So my brother made a blog post a few days ago about MMOs, and that spawned this thought process.
The problem with having a story in an MMO is that inevitably there are too many actors. Everyone wants to be the hero, but you can only have to many heroes without a story feeling cheap (see Sluggy's recent commentary on respawning evil quest mobs). When the NPCs are the supporting actors, you end up having hundreds, thousands, even millions of star actors.
But that's entirely the wrong train of thought. MMOs don't need a story, or at least those that I've played. The story is the players themselves.
The weakness of such MMOs isn't that they limit what players can accomplish. Players have no final effect on their environment aside from their effect on other players, which could hypothetically be part of the motivation of griefing. This lack of investment in the Player's ability to shape their environment is ignoring the strongest pull for play.
What you need aren't the tools for players to design their own worlds, but to have an effect on their own world. To have players create by playing.
In an MMO where cities can be sacked, leaders killed, nations conquered the players are motivated to make history. They can recall "I was at the battle of Fanador, and was at the forefront of the suicidal charge through the gate". They can say, "Ah yes, I gave my life defending the King of Pelas". They can wax nostalgic, "It was I who furnished arms for the High Guard of Tornoth before they made their final, wild charge to death and glory." This is exciting, this is visceral, this is history.
It's the ultimate solution to the "consuming is easier than creating" problem. For almost everyone reading history is infinitely more boring than making history. Give the reins of history into the hands of players and you have the truest form of digital crack possible.
Granted, there are amazing hurdles to surmount. Balance is a nightmare, the disconnect between impermanent death and permanent world effect could be offsetting, what are the incentives for being a part of the wars, and what if the scale makes it too much like the real world where the effect of one person feels too small?
But these are problems equivalent to those other MMOs face today. The MMO I've described here has a completely different dynamic. It doesn't require leveling because your investment is in the world as much as the character. It doesn't requiring grinding the same mobs over and over again, battles will never be the same. It trades one set of problems for another.
Now someone read this post, steal the idea, and make the MMO for me. I'm lazy.
20080828
20080827
New
I am slow as molasses to change. For all my philosophical musings on the dangers of sedate living, I'm a homebody, a mama's boy, and extremely stubborn when it comes to moving forward.
At the moment the dams of stubbornness are bowing under the stress of a building desire to do... something. Whether it's whip myself into better physical shape, learn the guitar, start a World of Warcraft blog or do all sorts of 1337 video editing something's probably going to give...
...in the next year. Hey, I did say slow as molasses.
At the moment the dams of stubbornness are bowing under the stress of a building desire to do... something. Whether it's whip myself into better physical shape, learn the guitar, start a World of Warcraft blog or do all sorts of 1337 video editing something's probably going to give...
...in the next year. Hey, I did say slow as molasses.
20080819
A Good Answer
I like to think, and as a thinker I'm naturally drawn to two kinds of thinking. The first is purely exploratory, engaging such thoughts as "What are the practical implications of pokemon in a real world?" The second is the problem solver's paradox, most of the time one spends thinking is on problems you don't succeed in solving.
Abortion and homosexuality are issues that fall under the second category, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about them. While I've come a long way from my evangelical naivety I haven't come to any hard conclusions about either. In the end, the best that I can come up with is that these issues are both symptoms of greater problems in society that won't go away until those greater problems are solved.
Having spent so much time failing to come up with a practical solution, I found myself impressed upon reading the following excerpt from the Compassion Forum held at Messiah College back in April. Bolded sections are my emphasis.
I had previously been concerned about Obama's support for abortion rights, as while I dislike the approaches of the extreme right toward the issue (to put it lightly) I find it very hard to justify the cancellation of potential life post-conception. My personal squeamishness, however, is not in and of itself a convincing argument to others.
But the very idea of a convincing argument is in itself flawed. The theoretical omnipersuasive argument doesn't exists, and Obama clearly responds with that in mind. Clearly outlining both his beliefs and his position on the issue, Obama's response shows that this isn't a subject he's thought about only in passing. Rather than attempt a solution to the problem of resolving the views of diametrically opposed groups, he instead suggests diminishing the object of their conflict.
In and of itself this isn't a solution to the problem, but it's an achievable pathway to making solutions possible. That's how one circumvents indestructible barriers and accomplishes change.
Obama remains far from 100% perfect, but I'm confident at this point that despite his faults he is willing and capable of effecting the change he calls for.
What remains is for McCain to prove that he will be the maverick in office he has been in years past. He, in my mind, is at a similar crossroads that Hillary encountered during the primaries. She took a wrong turn then, destroying much that she had accomplished in attempting to defeat Obama. I recall McCain's speeches a month prior to Obama's victory, in which he sharply criticized Obama's calls for change as not being policies but instead platitudes. That McCain was a maverick, and not afraid to call Obama out where he was weak without being negative. That McCain has also been strangely absent since Obama won the primaries.
Hopefully I'll encounter a excerpt of McCain's which gives me similar faith in his abilities as a President. I'd very much like that to be the case. The idea of having to choose between candidates not because they are both bad, but because they are both very good is one I've been keen on since this all started.
Abortion and homosexuality are issues that fall under the second category, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about them. While I've come a long way from my evangelical naivety I haven't come to any hard conclusions about either. In the end, the best that I can come up with is that these issues are both symptoms of greater problems in society that won't go away until those greater problems are solved.
Having spent so much time failing to come up with a practical solution, I found myself impressed upon reading the following excerpt from the Compassion Forum held at Messiah College back in April. Bolded sections are my emphasis.
REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HISPANIC LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE: Senator Obama, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family and her doctors. However, the vast majority of Americans similarly believe that abortion is the taking of a human life.
The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?
OBAMA: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
The second thing, once we acknowledge that, is to recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.
And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.
And we've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.
But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.
And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.
We're not going to completely resolve it. I mean, there -- you know, at some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.
OBAMA: Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family.
I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past.
MEACHAM: Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?
OBAMA: This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates...
I had previously been concerned about Obama's support for abortion rights, as while I dislike the approaches of the extreme right toward the issue (to put it lightly) I find it very hard to justify the cancellation of potential life post-conception. My personal squeamishness, however, is not in and of itself a convincing argument to others.
But the very idea of a convincing argument is in itself flawed. The theoretical omnipersuasive argument doesn't exists, and Obama clearly responds with that in mind. Clearly outlining both his beliefs and his position on the issue, Obama's response shows that this isn't a subject he's thought about only in passing. Rather than attempt a solution to the problem of resolving the views of diametrically opposed groups, he instead suggests diminishing the object of their conflict.
In and of itself this isn't a solution to the problem, but it's an achievable pathway to making solutions possible. That's how one circumvents indestructible barriers and accomplishes change.
Obama remains far from 100% perfect, but I'm confident at this point that despite his faults he is willing and capable of effecting the change he calls for.
