Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Book Review: Repetitive Tripe

Hordes of Mongols couldn't get me to pay more than one dollar for Jay Rayner's The Man Who Ate the World, which I found at a used library sale in, of all places, Stockholm. Another reviewer summarized it best: "You can equate the book to a dinner with good starters followed by a bland main course and even blander dessert." 
Rayner is a journalist turned restaurant critic; in other words, he lacks the kitchen experience of other reviewers like Anthony Bourdain, whom Rayner criticizes for his take on sushi rice. The only interesting parts of the book are when Rayner discusses his love of garlic buttered escargot and his wife--both of whom seem more capable of prose than himself. (February 2019) 

Bonus: Rayner references Star Trek, only to misspell Commander Worf as--I kid you not--"Wharf." Screenshot of page below. 

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Informational Wars in the 21st Century: the Collapse of Creativity

I should be packing for my upcoming Singaporean trip but instead, I re-watched the finale of Star Trek: Next Generation, and the material still captivates. As any Netflix subscriber will tell you, one good show often leads to another, and the 1987 premiere didn't seem dated, either. It got me thinking: why do I enjoy older movies and older dialogue, whether Hitchcock or Hepburn (Audrey, not Katherine)? Why do I often find the old superior to the new? And how is it possible the American intellect has declined so precipitously over the past 30 years? 

Growing up, I loved libraries and bookstores. Any random selection would do, and within minutes, I'd settle into an incredible story. Later, I discovered college bookstores, and within them were even more incredible stories that challenged my brain and entertained my soul. I knew I would never find myself being bored

In 2001, a few years after graduating college, I visited Singapore and experienced an anomaly in the world-literature continuum. A few books displayed never-before-seen admonitions: "For Sale Only in Singapore/Malaysia." Standard operating procedure assumed all governments control their reputations through "information boosting," i.e., ensuring their version of events is placed at the top of the shelf, but I didn't know about trade agreements or intelligence tactics and couldn't have told you the difference between MI5 or MI6. Although SEO wasn't yet a priority for private and state actors, its concept was present in that tiny bookstore, revealing the possibility of artifice. 

It was also in Singapore, a former British colony, where I first learned the power of international designations. An NUS professor revealed Singapore had been designated as a "developed," not "developing," country, excluding it from numerous international grants, even though most of its land mass could be called rural in 2001. After two years in one of the West Coast's most expensive and most diverse law schools, tiny Singapore is where I received my first international perspective. Singapore couldn't help itself; as a port-focused city-state, it had to embrace globalization before the term became fashionable in Western academic circles. 

I returned to the United States for my final year of law school wiser but not warier. 9/11 would happen shortly afterwards, and my next seven years would be spent eliminating over 75,000 USD of student loans during a severe recession. Only later would the issues of globalization and informational warfare return to my mental purview. They arose not willingly, but when I finally noticed no bookstore challenged me, no magazine captivated me, and the new could not compare with the old. I was starting to become bored. 

Today, I googled an unfavorable but famous event in a foreign country that should have been easily found. Instead, my search results contained fake news links designed to capture exactly the search terms I'd used, but in ways that concealed the actual event--and therefore the truth. The links included most of the event's general details, but the female protagonist had been replaced by a fake male one, and none of the names were real. During various hacking episodes, I'd suspected we'd progressed from geographical content restrictions to online bleaching, but de facto censorship of legal activities in America was new to me. Only Yahoo--allegedly one of the worst search engines in America, saved from obsolescence by its investments in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan--had the "right" result in the middle of the first page, a single link surrounded by deliberately engineered fake news. Incredibly, SEO manipulation had, in this instance, made my limited analog brain more powerful than one of America's most valuable technology companies. 

"Everything you see is propaganda," I once told a middle school class, and my opinion hasn't changed. Information wars and actions in furtherance of those wars are more obvious when a book's cover discloses geographical limits or when the most prevalent story about another country involves chewing gum, but unbiased information has always been an endangered species. I am young enough to remember Silicon Valley's battle cry, "Information wants to be free," but they never promised accuracy or context. 

In Star Wars, the engineer's revelation of a design flaw in the Death Star gives the rebels hope. Similarly, once we become aware of the informational flaws we receive daily from public and private news sources, perhaps we, too, can recognize "hidden" manipulation not just in search engine algorithms, but in social and mainstream media and even in the very people elevated into positions of power. If we achieve this higher level of understanding, humanity's hope wouldn't be founded on false optimism but upon the realization our species has evolved in the past and can continue to evolve beyond its self-defeating patterns of scapegoating, wishful thinking, and hyperbole. 

