Western society these days seems to run on two things: petroleum and cynicism. Before everyone stops reading and thinks that I have been replaced by a Thomas Friedman clone - I am not going to talk about American foreign or energy policy. The last ten years of American (Canadian, too, I suppose) sports are my concern. More precisely, how the cynicism of today's society, usually reserved for American foreign and energy policy, has infected the greatest bastion of hope, elation and small miracles.
As a fair warning to the readers, I am going to link to a story that, sadly, deals with Tiger Woods' recent public relations problem. Once again, some stupid journalism provides easy fodder for my blog.
I really hope sports fans don't remember the 2000-2009 period for this ridiculous runaway tabloid story. If I want to remember something unfortunate from this sporting era, how about the NHL deciding to unceremoniously fall on its sword, again, or the Detroit Lions receiving their karmic dues for destroying the career of possibly the best running back to ever play the game. Here is a short list of undeniably amazing sports stories from 2000-2009:
- 2004 AL Pennant series
- Michael Phelps @ 2008 Olympic Games
- 2006 Rose Bowl game
- Pat Tillman
- 2006 World Cup Final
- Lance Armstrong
- This:
-This:
Note: I may hate the hockey shootout, but remember, we're talking about cynicism in sports, not hypocrisy.
I will be among the first to say that humanity didn't start the 21st century very well. It comes as no surprise that the news and opinions are laced with cynicism. What a shame that a sports fan has allowed his cynicism to cloud his view of all the truly great experiences we've shared these last ten years.
Besides, every good sports cynic knows that the baseball steroid saga is the best story of the decade.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Muster the Hoplites, Alcibiades!
I've been pondering some ideas for a new blog post. Back in late September I was going to write about the Roman disaster in the Teutoburg Forest which occurred exactly 2000 years ago (in September) and how that marked the end of Roman expansionism even though the Empire would continue to thrive for centuries. Unfortunately, that post will have to wait for the next anniversary.
Since there were a lot of interesting news stories today, I felt that a blog post of miscellany would be appropriate.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Friday that once again, America would be a nation ruled by laws. Ten of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay will have their day in court. However, I might be giving the AG and the Obama Administration a little too much praise. True, criminal charges and trials are long overdue and I'm glad to see that the Justice system finally found the WD-40 to get the gears turning. The fact remains that Guantanamo Bay remains an open wound in America's credibility and a rallying cry for Muslim extremists.
Furthermore, I still have doubts that the prisoners at Guantanamo will receive fair trials. Are confessions or evidence given under duress really admissable in a court (military or civilian)? Granted, the current Administration is in a tough situation that they themselves didn't create, but the fact remains that no fair, legal structure exists to deal with this situation. Five of the prisoners mentioned by Mr. Holder will be tried in a civilian court while the others will face a military court. Who determines which prisoner is tried where?
I definitely do not envy what the Administration has on its plate. I won't even touch the issues of the executions likely to result from these trials or the irrational fear of just keeping these prisoners on U.S. soil instead of limbo.
About a month ago, NASA smashed a probe into the south pole of the Moon to see if there was anything interesting (water). Apparently, they found a fair bit of water. This is an interesting discovery, but not terribly surprising and does very little to convince me that the Moon is a prime location for colonization. The fact remains that the Moon is a very dead and unexciting place. The Moon would be a great location for the second human colony or a huge observatory. If NASA/America wants to push manned exploration, Mars remains the most promising destination. It has an atmosphere and liquid water and low gravity which make it far more interesting that the Moon. Propellant can be produced on site and the low gravity makes Mars an ideal hub for human exploration (it's easier to get from Mars to the Moon than from the Earth to the Moon).
Unfortunately, the American space program is having an identity crisis, Russia and Europe are content with low orbit and China is looking for a nationalistic statement with their prospective Moon mission. Meanwhile, the weaponized Ebola and Von Neumann machines are desperate to make us regret not having a backup planet.
