Not a fan of people, especially young people, who try to enhance their cred by complaining about current music. As far as I can tell, the ratio of crap to greatness is pretty much the same now as it's always been in pop--we just are able to filter out the wheat from the chaff more effectively with the old stuff. My tastes are aligned pretty heavily toward the late 60s to mid 70s era, but I go out of my way not to be chauvinistic about it, and there are plenty of "current" artists that I like--Chili Peppers, Stripes, some recent power metal and prog, random alt-rock from the 90s that reminds me of grade school. It's annoying in general when people talk about a sublime past that never really existed. It's fallacious to do it with politics, morals, and language, and no better to do it with music.
That said, 98% of rap is just stupid.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Backstreets
The piano intro is a cascading, crescendoing epic all by itself. The exquisite, almost jaunty riff that continues throughout the song is a flawless distillation of the entire album's message of deep-chested yearning yoked with desperate joy, a plaintive invocation of forlorn adoration and the unquenchable catharsis of speed and love and darkness. The rest of the instrumentation is equally flawless. Somebody in that studio knew how to use a goddamn organ, that's all I'm saying. Springsteen's immortal vocals accompany the throbbing wall of bass and drums to a cataclysmically powerful guitar solo that weeps and shudders from the deepest recesses of the human spirit. And if that wasn't enough, the lyrics are devastating enough to move the hardest heart to anguish:
Blame it the lies that killed us, blame it on the truth that ran us down / You can blame it all on me, Terry, it don't matter to me now / When the breakdown hit at midnight there was nothing left to say / But I hated him, and I hated you when you went away...
It's hard to fathom, much less express, how much pure humanity is bound up in these six minutes and thirty-one seconds. This is beyond genius.
Blame it the lies that killed us, blame it on the truth that ran us down / You can blame it all on me, Terry, it don't matter to me now / When the breakdown hit at midnight there was nothing left to say / But I hated him, and I hated you when you went away...
It's hard to fathom, much less express, how much pure humanity is bound up in these six minutes and thirty-one seconds. This is beyond genius.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Liveblogging
9:01: Palin is a fox. Chummy to Biden.
9:02: Biden mirrors Obama's opening statement, laying the epic smackdown on supply-siders. He's also giving an emphatic defense of Obama's bailout positions. Maybe a liiitle wordy.
9:03: Palin is meticulously scripted.
9:04: Ha, you can tell Biden is really forcing himself to look at her.
9:04: You can hear a little bit of the Couric bluster creeping into Palin's words.
9:05: Palin tries the workforce card.
9:06: Man, real shades of Miss North Carolina (or whatever state). Something about her syntax.
9:07: Rofl, still talking about "new face," etc. Remember who your running mate is?
9:10: Pretty soporific so far. Nothing major.
9:11: Biden better respond to the $42,000 lie.
9:12: Good tax response, I think.
9:12: Palin bites back.
9:15: Palin is using Obama's first name. Interesting. (Of course, Biden uses McCain's first name).
9:16: I wonder if lauding the "private sector" is still effective.
9:16: It must be said that Palin's performance has offered little to complain about. This really will be a debate about policy.
9:19: Good response from Biden on healthcare, taxes.
9:20: Biden miiight not want to rail so much against "tax cuts" as a concept. I guess if he makes it clear that they're for undeserving companies or people, it's fine. Also, he's been flubbing lines and doesn't look too energetic.
9:25: Palin's first real balls-up answer. Nothing horrible, just a big ramble.
9:26: Biden voices voiceless bilabial stops intervocalically, and I think it's funny. Princibal.
9:28: Palin rocks the dangling participles. She's starting to crack, maybe--definitely seems to be getting more incoherent.
9:30: Produce, emit, and even pollute! Whuh?
9:33: "All of the above" approach?
9:38: Surge is exit strategy. Blablabla.
10:16: Yawnsfuckingville.
9:41: Maliki and Talibani? I don't recognize the second name.
9:45: Nukular.
9:46: Seriously, the Repubs have nothing on this precondition thing. Give it up. Come on Biden, put her down.
9:49: Not impressed with Ifill. Skips through the questions with no followups or acknowledgement. Would be no different if she'd just played a tape of the questions.
9:02: Biden mirrors Obama's opening statement, laying the epic smackdown on supply-siders. He's also giving an emphatic defense of Obama's bailout positions. Maybe a liiitle wordy.
9:03: Palin is meticulously scripted.
9:04: Ha, you can tell Biden is really forcing himself to look at her.
9:04: You can hear a little bit of the Couric bluster creeping into Palin's words.
9:05: Palin tries the workforce card.
9:06: Man, real shades of Miss North Carolina (or whatever state). Something about her syntax.
9:07: Rofl, still talking about "new face," etc. Remember who your running mate is?
9:10: Pretty soporific so far. Nothing major.
9:11: Biden better respond to the $42,000 lie.
9:12: Good tax response, I think.
9:12: Palin bites back.
9:15: Palin is using Obama's first name. Interesting. (Of course, Biden uses McCain's first name).
9:16: I wonder if lauding the "private sector" is still effective.
9:16: It must be said that Palin's performance has offered little to complain about. This really will be a debate about policy.
9:19: Good response from Biden on healthcare, taxes.
9:20: Biden miiight not want to rail so much against "tax cuts" as a concept. I guess if he makes it clear that they're for undeserving companies or people, it's fine. Also, he's been flubbing lines and doesn't look too energetic.
9:25: Palin's first real balls-up answer. Nothing horrible, just a big ramble.
9:26: Biden voices voiceless bilabial stops intervocalically, and I think it's funny. Princibal.
9:28: Palin rocks the dangling participles. She's starting to crack, maybe--definitely seems to be getting more incoherent.
9:30: Produce, emit, and even pollute! Whuh?
9:33: "All of the above" approach?
9:38: Surge is exit strategy. Blablabla.
10:16: Yawnsfuckingville.
9:41: Maliki and Talibani? I don't recognize the second name.
9:45: Nukular.
9:46: Seriously, the Repubs have nothing on this precondition thing. Give it up. Come on Biden, put her down.
9:49: Not impressed with Ifill. Skips through the questions with no followups or acknowledgement. Would be no different if she'd just played a tape of the questions.
Muzak
Music is a big part of my life. I listen to it when I'm on the computer and when I'm in bed. There's a lot of music out there that affects me in powerful ways. And yet I've never bought an album. I think maybe when I was in grade school I bought a CD by some boy band as a birthday present for somebody. But I've never had the experience of going to a music store and purchasing an album, or even a single, from a recently discovered band. I've never liked a song on the radio and decided to go out and fork over fifteen dollars on the record. I don't even know where I would go to do such a thing, or whether fifteen dollars is an accurate number. Heck, come to think of it, I don't own a sound system.
And it's not as if I spend my money on iTunes instead. I've used it for a few obscurities here and there, but I got a twenty-dollar gift card for the store last Christmas and still have twelve bucks left. No, I just "pirate" everything, through either Limewire or Cornell's intranet hub. And so does everybody else I know.
Fuck me, this is a useless post.
And it's not as if I spend my money on iTunes instead. I've used it for a few obscurities here and there, but I got a twenty-dollar gift card for the store last Christmas and still have twelve bucks left. No, I just "pirate" everything, through either Limewire or Cornell's intranet hub. And so does everybody else I know.