Gene Roddenberry, a military veteran and the creator of Star Trek, built his entire life around the inevitability of human progress. He declared, "The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars but by its ability to prevent them." Sadly, by this metric, the United States has failed its citizens, children, and veterans continuously since Vietnam. Having fought one unjust war after another--losing almost every one of them while economic competitors China and Japan focused on domestic infrastructure--America's current Establishment has little choice but to glorify militarism. Such propaganda requires economic support and job preferences to maintain momentum and, most of all, to bury past mistakes. Once activated, the machinery of militarism rarely sets its own boundaries; an enemy always exists just over the horizon, and more measures may always be taken to promote the appearance of safety. 

Few people in America see the connection between the TSA's expansion, its privatized body scanning machines, and the military's concern with employing returning veterans; even fewer realize the trillions of borrowed taxpayer dollars involved reduce not only America's economic potential but its future flexibility; and perhaps fewer still can conjure an alternative result for those same taxpayer dollars (hint: think Tokyo). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s prescience is worth remembering: "If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read 'Vietnam' ... A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." (From 1967 in, of all places, New York City.) 

Let us now return to the original question: why does the old look, feel, and read better than the new in America when the opposite should be true? Consider that in normal societies, the younger generation is apt to forgo established customs as the older generation's knowledge degrades, diminishing claims to authority. Consider too that in abnormal societies, the old maintain their grips on the future by suffocating change through laws and punishment. And finally, note that diseased societies send their young to die for meaningless purposes, removing opposition as well as potential change agents. I say to you today, if the old appears shinier than the new, it is a sure sign of authoritarianism, evidence the youth are being suppressed or their imaginations stifled. Dr. King answered correctly in 1967, but I will go further: a military/police culture of following orders is incompatible with art, philosophy, nuance--and therefore creativity. 

When little boys and girls are deluged with images linking violence and war to heroism regardless of whether such wars are just, America's adults have replaced responsibility with desensitization and irrationality. 

When the table of brotherhood can only be set if every man reserves his right to a shotgun or a rifle, the spirit of the law has perished. 

When the sweltering heat in which our troops are stationed generates no lasting regional peace but instead parched national pocketbooks, America's vision has been a desert mirage all along. 

When our soldiers claim the ethos of courage while administering death by drones, we are living in a Greek tragedy of our own making. 

When our police officers consider themselves above the law, order becomes subservient to its half-witted cousin, obedience. 

If our judges refuse to read the papers presented to them and instead rely upon secondhand memorandums, the book of justice will remain unused. 

Now is the time to reform our sacred institutions by removing the sacrilegious from their temples and pulpits in Congress, courthouses, police departments, corporate boardrooms, and war rooms. There will be neither cohesion nor stability until each citizen is assured corruption has been driven out and the exorcists given their due. 

To that end, it may surprise you to learn the Muslims had wisdom we lack. They separated civilians, merchants, and the military by placing them in physically distinct areas. The medina was the place of business and barter, and the forts and minarets stationed fighters at a distance. The mosques provided sanitation five times daily in the required act of wudu
before prayer, mixing practicality with spirituality. Such arrangements required respect for logistics and infrastructure, not just weaponry. The distance between the two spheres of influence created built-in advantages beyond the freer development of calligraphy, science, algebra, and art; for instance, complaints arising in the medina (aka city) would need time and effort to reach the forts (aka military outposts), increasing the likelihood of legitimacy and thus an appropriate remedy. 
Oman
It may not be easy for an American historian to admit, but the aforementioned separation might have been the only truly "separate but equal" arrangement in modern history. 
Ultimately, if we do not understand some of humanity's problems have already been solved, we will neglect the task of modifying pre-existing solutions to current times and invite a cycle of arrogance. If we compound our error by ignoring history and amplifying propaganda, we will pollute the intellectual waters our children require to swim. Above all, if we are to have a dream worth mentioning, it must be one that facilitates a peaceful transition from old to young as well as a transfer of timeless knowledge. If each successive generation must start the Great Global Novel from scratch, our progress will be needlessly haphazard with no guarantee of reaching the final page. 