This week I started reading a book called "Tides of War" by Steven Pressfield. It's a bit of historical fiction about Alcibiades and the fateful Sicilian Expedition. Naturally, whenever I read it, I am reminded of the Sicilian Expeditions undertaken by the latest Bush Administration and continued by the current Administration. I will be the first to admit that the historical parallels between the Peloponnesian War and today are fairly weak, but the lesson is no less relevant.
Athens was on the rebound during the Peace of Nicias which ended the war against Sparta (low level conflicts continued elsewhere, but they were proxy wars at worst). The depleted treasury began to recover and the plague subsided when Atticans returned to their towns and farms. Then some backwater town in Sicily with loose ties to Athens called for help and a demagogic Athenian named Alcibiades decided to use this as an opportunity to expand the Athenian Empire. Three years, thousands of talents, hundreds of ships and tens of thousands of troops later, the Sicilian Expedition was over and, for all practical purposes, annihilated.
Athens went in with no regional allies, a crooked, hubristic leader and emerged poorer, weaker and at war with Sparta once more. Alcibiades was tried, in absentia during the campaign, for holding sacreligious parties and decided to switch sides. Command of the expedition fell into the hands of one of the few Athenians who opposed Alcibiades adventurism, Nicias. Prior to the beginning of the ill-fated campaign, he pleaded with the Athenian assembly to reconsider. Once Athens was committed, no one thought to call the ships back when things went awry.
Athenians learned the truth about national exceptionalism the hard way. Probably a lesson about the limits to imperial expansion in there, too (Teutoburg Forest is another good one). For the folks averse to "irrelevant" ancient history, the Soviet Union learned this lesson not even 30 years ago in an all too familiar setting.
Since there were a lot of interesting news stories today, I felt that a blog post of miscellany would be appropriate.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Friday that once again, America would be a nation ruled by laws. Ten of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay will have their day in court. However, I might be giving the AG and the Obama Administration a little too much praise. True, criminal charges and trials are long overdue and I'm glad to see that the Justice system finally found the WD-40 to get the gears turning. The fact remains that Guantanamo Bay remains an open wound in America's credibility and a rallying cry for Muslim extremists.
Furthermore, I still have doubts that the prisoners at Guantanamo will receive fair trials. Are confessions or evidence given under duress really admissable in a court (military or civilian)? Granted, the current Administration is in a tough situation that they themselves didn't create, but the fact remains that no fair, legal structure exists to deal with this situation. Five of the prisoners mentioned by Mr. Holder will be tried in a civilian court while the others will face a military court. Who determines which prisoner is tried where?
I definitely do not envy what the Administration has on its plate. I won't even touch the issues of the executions likely to result from these trials or the irrational fear of just keeping these prisoners on U.S. soil instead of limbo.
About a month ago, NASA smashed a probe into the south pole of the Moon to see if there was anything interesting (water). Apparently, they found a fair bit of water. This is an interesting discovery, but not terribly surprising and does very little to convince me that the Moon is a prime location for colonization. The fact remains that the Moon is a very dead and unexciting place. The Moon would be a great location for the second human colony or a huge observatory. If NASA/America wants to push manned exploration, Mars remains the most promising destination. It has an atmosphere and liquid water and low gravity which make it far more interesting that the Moon. Propellant can be produced on site and the low gravity makes Mars an ideal hub for human exploration (it's easier to get from Mars to the Moon than from the Earth to the Moon).
Unfortunately, the American space program is having an identity crisis, Russia and Europe are content with low orbit and China is looking for a nationalistic statement with their prospective Moon mission. Meanwhile, the weaponized Ebola and Von Neumann machines are desperate to make us regret not having a backup planet.
This week I started reading a book called "Tides of War" by Steven Pressfield. It's a bit of historical fiction about Alcibiades and the fateful Sicilian Expedition. Naturally, whenever I read it, I am reminded of the Sicilian Expeditions undertaken by the latest Bush Administration and continued by the current Administration. I will be the first to admit that the historical parallels between the Peloponnesian War and today are fairly weak, but the lesson is no less relevant.
