Time dilation in popular culture

When George Lucas’s nostalgia trip American Graffiti was released, the tag line was “Where were you in ’62?”

The movie was made in 1973 and seemed to be set in a completely different world.

If the movie were made today, it would be set in 2013.

 

In The Four Seasons’ Oh What a Night! the singer was reminiscing about December 1963. The song was released in 1975.

If it were released today, it would be about 2012.

 

When The Eagles sang “we haven’t had that spirit here since 1969,” that was eight years prior to the song.

If it were released today, it would refer to 2016.

 

In The Smiths’ song of educational trauma, The Headmaster Ritual, Sir wears the “same old suit since 1962.”

Since the song was released in 1985, the suit would be from 2001 today.

 

The Smashing Pumpkins sang about 1979 in 1995.

Today, it would be about 2008; the year Obama was elected.

 

The song 1985 by SR-71 and made famous by Bowling For Soup is about a mother who is completely out of touch and living in the past. 

Both versions are now over 20 years old – older now than the era the song was about.

Oh, and if it were twenty years ago today Sgt Pepper taught the band to play, that would put it way back in 2004. 

A few reasons to not despair

It’s early days yet. The count in the US election will probably stretch on for weeks. Polls are useless but credible analysts are showing the current results are following the red mirage/blue wave of 2020. However, the fall of Georgia means for the good of our mental health, we should begin preparing for a second Trump term. I will be more than happy if the following becomes redundant. 

[Update: It didn't]

1:

The one saving grace – if you’d call it that – of the first Trump presidency was its rank incompetence. It was a joke from beginning to end. For sure, great damage was done which will reverberate for decades, but apart from appointing partisan lickspittles to the Supreme Court (and I am in no way minimising what a heinous outcome that was), he did almost nothing he said he would. The wall remains unfinished, Hillary Clinton remains unindicted, the Affordable Care Act remains in place, and it was left to Biden to withdraw from Afghanistan.

And this was all while he had the ‘axis of adults’ who figured he may be a sack of shit but at least he was a Republican sack of shit and they could guide him towards what could be considered normal conservative policy.

What everyone from John Bolton to Marine General John Kelly found was the Trump is absolutely uncontrollable. Now the MAGA crowd claim that this axis of adults were the ones who nobbled Trump’s first term agenda (and to a certain extent they’re right) but these were competent people who knew how to get things done in government.

A second Trump administration will likely be filled with ideologues with no experience in government. This is not going to turn out well, either for the American people, or for their agenda. Eventually they will realise that “because I said so,” doesn’t actually get stuff done and Trump will find himself longing for the dignified competence of Sean Spicer. 

And it surely takes a special kind of stupid to believe the guy who became a multi-billionaire through government contracts is going to be the one to cut government waste. 

2:

We know exactly how people get what they want from Trump.

It’s obvious that Trump becomes putty in the hands of anyone who flatters him. His mortal enemies become his best friends with the slightest of compliments – and vice versa.

What we (and by ‘we,’ I mean sane people) have to do is suck up our disgust for him and play his game. A little like this:

“Congratulations Mr President! My, what big hands you have! I can’t tell you have great it is to have a REAL president back again. This really should be your third term, you know!”

- Yeah, and it would be if it wasn’t for the fake news and all the stealing but at least we’re back now, right? So what’s this meeting about again?

“Well, we wanted to… Wow! You know, your tan is even more radiant in person. I didn’t expect that!”

- Thanks! You know people keep saying it’s makeup but this is all natural. And I don’t even have to go out in the sun or get under one of those light bed things. It just happens. It’s genes. It’s all about the genes!

“Yes sir. Well, we’ve come to you with a recommendation on how to replace the disaster of Obamacare.”

- Yeah, what a disaster! You know I’m gonna come up with something so great even I can’t imagine it yet!

“Well, good news sir! We’ve got the plan right here. We call it Single Payer. We’ve written it all up and you don’t need to do a thing!”

- Single payer! Yeah! It’s genius! Why have all these hundreds, thousands, millions of payers when you can just have one?

“It’s so much more efficient, sir!”

- Damn right, it is! And no-one knows more about health care than me. I basically invented health care. They call me the father of health care!

“We certainly do, sir! Thank you, Mr President! The people are going to love you for it!"

- They already do! But who couldn’t use a little more love, huh?

“I knew you’d see it our way. I was sure Stephen Miller was mistaken in what he said,”

 - Wait, what did Stephen Miller say?

“Oh, nothing. I shouldn’t have mentioned it.”

- Has Miller been saying bad things about me? You know I never liked that guy!

“Well, I’m sure he was just joking when he said you were so far up Steven Bannon’s ass you’d never listen. It was an honour to meet the greatest president in history sir!”

