Did My Novel Forsee An Election Threesome?

My junior year in college ('03) I started writing a novel. The story took part in the near future, when a high profile terrorist attack becomes a harbinger of political revolution and a second civil war. The attack occurs in an election year, and a right wing nationalist candidate rises in the Republican Party. Running against him is an ineffectual, uninspiring Democrat, and a surprisingly charismatic third Party Independent candidate whose support is growing by the day.

In the novel, the election season proceeds deep into the summer, and the Democratic candidate and third party candidate run neck and neck, while near 40% of the electorate remains solidly behind a Republican candidate whose incendiary speeches against Muslims are attracting his own fanatical followers. The Democrats try to get the Independent candidate to back down and unite--but it's no longer clear that scenario will bring out a majority. In late October, the Independent candidate appears to have a distinct lead over the Democrat. 

Another attack just a week before Election Day swings the electorate. Now the nationalist candidate is polling at 51% nationwide. The Democratic candidate and Independent candidate need to join forces but it may already be too late.

I don't want to tell you what happens next in the novel--you'll have to buy it circa 2017-- but needless to say, what happens next is a disaster.

It's strange how this election season has shaped up to (somewhat) match my vision. In my novel, the Republican candidate is a far more lucid and intelligent man than Trump is. In fact, what makes him most dangerous is how he deftly weaves a kind of logic into his speeches--in the grand tradition of eugenics--he's a slick but deeply principled salesman of hate. Imagine Trump wasn't some blubbering haircut in a suit but instead a convincing and calculating presence.

In my novel, the Independent candidate is young, in his early 40s, a first term governor for the state of New Jersey (hey, I got the Northeast part right). He's a centrist, an ex-Republican. He doesn't preach about the evils of Wall Street but he does preach a message of equality. In a stirring speech at the convention, he paints a portrait of human beings as responsible for advancing life throughout the universe, and making sure all souls have a valued role to play among the stars. "We live on a tiny rock hurtling through the vacuum of space, spinning 'round a burning ball of angry fire, while asteroids and meteors and cosmic rays, earthquakes, tornadoes and all manner of natural disasters conspire to kill us, and yet--the thing we fear most is each other?" His campaign motto--I swear, this was really it--is, "America Can Be America Again."

In my novel, the Democratic candidate is just a dull old white guy.

There are enough similarities between my (yet to be completed) manuscript and this election season for me to wonder. Maybe Bernie... gasp... doesn't drop out. The way the Independent candidate in my novel didn't drop out. Maybe this goes three ways down to the wire. Maybe at a certain point, between now and election day, it's Hillary who clearly has less poll support. What does she do?

Hillary supporters deride Bernie supporters as delusional, guns in their own mouths, sore losers who will split the party and help elect a egotistical madman. But what if, in late October, the numbers are reversed? As statistician Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight points out (in an article about Donald Trump's "unstoppable momentum") the fact is that many voters, "wait long enough to be reasonably sure they are picking a winner," and Hillary has not yet reached the point (a sort of golden ratio) where her election is inevitable. What if Bernie's appeal could be sharpened between now and November--not just as some TARP sour grapes and Occupy Wall Street word salad--but as a unifying human rights message with real power to change the world?

Well, then, wouldn't us "establishment" Democrats--the reasonable ones, as we've told ourselves--need to switch our support to Bernie? If he managed to somehow swing more than just his Bros and Bernettes, and most importantly, grabbed support from dissatisfied Republicans (a scenario that might only be possible for the centrist candidate in my novel)-- then wouldn't we have to bite the bullet too?

Somebody does, before it's too late.

Google Glasses, and Is Apple On The Wrong Side Of Innovation?

The New York Times Bits Blog has a piece yesterday about Google's new technology venture: Google Glasses. According to the blog's sources, the glasses will resemble a bulky pair of late-90s Oakleys, cost $250-$600 dollars, and feature augmented reality--data showing up before your eyes when you look at something, like a star review when you look at a restaurant you're passing by.

The concept isn't new, but it is a prominent vision of where we're headed in mobile computing. Today's smartphones require us to look down to access information-- there's a clear advantage in a smart device that allows us to look up.

However, it doesn't seem like Google Glasses are ready for prime time, and it doesn't look to me like they will be. There are a couple problems I see:

1. It's a pair of bulky, late 90s Oakleys.

Many people say that the iPhone is a fashion statement. Which refers to its smart, sleek design and ubiquitous popularity. But it's also something that you keep in your pocket. Glasses are, quite literally, "in your face." Sunglasses are a deeply personal object, unique to one's style. And there's a reason why Oakleys' heyday was over a decade ago.

2. They're glasses.

People who don't need glasses don't wear them, unless they're sunglasses. People who do need glasses have eyeglasses that won't fit under a pair of Oakleys. The 3D trend is stuck on this same obstacle-- people feel uncomfortable with glasses (or extra glasses) on their face.

3. The money quote from the NY Times article: "The navigation system currently used is a head tilting to scroll and click. We are told it is very quick to learn and once the user is adept at navigation, it becomes second nature and almost indistinguishable to outside users.”

