by on

I haven’t written about the “fiscal cliff” fiasco because I think the whole thing is stupid.  Not only does it show that Congress cannot function, but the press’s coverage of it has been awful.  They treat the “cliff”–stupid name, by the way–like it’s some kind of unstoppable evil that unexpectedly appeared before us, when in fact it is just the already-known, logical results of acts of Congress.

You may ask: why did Congress pass acts that include provisions so terrible the mere prospect of them going into effect has set everyone into a panic?  I don’t know.  I’m no legal or legislative expert, but I think this all suggests a lack of foresight on the part of our elected officials. But I haven’t seen a lot of press covering that aspect of the story.  They seem mostly focused on the endless fighting between the parties preventing them from fixing the problem–which is certainly worth covering in its own right–but I think people also ought to consider just how this all came about in the first place.

by on

Finally got it this Christmas, and have been playing it this weekend.  It’s good, but the missions are kind of repetitive: go to base held by Geth/Cerberus forces, choose who you want to either activate or deactivate the Anti-Aircraft gun, defend them, wash, rinse, repeat.  Anti-Aircraft guns are the new rogue V.I.s, it seems.

Also, the whole idea that “well, yes, the Reapers are destroying the Galaxy, but we refuse to ally with [whatever other species of alien] because we’ve been at war with them forever” is a little unbelievable. I think intelligent beings could put aside their differences long enough to fight the attack of the Metal Cthulhus. As Ronald Reagan–yes, that Ronald Reagan–once said:

“In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. “

Same principle here, except it would be all the members of the galaxy uniting to stop the threat from outside the galaxy, not just the planet.  It seems kind of unbelievable they could be so petty.

I’m sure there will be more plot developments, of course, and maybe it will be explained.  It’s still a fun adventure game.  I’m sure I’ll post a lot more when I finish it.

by on

I’ve been watching the show Downton Abbey on PBS.  As with all soap operas, I can’t figure out where I’ve picked up the plot, as it seems to be an endless saga of romance, death and bickering.  I don’t know if I’m watching the first season or what; but I suspect it doesn’t really matter.

I know I’m not the program’s target demographic, and I kind of like that.  I bet there are very few people who have watched more than five minutes of Downton  and also know the trick to beating the last level of Quake.  Not that either is anything to be proud of, but still…

It’s a tough show to keep up with.  On the installment I watched last night, Lord Grantham or whatever his name is didn’t want his daughter to marry the chauffeur for some reason, and half the cast came down with influenza.  Also, I think World War I is ending or just ended, but it seems to have been a secondary concern.  In a previous episode I saw, the two major problems were (1)something to do with the number of footmen in the household and (2)the war.  In that order, to judge by the amount of attention given to each.

The acting is pretty good, but it somehow feels all pointless.  There does not seem to be any central problem for all the characters to deal with; they’re just all… there, and as a result all the drama feels very contrived and artificial.  I’m not sure how anyone could stay with it for very long, but apparently it’s quite popular.

by on

“Apocalypse ‘12”,

So the Mayans had said.

“Mark on your calendars

That you’ll all be dead.”

And ev’ryone came

To the center of town,

To look at the clock

As the minutes ticked down.

We all knew it would end

But we didn’t know how.

“Be ready” we said,

“For anything now”.

They primed all the missiles,

The oceans did rise,

The sun started growing

To no one’s surprise.

Bob Frost, he took bets

On “fire” or “ice”.

I said “10-to-1 water”

And he said “no dice”.

A relieved Harold Camping

Lit a vict’ry cigar;

And even  Cthulhu

Drove up in his car.

Behind him by barely

So much as a step

Came old Yog-Sothoth

And Nyarlathotep.

As twilight approached

We only could stare

And wait for the horsemen

We knew would be there.

The sky opened up

And there they appeared,

Looking as awful

As everyone feared.

There came a grim hush

To all of our chatter’n’

As those four moved into

Their last landing pattern.

Then one of the riders

Lost hold of his steed,

And the blasphemous bronco

Was off at full speed.

The Unearthly rider

Into space he was thrown;

‘Twas like the “Ghost Riders”

Meet “The Strawberry Roan”.

The next day the feeling,

As the headline explains:

Was “Apocalypse Called

On Account of the Reins.”

by on

My friend Thingy informs me of a disturbing phenomenon.  Apparently, there is a chilling statue of the television character “the Fonz” in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I mean, everybody has their own tastes, but personally I think it’s bizarre-looking.  The eyes are especially unnerving.

Wikipedia says there are also statues of Mary Tyler Moore throwing her hat in the air and Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden in Minneapolis and New York, respectively. I am not a huge fan of statues in general, but at least statues of historical figures who actually did real, important things make some sense.    But fictional characters?  From comedies?  Seems weird to me.

Maybe it’s the same reason it looks so strange to me to begin with. Statues are better suited to looking solemn, because that fits better with being unmoving.  Something that appears to be grinning manically and yet does not move seems unnatural and sinister. (The Mary Tyler Moore statue is also kind of odd looking to me, although less so because it appears not to be multicolored.)

I don’t blame the sculptors for how these look; it seems like they did as well as anyone could have. It’s just an impossible task.  What interests me more is why you would want statues of fictional comedic characters in your city.  Maybe I’m too old-fashioned, but it seems kind of like saying “we didn’t have any real famous people, so it was necessary to invent some.”

by on

Ross Douthat generated quite a lot of chatter with his column this past week on America’s declining birthrates.  Particularly controversial was this passage:

The retreat from child rearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion — a decadence that first arose in the West but now haunts rich societies around the globe. It’s a spirit that privileges the present over the future, chooses stagnation over innovation, prefers what already exists over what might be. It embraces the comforts and pleasures of modernity, while shrugging off the basic sacrifices that built our civilization in the first place.

What’s particularly curious is that the second paragraph of Mr. Douthat’s column begins:

It’s a near-universal law that modernity reduces fertility.

On the face of it, this appears nonsensical.  “Modern” means “of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient or remote“.  As such, there can be no “universal laws” about modernity.  All we can say is that in modern times fertility decreases, but “modern” is itself a relative term.  What is “modern” today will be ancient some time from now, and if the birthrate goes up at some time in the future, the law will reverse itself.

There is a kind of logic to it though, if you buy into Spenglerian theories of civilizational life-cycles.  In this view, all civilizations are born, grow and die.  If “modernity” is taken to mean “the end of the cycle”, then this makes some sense.  I think that is the only way it does, in fact.

When an NYT columnist echoes an ultraconservative German nationalist,  it naturally causes a stir.  Really though, Douthat’s article is thoroughly in agreement with biological determinism–whatever group of people produces the most offspring will “win” in the eyes of biological determinists, and the quality of the upbringing is only a secondary concern.  (I am not saying Douthat actually believes this.  I am just saying what he wrote in that column agrees with it.)

It’s the old “nature vs. nurture” debate that lies at the core here, and that debate is so old–I’ve said my bit on it here–I think it’s safe to conclude that it is insoluble.  Probably it will turn out that Ray Kurzweil is right, and it is all a moot point anyway.