Athens was on the rebound during the Peace of Nicias which ended the war against Sparta (low level conflicts continued elsewhere, but they were proxy wars at worst). The depleted treasury began to recover and the plague subsided when Atticans returned to their towns and farms. Then some backwater town in Sicily with loose ties to Athens called for help and a demagogic Athenian named Alcibiades decided to use this as an opportunity to expand the Athenian Empire. Three years, thousands of talents, hundreds of ships and tens of thousands of troops later, the Sicilian Expedition was over and, for all practical purposes, annihilated.
Athens went in with no regional allies, a crooked, hubristic leader and emerged poorer, weaker and at war with Sparta once more. Alcibiades was tried, in absentia during the campaign, for holding sacreligious parties and decided to switch sides. Command of the expedition fell into the hands of one of the few Athenians who opposed Alcibiades adventurism, Nicias. Prior to the beginning of the ill-fated campaign, he pleaded with the Athenian assembly to reconsider. Once Athens was committed, no one thought to call the ships back when things went awry.
Athenians learned the truth about national exceptionalism the hard way. Probably a lesson about the limits to imperial expansion in there, too (Teutoburg Forest is another good one). For the folks averse to "irrelevant" ancient history, the Soviet Union learned this lesson not even 30 years ago in an all too familiar setting.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Peace through Fear
I am usually a fan of Time magazine. Their stories are typically decent and usually display a sliver of wisdom and enlightenment. Then I read one of their stories today about nuclear weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize. As I mentioned in my last blog post, nuclear policy reading can be downright chilling simply because of the necessity of level-headed discourse. This story completely blind-sided me with its callous ignorance of fact, history and humanity.
Mr. Von Drehle does accurately point out that following World War Two, the number of people killed in conflicts across the world declined sharply. Industrialized warfare, most notably in the First and Second World Wars, produced unprecedented body counts even if you take out those killed in Stalin's purges or the Holocaust. The rise of nuclear weaponry and the bipolar world order of the Cold War created stability through fear.
Though I may disagree with those that characterize Cold War nuclear strategy through the over-simplistic notion of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), the consequences of even a limited nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and U.S. would have been nothing short of catastrophic. Plus, the assumptions that damage reports would easily distinguish a limited strike from an urban/industrial strike and that cooler heads would prevail in the midst of a nuclear war are specious, at best. Tens of millions would dead in less than a few hours and more would perish in the following months and years due to radiation exposure, starvation, and the violence that would be created by the collapse of society. Fear of a nuclear holocaust kept the safeties on and the silos sealed.
Imagine, for a moment, that U.S. and British efforts to halt Germany's nuclear program during World War Two had been unsuccessful. Would Hitler and Roosevelt have been able to stay their hands under an existing state of total war? Truman was obviously unable.
What message does one send by suggesting that nuclear weapons are a tool of peace? One legitimizes the repugnant attitudes and ideas of men like Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay and gives credence to people like Commander Eugene Tatom who infamously said, "You could stand in the open at one end of the north-south runway at the Washington National Airport, with no more protection than the clothes you now have on, and have an atom bomb explode at the other end of the runway without serious injury to you."
I also find it immensely disrespectful to the 200,000+ people that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 to suggest that nuclear weapons are tools of peace. Are the people who died in the years after 1945 due to cancers caused by atmospheric nuclear tests victims of peace?
In today's mono- trending towards multi-polar world, nuclear weapons are tools of instability. As inheritors of Cold War arsenals, the U.S. and Russia have and must continue to tirelessly strive to disarm and minimize proliferation. Regimes in Iran and North Korea are unsurprisingly interested in nuclear weapons. Iran is sandwiched by heavy concentrations of U.S. ground troops and has an ongoing rivalry with unofficial nuclear state, Israel. North Korea is still technically in a state of war with the U.S. If India and Pakistan were to go to war, what would stop them from using nuclear weapons to preserve their sovereignty.
