First Top Gun Maverick Post: Maverick

 Folks,

I've wanted to post things about the new, blockbuster movie, Top Gun: Maverick. That said, I wasn't sure of where I wanted to go with these posts, nor was I sure about how to get there-wherever "there" is. With that in mind, I'm going to start off with some of the characters. Since Maverick is the driving force, I thought I'd start with him.

First of all, it's readily obvious from the DarkStar scene on that Maverick is different. He still does things his way; he still bristles at his superiors' orders; he still schemes to find ways around said orders; IOW, he's still a maverick, which is why we love him. That said, Mav doesn't do what he does to be selfish, as he did in the first movie; no, what I like about the older, more mature Maverick is his focus on others.

Some reviewers on YouTube, a pair of former fighter pilots, said that they couldn't understand why the DarkStar scene was in TGM; they didn't think it had anything to do with the plot, let alone advance the it. I beg to differ; I think that the DarkStar scene does a lot for the movie, particularly with respect to character development.

After Maverick leaves what is the ULTIMATE bachelor pad (the Airstream trailer in an aircraft hangar with a P-51 Mustang and some hot bikes!), he arrives at the DarkStar hangar. There, he finds the crew, led by his right hand man, Chief Warrant Officer Hondo Coleman, with long faces. When Maverick asks them what's wrong, they inform him that Rear Admiral Cain, who they call the Drone Ranger, is seeking to kill the DarkStar to use the funds for his unmanned program. Maverick then says with that roguish smile of his, "Well, he isn't here yet! They want Mach 10? Let's give 'em Mach 10." As I said, Maverick is still the same guy we all know and love.

Now, before I continue, programs like the fictional DarkStar have milestones in their contracts; that is, they have to meet the overall goal in steps. For example, when Maverick went to fly the DarkStar in Top Gun: Maverick, they were slated to fly Mach 9; that was their test point for that flight. As Maverick pointed out, the Mach 10 milestone was two months away. In other words, had they met that milestone for that flight (Mach 9), then, per the contract, it couldn't be killed-not by a Rear Admiral, anyway. The program would've been good to continue. But then, we wouldn't have had the movie, would we?

After prepping for the mission, Maverick is taxiing to the runway for takeoff. As he positions himself on the runway, RADM Cain arrives. Hondo informs him of this; he tells his friend, Maverick, that it's not too late to stop, and that he knows what'll happen to him if he continues the flight. Maverick then says something that made me really love the guy in a way I couldn't in the original Top Gun: "I know what happens to everyone else if I don't," meaning his colleagues and friends will be out of a job if he stops the flight. Hence, I think that this scene was necessary to establish Maverick's focus on and concern for others. This concern for others will continue to manifest itself throughout the rest of the film. Before I continue, here's the DarkStar scene from TGM.

Maverick takes off. During climbout, he buzzes the Admiral! You can see that at 2:39 in the above video clip. After going aloft in the DarkStar, a couple of other things become obvious: 1) Maverick still isn't over Goose's death decades after the fact; and 2) he still likes to push things. At 4:37 in the above video, Maverick says, "Talk to me, Goose." At 6:12, when Mav reaches Mach 10, Hondo says, "Don't do it, don't do it,", Maverick says, "Just a little push," as he presses beyond Mach 10. My reaction was: he CAN'T HELP himself! He has to push; he's the same old Maverick we know and love. You know what happens next: DarkStar disintegrates, and Maverick dodges death yet again.

Before continuing, I'd like to make a comment about that. Physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that, had Maverick ejected at Mach 10, there'd be nothing left of him; he wouldn't have survived. That's true if he ejected only in the seat; if he just ejected in the seat, he'd turn to mist at those speeds If, on the other hand, there was a crew escape pod that separated from the aircraft in an emergency, then Maverick could've survived.

The next instance where we see Mav's concern for others is when he's chewed out for breaking the hard deck and doing his Cobra maneuver while he and Rooster were going at it. After Admiral Bates asked Mav what he thought he was teaching the students, Mav said that they still had things to learn. Cyclone says that he's talking about the best fighter pilots on the planet; Maverick counters that they've been told that their entire careers, and that they'd had little or no dogfighting experience; that is, Maverick is thinking of everything his students are likely to face, and he's preparing them accordingly. After Vice Admiral Simpson says that the pilots know and accept the risks of their upcoming, dangerous mission, Maverick says that he doesn't accept the risks; Mav wants to give his students all the tools they need to make it home alive. These are two additional important instances where Maverick expresses concerns for others-in this case, his students.

It's in this scene (where Mav is chewed out) where we see the old Maverick and his desire to always push, to always do things his way. After Cyclone yells at Maverick about breaking the hard deck, Maverick places the written request to change the hard deck, so as to accurately simulate the upcoming mission parameters. The scene ends with Admiral "Warlock" Bates admonishing Maverick about his timing. Admiral Bates was in Maverick's corner the whole time, even if he wasn't obvious about it. This scene is below.