What remains is for McCain to prove that he will be the maverick in office he has been in years past. He, in my mind, is at a similar crossroads that Hillary encountered during the primaries. She took a wrong turn then, destroying much that she had accomplished in attempting to defeat Obama. I recall McCain's speeches a month prior to Obama's victory, in which he sharply criticized Obama's calls for change as not being policies but instead platitudes. That McCain was a maverick, and not afraid to call Obama out where he was weak without being negative. That McCain has also been strangely absent since Obama won the primaries.
Hopefully I'll encounter a excerpt of McCain's which gives me similar faith in his abilities as a President. I'd very much like that to be the case. The idea of having to choose between candidates not because they are both bad, but because they are both very good is one I've been keen on since this all started.
20080731
Why Am I Not Surprised
Would it be at all surprising if I stated that the nature of the politic debates at Messiah College was continually that of extreme polar opposites squaring off over trivialities without any interest in mutual understanding and world betterment? No? Didn't think so.
It's not that there weren't dedicated Republicans, Democrats, and Moderates with intelligence, poise, eloquence and grace. It's just most didn't want to bother with the shouting matches and those that did either were drowned out or roasted alive.\
In any case, now whenever I have to explain to my coworkers what college I came from I can always say, "You know that ridiculous woman who illegally discriminated in her hiring practices for the Justice Department? Yeah... I went to the same college she did."
20080716
E3 2008: The Doldroms
It wasn't long ago that the entire gaming community was breathless every May as the much vaunted E3 exploded with fantastic claims of supremacy by the big three console makers, amazing demos of soon to be blockbuster games, and plenty of speculation as to the market's future.
This year, very little of that happened.
The E3 of old is truly dead and gone, a relic of an era coming to a close. The first steps toward making videos an accepted form of mass media have been taken, and the rest can only follow.
What makes E3 2008 so unremarkable is not the shift of focus to a wider audience, but rather how little things have changed in the past year. Nintendo is still reaping the incredible rewards of their strategy, Microsoft is still blindly scrambling to hop on board, and Sony is still drifting. There's nothing new under the sun.
There were various points of interest. Nintendo announced a new attachment for their Wiimote, supposedly this one will allow for true 1:1 mapping of movement to control. Microsoft announced more changes to their Xbox Live interface including insidiously familiar avatars (they essentially look like the "hip" version of Miis), and Sony once again heaped incredible pre-rendered footage and promises at our feet, begging for just one more year to get their act together as another exclusive title became not so exclusive.
Nothing that particularly shook the status quo happened.
Sure, the usual herds of insanely rabid fanboys swarmed the internet trolling forums and news sites claiming X, Y or Z spelled the ascension or continued dominance of one company while A, B or C spelled doom for another. This time, however, people largely didn't bite. No one cared to, what was the point?
Sure, Final Fantasy 13 is no longer a PS3 exclusive, but it's not like any of their exclusives thus far have been that spectacular. Harping on the PS3s games library at this point is like harping on President Bush for his bad foreign relations.
Sure, the new Wii attachment could be seen as basically admitting that the Wiimote alone wasn't sufficient for true 1:1 motion capture. That revelation is as old as the Wii's release date. It's sudden rerevealing doesn't mean that Nintendo suddenly loses its profits, marketshare or mindshare.
Sure, Microsoft's presentation once again stank of their impossible attempts to understand the house that Miyamoto built. Once again, this has been pretty obvious from the get go. Acting as though their continued inability to comprehend what lies beyond the realm of teenage to college-aged male gaming is anything new is disingenuous considering they've been at it since last generation.
So for the hardcore gamer, this year's E3 was something of a bust. Both Nintendo and Microsoft were focused largely on people other than you, and Sony had nothing interesting except the stuff we we've been hearing about for two to four years already. At a time when typically salvos of new games taking hardware and game design to new peaks are being revealed, instead we find ourselves watching as our kid sibling the "casual gamer" gets all the attention.
It's a tough pill to swallow for people who've been the center of attention for two decades. The pendulum is swinging away, and for a while the old guard is going to be largely ignored except for misguided attempts at more Halo-like FPSs. Eventually it'll swing back our way, then forth again, and back again until eventually the momentum dies entirely and we have a nice equilibrium.
For now, I'll just look forward to Spore, the next WoW expansion and my currently vastly underplayed library of cool games that have already come out but I haven't beaten (Twilight Princess, Trauma Center, Ninja Gaiden 2, Armored Core 4 etc).
This year, very little of that happened.
The E3 of old is truly dead and gone, a relic of an era coming to a close. The first steps toward making videos an accepted form of mass media have been taken, and the rest can only follow.
What makes E3 2008 so unremarkable is not the shift of focus to a wider audience, but rather how little things have changed in the past year. Nintendo is still reaping the incredible rewards of their strategy, Microsoft is still blindly scrambling to hop on board, and Sony is still drifting. There's nothing new under the sun.
There were various points of interest. Nintendo announced a new attachment for their Wiimote, supposedly this one will allow for true 1:1 mapping of movement to control. Microsoft announced more changes to their Xbox Live interface including insidiously familiar avatars (they essentially look like the "hip" version of Miis), and Sony once again heaped incredible pre-rendered footage and promises at our feet, begging for just one more year to get their act together as another exclusive title became not so exclusive.
Nothing that particularly shook the status quo happened.
Sure, the usual herds of insanely rabid fanboys swarmed the internet trolling forums and news sites claiming X, Y or Z spelled the ascension or continued dominance of one company while A, B or C spelled doom for another. This time, however, people largely didn't bite. No one cared to, what was the point?
Sure, Final Fantasy 13 is no longer a PS3 exclusive, but it's not like any of their exclusives thus far have been that spectacular. Harping on the PS3s games library at this point is like harping on President Bush for his bad foreign relations.
Sure, the new Wii attachment could be seen as basically admitting that the Wiimote alone wasn't sufficient for true 1:1 motion capture. That revelation is as old as the Wii's release date. It's sudden rerevealing doesn't mean that Nintendo suddenly loses its profits, marketshare or mindshare.
Sure, Microsoft's presentation once again stank of their impossible attempts to understand the house that Miyamoto built. Once again, this has been pretty obvious from the get go. Acting as though their continued inability to comprehend what lies beyond the realm of teenage to college-aged male gaming is anything new is disingenuous considering they've been at it since last generation.
So for the hardcore gamer, this year's E3 was something of a bust. Both Nintendo and Microsoft were focused largely on people other than you, and Sony had nothing interesting except the stuff we we've been hearing about for two to four years already. At a time when typically salvos of new games taking hardware and game design to new peaks are being revealed, instead we find ourselves watching as our kid sibling the "casual gamer" gets all the attention.
It's a tough pill to swallow for people who've been the center of attention for two decades. The pendulum is swinging away, and for a while the old guard is going to be largely ignored except for misguided attempts at more Halo-like FPSs. Eventually it'll swing back our way, then forth again, and back again until eventually the momentum dies entirely and we have a nice equilibrium.