Many (Mr. Von Drehle included) say that advocates of disarmament are naive to think that a nuclear-free world is possible. Indeed, getting countries like Israel, Pakistan and India to disarm will not come easy. However, I must ask why the U.S. still needs nuclear weapons. Russia is not our enemy anymore nor do they want to be. China's economic ties to the U.S. are too valuable to waste on nuclear rivalry. Were Iran or North Korea to acquire an adequate means of delivering a nuclear strike on the U.S. homeland or military assets, why would they risk the overthrow of their government via the massive conventional retaliation delivered by everyone that hates seeing nuclear weapons used (a.k.a. everyone)? If a terrorist group were to acquire a nuclear device and detonate it in London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing, or New York how could those respective nations respond in kind with their "deterrent"?
If, through some cruel twist of fate, a post-nuclear weapons America needed nuclear weapons again, we have all the pieces we need to build a new nuclear arsenal.
I would rather see President Obama undeservedly win the next 50 Nobel Peace Prizes than see Mr. Von Drehle's irresponsible viewpoint vindicated.
Mr. Von Drehle does accurately point out that following World War Two, the number of people killed in conflicts across the world declined sharply. Industrialized warfare, most notably in the First and Second World Wars, produced unprecedented body counts even if you take out those killed in Stalin's purges or the Holocaust. The rise of nuclear weaponry and the bipolar world order of the Cold War created stability through fear.
Though I may disagree with those that characterize Cold War nuclear strategy through the over-simplistic notion of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), the consequences of even a limited nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and U.S. would have been nothing short of catastrophic. Plus, the assumptions that damage reports would easily distinguish a limited strike from an urban/industrial strike and that cooler heads would prevail in the midst of a nuclear war are specious, at best. Tens of millions would dead in less than a few hours and more would perish in the following months and years due to radiation exposure, starvation, and the violence that would be created by the collapse of society. Fear of a nuclear holocaust kept the safeties on and the silos sealed.
Imagine, for a moment, that U.S. and British efforts to halt Germany's nuclear program during World War Two had been unsuccessful. Would Hitler and Roosevelt have been able to stay their hands under an existing state of total war? Truman was obviously unable.
What message does one send by suggesting that nuclear weapons are a tool of peace? One legitimizes the repugnant attitudes and ideas of men like Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay and gives credence to people like Commander Eugene Tatom who infamously said, "You could stand in the open at one end of the north-south runway at the Washington National Airport, with no more protection than the clothes you now have on, and have an atom bomb explode at the other end of the runway without serious injury to you."
I also find it immensely disrespectful to the 200,000+ people that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 to suggest that nuclear weapons are tools of peace. Are the people who died in the years after 1945 due to cancers caused by atmospheric nuclear tests victims of peace?
In today's mono- trending towards multi-polar world, nuclear weapons are tools of instability. As inheritors of Cold War arsenals, the U.S. and Russia have and must continue to tirelessly strive to disarm and minimize proliferation. Regimes in Iran and North Korea are unsurprisingly interested in nuclear weapons. Iran is sandwiched by heavy concentrations of U.S. ground troops and has an ongoing rivalry with unofficial nuclear state, Israel. North Korea is still technically in a state of war with the U.S. If India and Pakistan were to go to war, what would stop them from using nuclear weapons to preserve their sovereignty.
Many (Mr. Von Drehle included) say that advocates of disarmament are naive to think that a nuclear-free world is possible. Indeed, getting countries like Israel, Pakistan and India to disarm will not come easy. However, I must ask why the U.S. still needs nuclear weapons. Russia is not our enemy anymore nor do they want to be. China's economic ties to the U.S. are too valuable to waste on nuclear rivalry. Were Iran or North Korea to acquire an adequate means of delivering a nuclear strike on the U.S. homeland or military assets, why would they risk the overthrow of their government via the massive conventional retaliation delivered by everyone that hates seeing nuclear weapons used (a.k.a. everyone)? If a terrorist group were to acquire a nuclear device and detonate it in London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing, or New York how could those respective nations respond in kind with their "deterrent"?
If, through some cruel twist of fate, a post-nuclear weapons America needed nuclear weapons again, we have all the pieces we need to build a new nuclear arsenal.