Fuck me, this is a useless post.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Schmoderate
People who proudly describe themselves as "moderates" or "independents" are irksome. Those terms are inherently self-congratulatory: moderation and independence, as personality traits, are positive value judgments. And yet describing people as political moderates really doesn't make much sense. That's because "right" and "left" are more or less arbitrary designations that lump a lot of disparate beliefs into one big amorphous piece of dough. There is no philosophical reason that I can see for people to simultaneously oppose abortion and support the death penalty; oppose governmental intervention in economic matters and support it in personal affairs; support capitalism and reject gay marriage; or oppose strong trade-union rights and approve of teaching creationism in schools. (And vice versa, for the left).
It's not necessarily contradictory to hold those sets of beliefs, but it certainly is arbitrary. The coalitions came about for purely political reasons, not at because there is any kind of moral dictum that says the side that supports universal healthcare must also support Yglesian internationalism. And so describing yourself as "moderate" doesn't automatically mean you're a sensible, measured person who really looks at all the evidence and makes a considered, responsible decision each election, as such self-branded moderates seem to want to proclaim. It just means you either haven't made up your mind, or hold positions that happen to either intersect with both parties or not fit into either of them.
It's not necessarily contradictory to hold those sets of beliefs, but it certainly is arbitrary. The coalitions came about for purely political reasons, not at because there is any kind of moral dictum that says the side that supports universal healthcare must also support Yglesian internationalism. And so describing yourself as "moderate" doesn't automatically mean you're a sensible, measured person who really looks at all the evidence and makes a considered, responsible decision each election, as such self-branded moderates seem to want to proclaim. It just means you either haven't made up your mind, or hold positions that happen to either intersect with both parties or not fit into either of them.
VP Dough
So the VP debate is day after tomorrow. As things stand now, I think we're looking at three possibilities, listed from most to least likely:
1. Palin is able to stick to her memorized responses and even land a few hits. Biden sticks to his guns and attacks McCain. Press declares a win for Palin and questions about her start to fade into the background, but no real change in polling, except possibly a 1-point "base bounce" for McCain.
2. Palin really duffs it up. Maybe she doesn't know how to answer a crucial question, or flat-out contradicts her own platform again, or just has another of her famous "stall with drivel" moments. Attacks on her from left and right intensify, pressure mounts for McCain to apologize for her, etc. Momentum of the polling is mostly unchanged--Obama continues to gain, though is bound to hit a plateau soo.
3. Biden makes a really, really bad gaffe. It would have to be quite bad, bad enough to turn off even supporters. Narrative shifts away from Palin's incompetence, right starts up the mock-outrage machine, race starts to tighten thanks to corresponding scrutiny on Obama camp.
I have to doubt 3 will happen. I do think there's a fair chance Biden could say something vaguely wrongheaded, like his FDR gaffe or "clean and articulate," and it might turn into a localized controversy for one or two news cycles but not penetrate public confidence. For Possibility 3 to really change the game, Biden would have to reach gross levels of poor taste--reaching for Palin's ass when he hugs her, repeatedly using condescending and sexist language, or something similarly egregious. I don't see that happening--Biden isn't dumb, and you can bet he's being coached about avoiding this kind of disaster, since it's one of his only true vulnerabilities going into the debate.
Number 2 is, of course, what we're all dreaming of. I can't tell you how fucking ecstatic I would be if Palin managed to display her unreadiness as gorily as she did with Couric. And in small ways, she probably will seem shaky on a few questions; if Gwen Ifill starts to ask "pros-and-cons"-style followups as Couric did, Palin could be in trouble. But as for truly back-breaking balls-ups, I would think Palin's prep team has pretty much ironed them out of her by now. As long as the questions aren't too focused on obscure aspects of highly specific issues, chances are Palin will have a canned response ready, and as long as she can bring that response from brain to mouth in recognizable form, she isn't going to sound catastrophically braindead this time. Of course, we could always get lucky.
But it's the first outcome that I think is most likely. Biden will have been instructed to (a) show warmth to Palin, to avoid comparisons to McCain; (b) be thorough and wonkish but not contrastive to Palin herself, letting the inherent discrepancy between Palin's knowledge and his own shine through without being aggressive; (c) focus all attacks on McCain and Republicans rather than Palin; and (d) not fuck it up, i.e. don't reach over and grab Palin's tit or something. Palin will have been taught to (a) insert as many smiling, Umbridge-style faux-populist cheap shots at Obama and Dems as she can; (b) keep responses brief, but drop as many names as possible to appear knowledgable; maintain a Presidential demeanor; and (d) keep to the script whenever humanly possible. Both candidates will be fairly cautious; they both just want to get through this thing without utterly screwing over their running mate. And so what we'll have is a mostly boring debate with few fireworks or memorable lines. And just as "holding his own against McCain" was enough for Obama, holding her own against Biden will be enough for Palin--more than enough, in fact, as far as the media is concerned. I wish we could look forward to an exciting debate, but I just don't see it happening.
1. Palin is able to stick to her memorized responses and even land a few hits. Biden sticks to his guns and attacks McCain. Press declares a win for Palin and questions about her start to fade into the background, but no real change in polling, except possibly a 1-point "base bounce" for McCain.
2. Palin really duffs it up. Maybe she doesn't know how to answer a crucial question, or flat-out contradicts her own platform again, or just has another of her famous "stall with drivel" moments. Attacks on her from left and right intensify, pressure mounts for McCain to apologize for her, etc. Momentum of the polling is mostly unchanged--Obama continues to gain, though is bound to hit a plateau soo.
3. Biden makes a really, really bad gaffe. It would have to be quite bad, bad enough to turn off even supporters. Narrative shifts away from Palin's incompetence, right starts up the mock-outrage machine, race starts to tighten thanks to corresponding scrutiny on Obama camp.
I have to doubt 3 will happen. I do think there's a fair chance Biden could say something vaguely wrongheaded, like his FDR gaffe or "clean and articulate," and it might turn into a localized controversy for one or two news cycles but not penetrate public confidence. For Possibility 3 to really change the game, Biden would have to reach gross levels of poor taste--reaching for Palin's ass when he hugs her, repeatedly using condescending and sexist language, or something similarly egregious. I don't see that happening--Biden isn't dumb, and you can bet he's being coached about avoiding this kind of disaster, since it's one of his only true vulnerabilities going into the debate.
Number 2 is, of course, what we're all dreaming of. I can't tell you how fucking ecstatic I would be if Palin managed to display her unreadiness as gorily as she did with Couric. And in small ways, she probably will seem shaky on a few questions; if Gwen Ifill starts to ask "pros-and-cons"-style followups as Couric did, Palin could be in trouble. But as for truly back-breaking balls-ups, I would think Palin's prep team has pretty much ironed them out of her by now. As long as the questions aren't too focused on obscure aspects of highly specific issues, chances are Palin will have a canned response ready, and as long as she can bring that response from brain to mouth in recognizable form, she isn't going to sound catastrophically braindead this time. Of course, we could always get lucky.