For now, I'll just look forward to Spore, the next WoW expansion and my currently vastly underplayed library of cool games that have already come out but I haven't beaten (Twilight Princess, Trauma Center, Ninja Gaiden 2, Armored Core 4 etc).
20080703
Seabass 2008
Four years ago my forum friends and I started a campaign. Neither Bush nor Kerry were adequate to lead this country, and so we turned to the one man we knew who could do the job.
Seabass.
He was intermittently active on the forums, Canadian, and didn't seem particularly rational. Given that the other candidates were similarly unqualified, we couldn't think of a better man for the job. Besides, his avatar was a guy with an exploding head.
Seabass didn't get elected that year, we blame Mexico. However, we continued to lie in wait, biding our time for the right moment to try again.
That time is now.
Seabass is obviously the best candidate for the job. As a resident of Canada, he has far more experience with foreigners than either candidate. As a man with an exploding head he, more than anyone else, is aware of the calamitous results of bad security policy.
Truly this man should lead the country.
Seabass 2008.
Seabass.
He was intermittently active on the forums, Canadian, and didn't seem particularly rational. Given that the other candidates were similarly unqualified, we couldn't think of a better man for the job. Besides, his avatar was a guy with an exploding head.
Seabass didn't get elected that year, we blame Mexico. However, we continued to lie in wait, biding our time for the right moment to try again.
That time is now.
Seabass is obviously the best candidate for the job. As a resident of Canada, he has far more experience with foreigners than either candidate. As a man with an exploding head he, more than anyone else, is aware of the calamitous results of bad security policy.
Truly this man should lead the country.
Seabass 2008.
20080701
People and Places
I've stated numerous times that the reason I'm drawn to World of Warcraft over other games. While I am an introvert, I need a human presence in my gaming. My dependency on my fellows is continually rehighlighted as I play.
Sometimes it's for good reasons. Downing a boss for the first time as a guild is always an adrenaline powered high. Running around an arena having a massing FFA is also quite exciting. Often it's just the simple, if hilarious, guild conversations. Usually I can ride these waves through levels, grinding, and more mundane activities.
Other times events happen that completely stymie my ability to play the game at all. Someone leaves the guild for selfish reasons, a member displays a bad attitude, a miscommunication occurs, and many other events can sap the will to play.
The people in WoW are what make or break the game. Whether they're your friends, the bums vandalizing trade chat, or the gold farmers, I can't escape the connections personal and impersonal within the game. It's both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the game.
We'll see how this double edged sword cuts this summer.
Sometimes it's for good reasons. Downing a boss for the first time as a guild is always an adrenaline powered high. Running around an arena having a massing FFA is also quite exciting. Often it's just the simple, if hilarious, guild conversations. Usually I can ride these waves through levels, grinding, and more mundane activities.
Other times events happen that completely stymie my ability to play the game at all. Someone leaves the guild for selfish reasons, a member displays a bad attitude, a miscommunication occurs, and many other events can sap the will to play.
The people in WoW are what make or break the game. Whether they're your friends, the bums vandalizing trade chat, or the gold farmers, I can't escape the connections personal and impersonal within the game. It's both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the game.
We'll see how this double edged sword cuts this summer.
20080619
Spore: First Impressions
Spore is that game at its conception blew me away. Three years after my father bemoaned the eventual sycophantic siphoning of his sons' creativity, the leeching has finally begun.
Earlier this week EA released what one might call a minuscule portion of Spore to the public. Though the game itself will not be available until September, the editor allowing the creation and sculpting of creatures is available for download. In true EA fashion it costs money, but thankfully there's a version sporting only 25% of the available biology one can try for free.
I spent a meager hour and half with the editor last night in order to give first impressions. Realize that not only have I little experience with this super playdough, but I also was working with only 25% of its potential.
As is my wont I pushed the limits of what the editor allowed me to do. In doing so I made a few interesting creatures I'll have to share later. However, I encountered the following nuisances. It may be that I'm still a novice and haven't found the mystical keys to overcoming these obstacles, but the barriers were present and, as always, vexed me.
1) Forward is forced. There's a pointy end to the disk upon which you play creator, and that is the direction your creature considers forward. Feet will always face that direction, and creature actions will all function based on the assumption that this is their facing. This results in humorous, if frustrating, results when you have a creatures slimy maw on the other side of its body. It will dash in the game's sense of "forward", but fail to turn around for its strike. It also doesn't seem to want to walk backwords, often awkwardly turning in ways that doesn't look natural depending on your creature's design.
2) Multi-pronged limbs are limited. It may be that lacking multi-jointed limbs prevented this form of exploration, but I wasn't able to have limbs branch off one another. Given some of the demonstrated creatures, this was disappointing.
3) Complexity is very abstract. There's a meter indicating the complexity of your creature. When it fills, nothing more may be added. However, some seemingly simple changes can fill the meter much faster than adding dozens of doodads one might consider complex.
Despite these setbacks the editor is a lot of fun. I could easily lose an evening perfecting my mutant races like the Xel'naga. I do hope some of the limiting issues are dealt with before release, though if they're releasing the creature editor at this point I have my doubts there'll be much difference.
Earlier this week EA released what one might call a minuscule portion of Spore to the public. Though the game itself will not be available until September, the editor allowing the creation and sculpting of creatures is available for download. In true EA fashion it costs money, but thankfully there's a version sporting only 25% of the available biology one can try for free.
I spent a meager hour and half with the editor last night in order to give first impressions. Realize that not only have I little experience with this super playdough, but I also was working with only 25% of its potential.
As is my wont I pushed the limits of what the editor allowed me to do. In doing so I made a few interesting creatures I'll have to share later. However, I encountered the following nuisances. It may be that I'm still a novice and haven't found the mystical keys to overcoming these obstacles, but the barriers were present and, as always, vexed me.
1) Forward is forced. There's a pointy end to the disk upon which you play creator, and that is the direction your creature considers forward. Feet will always face that direction, and creature actions will all function based on the assumption that this is their facing. This results in humorous, if frustrating, results when you have a creatures slimy maw on the other side of its body. It will dash in the game's sense of "forward", but fail to turn around for its strike. It also doesn't seem to want to walk backwords, often awkwardly turning in ways that doesn't look natural depending on your creature's design.
2) Multi-pronged limbs are limited. It may be that lacking multi-jointed limbs prevented this form of exploration, but I wasn't able to have limbs branch off one another. Given some of the demonstrated creatures, this was disappointing.
3) Complexity is very abstract. There's a meter indicating the complexity of your creature. When it fills, nothing more may be added. However, some seemingly simple changes can fill the meter much faster than adding dozens of doodads one might consider complex.
Despite these setbacks the editor is a lot of fun. I could easily lose an evening perfecting my mutant races like the Xel'naga. I do hope some of the limiting issues are dealt with before release, though if they're releasing the creature editor at this point I have my doubts there'll be much difference.