Oh boy. Engineers are in love with finding new ways to navigate the devices they put in front of us. First, they came up with punch cards. Then scroll wheels. Then the mouse. The joystick. Finally-- the touchscreen. Apple's navigation system worked because it was so intuitive: when we pick up something to take a closer look, we "pinch," when we drop something, we spread our fingers. This is the way we've always navigated with real objects-- Apple translated it to the smartphone.

This head tilt thing? "Quick to learn," and "second nature" and "almost indistinguishable" to people looking at us? Read between the lines and the picture you get is a twitchy man bobbing his head about while onlookers wonder if they're witnessing epilepsy or a the beginnings of a stroke.

And our heads move a lot. Can the device tell our intentions with such precision? If I turn my head to look at a hot chick or move quickly to dodge falling bird doo, will I accidentally email my mom or dial a number in Taipei?

Why not create a navigation system based on iris movement and the simple "double blink?" Looking around would move the cursor or scroll, and a double blink (which people would normally not do) would make a selection. That's far more intuitive than nodding and bobbing.

4. The biggest hurdle is response speed. The reason augmented reality apps are nothing more than a novelty right now is that they don't work fast enough. By the time something loads, your gaze has shifted. If you have to stare at something for a long time in order for Google Glasses to show you the relevant data, then why not just pick up a smart phone instead? No one likes to uncomfortably stare at something for more than a second or two. Is 4G fast enough to deliver the data? Are the GPS, the cameras and the chipset all integrated to generate results fast-- as fast as the blink of an eye?

With all this said, Google is at least on the right track. Some type of heads-up display is the future, I'm convinced. Which is why a line near the bottom of the blog post gives me concerns about Google's competitor, Apple:

"Apple engineers are also exploring wearable computing, but the company is taking a different route, focusing on computers that strap around someone’s wrist."

Yikes. So Google cops Oakleys, while Apple goes after the Casio Calculator Watch?

There's a reason the watch market collapsed following the explosion of cell phones. Watches are no longer a utility. They've become merely a fashion item. Like glasses, people buy they to match their personal style. Expecting to mass market one style of watch the same way Apple sells one style of cell phone is a boneheaded expectation.

The wristwatch concept doesn't solve any problem... indeed, it creates new ones. Yes, your hands are free, but in order to navigate, you're forced to keep one arm immobile while the other one touches. You're looking down, not up. You require a separate device to hear (glasses, at least, are close enough to the ear to incorporate a built-in headphone. I mean... wristwatch? Really?

This revelation comes on the heels of new photos that show the new iPad 3 will be THICKER than the iPad 2. While it seems the difference is no more than 1.5 millimeters, and improvements to the display and camera account for the extra space, its hard to believe Apple couldn't shave down the extra millimeter to avoid the perception of going backwards. If faster, smaller, lighter are the watchwords for future tech, Apple's fatter iPad sequel has been set up for obsolescence.

For Apple to continue its lead in the mobile computing field, they need to show they're thinking forward. Google's Glasses concept at least shows an eye looking ahead. Apple's wrist watch and belly-busting iPad 3 seem to indicate they may be staring at their feet.

Are We There Yet Article, Reprise



My "Why Hasn't The Future Happened Yet" article is up on MSN, again, with some updates. Check it out.

Welcome MSNers!

My latest MSN article:



Why hasn't the future happened yet? A look into past visions of our present time-- and our hopes for the immediate future.

One tidbit that got cut for space:

Technological limits and safety concerns aren’t the only things holding back our future. Only now is NASA finally seriously considering a base on the Moon, even though the equipment has been around since the late 1960s. And their vision of a lunar south pole research station is a far cry from the domed cities envisioned in the 1979 book Future Cities: Homes and Living into the 21st Century, which predicted a Moon-hosted 2020 Olympic Games (imagine that high jump record). Blame the mineral mining corporations, which haven’t gotten around to building their giant moonrock mines. “They don’t make any economic sense,” Novak points out. “NASA is subsidized, they’re losing money. It doesn’t make sense to be mining minerals on the moon if it costs twice as much to bring them down.” Sometimes, it’s all about the Benjamins… or as future people call them, Zoltars.

If you haven't been to my blog before, you've been wasting your life. Luckily, you've finally seen the error of your ways. Feel free to dip a toe into the swimming pool of ideas that comprises the least-focused and most poorly organized blog on the net. Check out Rudolph, The Steroid-Abusing Reindeer. Or my completely serious plea for the development of a feline penal system. Or better still, dig deep into the Adam's Life archives and uncover forgotten gems such as the time I outed the space shuttle Discovery.

Ah, the memories.

Cheap Gifts, Future Thrills

My latest article is up on MSN.com: A Gift-Giver's Guide To Free Stuff On The Web

It's somewhat adapted from a blog entry I wrote quite some time ago.

My next article for MSN concerns the future. Basically, why aren't we living it right now? Where's the 21st century past generations predicted for us?

Curious as to how life will be in 2057, 50 years from now, I recently took a time machine (Wikipedia). Here's what I found out:

I will be 75. Hopefully.