Today, the American Dream appears to have been a lie to all but the most talented, the most lucky, and the most likely to inherit. As I seek a better life in Singapore, I hope one day, America rediscovers the generosity of spirit that made it a beacon for honest men and women of a certain character. In the meantime, I'll be in Singapore, taking my chances and charting the unknown possibilities of my existence. May we all live long and prosper. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2018) 

Friday, May 16, 2008

MGM Mirage Shareholder Mtg, May 13, 2008 (and "Star Trek: The Experience" Review)

I recently went to Las Vegas to attend the MGM Mirage annual meeting, which took place at the Luxor. The food spread was fabulous, as you might expect. There were several different kinds of jam, honey, pastries, and fruit juice, in addition to the usual coffee. Kirk Kerkorian was in the audience, and it was fun seeing his cameo appearance on the two large screens used to broadcast the speakers at the podium. The background on the stage used changing colors to highlight the theme this year, "Vision." (The full theme was listed in the annual report: "Vision with action can change the world." -- Futurist Joel Barker)

MGM opened by presenting how well they had done last year in terms of revenue. Of course, the stock was down about 40% this year, so the presentation, while entirely accurate in terms of breaking new records, seemed more historical than future-seeking. The CEO, J. Terrence Lanni, then made his own presentation and answered questions. He emphasized the new City Center project, which looks like a model city, combining retail, housing, and a resort, all in one location on the Strip (http://www.citycenter.com). MGM apparently owns more real estate on the Strip than any other casino operator, and is making good use of it. When asked a question about congestion, CEO Lanni said that he agreed that the project was contributing to the "Manhattanization" of Vegas, but there was no other option because of the limited land available for development near the Strip. He also said that residents should be thankful, because it was projects like these that allowed them not to pay any state income tax.

The presentation also mentioned the DubaiWorld alliance, where DubaiWorld, now a 9% owner, could eventually become a 20% owner. The CEO welcomed the investment and said he looked forward to expanding in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, saying that both countries had substantial experience in attracting tourism and building exquisite resorts. I had welcomed the international diversification of MGM's portfolio, but I had not considered the additional advantage of partnering with Dubai, which does have excellent experience in building luxury properties.

Some mention of an alliance with an Indian reservation in Detroit was mentioned, where MGM would lend its name and expertise to the resort in exchange for revenue-sharing. Another casino was also scheduled to open in Atlantic City, increasing MGM's geographic reach.

The alliance with the Detroit casino was part of an interesting revenue model called "capital-lite." Basically, MGM is willing to license its name to other casinos to give them credibility in exchange for revenue. It appears that such a business model will generate significant cash while involving minimal investment; however, in the long term, if these casinos do not do well or reduce quality, MGM's image may suffer.

The first "question" was from a government official from Detroit, thanking MGM for coming into their city and saying that they had a history of making the cities they entered better (a not-so-subtle request for more charitable donations for Detroit to ensure MGM's status as a cooperative, good neighbor). Some other questions dealt with personal issues, such as someone who was injured over a decade ago at the Excalibur property. The CEO said he couldn't take credit or detriment for whatever happened, because the event occurred before MGM bought out the property, but he was sorry for what happened. It was a very deft answer. Another person bemoaned the high prices for certain services, such as internet access at hotels. The CEO answered this question deftly also, asking whether the speaker had escalated his concerns to a manager at the time (the speaker said he had not). Someone else, apparently not happy with the complaints, got up and said that he had invested in MGM many years ago with Kirk Kerkorian's group, and apparently bought MGM bonds in the 80's and had done very well and encouraged people to stay in the stock for the long term.

That was sort of the theme of the day--that although the economy wasn't doing well, and the situation would be challenging, in the long run, MGM was positioned well, and much better positioned than its main competitors, the Las Vegas Sands (LVS) and the Wynn. Those two stocks were down more than MGM's stock year to date, and apparently, the newest LVS project, the Palazzo, wasn't doing as well as expected. There was some mention of how the federal government and California were taking away certain funds, thereby increasing the cost of building a highway directly from Southern California (Orange County?) to Las Vegas. The CEO mentioned the possible 20 billion dollar deficit was causing the California Governor to dip into other funds to balance the budget, thereby impacting transportation projects.

I asked two questions. One, which casinos brought in the most revenue and profit, and which brought in the least? The CEO mentioned that in terms of both revenue and profit, the top casinos were Bellagio, Mandalay Bay, and Mirage. I wasn't expecting the usual players to be on both lists, and I was hoping that some international resort, like the MGM Macau, would also be among the top producers, but it does make sense that the more established casinos would be the major revenue and profit generators. The CEO facetiously asked if he got a prize for answering correctly, but forgot to answer the question about which were the worst revenue and profit generators.