20080610
Shameless Ignorance
Normally I like to think of myself as a gentle, diplomatic person who tries to bridge gaps and break down communication barriers. To that effect, I generally avoid throwing around names, blame and anything similarly antagonizing wherever I can.
Not today.
A week ago a common catchphrase was "If Hillary doesn't win I'll vote for McCain". Today it's "If Hillary doesn't get the VP slot I'll vote for McCain" when it isn't "Because Hillary lost I'm voting McCain". I have a brief message for all the people expressing these notions.
You're idiots.
This is not because voting for McCain is idiotic per se, but because the implicit motivations for doing so are. None of the people I've seen making a big deal about voting for McCain in place of Hillary are doing so over policy or presidential potential.
I have plenty of Republican and moderate friends who can and will make an excellent case for voting for McCain over Obama. One of the reasons they will not give is "because I'm whiny over Hillary losing". That's a ridiculously stupid motivation, and it's equally disrespectful to all of the candidates involves.
You might dispute that this is the reason you're declaring that you'd never vote for Obama, but if that's the case back it up. Put some bite behind your bark because otherwise you look like a political idiot. Obama's policies and positions are too similar to Hillary's for people to assume you know what you're talking about when you leave it at "Obama sucks, I'm voting McCain".
There are bound to be people who are switching from Hillary to McCain with a sane mind and reason, but I highly doubt they're the ones making a big stink about their choice.
In conclusion, get over yourselves and the primaries, then make an informed decision this fall.
Not today.
A week ago a common catchphrase was "If Hillary doesn't win I'll vote for McCain". Today it's "If Hillary doesn't get the VP slot I'll vote for McCain" when it isn't "Because Hillary lost I'm voting McCain". I have a brief message for all the people expressing these notions.
You're idiots.
This is not because voting for McCain is idiotic per se, but because the implicit motivations for doing so are. None of the people I've seen making a big deal about voting for McCain in place of Hillary are doing so over policy or presidential potential.
I have plenty of Republican and moderate friends who can and will make an excellent case for voting for McCain over Obama. One of the reasons they will not give is "because I'm whiny over Hillary losing". That's a ridiculously stupid motivation, and it's equally disrespectful to all of the candidates involves.
You might dispute that this is the reason you're declaring that you'd never vote for Obama, but if that's the case back it up. Put some bite behind your bark because otherwise you look like a political idiot. Obama's policies and positions are too similar to Hillary's for people to assume you know what you're talking about when you leave it at "Obama sucks, I'm voting McCain".
There are bound to be people who are switching from Hillary to McCain with a sane mind and reason, but I highly doubt they're the ones making a big stink about their choice.
In conclusion, get over yourselves and the primaries, then make an informed decision this fall.
20080609
What can you do in eight minutes?
Answer: Review the entire timeline of the Democratic Party Primaries.
20080606
Druid Haiku
I like writing poetry. Unfortunately, the following haiku are entirely topical to WoW.
Seeing Treants burn,
only you can prevent them,
wisdom from Bear Form.
Start with highest rank,
with second best repeating,
proper Moonfire spam.
Great saga of durid,
knowledge ageless and humble,
teaches Alamo.
As an aside, I spend some time debating the proper syllable count for "Moonfire". The way in which "Fire" is pronounced makes it difficult to peg. It's technically one syllable, but it's pronounced (at least by me) as Fi-er. It doesn't feel smooth enough rolling off my tongue to count as just one. However, I deferred to the dictionary to maintain the phrase.
Seeing Treants burn,
only you can prevent them,
wisdom from Bear Form.
Start with highest rank,
with second best repeating,
proper Moonfire spam.
Great saga of durid,
knowledge ageless and humble,
teaches Alamo.
As an aside, I spend some time debating the proper syllable count for "Moonfire". The way in which "Fire" is pronounced makes it difficult to peg. It's technically one syllable, but it's pronounced (at least by me) as Fi-er. It doesn't feel smooth enough rolling off my tongue to count as just one. However, I deferred to the dictionary to maintain the phrase.
20080522
Almost there...
A lot of people, myself included, are looking forward to June 4th. On that day, the final tallies will be counted, the numbers processed, and the pundits will give their epitaphs for the election. There will be nothing left to discuss, and we as a country will move on to better and greater things.
Wait, no, I'm wrong.
Come August will be the Democratic National Convention. There, finally, we will have our official branded conclusion. Our next President will be decided, and we can all take a deep sigh of relief and relax.
Hah, who am I kidding?
The Daily Show with John Stewart termed it best, "The Long, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March to the White House". This won't be over when the last Primary is done, and it certainly won't be over when the convention starts. There'll be a brief period where there isn't any primary fuel for the political news tsunami, but there's plenty of secondary kindling in the form of vice presidential speculation, shots over the bow from both sides, and Hillary's refusal to bow out.
So if you were looking for much political relief in the month of June, you'll sadly have to wait until January. In the meantime, my views on the current political situation.
The current polls of who would win which state in the general election at this point are like predicting who will win a Marathon after the first mile. To say "a lot can happen" is a vast understatement, almost everything has yet to happen. The general election might be as exciting as the democratic primary, or it might be the single dullest general election ever. We can't tell.
The vice presidential searches going on will be more interesting when some actual names are dropped. I don't know enough politicians or politics to have any sense for what would make sense.
Hillary.
There have been a number of allegations recently, spawned by the once vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, that Hillary Clinton lost due to sexism. While I'm sure that sexism has naturally had some small measure of impact, I think that pointing it out as though it were the major or sole cause of her demise is foolhardy and disrespectful to the harsh realities that women face every day.
Look at the playing field. Every last white, Anglo-Saxon male democratic candidate was absolutely positively demolished, by a woman and an African-American no less. There should be people singing praises for how both candidates have overcome boundaries once thought unbreakable, but apparently that only counts if you get elected.
Generally, I tend to rule out sexism as a major contributing factor because it strikes me that racism is probably an equal barrier for Obama, if not a greater one. It's tough to say as no one took polls on misogyny, but with recent wins for Hillary showing 20% of people admitting they're racist... one has to stop and wonder how much of a disadvantage she really had.
Clinton had key advantages starting out. She was slated to win before it began, she had massive name recognition, money, allies, and super delegates who had already thrown their support behind her. News coverage was basically Clinton vs Everyone Else, with Everyone Else losing soundly.
What lost her this campaign was complacency and short term thinking. She was presumed to be the 2008 nominee as early as 2004. A good contender doesn't rest easy when they're on top, but Clinton did. Her campaign was set up under a number of really bad assumptions as to the nature of the primary season and it showed.
It was assumed that there wouldn't be any substantial competition. The campaign worked from the top down, convincing first the all important local politicians and going down from there. They'd be crucial for the general election. However, in a contested primary this is a very bad strategy. Working from the bottom up not only tends to get more votes (and more people to caucuses) but it also ties the hands of democrats who are still somewhat sour over Al Gore's 2000 popular vote win and presidential loss. The local politicians won't go against the popular vote unless they feel bold enough to risk the ire of their constituents.