Two solar eclipses will happen in the same year for the first time since 1889.

Tulsa, Oklahoma will unearth a time capsule with a Harley-Davidson Motorcycle as part of its contents.

The guy from 28 Days Later will travel into the sun in a giant spacecraft, in order to restart the dying star's nuclear core. It will be dull. And completely illogical.

Insurance companies will withold coverage from people who drink alcohol. But sexy female surgeons will operate on them anyway.

A holographic shark will shut down a major city. Much like a lite-bright shut down Boston.

Solar power will still be in its infancy, the result of decades of oil company propoganda. We will somehow blame the energy crisis on China.

Oh, My God-Oh, Mr. Roboto!



Are you tired of dealing with the imperfections of your significant other? Bored of sexual relations with human beings? Looking for someone who's a bit more... high maintenance?

Well, there's good news. Artificial intelligence researcher David Levy believes sex and marriage with robots will be commonplace by the year 2050.

"Once you have a story like 'I had sex with a robot, and it was great!' appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I'd expect many people to jump on the bandwagon," Levy said.

Obviously, Cosmo agrees. The picture above is Cosmo's vision of the future of their magazine, one of many future magazine covers mocked up for an Association of Magazine Publishers conference about media in the next millennium.

I think we can all tell where this blog post is going. That's right. It's time for the Adam's Life Top Ten Hottest Robots!!!!

#10 - Rachael

With Robots Like This, Who Needs Humans?

Blade Runner's femme fatale didn't even know she was a robot... which is a minus in my opinion. What's the point of having a robot girl if she thinks for herself? That said, Sean Young is hot. Wait a minute... Finkle is Einhorn.... Eihorn is FINKLE!!!

#9 - AF 709

"Finally, A Woman Not Repulsed By My Sexism!"

I never saw "My Living Doll," a short-lived sitcom on CBS in 1964, but I know a hot robot when I see one. Apparently, the plot involved a scientist training the AF 709 in all the ways of womanhood, like following orders from men (this was the early 60s, after all).

#8 - Sgt. Eve Edison

Apparently, Robots In The Future Look Like Yancy Butler

On the even shorter-lived series, Mann & Machine (yes, that was the title), Sgt. Eve Edison was a sophisticated android capable of learning human emotion. In one not-so-classic episode, Edison's maternal instincts were "turned on" when she's placed in charge of caring for an abandoned infant. Maternal and capable of fighting crime? If only humans possessed the same miraculous abilities.

#7 - Maria

C-3PO's Girlfriend

In Metropolis, an evil scientist kidnaps a union leader and replaces her with a robot. While not the most aesthetically pleasing, Maria can perform a hell of an erotic dance. Sort of like Britney Spears. Joke! I love Britney.

#6 - Number Six

Hugh Hefner Supports The Robot Community

The only robot to have appeared naked in Playboy, Battlestar Galactica's Number Six has the power to reincarnate herself after death. Which means she'll probably hook up with someone else once you're gone. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

#5 - The Stepford Wife

A Town Full Of Robots No One Else Knows About? That's Plausible.

Conflict: You're in love with your wife, you just wish she was less independent and had no emotion other than "eerily chipper." Resolution: You move to Stepford and turn her into a robot. Epilogue: Try not to be creeped out.

#4 - The Bionic Woman

Part Human, Part Machine, All Sexy

Yes, I know. A bit controversial. After all, her brain is still human. But if "better, stronger, faster" applies to all areas of her anatomy, then I'm not complaining.

#4 (alternate) - Kay-Em 14

Gotta Love A Robot In Pleather

Just in case you don't buy the Bionic Woman as a robot... In the horror movie Jason X, Kay-Em 14 continually blows Jason away, saving (some of) the people on board a spaceship from getting a machete to the face. I'm terrified of Jason, the character from the Friday the 13th films, so having this chick around would do wonders for my anxiety. Plus, she shows her boobs [link not safe for work].

#3 - Vanessa Kensington

Oh yeah baby!!"

In Austin Powers 2, it's revealed that Austin's wife, Vanessa, is actually a fembot. Shagadelic enough to fool a super-spy, Kensington wins points for having that sexy British accent.

#2 - T-X Terminator

Geez, You Ask Her To Morph Into Jessica Alba And She Gets All Shooty

For those who like their robot to have a little bit of attitude (and arms that turn into flamethrowers), there's the T-X Terminator from Rise of The Machines. Beautiful and deadly, T-X is made of liquid metal, which means she can take the form of anything... or anyone. Imagine the possibilities.


And now, what you've been waiting for, the hottest robot of all time is...

...


#1 - Rosie the Maid!

I'll Be Her Mr. J Any Day

She cooks, she cleans, and she's got enough sass to keep things interesting. And those gorgeous red eyes! What more can a guy want?

----
P.S. The Japanese are already way ahead of us in terms of creating the ultimate robot woman:


Oh those wacky Japanese! They've actually done it! They've created a robot woman! And not unattractive, I must say. Still, looks a bit stiff to me. And what's with all that jerking around? Can you imagine getting to sleep with that thing spasming next to you? I'll take Rosie, thank you very much.