I would rather see President Obama undeservedly win the next 50 Nobel Peace Prizes than see Mr. Von Drehle's irresponsible viewpoint vindicated.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
You Might Want to Sit Down for this…
I’ve been pondering a way to break the proverbial ice locking in my little corner of the internet. Sure I could’ve posted about my internship or how the Forcier is with Michigan [sic] at last or my extreme discomfort when the Metro train shrieks like a banshee when going fast through dark tunnels, but that would be the same self-centered drivel I usually shovel onto the pile. It just so happens that a more noble and interesting topic found its way to me this week.
First some background information is required. As some may not yet know, I am now living in Alexandria, VA and I have an interesting job, with fantastic hours, but the financial compensation leaves much to be desired. I work as an intern at the National Security Archive at George Washington University in downtown DC. My boss is a research professor who works for the archive on a number of projects dealing with the history of nuclear weapons. I will admit that the topic of nuclear weapons policy is a morbid one and the more I read about it – it becomes a sordid subject. Nevertheless, I am always intrigued by the policy making process regarding nuclear weapons and its evolution throughout the Cold War.
I get to do all kinds of cool things like submitting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to government agencies and digging through the National Archives for relevant documents (often for the purpose of sending more FOIA requests). Like any job, there are some downsides. For one, the intern room also serves as a storage room and the intern chairs are uncomfortable. So I lack some creature comforts, the real downside is what I ran across this week: too much information.
One of the things I get to do is sift through excessively redacted government documents and try to find out what was excised. The best way to go about this is going through relevant published academic books and papers and, occasionally, other government documents. Very rarely do you come across something from 1945-1985 that is truly classified. Most weapons systems and diplomatic relationship have changed dramatically since then and full disclosure is hardly a threat to national security. So I was going through a batch of documents this week that were really tough cases. They were heavily redacted and fairly obscure.
One particular document was a 1971 hypothetical timeline of a nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the U.S. The timeline assumed a Soviet first strike, but it was oddly different from the typical timelines. Most civilian and military policy analysts agree (and plan) that a first strike would be opened with strikes from submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). SLBMs can best take advantage of the element of surprise since detection of launches is usually too late to mitigate damage. Most modern estimates predict that coastal command and control centers (a.k.a. Washington, D.C.) would have less than 15 minutes warning. More significantly, SLBMs also would be responsible for setting off EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) blasts that would disable most of the power grid. Strangely, the 1971 timeline excluded this element.
Anyway, this timeline was missing the timeframes (easy to find information, pointlessly redacted), moment-by-moment casualty estimates (pure speculation, but final estimates are also easy to find) and certain weapon systems (most prominent or secret 1971 weapons systems are mainstream or decommissioned today). While I was digging around for some answers I came across a report issued by the Office of Technology Assessment in response to a request from Congress for an assessment of the effects of a nuclear war. The report is aptly titled “The Effects of Nuclear War”. Usually when I read stuff like this, I’m able to stay pretty unemotional, but this one just hit me like a truck. It is a slightly long-ish read, so if you want the stuff that inspired me to write, read pages 15-39 and Appendix C. The whole thing is very well written and downright sobering.
Using Detroit as a case study was a bolt out of the blue and definitely hit close to home. Since most of the readers here have some familiarity with Detroit, I felt the urge to share. The cold discussion of the effects produced by varying the altitude and yield really hurts when dealing with a place that you know. The story in Appendix C is also a great read. It reminded me of The Road, minus the disturbing imagery.
Speaking of The Road, I really enjoyed the book, but I don’t know if I can go see the movie this fall. The imagery in the book was really intense and downright unsettling. I don’t know if I could handle that kind of stuff in a movie. Still, I think The Road is a great book to transfer onto film.
Fortunately, a lot has changed since that 1979 report came out. The chance of an all-out nuclear war is pretty slim for the foreseeable future. The U.S. has an administration that has shown limited interest in pursuing new nuclear weapons and is dedicated to stabilizing diplomatic relations with countries that possess large nuclear arsenals (thanks Kevin!).
Edit: I apologize for the hideous text formatting. My html knowledge is very basic and I guess trying to use a real word processor to write an 840 word blog post is a terrible idea. I doubt I will find the patience to fix this, hopefully the content makes up for the disheveled appearance.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
That's No Moon...