It was assumed it would be short. This lead to several separate issues.
Short campaigns don't need to ration money. Once "Super Tuesday" ended the Clinton campaign was effectively bankrupt. They had assumed that would be the end, and Obama's uncontested victories throughout February were the result; completely reversing te gap Hillary had established.
Short campaigns don't need careful consideration. There were a number of promises, positions and policies Hillary spoke about early on which were completely reversed later. Comparing her words from last year versus a few months ago versus today is like looking at three separate people. As a result, her trustworthiness is down the chute.
Short campaigns don't need a unifying theme or message, which Clinton did not have until well into the primary season. Without a clear purpose or response to Obama, he was granted a free ride on his rhetoric for months. It took the internet to find his crazy once-pastor and finally break the invincible bubble.
As much as Rudy Guilliani's campaign will go down in history as how not to win a nomination, so too will Hillary Clinton's.
Right now, Clinton's main arguments are the unseated Delegates in Florida and Michigan and her greater potential for the general election. Lets look at the situation.
I won't go into the math because it's boring, finicky, and pointless. By Obama's math he's obtained a solid majority of pledged delegates in addition to his lead in the popular vote. By Clinton's math no majority has been reached yet, and she leads the popular vote.
The difference comes down to two things, caucuses and the disenfranchised states of Florida and Michigan (a deed effectively done by their own legislatures). Clinton doesn't count caucus votes in her popular vote totals, and she is firmly of the opinion that you can't have a majority without taking into account Florida and Michigan.
I personally find both disingenuous. The former because it's stupidly selective (lets subtract all states that used a particular kind of ballot, had their primaries in months beginning with F, or looked at me funny), and the latter because it actually doesn't help her any.
In the case of the latter, allotting the delegates based on her wins in those states loses her the nomination. Obama retains his majority on pledged delegates and, by any sensical way of counting it, his lead in the popular vote. Hillary closes the gap significantly, but is still so far short that more than 70% of super delegates would have to back her in order for her to win.
This is why so many pundits, talk show hosts, newcasters and political analysts have called the election for Obama. The democrats can not hope to field Hillary as a candidate without alienating their support base. The kind of "screw you" nomination theft that would have to occur would completely obliterate the hopeful people who have set record turnouts and made this primary season as big a deal as it is and was. A very significant portion of Obama's supporters, myself included, would be disheartened, depressed, and ultimately disinclined to ever care about politics again.
The democrats want a democratic president too much for that to happen.
Wait, no, I'm wrong.
Come August will be the Democratic National Convention. There, finally, we will have our official branded conclusion. Our next President will be decided, and we can all take a deep sigh of relief and relax.
Hah, who am I kidding?
The Daily Show with John Stewart termed it best, "The Long, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March to the White House". This won't be over when the last Primary is done, and it certainly won't be over when the convention starts. There'll be a brief period where there isn't any primary fuel for the political news tsunami, but there's plenty of secondary kindling in the form of vice presidential speculation, shots over the bow from both sides, and Hillary's refusal to bow out.
So if you were looking for much political relief in the month of June, you'll sadly have to wait until January. In the meantime, my views on the current political situation.
The current polls of who would win which state in the general election at this point are like predicting who will win a Marathon after the first mile. To say "a lot can happen" is a vast understatement, almost everything has yet to happen. The general election might be as exciting as the democratic primary, or it might be the single dullest general election ever. We can't tell.
The vice presidential searches going on will be more interesting when some actual names are dropped. I don't know enough politicians or politics to have any sense for what would make sense.
Hillary.
There have been a number of allegations recently, spawned by the once vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, that Hillary Clinton lost due to sexism. While I'm sure that sexism has naturally had some small measure of impact, I think that pointing it out as though it were the major or sole cause of her demise is foolhardy and disrespectful to the harsh realities that women face every day.
Look at the playing field. Every last white, Anglo-Saxon male democratic candidate was absolutely positively demolished, by a woman and an African-American no less. There should be people singing praises for how both candidates have overcome boundaries once thought unbreakable, but apparently that only counts if you get elected.
Generally, I tend to rule out sexism as a major contributing factor because it strikes me that racism is probably an equal barrier for Obama, if not a greater one. It's tough to say as no one took polls on misogyny, but with recent wins for Hillary showing 20% of people admitting they're racist... one has to stop and wonder how much of a disadvantage she really had.
Clinton had key advantages starting out. She was slated to win before it began, she had massive name recognition, money, allies, and super delegates who had already thrown their support behind her. News coverage was basically Clinton vs Everyone Else, with Everyone Else losing soundly.
What lost her this campaign was complacency and short term thinking. She was presumed to be the 2008 nominee as early as 2004. A good contender doesn't rest easy when they're on top, but Clinton did. Her campaign was set up under a number of really bad assumptions as to the nature of the primary season and it showed.
It was assumed that there wouldn't be any substantial competition. The campaign worked from the top down, convincing first the all important local politicians and going down from there. They'd be crucial for the general election. However, in a contested primary this is a very bad strategy. Working from the bottom up not only tends to get more votes (and more people to caucuses) but it also ties the hands of democrats who are still somewhat sour over Al Gore's 2000 popular vote win and presidential loss. The local politicians won't go against the popular vote unless they feel bold enough to risk the ire of their constituents.
It was assumed it would be short. This lead to several separate issues.
Short campaigns don't need to ration money. Once "Super Tuesday" ended the Clinton campaign was effectively bankrupt. They had assumed that would be the end, and Obama's uncontested victories throughout February were the result; completely reversing te gap Hillary had established.
Short campaigns don't need careful consideration. There were a number of promises, positions and policies Hillary spoke about early on which were completely reversed later. Comparing her words from last year versus a few months ago versus today is like looking at three separate people. As a result, her trustworthiness is down the chute.
Short campaigns don't need a unifying theme or message, which Clinton did not have until well into the primary season. Without a clear purpose or response to Obama, he was granted a free ride on his rhetoric for months. It took the internet to find his crazy once-pastor and finally break the invincible bubble.
As much as Rudy Guilliani's campaign will go down in history as how not to win a nomination, so too will Hillary Clinton's.
Right now, Clinton's main arguments are the unseated Delegates in Florida and Michigan and her greater potential for the general election. Lets look at the situation.
I won't go into the math because it's boring, finicky, and pointless. By Obama's math he's obtained a solid majority of pledged delegates in addition to his lead in the popular vote. By Clinton's math no majority has been reached yet, and she leads the popular vote.
The difference comes down to two things, caucuses and the disenfranchised states of Florida and Michigan (a deed effectively done by their own legislatures). Clinton doesn't count caucus votes in her popular vote totals, and she is firmly of the opinion that you can't have a majority without taking into account Florida and Michigan.
