are exactly the kind of tyrants our forefathers declared independence from back in 1776. I propose we vote in an entirely new House of Representatives as soon as we get the chance.

Damn Proposition M!

City-level ballot-issues (such as those we will be voting on next month in Los Angeles) highlight government ineptitude whenever they become a means for elected representatives to pass the buck on items they obviously lack the wherewithal and/or creativity to handle themselves.

Every once in a while, a real doozy manages to distinguish itself among inane company.  Here is the text of Charter Proposition M (bold added by me):

"In order to fund general municipal services, including but not limited to such matters as police protection and crime suppression services, fire prevention and suppression services, park and recreation facilities, and general improvements throughout the City, shall a tax be authorized on marijuana collectives of $50 per $1000 of gross receipts recognizing that the sale of marijuana is illegal?"

What a beautifully encapsulated display of the insulting arrogance, stupidity, incompetence, and hypocrisy of the people in charge of America's second-largest city.  What an illustrative example of the gluttonous have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude that apparently once motivated them to get into politics.

It seems to me that a responsible government would either (a) enforce its laws, which as I understand it is one of government's primary functions, or (b) upon determining that the cost of enforcement makes no rational sense, revisit the laws' basis and justification as far as their relationship to the greater good, assuming benefit for the greater good to be even more essential than law enforcement.

What it should NOT do is present the voters with something like Proposition M, here re-worded for clarity:

"You people are a bunch of saps.  We don't mind admitting we can't do the job you pay us for -- what are you gonna do about it?  Even though we take in loads of money, we're corrupt and lazy, we've failed to balance the budget, and now we're broke.  Here's an absurd, self-contradictory idea you suckers are probably too foolish to spot as ludicrous and two-faced: give us permission to tax part of the black market so we can continue providing basic services.  Also, give us a chance to wash our hands of any responsibility to actually deal with anything."

Not to mention that the proposition is, in its own words, ILLEGAL -- if it passes, M will cost the city loads in legal fees.  But I guess times are tough, and lawyers need to work too.

If our society wants to benefit from the financial activity surrounding the flowering plant in question, we need to legalize its cultivation, sale, and usage.  That's the trade-off.  That's how things work.  The notion of taxing anything or anyone without granting legal status is baldly self-contradictory (if not straight-up evil) and undermines the legitimacy and authority governmental structures base themselves upon.