I also asked the last question, which basically went like this: "I feel there's a missing gap here today. You keep mentioning that there's going to be a recession, but you're spending money and you're not cutting back on expansion. In a recession, you make money by either cutting expenses or increasing prices, and you haven't said anything concrete that makes it sound like you're going to do either one. Some of the people who asked questions here today sounded like nudniks, but perhaps the one gentleman had a point about certain prices, especially internet use prices, being too high. Maybe MGM should reduce certain prices to attract more casual and mid-week visitors. As it stands, you're basically telegraphing that you're going to lose money because you're expanding and spending money while entering a recession."

The CEO responded by saying that the board had gone though several recessions [a dig at my younger age] and had done well eventually after each one. He said that lowering prices wouldn't work, because it would be like the failed strategy that gas stations took in the old days, when one station would lower prices by a penny, causing the competitor across the street to lower his prices, leading everyone to lose money. [This sounded like an anti-trust issue, and it concerns me generally when CEOs say they won't cut prices in any circumstance as a matter of policy.] He ended on a high note saying that MGM had made money in all kinds of economic environments, that its stock price would increase in the long term, that its stock price was too low right now, and he hoped that the investors would stick with MGM, and MGM would stick with its investors. His response received enthusiastic clapping from the audience, and the meeting was done.

I prefer CEOs that are humble (see John Deere's CEO, Robert Lane) and not so much "showman-y," but I am sure Mr. Lanni's colleagues consider him to be charismatic. In addition, Lanni was a former CFO, so he obviously has substance. Overall, I believe MGM will not be able to replicate its record in 2007 and will make less money in the short term, but I will watch its stock price carefully, and if it continues to plummet, at some point, it should make a good value buy.

For those of you who are interested in my Las Vegas accommodations, I stayed at the Las Vegas Hilton, which is different than the Hilton Grand Vacations Club (though both are near each other). The Hilton Vacations Club is on the Strip, though far from the main drag, and is the more traditional Hilton hotel. The LV Hilton is located behind the Rivieria Hotel and takes some physical effort to get there. When deciding where to stay, you should probably use the Hilton website (www.hilton.com) rather than the LV Hilton website (http://www.lvhilton.com). While you can still get Hilton points from either hotel, the LV Hilton is owned in part by a different company.

The LV Hilton hosts "Star Trek: The Experience." If you are staying at the hotel, you get a discount on an all-day pass (at least when I was there). The "Experience" consists of three parts--first is the open restaurant, Quark's Bar and Restaurant; second is the Borg Invasion; and third is the Klingon Encounter.

Quark's Restaurant looks just like the Deep Space Nine restaurant. If you are lucky, you will see an actual Ferengi come by and chat you up, and you can buy the rules of the Ferengi next door at the Star Trek store. When I went to a female Vulcan to ask a question about opening and closing times, she greeted me by saying, "Yes, human?" I started cracking up, but she kept a straight face. All the actors in the events are well-trained. That professionalism alone did it for me, and made me a fan of the "Experience."

The Borg Invasion is basically an invite into a genetic study that goes awry when the ship is attacked by the Borg. Several Borg entities, including the Queen, make an appearance, but I won't spoil it for anyone by saying more. This event is like Michael Jackson's "Captain EO" and Great America's "Days of Thunder," where the show revolves around 3-D effects (in the Borg event, it's actually "4D") and you, as the audience, get to participate in what is occurring.

I preferred the Klingon Encounter, because it is more action-oriented. It involves a roller-coaster type ride and really makes you feel like you are under attack. I enjoyed hearing Captain Picard's voice and actually seeing the interior of the Enterprise. If you can't go to both events, go to the Klingon Encounter, unless you are a bigger fan of Deep Space Nine and the doctor on that show.

There is also a "Behind the Scenes" tour, which I was unable to attend. Two people in line ahead of me went and raved about it. They also received a certificate of attendance, which was high-quality and something a fan would probably frame. Overall, I had a good time in Las Vegas and would recommend a trip there to anyone who is willing and able to walk long distances--the way the Vegas Strip is set up, you have to walk quite a bit to get from attraction to attraction.

© Matthew Rafat (2007)