I personally find both disingenuous. The former because it's stupidly selective (lets subtract all states that used a particular kind of ballot, had their primaries in months beginning with F, or looked at me funny), and the latter because it actually doesn't help her any.
In the case of the latter, allotting the delegates based on her wins in those states loses her the nomination. Obama retains his majority on pledged delegates and, by any sensical way of counting it, his lead in the popular vote. Hillary closes the gap significantly, but is still so far short that more than 70% of super delegates would have to back her in order for her to win.
This is why so many pundits, talk show hosts, newcasters and political analysts have called the election for Obama. The democrats can not hope to field Hillary as a candidate without alienating their support base. The kind of "screw you" nomination theft that would have to occur would completely obliterate the hopeful people who have set record turnouts and made this primary season as big a deal as it is and was. A very significant portion of Obama's supporters, myself included, would be disheartened, depressed, and ultimately disinclined to ever care about politics again.
The democrats want a democratic president too much for that to happen.
20080507
Consistency
It makes more sense if you watch it at 3AM while your phone is ringing.
In other news, according to the Democratic delegate counter Hillary could win all the remaining primaries 77% to 23% and still lose the primary if the undecided superdelegates are split 50/50. On the other hand, Hillary could convince 70% of the remaining superdelegates she's the best candidate, and Obama would still win splitting the remaining primaries 50/50.
It will be interesting to hear how Clinton plans on continuing her case for the presidency in the face of such odds.
20080501
Someone's MADD
I'm generally supportive of MADD and its attempts to curtail drunk driving. My mother was a member last that I could remember, and I agree that drunk driving is unarguably a Bad Thing(TM).
I distinctly remember playing with cars on one of my grandparents' oval rugs like it was a raceway. Along with one of my siblings, we crashed cars and joked about one of them being a drunk driver. My dad quickly curtailed that joke, lecturing us on the severity of the consequences of drunk driving. I must have been only four or five at the time. This was a Good Thing(TM) for him to do, as we were developing children.
However, MADD is currently attacking Grand Theft Auto IV for including the ability for the player to drive drunk. And I quote:
Taken by itself this is a reasonable sentiment. In the greater context of being a direct criticism of GTA IV I find it somewhat ridiculous. Here are several responses, in no particular order.
1. So, does this mean that prostitution, gang violence and drugs are games and jokes?
2. It's a game now!
3. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear your complaint over the sound of the tanks chasing me across the city.
Alright, those were all snarky and completely unhelpful responses, I'll admit to that. Pardon me for indulging in ridiculous answers to a ridiculous problem.
In short, I don't see drunk driving being a good enough reason to bump GTA IV from an MA rating to an AO rating, nor do I see the need to recall the game or stop its production. This is not because I love violence or feel that we should have a reverse prohibition wherein alcohol is available to all ages. It's because I believe that video games are a new media form that needs to be given its chance to grow and flourish.
We have plenty of books, cinema and radio programs that sport references to sex, violence, drugs, drunk driving and worse. They are appropriately judged and restricted from those who might be impressionable. There is an implicit understanding that what is contained within these media is not always appropriate for children.
My continual vexation is that people still do not have this implicit understanding when it comes to video games. We often hear the argument, "It will end up in the hands of children anyway." Why? Studies have shown multiple times that it is the children's own parents buying them these games, despite the warnings of both the box and the store clerks. Either these parents don't care, or they still make the bad assumption that video games are purely a child's entertainment.
I would no more buy GTA IV for my child than I'd buy them Memento. Some things are just not meant for children.
Eventually our sensibilities will catch up to the fact that video games are just another media form and should be treated appropriately. For now, I shake my head again as unnecessary controversy is stirred.
I distinctly remember playing with cars on one of my grandparents' oval rugs like it was a raceway. Along with one of my siblings, we crashed cars and joked about one of them being a drunk driver. My dad quickly curtailed that joke, lecturing us on the severity of the consequences of drunk driving. I must have been only four or five at the time. This was a Good Thing(TM) for him to do, as we were developing children.
However, MADD is currently attacking Grand Theft Auto IV for including the ability for the player to drive drunk. And I quote:
"'Drunk driving is not a game, and it is not a joke.'"
Taken by itself this is a reasonable sentiment. In the greater context of being a direct criticism of GTA IV I find it somewhat ridiculous. Here are several responses, in no particular order.
1. So, does this mean that prostitution, gang violence and drugs are games and jokes?
2. It's a game now!
3. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear your complaint over the sound of the tanks chasing me across the city.
Alright, those were all snarky and completely unhelpful responses, I'll admit to that. Pardon me for indulging in ridiculous answers to a ridiculous problem.
In short, I don't see drunk driving being a good enough reason to bump GTA IV from an MA rating to an AO rating, nor do I see the need to recall the game or stop its production. This is not because I love violence or feel that we should have a reverse prohibition wherein alcohol is available to all ages. It's because I believe that video games are a new media form that needs to be given its chance to grow and flourish.
We have plenty of books, cinema and radio programs that sport references to sex, violence, drugs, drunk driving and worse. They are appropriately judged and restricted from those who might be impressionable. There is an implicit understanding that what is contained within these media is not always appropriate for children.
My continual vexation is that people still do not have this implicit understanding when it comes to video games. We often hear the argument, "It will end up in the hands of children anyway." Why? Studies have shown multiple times that it is the children's own parents buying them these games, despite the warnings of both the box and the store clerks. Either these parents don't care, or they still make the bad assumption that video games are purely a child's entertainment.
I would no more buy GTA IV for my child than I'd buy them Memento. Some things are just not meant for children.
Eventually our sensibilities will catch up to the fact that video games are just another media form and should be treated appropriately. For now, I shake my head again as unnecessary controversy is stirred.
20080421
Music of the Spheres
Space is a strange place. While there is so much yet for us to know about our own planet, there is an infinite multitude more of untouched knowledge past the great voids. Sometimes I think one needs a reminder of the awe of what lies beyond.
The sounds of Jupiter are peaceful, haunting, and otherworldly.
For another take on the sound and music of space. Carmen of the Spheres is an interesting adaptation of planetary orbits.
20080415
Bitter
So there's been much ado about Obama's comments stating that people are bitter about watching jobs go away for 25 years and never come back. The best insight I've read on the incident is that this was the kind of comment a social scientist makes, not a presidential candidate. In my mind, that's the obvious failing on Obama's part, he wasn't a good enough politician.
However, I'd like to rail a bit against Hillary and McCain, not because they're wrong to rail on Obama for this (indeed, it's an excellent opportunity to score some political points), but because they're wrong about bitter people.
Here's a picture caption I've lifted from the BBC's article.
I'm going to cynically note that this statement is absolutely correct. Bitter people don't vote (most of the time). So, obviously this doesn't reflect the beliefs of voters, who are the people Clinton is really concerned about.
It's wrong for me to make that italicized generalization as there are a number of the bitter that do vote. However, I'm willing to wager that the "bitter" vote is not a motivated one, and doesn't show substantially at the polls.