The next instance where Mav shows his concern with others is when he's talking with Penny post coitus. She asked him what happened with Rooster. Mav explained how Goose's wife, Carole (i.e. Rooster's mother), didn't want her son flying after Goose was killed, and how he'd promised her before she died that he would honor her wishes. Penny asked if Rooster knew that, and Mav said, "He'll always resent me for what I did. Why should he resent her too?" IOW, Mav took all of Rooster's anger, resentment, and upset to protect the now deceased wife of his old friend, Goose; he was protecting Carole and her relationship with Rooster.

When Maverick was brought back to Top Gun, it was to solely teach and prepare the pilots for the mission; they didn't want him flying the mission. Because he's concerned about his students, Maverick wants to do more than teach them; he wants to lead the mission. Cyclone and Warlock aren't keen on this idea. After Iceman, Maverick's friend and guardian, died, Cyclone wasted no time in grounding Maverick after almost gleefully informing him that he'll be taking over the training.

Before I continue, I need to set up the next stage of the story. After Maverick was grounded, he went to see Penny. Penny, who's been plugged in to the Navy all her life (she was the Admiral's daughter), had heard about Mav being grounded. While I'll have more to say about Penny; while I'll be devoting a separate post to her; I like how she's empathetic, supportive, allows Mav to be vulnerable, all while giving him a gentle nudge to find a way back on his own. I love how she reminds him of how he cares for his pilots, and that he'll never forgive himself if anything happens to them. The moviegoer can clearly see how crushed Maverick is that he can no longer teach and look after his students. Unlike Charlie in the original Top Gun, I like how Penny is there for him. She's a good woman, and though she's not perfect, I like her. This scene was one of the most touching in the movie; it tears me up every time I see it. After this scene, he shows that the mission can be done.

After Penny supported and encouraged Maverick, he demonstrates more concern for others-in this case, his students. We see VADM Simpson, aka Cyclone, informing the students that Maverick is no longer their instructor, and that he's taking over the training. He tells them that the time to target is four minutes, and that they won't be having to do the low level ingress with the high G pullout after dropping their bombs. The students look like, "WTF, is this guy trying to get us killed?" While they'd been challenged by Maverick all through their training; while he'd been hard on them; they could clearly see the wisdom of why he'd been hard on them. At this point, Maverick, in a borrowed (or stolen?) F-18, entered the range, and showed the students that yes, the mission could be done; not only that, it could be done in record time. A great leader doesn't just tell you something can be done; a great leader DOES it! I like how Maverick, with nothing left to lose here, made a last ditch effort to remain their instructor and hopefully lead the mission. I love how Mav lays it on the line for his students here. Again, he's focused on others, not himself.

Maverick, of course, was successful in his gambit to be mission commander. The two final instances of Maverick demonstrating his concern for others are leading the team into battle, then taking a missile for Rooster. We can see Maverick's willingness to die when he says goodbye to his right hand man and friend, Hondo. Those scenes are below.

What I like about Maverick (among many things!) is that he not only went on the mission; he led from the front! That's what all great leaders do; they're the point of the spear. How can his team not be inspired by that?

Here's the bombing run scene; my apologies for the overlap between this clip and the one above.

Finally, here's Maverick taking a missile to save Rooster; here, he made the ultimate sacrifice.

Finally, I have to insert the scene where Maverick and Rooster meet up on the ground; it's such a PERFECT man/dad moment! Rooster stuck around, saved Maverick's life, then got shot down doing it. Maverick ran over to Rooster. After he made sure that Rooster was all right, Mav then shoved him into the snow. It also reiterates that Maverick took the missile for Rooster, so Rooster could make it back to the carrier. I love how Rooster throws Maverick's words back at him; he reminded Maverick that he said not to think. Mav's facial expression is, "Oh yeah, I said that..."

Of course, this isn't the end of the movie, but this post isn't a recap of the movie; it's about how the older, more mature Maverick is focused on others, and how he repeatedly demonstrated that throughout the film. I must say that I really love the older, more mature Maverick; I love how he became the best version of himself in Top Gun: Maverick.

And yes, I LOVE this movie! I dare say it's the best movie I've seen in ages. I also think that it's one of the few sequels that not only equaled the original; it exceeded it. It joins a rare group of movies such as The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back.

In the near future, I plan on doing separate posts on Penny, Hondo, Iceman, Hangman, Rooster, Warlock and Bob. I may do one on Cyclone too. Have a great day!

Climate Science Is NOT Good Science!

 Folks,

Below is a comment I left on Stuart Fililingham's recent video about being shadow banned for questioning the climate change narrative. That video can be found here. A Ross Jones left a typical, arrogant ad hominem comment about climate change. His comment is pinned at the top of the video's comments, so it'll be easy to find. Below is Mr. Jones' comment, along with my rebuttal. Mr. Jones' comment is in colored text, while mine is in the regular color.