 

3:

Assuming Joe Biden becomes a lame duck, he has two months to executive order the absolute shit out of everything.

Do it all! Ban automatic rifles, mandate Medicare for all, institute a national $15 minimum wage, or even a universal basic income, fire and replace the entire Supreme Court, seize every oil field, deport Elon Musk, revoke Fox News’s licence, outlaw the Republican Party, bomb Mar-a-lago. The Supreme Court ruling in a case brought by Trump says the president has the absolute right to do all of this and no-one can stop him.

 

I remain (slightly) hopeful that none of this will be necessary. [Edit: so much for that!] But if history has taught us anything, it’s that the last thing Trump will do is what he says he’ll do, and his staff will be too busy trying to find a working microphone to implement any of their horrific visions.

  

 

Country music through the decades

Country music in the 1950s:
My baby gone done me wrong and ain’t nobody understands but this here whiskey.

Country music in the 1960s:
Sure, I pulled the trigger but society is to blame.

Country music in the 1970s:
I didn’t die before I got old. 

Country music in the early 80s:
I won’t live forever but my spirit will.

Country music in the late 80s/early 90s:
Hey! Gucci makes cowboy hats now!

Country music in the late 90s/early 00s:
Okay, I just smoked a bunch of weed and my car’s a real shitbox but whatever dude, wanna go for a drive?

Country music in the 2010s:
U!S!A! U!S!A!

Country music in the 2020s:
I was watching my 100-inch TV and saw a thing on cable news that made me so damn mad I bought another 6-pack of assault rifles to stop the dirty people from looking at my suburban mansion.

Thank you for your service, Kris Kristofferson.

“But I am living still…”

Presenting my credentials

It’s been less than a week and already the hype over the Oasis reunion has jumped the shark.

I know this because none other than the Manchester Evening News has hung an entire article on the bleeding obvious observation that with the gigs over a year away, Oasis could easily break up again before they happen.

Who did they consult for the most daring prediction this side of “it might rain before then”? Apparently, you need an “Oasis expert” for that. With a PhD.

Don’t get me wrong, my love for Oasis is matched only by my disgust at Gen-Xers becoming everything we rightly mocked boomers for in taking ourselves way too seriously.

So, if “Oasis expert” is now a thing, and not just a category on Mastermind or Hard Quiz, I present to you all my areas of expertise which in a just world would be mocked, but I won’t walk away from fools and their money.

 

Latest research from Birmingham City
University faculty of YA THINK??

Senior research fellow at the institute of beer and chips

Beatologist

Cola connoisseur

Windows specialist

Chord sommelier

Satire historian

Honorary fellow in pre-internet isolation

Self-love consultant

Oasis expert (oh yes! Come at me Dr Matt!)

Lennonist

Smithsonian, including solo careers, specialising in the Decline and Fall of Morrissey

 

But, I have an eye to the future as well, so here are some fields I am moving into:

 

Professor of Swiftonomics

The socio-economic effects of streaming

Post-social media landscape navigator

 

So, reporters, editors, producers… if you have some space or time to fill, hit me up! Oh, and if this all seems a bit too highbrow for ya, I can also talk shit. 

  

 

 

 

The role of White Woman Tears in the Olympic boxing controversy

I’m not sure if this has already been mentioned but I think a significant factor in the Olympic boxing kerfuffle is White Woman Tears.

Imane Khelif was born with a vagina. According to TERFs and other basic dickheads, this is the one and only criterion by which someone can be considered a woman. So what’s the problem?

Of course she punched her opponent in the head. That’s LITERALLY the ENTIRE POINT of the event. If this disturbs you, and fair enough, then your issue is with the entire sport of boxing and I would probably agree with you there.

And of course Angela Carini cried when she was defeated so comprehensively. Be honest, that’s all part of the reason you watch, isn’t it? The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, right?

But upon seeing the expression of emotion by someone who conforms more than her opponent to western and media stereotypes of how a woman should look, a lot of people are assuming she was treated unfairly.

Does Imane Khelif have an unfair advantage because of her relatively unusual genetic makeup? Of course she friggin’ does! Have you only just figured out how sport works? If every competitor were perfectly matched, every game would be a tie, every race would be a dead heat, every shot would hit the target perfectly. That is not how it works, and yet the people claiming unfairness in this event are the same people who deride “snowflakes” for wanting a “participation trophy.”

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. If Imane Khelif was born great, good for her. If the greatness she was born with outweights the greatness Angela Carini achieved, that’s just the way it goes in the pursuit of faster, higher, stronger.

 

Return to the Chocolate Factory

Now that we’ve had the Wonka back-story prequel, we need Return to the Chocolate Factory.