My argument here is that Clinton's statement may reveal the truth behind her, and other politicians, motivations. They're concerned with the people who vote, and not with "getting out the vote". Anyone who isn't voting isn't on their radar.
So in effect, Obama's practicing Nintendo's philosophy: When you're being beaten in the current field, find a new one. He's turned to the bitter.
As a fringe bitter person, I've actually found some of Clinton's remarks offensive. Take the following as an example.
"Senator Obama's remarks are elitist and are out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans, certainly not the Americans that I know."
She has made a series of similar statements, calling "Americans" such adjectives as resilient and hopeful. From my perspective these are flat out insults to people such as I.
Firstly, I'm going to latch onto the "certainly not the Americans that I know" bit. I'm going to assert that Clinton obviously doesn't know any bitter people. Given my experience that there are plenty of bitter people, at least respective to government, I'll further assert that this statement is downright insulting to bitter people. It implies that not only are bitter people not "Americans", but also that they aren't important enough to know someone like Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, the insults continue (backwards) as bitterness doesn't fit into "American" values and beliefs. Bitterness was what spawned this nation, bitterness at unfair government. If anything, the bitter are the most American people here.
Lastly, bitter people are, contrary to what's implied by Clinton, resilient. You don't survive being bitter because you're brittle, you survive because you toughen up and deal with the harsh reality.
So in short, I think Clinton's trying to score brownie points with the voters.
McCain's comments are far less insulting, although they're equally oblivious to the reality that, in fact, a number of people lean more heavily on the items that Obama mentioned when bitterness and hardship come their way. I'm sure he understands, what with his Vietnam experience, but he may simply have a more positive outlook.
In any case, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, but it's given Hillary yet another chance to put her foot in her mouth (at least for me).
However, I'd like to rail a bit against Hillary and McCain, not because they're wrong to rail on Obama for this (indeed, it's an excellent opportunity to score some political points), but because they're wrong about bitter people.
Here's a picture caption I've lifted from the BBC's article.
"Mrs Clinton said the remarks did not reflect the values and beliefs of voters."
I'm going to cynically note that this statement is absolutely correct. Bitter people don't vote (most of the time). So, obviously this doesn't reflect the beliefs of voters, who are the people Clinton is really concerned about.
It's wrong for me to make that italicized generalization as there are a number of the bitter that do vote. However, I'm willing to wager that the "bitter" vote is not a motivated one, and doesn't show substantially at the polls.
My argument here is that Clinton's statement may reveal the truth behind her, and other politicians, motivations. They're concerned with the people who vote, and not with "getting out the vote". Anyone who isn't voting isn't on their radar.
So in effect, Obama's practicing Nintendo's philosophy: When you're being beaten in the current field, find a new one. He's turned to the bitter.
As a fringe bitter person, I've actually found some of Clinton's remarks offensive. Take the following as an example.
"Senator Obama's remarks are elitist and are out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans, certainly not the Americans that I know."
She has made a series of similar statements, calling "Americans" such adjectives as resilient and hopeful. From my perspective these are flat out insults to people such as I.
Firstly, I'm going to latch onto the "certainly not the Americans that I know" bit. I'm going to assert that Clinton obviously doesn't know any bitter people. Given my experience that there are plenty of bitter people, at least respective to government, I'll further assert that this statement is downright insulting to bitter people. It implies that not only are bitter people not "Americans", but also that they aren't important enough to know someone like Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, the insults continue (backwards) as bitterness doesn't fit into "American" values and beliefs. Bitterness was what spawned this nation, bitterness at unfair government. If anything, the bitter are the most American people here.
Lastly, bitter people are, contrary to what's implied by Clinton, resilient. You don't survive being bitter because you're brittle, you survive because you toughen up and deal with the harsh reality.
So in short, I think Clinton's trying to score brownie points with the voters.
McCain's comments are far less insulting, although they're equally oblivious to the reality that, in fact, a number of people lean more heavily on the items that Obama mentioned when bitterness and hardship come their way. I'm sure he understands, what with his Vietnam experience, but he may simply have a more positive outlook.
In any case, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, but it's given Hillary yet another chance to put her foot in her mouth (at least for me).
20080407
Shifting Goal Posts, and Other Musings
First the argument was made that Clinton would win the Democratic nomination because of her lead in delegates.
When that fell through, the argument was made that her overall lead counting the superdelegates made her the prime contender.
As that argument was dashed to the rocks, one was made that should she get the popular vote she would have to be the candidate.
Now, as even that argument falls apart, it is now being argued that Clinton won the states that matter in the general election, and that her electoral vote count would be greater than Obama's.
I'm not naive enough to think Obama is squeaky clean in this area. The practice of over-emphasizing the silver lining is pretty standard. However, this shifting of goals isn't a silver lining at all.
The implicit message when a candidate gives a "silver lining" talking point is that "this is why I'll overtake my opponent". Obama didn't say that the popular vote, delegates or super delegates didn't matter when he was down and some thought soon to be counted out. He highlighted his breakthroughs in demographics no one would have thought could vote for him, the piecemeal nature of his donations, and his message. At times it certainly was a stretch, but it was at least honest.
What the Clinton campaign, now down a chief strategist, is doing isn't pointing out the silver lining, it's attempting to change the rules. Rather than taking the positives (of which there are plenty) and bringing them out, the Clinton campaign seems content to dismiss any accomplishment made by its opponent. This is ridiculous, as these are the same accomplishments it would be lauding where they its own.
Should Clinton win the nomination it will be anyone's guess who I vote for. Had this question been asked back in December I probably would have blinked a few times. McCain over Clinton, are you crazy? However, the manner in which the Clinton campaign has been waged is not befitting of anyone attempting to distance themselves from the errors of the republicans.
For example, the recent row with Clinton's chief strategist. His sin was, effectively, that he maintained his cushy CEO position and other corporate jobs while taking heaps of money from the campaign to make a horrible mess. This is a kind of heresy for the democrats, or at least hypocrisy. Normally that's the kind of problem you expect from the republicans.
In fact, the entire Clinton campaign has played out exactly how no democrat's should. It was divisive, petty, hypocritical, dishonest and pessimistic. The beautiful moments, ironically, came when Clinton broke from the established strategy and simply was Hillary Clinton.
In conclusion, I honestly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination, McCain will win the general election. Her campaign has undermined every talking point she can bring against him. We have months worth of material that McCain can use to knock the Clinton Campaign silly. All McCain has to do is simply point, and laugh.
When that fell through, the argument was made that her overall lead counting the superdelegates made her the prime contender.
As that argument was dashed to the rocks, one was made that should she get the popular vote she would have to be the candidate.
Now, as even that argument falls apart, it is now being argued that Clinton won the states that matter in the general election, and that her electoral vote count would be greater than Obama's.
I'm not naive enough to think Obama is squeaky clean in this area. The practice of over-emphasizing the silver lining is pretty standard. However, this shifting of goals isn't a silver lining at all.