------------------

Science has only recently confirmed that human activity is the main cause of global warming. It’s not about “activists” any longer but a joined up confirmation and acceptance of science. Us general citizens have to make our decisions based upon prevailing scientific thinking and as I said scientists took a long time to prove unarguably that “we” are the cause of global warming. Sadly this will have a negative impact on motorcycling as we know it. I too am affected but I choose to accept good science. Personally I think you should avoid topics you know very little about. I’d rather enjoy the last days of the internal combustion engine used by motorcycles while we can. The next generation will be riding electric machines or something similar. Get back to the core topic of your channel for the sake of us viewers, and for you too. Start another channel if you need a platform for your political views…or many like me will be unsubscribing.Mr. Jones, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia emails. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even those their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?

Mr. Jones, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia emails. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even though their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?

FIrst of all, there was the climate change email scandal at the University of East Anglia back in November of 2009. Hackers got a hold of emails from the university's Climate Research Unit, and posted them to the Internet. The crux of these emails was that research data had been fudged, because the real data showed that the climate wasn't changing; if anything, they showed that Earth is cooling! Those who are proponents of the climate change narrative said that the emails were taken out of context; they said that they were misinterpreted. Even if this were true, WHY didn't the university share its data? Why weren't they transparent? Do you see how even the APPEARANCE of impropriety would make one question the university's findings?

Second of all, climatologists are reluctant to share their data and their findings with the world at large. Why is that? Why not be transparent with their findings? For example, the noted American professor and climatologist, Michael Mann, when he was at the University of Virginia, put out some findings saying that climate change was real. A group skeptical of his findings requested his data. He refused. They had to SUE him in court, and even then, the data weren't shared! Shouldn't we, as taxpayers, i.e. people who pay Mann's salary and fund his university, be allowed to see these data? Since public policy is being crafted as a result of these findings supporting climate change; since these policies will impact our lives in unforeseen and profound ways; shouldn't we see them? Why are they being hidden if they're legitimate, hmmm? Care to answer THAT, Mr. Jones?

Thirdly, am I the only one who's noticed that, within the climate change debate, that natural phenomena impacting climate are NEVER discussed? You know that, when volcanoes erupt, that they spew MILLIONS of tons of debris in the atmosphere, right? Do you know that this debris can impact weather and climate? For example, the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815 was so severe that it resulted in the year with no summer; there was no summer in 1816, which was responsible for the Irish potato famine back in the 19th Century. But wait, there's MORE!

Did you know that sunspots impact our climate? Sunspots affect the radiation and energy that reaches the Earth. This energy is an important driver of weather and climate. Solar cycles last 11 years. Shouldn't we be researching the sun's impact on our weather and climate, so as to understand its role in climate change? Here, NASA acknowledges and admits that we don't really understand the sun's impact on Earth and its climate: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html. Ah, but wait, there's STILL MORE!

Do you know that undersea volcanoes exist? Why wouldn't they, when we have volcanoes on land? Do  you know that many of these undersea volcanoes erupt continuously? Do you know that they stream lava, or hot, liquified rock? You know that this heats up the ocean right? This, in turn, affects La Nina and El Nino. You know that both La Nina and El Nino impact both weather and climate right? Why aren't undersea volcanoes ever discussed when talking about climate change?

Mr. Jones, have you ever heard of the scientific method? It's the process used for understanding natural laws, crafting hypotheses, creating theories, conducting research, etc. IIRC, there are seven steps, but I want to focus on the first one, as it's the most critical step; get the first step wrong, the rest of your work will be wrong. The first step of the scientific method is to define the problem. What is it? What is it not? How does it manifest itself? When does it manifest itself? Under what circumstances does the problem occur? And so on. If this step isn't performed correctly, then everything else done afterward is faulty; blow it here, and all subsequent research is useless! The first step of the scientific method is analogous to a building's foundation; it is essential to get both right.

With that in mind, why AREN'T natural phenomena being discussed WRT climate change? Don't these phenomena affect the climate? Since they affect the climate, shouldn't we understand them? Shouldn't they be part of defining the problem of climate change? If we, as a people, are to craft good solutions to climate change, shouldn't we understand all the variables first? By ignoring them, aren't we negatively impacting and distorting all subsequent research that follows the essential step of defining the problem? What do all these natural phenomena have in common, Mr. Jones? Man cannot control them! There's nothing humanity can do about sunspots, volcanoes, or undersea volcanoes.

Finally, why is such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term like "climate change" even used? I'm old enough to remember when this was first called global cooling back in the 1970s. Then, during the 1980s, it was called global warming. When that warming didn't happen, it was then called climate change. The climate is ALWAYS changing-DUH! It's called the four seasons: winter, spring, summer, and fall. Again, if we're to really understand and define any problems with Earth's climate, shouldn't we use precise terms as part of that understanding?

Mr. Jones, you said that you believe and follow "good science", right? In light of what I've pointed out, does climate change science look like good science to you? Does good science hide their data and findings? Does good science ignore ALL variables affecting a process, such as the Earth's weather and climate? Does good science refuse to acknowledge, let along understand, all variables, such as natural phenomena impacting Earth's climate?

To recap, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia email scandal. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even those their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?