But it's the first outcome that I think is most likely. Biden will have been instructed to (a) show warmth to Palin, to avoid comparisons to McCain; (b) be thorough and wonkish but not contrastive to Palin herself, letting the inherent discrepancy between Palin's knowledge and his own shine through without being aggressive; (c) focus all attacks on McCain and Republicans rather than Palin; and (d) not fuck it up, i.e. don't reach over and grab Palin's tit or something. Palin will have been taught to (a) insert as many smiling, Umbridge-style faux-populist cheap shots at Obama and Dems as she can; (b) keep responses brief, but drop as many names as possible to appear knowledgable; maintain a Presidential demeanor; and (d) keep to the script whenever humanly possible. Both candidates will be fairly cautious; they both just want to get through this thing without utterly screwing over their running mate. And so what we'll have is a mostly boring debate with few fireworks or memorable lines. And just as "holding his own against McCain" was enough for Obama, holding her own against Biden will be enough for Palin--more than enough, in fact, as far as the media is concerned. I wish we could look forward to an exciting debate, but I just don't see it happening.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Liveblogging
9:05: Strong response by Obama. Absolutely fantastic. No pauses, incredibly decisive. This is so reassuring. Big hit on supply side ec as well. Brilliant.
9:08: McCain is similar, maybe not quite as forceful. Weird tie-in to foreign oil.
9:10: Obama still aggressive, points to his record.
9:11: McCain: "Me too."
9:12: Wow. Obama is really banging away at the populism thing.
9:13: I love Lehrer. What a sweet dude.
9:14: McCain probably should avoid using the word "fundamental" as much as he can. He just used it three times in that response.
9:14: Oop, Lehrer just used it.
9:15: Eaaaarmaaark tiiime
9:17: Obama rips McCain on irrelevance of earmarks compared to McCain's tax cut proposals.
9:18: McCain punches back. But it's hard to argue with Obama's numbers.
9:24: Slight dynamic change--Obama is slightly more defensive. McCain can't give up on the earmarks thing. Obama needs to keep hammering on the healthcare-benefits tax.
9:29: Not a big fan of Obama's big catalogue of projects. Seems pie-in-the-sky. I still don't think McCain's calls for spending cuts are any more resonant.
9:35: Oh, screw you, Lehrer. Sometimes I think these mods get too attached to their questions. Just kidding, I love you, Jim.
9:35: Neeeeds moooore Bush-bashing. Obama is letting McCain get away with too much stuff.
9:41: This will be crucial. Obama needs to redirect from surge and towards AUMF.
9:44: Don't take the bait, Barack.
9:46: Temper, temper! Obama's got to bait and bait and bait. Come on, McCain's getting pissy.
9:48: I don't see Afghanistan as being a winning issue. And Obama needs to mention 100 years.
9:52: Grumph, Obama needs to speak more clearly and be more offense-focused.
9:56: ANAL RAPE with bomb bomb Iran from Obama. THANK YOU.
9:59: McCain resorts to storytelling; Obama now apparently on the offensive.
10:03: McCain still sticking to personal narrative. Obama makes a devastating comeback on the "mother of a soldier" front.
10:03: Aw, bustling, officious Jim.
10:24: Yawn, I guess.
10:33: Obama needs to hit back at McCain's so-far-unchallenged idea that Obama's Iraq plan entails "defeat."
10:37: Noun. Verb. POW.
9:08: McCain is similar, maybe not quite as forceful. Weird tie-in to foreign oil.
9:10: Obama still aggressive, points to his record.
9:11: McCain: "Me too."
9:12: Wow. Obama is really banging away at the populism thing.
9:13: I love Lehrer. What a sweet dude.
9:14: McCain probably should avoid using the word "fundamental" as much as he can. He just used it three times in that response.
9:14: Oop, Lehrer just used it.
9:15: Eaaaarmaaark tiiime
9:17: Obama rips McCain on irrelevance of earmarks compared to McCain's tax cut proposals.
9:18: McCain punches back. But it's hard to argue with Obama's numbers.
9:24: Slight dynamic change--Obama is slightly more defensive. McCain can't give up on the earmarks thing. Obama needs to keep hammering on the healthcare-benefits tax.
9:29: Not a big fan of Obama's big catalogue of projects. Seems pie-in-the-sky. I still don't think McCain's calls for spending cuts are any more resonant.
9:35: Oh, screw you, Lehrer. Sometimes I think these mods get too attached to their questions. Just kidding, I love you, Jim.
9:35: Neeeeds moooore Bush-bashing. Obama is letting McCain get away with too much stuff.
9:41: This will be crucial. Obama needs to redirect from surge and towards AUMF.
9:44: Don't take the bait, Barack.
9:46: Temper, temper! Obama's got to bait and bait and bait. Come on, McCain's getting pissy.
9:48: I don't see Afghanistan as being a winning issue. And Obama needs to mention 100 years.
9:52: Grumph, Obama needs to speak more clearly and be more offense-focused.
9:56: ANAL RAPE with bomb bomb Iran from Obama. THANK YOU.
9:59: McCain resorts to storytelling; Obama now apparently on the offensive.
10:03: McCain still sticking to personal narrative. Obama makes a devastating comeback on the "mother of a soldier" front.
10:03: Aw, bustling, officious Jim.
10:24: Yawn, I guess.
10:33: Obama needs to hit back at McCain's so-far-unchallenged idea that Obama's Iraq plan entails "defeat."
10:37: Noun. Verb. POW.
Kennedy wants to square dance with me
Poor Kennedy. Really hope he's okay. His appearance at the convention was so poignant. He really is a lion. A fucking lion. Ezra made a great post about him after the DNC, I'll try to dig it up.
Debate predictions
I'm very, very keyed up about this thing, so naturally it will end up being a bad night for Obama. My optimistic prediction is that McCain appears tired and frustrated, Obama looks fresh and confident, and the media will reluctantly call it a draw. My realistic prediction is that McCain will look shitty, but so will Obama, and McCain will get in at least one Surge zinger; then the media, jumping at a chance to run back to papa, will joyously proclaim it a home run for McCain.
I have similar sentiments about the VP debate. Biden will be unremarkable. Palin will manage to string a few sentences together, people will be reminded of her convention speech, and she'll be met with a big welcome-back bear (moose) hug from the right.
This will be the first presidential debate I've watched since I discovered blogs and became marginally informed about politics, and I'm hoping for a real treat. I'm going to be rocking the chips and dip.
I have similar sentiments about the VP debate. Biden will be unremarkable. Palin will manage to string a few sentences together, people will be reminded of her convention speech, and she'll be met with a big welcome-back bear (moose) hug from the right.
This will be the first presidential debate I've watched since I discovered blogs and became marginally informed about politics, and I'm hoping for a real treat. I'm going to be rocking the chips and dip.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Scorn
Dave Sirota with a fantastic post about his "gut" reasons to vote for Obama. I'm glad I didn't see the event he was talking about, because it would have made me feel sick to my stomach too.
There is one niggling detail, though. Sirota lauds Obama by saying that he "does fundamentally reject the conservative world view that is destroying our country." I just wish there were a little more evidence of that. While at heart, of course, Obama is left of center on policy, he shows a disturbing lack of willingness to really lash out at conservatism as a pernicious, morally bankrupt ideology. This isn't about him not being aggressive enough per se; indeed, he has a very disciplined message against McCain, specifically the "more of the same" meme. And he hammers that home often enough, along with his surrogates. But in the broader picture, for every rhetorical foray into populism or progressivism that Obama makes, he gives two more mindless platitudes about bipartisanship. He just isn't willing to make the leap from advocating liberal positions to pointing out that most conservative ones are terrible, or from praising liberal thinkers to noting that most conservative ones are dishonest and destructive. Deep inside, Obama hasn't yet convinced himself that conservatives are in the end deserving of no more than scorn and pity. I really wish we had somebody outside of the blogosphere who both realized this and was willing to say it.