The implicit message when a candidate gives a "silver lining" talking point is that "this is why I'll overtake my opponent". Obama didn't say that the popular vote, delegates or super delegates didn't matter when he was down and some thought soon to be counted out. He highlighted his breakthroughs in demographics no one would have thought could vote for him, the piecemeal nature of his donations, and his message. At times it certainly was a stretch, but it was at least honest.
What the Clinton campaign, now down a chief strategist, is doing isn't pointing out the silver lining, it's attempting to change the rules. Rather than taking the positives (of which there are plenty) and bringing them out, the Clinton campaign seems content to dismiss any accomplishment made by its opponent. This is ridiculous, as these are the same accomplishments it would be lauding where they its own.
Should Clinton win the nomination it will be anyone's guess who I vote for. Had this question been asked back in December I probably would have blinked a few times. McCain over Clinton, are you crazy? However, the manner in which the Clinton campaign has been waged is not befitting of anyone attempting to distance themselves from the errors of the republicans.
For example, the recent row with Clinton's chief strategist. His sin was, effectively, that he maintained his cushy CEO position and other corporate jobs while taking heaps of money from the campaign to make a horrible mess. This is a kind of heresy for the democrats, or at least hypocrisy. Normally that's the kind of problem you expect from the republicans.
In fact, the entire Clinton campaign has played out exactly how no democrat's should. It was divisive, petty, hypocritical, dishonest and pessimistic. The beautiful moments, ironically, came when Clinton broke from the established strategy and simply was Hillary Clinton.
In conclusion, I honestly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination, McCain will win the general election. Her campaign has undermined every talking point she can bring against him. We have months worth of material that McCain can use to knock the Clinton Campaign silly. All McCain has to do is simply point, and laugh.
20080404
20080403
Grayscale
This is another interesting comparison between movies and video games. As is par for the course, video games lose.
I must thoroughly contest the author's point, as he's making the same mistake every critic and skeptic of the video game has made since Space War. They're comparing an established media form to a nascent one. It's akin to complaining that a toddler doesn't stack up to a valedictorian. Seriously, that three year old needs to get his act together.
I state it's an unfair comparison, and I mean so because people have forgotten that the same complaints being levied against Super Mario Bros can be turned upon many early but unequivocally important films. Take, for instance, the french film Le Voyage dans la Lune. Youth viewing it today will not, by far, have any reaction similar to that of those who viewed it back in 1902. Viewed through today's lens it's completely outdated, overcome by films that took its principles and surpassed it. So why do we even still know its name?
The truth ignored in the article is that films such as Le Voyage dans la Lune are breakthroughs, as is Super Mario Bros for video games. Eighty years from now people will still know about the intrepid plumber's first adventure even if Nintendo hits game over. The platformer's platformer may be completely outdated, but it's a snapshot of the progress of a media form whose importance can not be ignored.
So how many films from the first thirty-five years of cinema are recognized today as timeless? Looking at IMDb's top 250 films, I found all of six films that fall into that time period, ten if you boost it a couple of years. In fact, it's only when we fudge the range that we even get a film in the top 100.
This isn't to say that all films before the 1930s or 40s were bad, but that they suffer the same problems outlined in the article. They were the natural products of a young media form, and we remember those films not because they were timeless but out of nostalgia or recognition of achievement.
All of the video games today with few exceptions will feature similarly on the lists next century. People will recognize Super Mario Bros as a landmark title important to the development of the industry, but as little else. They'll laugh at Oregon Trail the same way we ridicule the old PSAs. Even the blockbusters of today, such as Spore, will occupy spot #217 on the lists of tomorrow.
It's a fair argument to say that at this exact point in time video games are still an undeveloped art form, particularly when compared to present day cinema and theater. That's perfectly reasonable. However, to misunderstand this as meaning that video games today are uninspired, or that video games in fifty years will continue the trend, is turning a blind eye to the nature of young media.
I must thoroughly contest the author's point, as he's making the same mistake every critic and skeptic of the video game has made since Space War. They're comparing an established media form to a nascent one. It's akin to complaining that a toddler doesn't stack up to a valedictorian. Seriously, that three year old needs to get his act together.
I state it's an unfair comparison, and I mean so because people have forgotten that the same complaints being levied against Super Mario Bros can be turned upon many early but unequivocally important films. Take, for instance, the french film Le Voyage dans la Lune. Youth viewing it today will not, by far, have any reaction similar to that of those who viewed it back in 1902. Viewed through today's lens it's completely outdated, overcome by films that took its principles and surpassed it. So why do we even still know its name?
The truth ignored in the article is that films such as Le Voyage dans la Lune are breakthroughs, as is Super Mario Bros for video games. Eighty years from now people will still know about the intrepid plumber's first adventure even if Nintendo hits game over. The platformer's platformer may be completely outdated, but it's a snapshot of the progress of a media form whose importance can not be ignored.
So how many films from the first thirty-five years of cinema are recognized today as timeless? Looking at IMDb's top 250 films, I found all of six films that fall into that time period, ten if you boost it a couple of years. In fact, it's only when we fudge the range that we even get a film in the top 100.
This isn't to say that all films before the 1930s or 40s were bad, but that they suffer the same problems outlined in the article. They were the natural products of a young media form, and we remember those films not because they were timeless but out of nostalgia or recognition of achievement.
All of the video games today with few exceptions will feature similarly on the lists next century. People will recognize Super Mario Bros as a landmark title important to the development of the industry, but as little else. They'll laugh at Oregon Trail the same way we ridicule the old PSAs. Even the blockbusters of today, such as Spore, will occupy spot #217 on the lists of tomorrow.
It's a fair argument to say that at this exact point in time video games are still an undeveloped art form, particularly when compared to present day cinema and theater. That's perfectly reasonable. However, to misunderstand this as meaning that video games today are uninspired, or that video games in fifty years will continue the trend, is turning a blind eye to the nature of young media.
20080402
Work!
After 19 months of mostly non-existent work, I have finally been assigned to a "real" job and have had to start earning my keep. Today has been my first truly full day as all my cubicly goodness was shipped over to the new area. I've been given tasks and set loose upon them.
And I'm loving it.
It is utterly refreshing to have mentally challenging tasks to work on. I've grown so accustomed to mindless website updates and tweaks that my new work is like a spring fragrance. I'm excited and happy to be here.
My coworkers consist of a number of excellent folk, some of who I already know. I might still be jittery were this an entirely alien place, but as it stands I'm fitting in and getting things done.
Here's to the 9-5.
And I'm loving it.
It is utterly refreshing to have mentally challenging tasks to work on. I've grown so accustomed to mindless website updates and tweaks that my new work is like a spring fragrance. I'm excited and happy to be here.
My coworkers consist of a number of excellent folk, some of who I already know. I might still be jittery were this an entirely alien place, but as it stands I'm fitting in and getting things done.
Here's to the 9-5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
