What would a Warplanes film be like?

I saw a poster for the film Planes, part of the popular Cars franchise. I noticed that some of the characters are military jets (Super Hornets). I started to wonder what a film called Warplanes (that would happen in the same universe) would be like. Warplanes would follow a miscellaneous cast of American warplanes at a major air force base. There would be the young and fast F-22 planes that everyone admires and the F-35s who are in their teens, trying to prove themselves. Looking upon them are the older F-15s and F-16s, many of them combat veterans. Their "cousins", Ray-Ban-wearing F/A-18s, who sometimes come to visit for joint dissimilar air combat training, have traveled around the world, bombed exotic places, and starred in famous films. (Nobody remembers the F-14s any more.) Overseeing these "kids" are of course older, bigger planes: the clumsy but gentle transport C-5 and the little bit more agile C-17. Their friends include the radar plane E-3 and the best friend forever KC-135 and its bigger brother KC-10. (Obviously all of these would have cute names in the actual film.) Many older planes would actually be sad and bored. Once lauded as technological marvels, carrying expensive and advanced nuclear weapons, are now mostly used for training purposes or sitting in the desert, some having had their wings chopped off due to the START treaty. The B-52 and B-1 especially would still like to see some action, to prove that there still is a reason for them to exist. There's a generational gap between them and the F-22s and F-35s, even though they are supposed to work together. But one day, a plane they have heard of but never seen, the shadowy but respected E-4 Nightwatch, delivers a message from the trusty and wise VC-25 Air Force One which has sadly been shot down: they have a new mission, and they have to work together to complete it! There's no time for anyone to sit in the desert any more! The F-22s are excited to be moved to forward-operating bases assisted by their friends, KC-135s. Striking from multiple directions and with their Super Hornet buddies and allied Eurofighters, they target the bad guys' air defences to pave the way for the nuclear-armed B-52 bombers, escorted by the enthusiastic F-35s and F-16s. The Falcons and Raptors notice the tears in the corners of the old Stratofortresses' cockpit windows - the old guys are really touched by finally getting into action. They still know their tricks! They launch their nuclear-tipped ALCMs toward enemy targets, knowing they have fulfilled their duty, perhaps even fate. Some of them even drop old-fashioned B61 gravity bombs toward Russian cities and other civilian targets. They are heroes! One B-52, just before being shot down, is even informed of having been awarded a medal for outstanding combat service! In the sequel, the surviving Warplanes head back home, after saving the world from the bad guys who wanted to destroy their freedom and independence. Since all KC-135s were destroyed in air or on the ground, not all make it back - some have to ditch in the sea, some even meeting their allied Warships and brand new P-8 maritime reconnaissance planes. But the ones who make it back see that the enemy counterattack has destroyed almost the whole United States, including their own home air force base. Landing at civilian airports and facing innocent humans demanding answers for why they caused the country to turn into apocalyptic wasteland, they face completely new problems. People want to strip them of their radiation-hardened parts to build shelters, repair hospitals and build radios to coordinate rescue operations. Will our friends survive? Is this the end for the friendly machines designed as deliverers of mass destruction? (There are no further sequels.)

Some Americans think USA just turned 2013 years old

It's a matter of guess whether these people are being serious, but it seems that at least some people think United States just turned 2013 years ago. Boy is this wrong on so many levels.

What could possibly explain this kind of misconception? Let's dive in and think what is really wrong here.

• The years we have are actually sequential numbers, so if people claim United States was, indeed, founded on 4th of July, 1 AD, then it would only be 2012 years old, not 2013. This is my main point.
• In addition, because there was no year zero, if the United States actually turned 2013 years old, then it would have had to be founded on 4th of July, 1 BC, which is even more awkward. Of all the possible years, why would this happen in 1 BC?
• In 1 BC - or even in 1 AD - people of America did not know of this year number thing. They are based on an old theory about the birth year of Jesus. American Indians didn't even know who he was (though Mormons have some interesting ideas about what happened soon thereafter).
• Even the Julian calendar didn't use these years until long after the events involving Jesus, instead referring to the year of an emperor's reign and other temporal anchors points.
• The differences between Julian and Gregorian calendars mean that the real original date would have been other than 4th of July, so Americans may have been celebrating on the wrong date all along! Maybe it was actually 22nd of July.

2013 - 1 = 2012. Not 2013. Get it?

Letting the kids decide for themselves

A common argument for teaching Creationism (or Intelligent Design) in public schools is that we should let the kids decide for themselves which seems correct, so we would respect their intelligence and freedom and so on. This seems to be what the Republican Governor of Texas Rick Perry - also a presidential candidate - believes.