There is one niggling detail, though. Sirota lauds Obama by saying that he "does fundamentally reject the conservative world view that is destroying our country." I just wish there were a little more evidence of that. While at heart, of course, Obama is left of center on policy, he shows a disturbing lack of willingness to really lash out at conservatism as a pernicious, morally bankrupt ideology. This isn't about him not being aggressive enough per se; indeed, he has a very disciplined message against McCain, specifically the "more of the same" meme. And he hammers that home often enough, along with his surrogates. But in the broader picture, for every rhetorical foray into populism or progressivism that Obama makes, he gives two more mindless platitudes about bipartisanship. He just isn't willing to make the leap from advocating liberal positions to pointing out that most conservative ones are terrible, or from praising liberal thinkers to noting that most conservative ones are dishonest and destructive. Deep inside, Obama hasn't yet convinced himself that conservatives are in the end deserving of no more than scorn and pity. I really wish we had somebody outside of the blogosphere who both realized this and was willing to say it.
Master 'bating
Oof, this debate thing is going to be so intense. I would be so happy if the uncertainty actually lasted right up to the thing. Like, we're still waiting with bated breath to see what will happen even as the announcer calls the candidates up.
I keep having this nagging worry that this is yet another expectations ploy. McCain creates the perception that he's terrified of debating; Obama and the MSM smell blood; then McCain pops up at the debate after all and proceeds to kick ass. Nate made a good point today that McCain is essentially "doubling down" on the debate--he's hoping that he can use the extra attention and suspense to leverage the impact of the debate, making it a bigger potential gain for him if he can pull it off (and a bigger loss if he fails). Hopefully McCain is really just as desperate as he looks, and thought the suspension would actually work as he planned. Hard to believe he has any kind of clever strategy going, but you never know, right?
I watched Obama give a press conference today on MSNBC. Hate to say it, but it made me nervous. The substance was all right, though not great--he's clearly ceded to the alarmism of the Treasury, and he was almost bragging about being willing to make massive concessions on the bailout. But the delivery--fuuuuck. He's still doing the um, uh, uh thing. It actually seemed a lot worse. He looked pretty haggard as well, and wasn't very coherent even aside from the stutters. It was all very reminiscent of the primary debates, and not of the good ones, either. He needs to put a tight, tight clamp on the pauses and "uhhs" tomorrow night, because they're really distracting. And his makeup crew had better be ready for some serious miracles...I still have this comforting vision in my head of the damning contrast between rangy, tall, fresh-faced Obama and shriveled, short, scarred McCain making the debates another Kennedy-Nixon 1960 moment. But Obama is not fun to look at when he's tired or under the weather. Hope he gets some rest tonight.
I keep having this nagging worry that this is yet another expectations ploy. McCain creates the perception that he's terrified of debating; Obama and the MSM smell blood; then McCain pops up at the debate after all and proceeds to kick ass. Nate made a good point today that McCain is essentially "doubling down" on the debate--he's hoping that he can use the extra attention and suspense to leverage the impact of the debate, making it a bigger potential gain for him if he can pull it off (and a bigger loss if he fails). Hopefully McCain is really just as desperate as he looks, and thought the suspension would actually work as he planned. Hard to believe he has any kind of clever strategy going, but you never know, right?
I watched Obama give a press conference today on MSNBC. Hate to say it, but it made me nervous. The substance was all right, though not great--he's clearly ceded to the alarmism of the Treasury, and he was almost bragging about being willing to make massive concessions on the bailout. But the delivery--fuuuuck. He's still doing the um, uh, uh thing. It actually seemed a lot worse. He looked pretty haggard as well, and wasn't very coherent even aside from the stutters. It was all very reminiscent of the primary debates, and not of the good ones, either. He needs to put a tight, tight clamp on the pauses and "uhhs" tomorrow night, because they're really distracting. And his makeup crew had better be ready for some serious miracles...I still have this comforting vision in my head of the damning contrast between rangy, tall, fresh-faced Obama and shriveled, short, scarred McCain making the debates another Kennedy-Nixon 1960 moment. But Obama is not fun to look at when he's tired or under the weather. Hope he gets some rest tonight.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
God
Designating oneself as "agnostic" has always rubbed me the wrong way. The position that we can't be sure whether there is a divine or not seems quite pointless. As in, yes, we can't be sure about it, because it's never been demonstrated or falsified (and presumably can't be), but then again, we "can't be sure" whether or not there is a race of giant invisible fairies who sit on clouds and tickle each other. You don't need to say "Well, there's no reason to believe in those fairies, but a lot of people do, so I'll sit on the fence about it." You can just say "Those fairies don't exist." If you come across compelling evidence that there are in fact fairies on the clouds, then fine, you'll change your mind. But it doesn't mean you should be agnostic about fairies.
See, when you hold a position, I think it's kind of a given that if the evidence changes, your position could change too. For example, I'm an atheist, but if Jesus Christ happens to come down from the heavens tomorrow and get the Revelation rollin', then I will reconsider my beliefs on the question of divinity. Until then, though, there is no reason to admit the possibility of God's existence, or at any rate to give it any more credence than the possibility of cloud-dwelling sprites. Agnosticism exists because there is a powerful tradition of humans wanting to believe in god(s); but if you boil it down, celestial creator-guardian-avenger beings deserve no more respect as a concept than fairies (or, like, reincarnation). I guess what I'm trying to say is, agnostics? Stop being pussies.
See, when you hold a position, I think it's kind of a given that if the evidence changes, your position could change too. For example, I'm an atheist, but if Jesus Christ happens to come down from the heavens tomorrow and get the Revelation rollin', then I will reconsider my beliefs on the question of divinity. Until then, though, there is no reason to admit the possibility of God's existence, or at any rate to give it any more credence than the possibility of cloud-dwelling sprites. Agnosticism exists because there is a powerful tradition of humans wanting to believe in god(s); but if you boil it down, celestial creator-guardian-avenger beings deserve no more respect as a concept than fairies (or, like, reincarnation). I guess what I'm trying to say is, agnostics? Stop being pussies.
Big Multimedia Me
Feeling pretty chuffed with myself...my latest post on the WotLK forums picked up a blue response, and our class designer is implementing my (admittedly commonsensical) suggestion about Guardian Spirit, Holy's 51-pointer. You can watch the drama unfold here--I'm Ebbasdottir, the OP. Too bad Koraa still doesn't see the light about Divine Providence. 10% throughput, my ass.
Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that GS will take another nerf after this...as I think about it, I'm realizing that if the health return goes up to 50%, you can basically just cast it on the tank and then forget about him for 7-10 seconds, as long as it isn't a 25-man boss you're fighting. Heroic mobs take a long time to chew through 50% of a bear's HP, so I envision myself casting this on Ben in a do-or-die situation and then leisurely popping a couple PoHs, all without breaking a sweat. A fairer implementation would be to dump the death-save aspect and just increase all healing taken by like 150%. But then it doesn't need to last 10 seconds...and it would be a poor talent if it lasted for less than that...I don't know. This design stuff is harder than it looks.
I'm chuckling at how incomprehensible this post must be to 99.83% of people.
Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that GS will take another nerf after this...as I think about it, I'm realizing that if the health return goes up to 50%, you can basically just cast it on the tank and then forget about him for 7-10 seconds, as long as it isn't a 25-man boss you're fighting. Heroic mobs take a long time to chew through 50% of a bear's HP, so I envision myself casting this on Ben in a do-or-die situation and then leisurely popping a couple PoHs, all without breaking a sweat. A fairer implementation would be to dump the death-save aspect and just increase all healing taken by like 150%. But then it doesn't need to last 10 seconds...and it would be a poor talent if it lasted for less than that...I don't know. This design stuff is harder than it looks.
I'm chuckling at how incomprehensible this post must be to 99.83% of people.
So about that debate
Bob Gibbs tells the AP: "My sense is there's going to be a stage, a moderator, an audience and at least one presidential candidate."
So if McCain boycotts Friday's event in a huff, Obama just gets to go up and take questions from the moderator(s) alone? And if so...holy shit, that's basically giving him another convention: free media, guaranteed record ratings, no one to call him out on anything. Then again, Obama didn't exactly shine at Saddleback (though that was mainly because McCain was able to set up a contrast that worked against Obama), and this would be largely the same format, minus the wacko audience and batshit fundie interviewer. Another potential downside--the famous "optics" contrast would get 1/3 less air time, but I'm pretty sure this was going to be a sit-down event anyway.
Also, this could develop into a feud between the two campaigns' debate teams, possibly setting us up for crazy shifts in how the debates are laid out. McCain might even decide to flip Obama off and not show up for any of them, which would be incredibly weird but not necessarily out of character for him. It would backfire, of course, but if he spun it right he might coax a news cycle or two out of it, just as he did with Palin.
My actual prediction is that McCain will agree to do the debate, but will make hay out of Obama's unwillingness to work on the bailout bill; Obama, in turn, will bitchslap McCain about only doing this because of the way the polls look, and will make some more comments about how prezzes have to multitask. In the end the whole tizzy will be a wash on the merits, except that Obama will get plenty of chances to pivot on Friday from foreign policy to the economy. And if McCain doesn't get enough chances to try and scare dumb people about Iran, he'll have an even harder time winning this.
So if McCain boycotts Friday's event in a huff, Obama just gets to go up and take questions from the moderator(s) alone? And if so...holy shit, that's basically giving him another convention: free media, guaranteed record ratings, no one to call him out on anything. Then again, Obama didn't exactly shine at Saddleback (though that was mainly because McCain was able to set up a contrast that worked against Obama), and this would be largely the same format, minus the wacko audience and batshit fundie interviewer. Another potential downside--the famous "optics" contrast would get 1/3 less air time, but I'm pretty sure this was going to be a sit-down event anyway.
Also, this could develop into a feud between the two campaigns' debate teams, possibly setting us up for crazy shifts in how the debates are laid out. McCain might even decide to flip Obama off and not show up for any of them, which would be incredibly weird but not necessarily out of character for him. It would backfire, of course, but if he spun it right he might coax a news cycle or two out of it, just as he did with Palin.
My actual prediction is that McCain will agree to do the debate, but will make hay out of Obama's unwillingness to work on the bailout bill; Obama, in turn, will bitchslap McCain about only doing this because of the way the polls look, and will make some more comments about how prezzes have to multitask. In the end the whole tizzy will be a wash on the merits, except that Obama will get plenty of chances to pivot on Friday from foreign policy to the economy. And if McCain doesn't get enough chances to try and scare dumb people about Iran, he'll have an even harder time winning this.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Conservatism
I have a very, very hard time not pronouncing and spelling this word as "conservativism." I'm deathly scared that I'll run into Ross Douthat on the street one day, ask him a question about his beliefs, and end up making a fool of myself. Actually, I don't think it would be so bad with Douthat, but thank god WFB is dead.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mommy, what's a lobbyist?
Both candidates have one aspect to their messaging that I just don't get. They focus on a specific aspect of "Washington status quo" and relentlessly pledge to reform it, or get rid of it, or kick its butt. And I really don't get why anybody is supposed to care.
For Obama, it's lobbyists. Obama's not using them to run his campaign, and John McCain is. Obama will kick the lobbyists out of Washington and start talking about what ordinary Americans care about. Obama thinks it's shameful that the grip of lobbyists over policymaking is so high. And he repeats those points all the time. But it just doesn't seem like talking about lobbyists is ever going to get people very angry, or excited about getting rid of them. I would bet a good deal that very few people even know what a lobbyist is, outside of a vague term for an unsavory person in politics. And while the overall system of lobbying can lead very easily to corruption, it's hard to see how a person who once worked as a lobbyist is automatically an Evil Insider. There are lobbyists that work to keep the corn subsidies rolling in and the tax loopholes on oil companies open, sure, but also ones who try to get alternative-energy subsidies and R&D funds appropriated, or money for an interstate bridge that will help trade or whatever. I don't know, I just can't see this having any real resonance. Sure, it's part of Obama's overall package of sweeping out the dirt in Washington and bringing a gleaming New Way in, but he really uses the lobbyist line a lot.
McCain's buzzword is, of course, earmarks. He'll post lists of congressmen who append earmarks. "You will know their names!" And cutting earmarks is how he plans to pay for his tax cuts and his hundred-year war. The second point is laughable on its face, of course, but in addition, I think "earmark" has most of the same problems as "lobbyist." It's a term people hear a lot, and they know it's something they shouldn't like, but I guarantee that 90% of voters couldn't tell you the process by which earmarks get through (I sure couldn't) or why exactly they're bad. An added problem with harping on earmarks is that, while there are good arguments to be made about the dangers of lobbyists, earmarks are...a good thing. Next to writing and voting on legislation, earmarks are the principal way elected representatives use their position to help their constituents; they're how channeling federal funds to their home state. Obviously that practice can lead to excess, the poster boy for which being the Bridge to Nowhere, but earmarks are not by themselves a negative thing.
In the same way that bashing lobbyists is the main point in Obama's "end corruption" theme, bashing earmarks is the main point in McCain's "end wastefulness" theme, but I can't see that using those two obscure, aloof institutions as whipping posts is very helpful to either of them.
For Obama, it's lobbyists. Obama's not using them to run his campaign, and John McCain is. Obama will kick the lobbyists out of Washington and start talking about what ordinary Americans care about. Obama thinks it's shameful that the grip of lobbyists over policymaking is so high. And he repeats those points all the time. But it just doesn't seem like talking about lobbyists is ever going to get people very angry, or excited about getting rid of them. I would bet a good deal that very few people even know what a lobbyist is, outside of a vague term for an unsavory person in politics. And while the overall system of lobbying can lead very easily to corruption, it's hard to see how a person who once worked as a lobbyist is automatically an Evil Insider. There are lobbyists that work to keep the corn subsidies rolling in and the tax loopholes on oil companies open, sure, but also ones who try to get alternative-energy subsidies and R&D funds appropriated, or money for an interstate bridge that will help trade or whatever. I don't know, I just can't see this having any real resonance. Sure, it's part of Obama's overall package of sweeping out the dirt in Washington and bringing a gleaming New Way in, but he really uses the lobbyist line a lot.