The big rumor circling around the internet is that Lucasarts (the software developer for Star Wars games) is going to announce a reboot of the X-wing/TIE Fighter space sim series. Anyone who has dabbled in the space sim genre knows that TIE Fighter is one of the best, if not THE best space sim ever made.
I was searching for some more info on the rumors this afternoon, when I found this fantastic op-ed piece. As the author notes, there is no shortage of cultural metaphors and analogies referring to the American Empire past and present. However, the similarities between the TIE Fighter world and the post-9/11 world are uncanny. Media, even emergent media like video games, has a stunning ability to alter perspectives in truly brutal fashion. Blasting the good guys in X-wings out of the sky feels like the right thing to do at every turn.
As a just a game, TIE Fighter is immensely fun. As a specimen of how media can drastically affect the way we think and act, it is a powerful, if not slightly disturbing, experience.
I was searching for some more info on the rumors this afternoon, when I found this fantastic op-ed piece. As the author notes, there is no shortage of cultural metaphors and analogies referring to the American Empire past and present. However, the similarities between the TIE Fighter world and the post-9/11 world are uncanny. Media, even emergent media like video games, has a stunning ability to alter perspectives in truly brutal fashion. Blasting the good guys in X-wings out of the sky feels like the right thing to do at every turn.
As a just a game, TIE Fighter is immensely fun. As a specimen of how media can drastically affect the way we think and act, it is a powerful, if not slightly disturbing, experience.
Friday, August 7, 2009
State of American Discourse
America has a lot of problems. Protracted foreign wars, intransigent regimes in Iran, North Korea and beyond, bloated government programs and an unequal and unjust society are but a few of these problems. Fortunately, America has a lot of problem-solvers and wealth. With all these problems and potential solutions, why do so many problems remain unresolved?
Another problem with America is a tendency towards Attention Deficit Disorder in the media and electorate. Fringe issues like abortion, religious affiliation, and a person's upbringing have become litmus tests for candidates and loud distractions for whoever is in power at the time. The screaming of fringe fanatics often prevents discourse on any issue (especially if the issue happens to be their fringe issue). This bizarre social handicap makes the most recent policy discussions unique.
Of late, a lot of time and energy has been directed at reforming the health care system (not a fringe issue). Personally, I think the status quo in health care is broken, wasteful and shameful. However, I'm not going to discuss the reform plans. I'm not a health care expert and the associated phenomenon is much more fun to talk about.
To the dismay of Mr. Obama and many Democrats, Congress has been unable to push health care reform out the door before the August recess. So now we have members of Congress appearing at public events trying to get feedback from constituents. Going into this, many must have been thinking about this great opportunity to add more voices and ideas to the debate. Instead, a number of these "townhall meetings" have degenerated into shouting matches, disgruntled choir practices and opportunities for rookie police officers to practice kicking disruptive people out of public events. It seems like the fringe issue crowd has infiltrated the real issue crowd. What a shame.
This is one of those rare occasions when average citizens get a chance to talk directly to policy makers about an ongoing debate over an important issue. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have mindlessly destroyed a rare opportunity to advance a national dialogue on health care reform. The culture warriors have put on new hats, but their tactics remain as transparent and tactless as ever.
One of the less than savory characters involved with this new chapter in public discourse is Rick Scott, founder of Conservatives for Patient's Rights (their commercials are frequently on TV and can probably be found on Youtube). Mr. Scott's career history would make you think that Republicans wouldn't want to touch him with a 12-foot pole. Rick Scott founded a hospital chain that was caught by the FBI defrauding Medicare. Three executives were indicted and Mr. Scott was ousted by the board. When all was said and done, the hospital chain plead guilty on 14 counts of felony and was forced to pay $1.7 billion in civil and criminal charges. He was never charged, but his involvement with the whole affair clearly gives him a dubious reputation.