There is one problem. Evolution is the prevailing theory explaining the origin of species and it is backed by science. If other scientific theories (and the scientific method in general) should be challenged in the classroom by non-scientific (or scientific but very unpopular) theories, the curriculum would be pretty absurd. This is actually the easy part.

But what about things that are not exactly science but questions of ethics, politics and so on? I would assume that Texans take certain things for granted - for example that you are allowed to defend yourself and your property or that you are allowed to start your own business, or marry whoever you wish. What if these "beliefs" would be required to be challenged in the classroom?

Consider these debates:

• Socialism vs. Free market economy: Even though USA is generally in favor of free markets, why should the children be taught that this is the default or the best system? Why not Communism? Many things are better in Cuba than in United States, and Soviet Union's society had many advantages over the American one.
• Militarism vs. Pacifism: There is a considerable amount of known thinkers in favor of non-violent resistance, pacifism and generally peaceful conflict resolution. I think Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi and John Lennon would be among these. Still, the situation where U.S. military conducting combat operations around the world does not seem to be challenged. Where is the challenge of this prevailing view, that violence can be justified?
• Consumerism vs. Environmentalism: People consume and produce trash and pollution. That's very natural in United States and it is not going to change. Why not? The natural resources are not infinite and climate seems to be shifting - so why is this not taught at schools, challenging the traditional ways of the society?
• Government vs. Anarchy: Americans seem to be proud of their country, their flag, their liberty and independence. But shouldn't other options be discussed in the classroom, too? The philosophy of anarchy, despising governmental control and authority, could be very interesting to kids. Most Texans also know Jesus, who has often been described as an anarchist thinker of some kind. 

If evolution should be challenged, why shouldn't other models about how the world work? You know, we should not feed "the American way" to the kids, we should let them decide for themselves if they want to follow the teachings of Martin Luther King, Mao Zedong, Adolph Hitler, Ron Paul, Robert Heinlein, Jesus, Vladimir Lenin or George Washington, right?

How far would you go letting them decide for themselves?

The Service You Get - in Finland and in USA

A common quote from a Finn visiting United States is how surprising it is to actually get service in a restaurant or just a typical grocery store, after getting used to the service level in Finland. Is this impression really justified?

I have travelled in several U.S. states and also lived in Michigan for half a year now. Unfortunately, I must say that the level and type of service you can expect in United States is of much higher level than in Finland.

I have been to Las Vegas three times. It is a city known for its services - hotels, restaurants, entertainment and so on, so it is logical to get good service there, isn't it? But I have been elsewhere, too, and encountered friendly employees everywhere, at least on Finnish standards. Sure, waitresses may be a bit annoying when they once in a while come to care about the water level in your glass and ask about how you are doing with your hamburger. This is just unprecedented on Finnish scale. But what is this Finnish scale?

There are many not-so-favorable descriptions of Finns and the Finnish culture. Finns are shy, introverted, even depressed. They do not start conversations and refuse any smalltalk. Some of this is actually true. When a Finn goes to a restaurant, he or she pays for the (amount of) food, not the service. Giving a tip would be insane, especially as in a Finnish restaurant nobody bothers you with the so-called service! Also, hiring people in Finland is insanely expensive, as are rents and infrastructure, so the few employees must care about more important things. Finnish restaurants are much less formal than American ones - you do not have to wait to be seated, you usually just pick your seat. (I am not commenting about fine dining here. That would probably have less differences.)

What about tips, then? Do they really ensure that the service level is good? I think tipping is a very bad practice, for several reasons. It adds ambiguity to the salary. In many states you can pay below minimum wage, if the employee gets tips. (By the way, 40 % of tips do not get reported to the tax officials.) It adds ambiguity to the actual cost of the service. It adds a level of commercialism to the actual service, as if you should pay extra for "good" service, in addition to the "normal" service that you ordered. And, after all, the employers do not want to pay their employees more than the minimum wage (or much less, if permitted) - it should be up to the customers to pay them! This system makes the waiters and waitresses (and other to be tipped) practically private business owners or contractors, not employees.

Do tips ensure or encourage better service? Some have even proposed that tip is actually an acronym for "to insure promptness"! Common sense might say that they do. However, in his New York Times column, Steven A. Shaw provided another view. An attractive waitress gets most tips, not the one who provides the best service.


A tip is always a voluntary payment, a gift (of which you have pay tax, of course, as it is income). However, if it is also salary to the person servicing you, how can it be voluntary? Are these free services that you may pay for if you want? Is that not somewhat degrading, even? To me, it portrays itself as a social game with money involved. A work is serious business, not tricks and games. These people, who happen to work in some service field position, are living their lives, studying, raising a family like others. I think their job should offer the level of reliable income like other jobs.