McCain's buzzword is, of course, earmarks. He'll post lists of congressmen who append earmarks. "You will know their names!" And cutting earmarks is how he plans to pay for his tax cuts and his hundred-year war. The second point is laughable on its face, of course, but in addition, I think "earmark" has most of the same problems as "lobbyist." It's a term people hear a lot, and they know it's something they shouldn't like, but I guarantee that 90% of voters couldn't tell you the process by which earmarks get through (I sure couldn't) or why exactly they're bad. An added problem with harping on earmarks is that, while there are good arguments to be made about the dangers of lobbyists, earmarks are...a good thing. Next to writing and voting on legislation, earmarks are the principal way elected representatives use their position to help their constituents; they're how channeling federal funds to their home state. Obviously that practice can lead to excess, the poster boy for which being the Bridge to Nowhere, but earmarks are not by themselves a negative thing.
In the same way that bashing lobbyists is the main point in Obama's "end corruption" theme, bashing earmarks is the main point in McCain's "end wastefulness" theme, but I can't see that using those two obscure, aloof institutions as whipping posts is very helpful to either of them.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Does Obama Have a Cunning Plan?
There's a persistent meme floating around about the almost mystical wisdom of Obama's campaign. When his latest burst of ads was released, he was widely lauded for his cleverness in "riding out the Palin surge" and playing superb rope-a-dope. Over at Open Left today, Chris Bowers made a post about Obama's recent dropping of gratuitous deference to McCain's character, and several commenters are proposing that Obama's former use of those compliments (which many on the left, including the guys at OL and TPM, winced at) was a calculated set-up to make the impact of his not using them greater. And all throughout the dark days of earlier this month, when McCain's bounce had him at double-digit national leads in some polls and we were thinking about going to whatever the left's version of Defcon 3 is (steaming latte bombs? clogging NRO's servers with mashed arugula?), bloggers and commenters solemnly recalled the lessons of the primary and concluded that Obama was playing chess while the rest of us were playing checkers.
How much validity does this image of Plouffe, Axelrod, and Obama as strategic savants have? As with almost all these questions, I'm guessing the answer lies somewhere in between brilliance and dumb luck. I really doubt that Obama and Biden were complimenting McCain with an explicit plan to drop the practice later, and I have a hard time believing that the guys in the war room in Chicago weren't at least a little bit panicky at the uncanny results of the Palin pick. On the other hand, the overall savviness of the campaign thus far is pretty hard to deny, and for the most part I trust that they know what they're doing. With the constant influx of polling data and new 24-hour scandals, it's easy to lose sight of the fundamentals, and I have confidence that the top minds at chez Obama are more in the know than the rest of us.
This does remind me of another point, though, and that's the enormous amount of Democratic good faith that Obama garnered from winning the primary. The fact that he beat the Clinton machine is brought up time and time again as evidence of his unflappability and long-term clearness of thought, but it needs to be remembered that Obama didn't so much win the primary as Clinton lost it.
True, his Iowa victory was spectacular, but it was also a gamble, and one that could easily have failed and consigned him to obscurity. Essentially, he made a bet that the country was more in the mood for inspiration than for the "git 'er done" Clinton philosophy, and Iowa proved him right. But after that, it was more Hillary's campaign's incompetence, combined with the fundamental gap between the Clintons' vision and that shared by Obama and just over half of the Democratic electorate, that carried him through.
The caucuses thing was just a damn no-brainer; Wolfson/McAuliffe/Penn deserve huge dopeslaps for not thinking about it, but it's not like Plouffe and Axelrod demonstrated uncommon insight by understanding the basic mechanics of the selection process. Likewise, the strategy of running up big margins in Obama-favorable primaries and keeping Hillary's margins low in the rest was definitely smart, but once again, the reason that won the thing for them is that the Clintons didn't do it. Remember Wisconsin?
The Clinton campaign was plagued by overconfidence, poor crisis management, and occasional bouts of extreme dumbness, while the Obama campaign had the advantages of striking the right tone at the right moment, having better people than the Clintons, and a charismatic and unique candidate. That's the long and short of it.They deserve a lot of credit for doing what they did, but I think it's rather dangerous to assume that they have this supernatural mastery of politics and that their wisdom will carry us through regardless of what things look like on the ground. If we slip into that complacency, we run the risk of a redo of the primary, only with the roles reversed.
How much validity does this image of Plouffe, Axelrod, and Obama as strategic savants have? As with almost all these questions, I'm guessing the answer lies somewhere in between brilliance and dumb luck. I really doubt that Obama and Biden were complimenting McCain with an explicit plan to drop the practice later, and I have a hard time believing that the guys in the war room in Chicago weren't at least a little bit panicky at the uncanny results of the Palin pick. On the other hand, the overall savviness of the campaign thus far is pretty hard to deny, and for the most part I trust that they know what they're doing. With the constant influx of polling data and new 24-hour scandals, it's easy to lose sight of the fundamentals, and I have confidence that the top minds at chez Obama are more in the know than the rest of us.
This does remind me of another point, though, and that's the enormous amount of Democratic good faith that Obama garnered from winning the primary. The fact that he beat the Clinton machine is brought up time and time again as evidence of his unflappability and long-term clearness of thought, but it needs to be remembered that Obama didn't so much win the primary as Clinton lost it.
True, his Iowa victory was spectacular, but it was also a gamble, and one that could easily have failed and consigned him to obscurity. Essentially, he made a bet that the country was more in the mood for inspiration than for the "git 'er done" Clinton philosophy, and Iowa proved him right. But after that, it was more Hillary's campaign's incompetence, combined with the fundamental gap between the Clintons' vision and that shared by Obama and just over half of the Democratic electorate, that carried him through.
The caucuses thing was just a damn no-brainer; Wolfson/McAuliffe/Penn deserve huge dopeslaps for not thinking about it, but it's not like Plouffe and Axelrod demonstrated uncommon insight by understanding the basic mechanics of the selection process. Likewise, the strategy of running up big margins in Obama-favorable primaries and keeping Hillary's margins low in the rest was definitely smart, but once again, the reason that won the thing for them is that the Clintons didn't do it. Remember Wisconsin?
The Clinton campaign was plagued by overconfidence, poor crisis management, and occasional bouts of extreme dumbness, while the Obama campaign had the advantages of striking the right tone at the right moment, having better people than the Clintons, and a charismatic and unique candidate. That's the long and short of it.They deserve a lot of credit for doing what they did, but I think it's rather dangerous to assume that they have this supernatural mastery of politics and that their wisdom will carry us through regardless of what things look like on the ground. If we slip into that complacency, we run the risk of a redo of the primary, only with the roles reversed.
Palinability
From The Monkey Cage comes this graph of Palin's composite favorability ratings:
It does look like good news, though it's likely that she has a pretty high floor thanks to her rabid fanbase. While low-info voters in the center will start to feel less and less good about her, she'll still be largely adored. Still, I guess low-info independents are the ones that matter.
It does look like good news, though it's likely that she has a pretty high floor thanks to her rabid fanbase. While low-info voters in the center will start to feel less and less good about her, she'll still be largely adored. Still, I guess low-info independents are the ones that matter.
Beta
I've been in the WotLK beta for several days now. I really haven't played it very much at all. It's not that I don't like it, I just have reservations about getting burned out on all the leveling stuff before I even buy the game. But from what little I have seen, it's looking pretty good. The beta servers are ridden with lag, since they're doing stress testing, but it's liveable. My Priest was turned into an offensive weenie into a powerhouse, because I respecced her to Shadow in anticipation of leveling, and the spellpower changes mean that in my healing set I have close to 1100 damage. Killing stuff with her is fun now, in contrast to the hell that was the QD dailies back in the summer.