It’s twenty years later. Charlie is now in his 30s and convinced he’s a visionary genius for having inherited a successful business based on other people’s inventions and cheap labour.

He has shut down all the fun parts of the factory because there’s no profit margin, moved production offshore, and the Oompa-Loompas now live in a refugee camp. He also changed the name of the company to BucketCo.

Convinced of his own infallibility, Charlie makes a series of increasingly bizarre decisions, including a chocolate bar in the shape of a dong (coz LOL!), and the slogan “Suck a Bucket today!”

However, it’s when he decides to turn the Everlasting Gobstopper into a monthly subscription model that the market really turns against him. Children who don’t pay the $12 per month Gobstopper subscription are expected to return their candy or have it forcibly repossessed. The movie opens with a scene of a poor child having the candy pulled from her mouth.

The backlash earns him the derisive nickname of Chuck Bucket. Incensed at the disrespect, Charlie uses his massive wealth (which exists mostly in chocolate supplies and a currency of his own invention, BucketCoin) to sue anyone who uses the name and buy out any media that transmits it.

This leaves Charlie low on liquid assets and he considers a merger with Slugworth who has come to realise that flattery is the best way to finally get his hands on the Wonka trade secrets.

Meanwhile, Willy Wonka, now dying and seeking to atone for exploiting minorities, decides it’s up to him to save the factory and Charlie from himself.

Warner Bros, call me!

 

 

A modest proposal for reforming the US Supreme Court

Judges on the United States Supreme Court have lifetime appointments. The reason for this is logical. It is intended to make them absolutely fearless in their judgements and beholden to no-one, not even those who put them there.

It makes perfect sense in principle that this should make the court incorruptible. However, since the US constitution was written on the ‘reasonable person’ principle, and many of those making the appointments and judgements can no longer objectively be considered reasonable people, things have gone awry. Allegations of conflicts of interests and “gifts” are eroding confidence in the court

If the framers of the US constitution had their time over, they would possibly realise they created a nine-headed king. You might remember they had a bit of a thing against kings.

To restore public faith in the court, I humbly suggest some possible reforms: 

A 9-headed king, yesterday

1: Term limits

The term should be generous – at least 12 years so as to be longer than a 2-term presidency. 25 years would not be out of the question. However, this would create the problem of Justices having an eye on their next gig or retirement plan. This problem could be offset by some of the suggestions below.

 

2: Pay them so much nobody could possibly bribe them

The current salary of a Supreme Court Justice is $298,500. No small amount for sure, but quite modest for the amount of work and responsibility they are expected to take on. It’s certainly not enough to fund they lifestyles we know some of the Justices enjoy. This naturally leads people to wonder how they make up the balance, regardless of whether they do it through wise investments or iffy favours.

In fact, adjusted for 2023 values, Supreme Court salaries have trended downwards over the last 30 years, having peaked in 1969 at an equivalent rate of just under $500,000. It’s entirely likely the judges are making less than the attorneys presenting arguments to them.

I know it’s not a popular view that public servants should be paid more. In 2024, even a million dollars a year might not be enough to prevent them lending an ear to potential benefactors. However, this expense would be offset by savings in the implementation and consequences of judgements which benefit only a monied few.

 

3: Ban all receipt of any benefits from anyone including to family

There are far too many loopholes in gifts to judges. As such, this rule must also apply to a judge’s family and close friends, who will have to be named and declared upon appointment and every year during their appointment.

Any product or service of any kind which is not directly paid for by a judge must be declared and audited annually. This also applies to spouses, children, parents, siblings and close friends. If a judge’s spouse gives them a Christmas present worth over $100, it must be declared. Get an upgrade on a flight? It must be declared. Spend the weekend at a rich friend’s house? Declare the relative value of that stay.

Judges will be audited annually and any breach will result in a mandatory 5-years’ imprisonment and being barred from employment for life. The Supreme Court itself will be barred from hearing appeals on any such breaches and will be judged by Congress.

Yes, it’s harsh. But service comes with sacrifice. At least they’re not being shot at.

 

4: Overturning a previous Supreme Court judgement would require a majority of at least seven

This will avoid perpetual relitigation of cases every time the court changes.

 

5: Mandatory retirement at 75

As a rule, I am not keen on mandatory retirement but a line had to be drawn somewhere. We have decided that 18 is a reasonable age for someone to be able to make adult decisions. Some people are more than capable of making adult decisions at 16. Others are totally incapable even at 30.

Likewise, some people remain fighting fit and sharp at 85, and some are completely gaga by 65. 75 is a reasonable age to maintain experience on the bench with appropriate turnover. Current rules state that a retired judge’s pension can be no less than what they were earning at the time of retirement. They would be barred from taking any other form of employment.

 

These are five reasonable suggestions. Or perhaps you have a better idea.