I also leveled my mage to 70 after they announced the PvE -> PvP transfer change, bringing my total up to three. Haven't actually transferred him yet, as I'm a little anxious about my RL playgroup's willingness to come back when the expansion comes out; both have sounded fairly reticent about leaping back into the game. I don't think I'll play it much at all if they decide not to return, as 90% of the fun is in that interaction.
I'm also thinking about whether to keep playing my priest, or at any rate about whether she'll be the first character I level up. I'm pretty bummed about the treatment the class is getting in the expansion with respect to talents and skills. Switching to my mage or hunter would obviously end our carefully crafted tank/healer/dps setup, but healers aren't particularly hard to find anymore, and if Tim rolled a death knight Ben could switch to resto and maintain the arrangement, though he's said he'd prefer to stay feral. All in all, I'll probably just stick to the priest, thinking about it.
I also leveled my mage to 70 after they announced the PvE -> PvP transfer change, bringing my total up to three. Haven't actually transferred him yet, as I'm a little anxious about my RL playgroup's willingness to come back when the expansion comes out; both have sounded fairly reticent about leaping back into the game. I don't think I'll play it much at all if they decide not to return, as 90% of the fun is in that interaction.
I'm also thinking about whether to keep playing my priest, or at any rate about whether she'll be the first character I level up. I'm pretty bummed about the treatment the class is getting in the expansion with respect to talents and skills. Switching to my mage or hunter would obviously end our carefully crafted tank/healer/dps setup, but healers aren't particularly hard to find anymore, and if Tim rolled a death knight Ben could switch to resto and maintain the arrangement, though he's said he'd prefer to stay feral. All in all, I'll probably just stick to the priest, thinking about it.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Flipping Coins
Nate Silver at 538 makes a fascinating point:
He goes on to relate this idea to the current situation, but even if you just look at 2000 it's a thought-provoking notion. I've been trying to think of some other essentially randomly determined events in history that, had they happened to occur differently, would have forever changed the zeitgeist. There are plenty of obvious things, like various invasions that would have come out very differently if only General XYZ hadn't underestimated the Siberian winter, etc., etc., but one of the most interesting ones, in my opinion, is a corollary to Nate's original example.
Suppose those few hundred votes in Florida had indeed tipped in Gore's favor. Don't you think that would have severely hindered the growth of mainstream anti-intellectualism, and its resonance with the red-state base? The classic image of the 2000 candidates is the dichotomy between the chummy, "have a drink with me" Bush and the standoffish, sighing, "What about Dingle-Norwood?" Gore. In the event of a Gore win, it seems like the "everyman President" archetype would have at least partially succumbed to Gore's more professorial approach in the minds of the media. It's worth noting that this contrast is being renewed with vigor this cycle; "professorial" is the catch-all word for describing Obama's demeanor, especially in debates, and on the other side Palin epitomizes the Citizen-Ruler.
One of the truisms of political reporting is that it is exceptionally results-oriented. When a campaign wins, essentially every aspect of that campaign is deemed to be praiseworthy, and when a campaign loses, almost every aspect of the campaign is deemed to be a failure.
Think how much different the conventional wisdom would be if Al Gore had won 300 more votes in Florida. Bush's strategy of rallying to the evangelical base would have been considered a failure, as would the Rovian politics of personal destruction. But instead, because of what was essentially a mathematical coin-flip -- the vote count was so close in Florida that nobody really knows who won -- these things are considered to be standard operating practice in any competent campaign.
He goes on to relate this idea to the current situation, but even if you just look at 2000 it's a thought-provoking notion. I've been trying to think of some other essentially randomly determined events in history that, had they happened to occur differently, would have forever changed the zeitgeist. There are plenty of obvious things, like various invasions that would have come out very differently if only General XYZ hadn't underestimated the Siberian winter, etc., etc., but one of the most interesting ones, in my opinion, is a corollary to Nate's original example.
Suppose those few hundred votes in Florida had indeed tipped in Gore's favor. Don't you think that would have severely hindered the growth of mainstream anti-intellectualism, and its resonance with the red-state base? The classic image of the 2000 candidates is the dichotomy between the chummy, "have a drink with me" Bush and the standoffish, sighing, "What about Dingle-Norwood?" Gore. In the event of a Gore win, it seems like the "everyman President" archetype would have at least partially succumbed to Gore's more professorial approach in the minds of the media. It's worth noting that this contrast is being renewed with vigor this cycle; "professorial" is the catch-all word for describing Obama's demeanor, especially in debates, and on the other side Palin epitomizes the Citizen-Ruler.
Rat Race
I spend a lot of time on the WoW forums over at IGN's Vault Network. It's not so great for gameplay discussion, but there is some quality trolling to be had. Attached to the WoW boards is a thriving off-topic community, called the Asylum, and it's loaded with some extremely disturbing people. We're talking near-constant casual racism; they're all pretty radically conservative when they get around to talking about "policy," but the frequent sprinklings of bigotry never fail to shock my sheltered sensibilities. Here is one gem from yesterday:
(Talking about Ike)
Poster A: "where are all the stories of mass looting? where's the people bitching about George Bush hating them? Texas got severely messed up"
Poster B: Everyone in teaxas owns a gun, looters have been taken care of.
Poster C: also, texas doesn't have the massive mostly black slums that new orleans had.
Poster D: No, they have the third? highest population of mexican immigrants in the country. Same difference IMO.
Another little flourish I see now and again is using a monkey face smiley as a stand-in for "black":
9/14 5:18 AM: yes. fat
bitch who thinks the usa owes her for what they did to her people 200 years ago. always looking for a freakin handout. lazy as a piss ant. dumb as a rock. asks a million stupid questions and she's been doing the same job i do but has been at it since before i was god damned born.
This is a forum about a very popular video game; all the people there are gamers, though most have quit playing WoW and hang around the boards to talk with their friends. And this is the kind of stuff that you see up there on a regular basis. I don't really have anything more to say about it; I just couldn't help but react to that thread after seeing it last night.
(Talking about Ike)
Poster A: "where are all the stories of mass looting? where's the people bitching about George Bush hating them? Texas got severely messed up"
Poster B: Everyone in teaxas owns a gun, looters have been taken care of.
Poster C: also, texas doesn't have the massive mostly black slums that new orleans had.
Poster D: No, they have the third? highest population of mexican immigrants in the country. Same difference IMO.
Another little flourish I see now and again is using a monkey face smiley as a stand-in for "black":
9/14 5:18 AM: yes. fat
bitch who thinks the usa owes her for what they did to her people 200 years ago. always looking for a freakin handout. lazy as a piss ant. dumb as a rock. asks a million stupid questions and she's been doing the same job i do but has been at it since before i was god damned born.This is a forum about a very popular video game; all the people there are gamers, though most have quit playing WoW and hang around the boards to talk with their friends. And this is the kind of stuff that you see up there on a regular basis. I don't really have anything more to say about it; I just couldn't help but react to that thread after seeing it last night.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Spore--hunh!--What Is It Good For?
Well, not absolutely nothing.
I downloaded it yesterday and fiddled around for a bit. I finished the underwater stage, built my land dude, and haven't really played since. I enjoyed the cellular section well enough; the customization wasn't very deep or open-ended, and there wasn't a whole lot to do, but the whole thing took a small enough amount of time that the repetition never got irritating.
Basically, as everyone knows, a meteor hits the planet and deposits cells, one of which you control and customize. You swim through the water using the mouse, gathering food items and either avoiding or attacking other cells. Eating gives you experience points, and as you "level" you move closer to the surface of the water, encountering bigger and nastier cells as you go along.
I gave my species an appropriately silly name and set about swimming around. After eating enough food, I earned enough DNA currency to enter the cuztomization tool. The options are limited to expanding and contracting each of your cell's 7 or so segments (it's an oval by default) and purchasing items from a small menu, which grows as you discover body parts. I bought a spike for attacking other cells and an extra flagellum for increased movement speed.
As you go along, you find more cell parts and get more money. If you die to a hostile cell, you resurrect automatically; I couldn't detect any particular penalty for dying. Some of the pre-created fellow cells are pretty well designed, and overall the water feels pleasantly populated. After eating a bunch of little green food icons, I was invited to grow a pair of legs and strike out on land.
I liked the main designing tool, the one for the land creature, quite a lot. I didn't spend hours or anything on it, but I did take some time to fool around, and the tool is very intelligently designed (ahem). It's easy to select a part to change and then change what you want--size, position, orientation. Even with the very limited toolset that you start out with, it's hard to imagine a creature you couldn't make, or approximate.
I sort of wish the design of your cell had more of an impact on what the final product looked like: as it is, the land creature retains all the cell's accessories, but they can be deleted for a full DNA point refund, so it really doesn't matter what you do as a cell. You can even add a new type of mouth to switch between herbivore and carnivore. But it's a minor point, and from a gameplay experience it's actually nice to have a blank slate.
I ended up making a four-legged sloth-like thing (my reference point for what a sloth looks like being more or less Sid from Ice Age). It had a triangular head, and its leg arrangement kind of made it look lazy or chilled out. Loath to gimp myself, I felt obligated to add stealth equipment and a pair of attack-boosting spikes, as well as a proboscis, which is the omnivorous mouth option.
I spawned next to a campfire, with a convivial crowd of my fellow sloths welcoming me. This is the RPG section; the controls are WASD, and the camera angle is what you'd find in any MMO. All was bright and charming. I poked around for a bit and then quitted out.
Overall I can't complain about much. It obviously needs and merits a lot more exploration. So far I'm impressed, though not blown away.
I downloaded it yesterday and fiddled around for a bit. I finished the underwater stage, built my land dude, and haven't really played since. I enjoyed the cellular section well enough; the customization wasn't very deep or open-ended, and there wasn't a whole lot to do, but the whole thing took a small enough amount of time that the repetition never got irritating.
Basically, as everyone knows, a meteor hits the planet and deposits cells, one of which you control and customize. You swim through the water using the mouse, gathering food items and either avoiding or attacking other cells. Eating gives you experience points, and as you "level" you move closer to the surface of the water, encountering bigger and nastier cells as you go along.
I gave my species an appropriately silly name and set about swimming around. After eating enough food, I earned enough DNA currency to enter the cuztomization tool. The options are limited to expanding and contracting each of your cell's 7 or so segments (it's an oval by default) and purchasing items from a small menu, which grows as you discover body parts. I bought a spike for attacking other cells and an extra flagellum for increased movement speed.
As you go along, you find more cell parts and get more money. If you die to a hostile cell, you resurrect automatically; I couldn't detect any particular penalty for dying. Some of the pre-created fellow cells are pretty well designed, and overall the water feels pleasantly populated. After eating a bunch of little green food icons, I was invited to grow a pair of legs and strike out on land.
I liked the main designing tool, the one for the land creature, quite a lot. I didn't spend hours or anything on it, but I did take some time to fool around, and the tool is very intelligently designed (ahem). It's easy to select a part to change and then change what you want--size, position, orientation. Even with the very limited toolset that you start out with, it's hard to imagine a creature you couldn't make, or approximate.
I sort of wish the design of your cell had more of an impact on what the final product looked like: as it is, the land creature retains all the cell's accessories, but they can be deleted for a full DNA point refund, so it really doesn't matter what you do as a cell. You can even add a new type of mouth to switch between herbivore and carnivore. But it's a minor point, and from a gameplay experience it's actually nice to have a blank slate.
I ended up making a four-legged sloth-like thing (my reference point for what a sloth looks like being more or less Sid from Ice Age). It had a triangular head, and its leg arrangement kind of made it look lazy or chilled out. Loath to gimp myself, I felt obligated to add stealth equipment and a pair of attack-boosting spikes, as well as a proboscis, which is the omnivorous mouth option.
I spawned next to a campfire, with a convivial crowd of my fellow sloths welcoming me. This is the RPG section; the controls are WASD, and the camera angle is what you'd find in any MMO. All was bright and charming. I poked around for a bit and then quitted out.
Overall I can't complain about much. It obviously needs and merits a lot more exploration. So far I'm impressed, though not blown away.
Death and Taxes
From Hilzoy over at the Washington Monthly comes this graph, from the Tax Policy Center (you'll need to click it to make it bigger):
Look, this is the kind of thing that we need to hammer at over and over again until we're blue in the face. Let the surrogates tackle McCain's abandoned integrity and Palin's escalatinfumbles; Obama needs to be driving home constantly that his tax plan is significantly more beneficial to the majority of Americans than McCain's. The second graph in Hilzoy's post is a devastating reminder of the inability of the Obama campaign to get this argument out there, and of the persistent power of the "tax-and-spend Democrat vs. responsible Republican" paradigm, which, while obviously baseless, either is very tough to combat or hasn't been combated enough (I say it's the latter).
So how can Obama get his point across? The information in the Tax Policy Center graph is very powerful, and reflects extremely well on Obama to anyone who isn't a supply-sider, but clearly using any graph is out of the question for a 30-second TV spot. The ad needs to strike a balance between specific and broad, clinical and personal. I don't have any brilliant ideas about how to do this, but surely Obama can use his record-breaking August cash influx to put the best and the brightest of ad guys and gals on this. Contained in that one graph is the perfect juxtaposition of Obama's economic populism with McCain's trickle-down, backwards approach. The campaign needs to set about turning it into votes.
Look, this is the kind of thing that we need to hammer at over and over again until we're blue in the face. Let the surrogates tackle McCain's abandoned integrity and Palin's escalatinfumbles; Obama needs to be driving home constantly that his tax plan is significantly more beneficial to the majority of Americans than McCain's. The second graph in Hilzoy's post is a devastating reminder of the inability of the Obama campaign to get this argument out there, and of the persistent power of the "tax-and-spend Democrat vs. responsible Republican" paradigm, which, while obviously baseless, either is very tough to combat or hasn't been combated enough (I say it's the latter).
So how can Obama get his point across? The information in the Tax Policy Center graph is very powerful, and reflects extremely well on Obama to anyone who isn't a supply-sider, but clearly using any graph is out of the question for a 30-second TV spot. The ad needs to strike a balance between specific and broad, clinical and personal. I don't have any brilliant ideas about how to do this, but surely Obama can use his record-breaking August cash influx to put the best and the brightest of ad guys and gals on this. Contained in that one graph is the perfect juxtaposition of Obama's economic populism with McCain's trickle-down, backwards approach. The campaign needs to set about turning it into votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)