In defense of the plebs, the amount of information available on the 1000+ page health care bill is thin. I don't plan on reading that behemoth (sounds like the job for a Congressman or journalist), but that doesn't mean I'm not interested or concerned about the contents. I know that a couple other people are probably thinking the same thing, but I save my yelling for sports events and video games.
The rumors that the meeting crashers are Republican operatives are probably true in some cases, but I think a lot of these disgruntled people have simply let their fear blind them. Maybe in the future they should run a Public Discourse 101 seminar before these meetings.
Yoda hits the nail on the head.
Sorry about the lack of updates recently. Life has gotten more busy of late and my upcoming move to DC probably won't slow my life down right away.
Another problem with America is a tendency towards Attention Deficit Disorder in the media and electorate. Fringe issues like abortion, religious affiliation, and a person's upbringing have become litmus tests for candidates and loud distractions for whoever is in power at the time. The screaming of fringe fanatics often prevents discourse on any issue (especially if the issue happens to be their fringe issue). This bizarre social handicap makes the most recent policy discussions unique.
Of late, a lot of time and energy has been directed at reforming the health care system (not a fringe issue). Personally, I think the status quo in health care is broken, wasteful and shameful. However, I'm not going to discuss the reform plans. I'm not a health care expert and the associated phenomenon is much more fun to talk about.
To the dismay of Mr. Obama and many Democrats, Congress has been unable to push health care reform out the door before the August recess. So now we have members of Congress appearing at public events trying to get feedback from constituents. Going into this, many must have been thinking about this great opportunity to add more voices and ideas to the debate. Instead, a number of these "townhall meetings" have degenerated into shouting matches, disgruntled choir practices and opportunities for rookie police officers to practice kicking disruptive people out of public events. It seems like the fringe issue crowd has infiltrated the real issue crowd. What a shame.
This is one of those rare occasions when average citizens get a chance to talk directly to policy makers about an ongoing debate over an important issue. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have mindlessly destroyed a rare opportunity to advance a national dialogue on health care reform. The culture warriors have put on new hats, but their tactics remain as transparent and tactless as ever.
One of the less than savory characters involved with this new chapter in public discourse is Rick Scott, founder of Conservatives for Patient's Rights (their commercials are frequently on TV and can probably be found on Youtube). Mr. Scott's career history would make you think that Republicans wouldn't want to touch him with a 12-foot pole. Rick Scott founded a hospital chain that was caught by the FBI defrauding Medicare. Three executives were indicted and Mr. Scott was ousted by the board. When all was said and done, the hospital chain plead guilty on 14 counts of felony and was forced to pay $1.7 billion in civil and criminal charges. He was never charged, but his involvement with the whole affair clearly gives him a dubious reputation.
In defense of the plebs, the amount of information available on the 1000+ page health care bill is thin. I don't plan on reading that behemoth (sounds like the job for a Congressman or journalist), but that doesn't mean I'm not interested or concerned about the contents. I know that a couple other people are probably thinking the same thing, but I save my yelling for sports events and video games.
The rumors that the meeting crashers are Republican operatives are probably true in some cases, but I think a lot of these disgruntled people have simply let their fear blind them. Maybe in the future they should run a Public Discourse 101 seminar before these meetings.
Yoda hits the nail on the head.
Sorry about the lack of updates recently. Life has gotten more busy of late and my upcoming move to DC probably won't slow my life down right away.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Things that Go "..." in the Night
This morning I was visiting the Dragon Age: Origins website for the first time in a few weeks to see if they updated any of their content. Naturally, they have a few new things, yet I find myself woefully unfulfilled. Whenever I visit websites dedicated to Starcraft 2 or Star Wars The Old Republic or even Star Trek Online, I leave the site more excited about the game than when I arrived. Dragon Age, of late, has had the direct opposite effect.
The website itself is downright garish in appearance. I wish the internet archive website had some records of the site from earlier this year, because it wasn't always this way. It used to have a black background and was a more traditional RPG website. Visiting the website 6 months ago, it was unmistakeably a classic RPG game. Today, I would be interested to see a poll of people visiting the website for the first time with no knowledge of the game asking what genre Dragon Age: Origins belongs to. When I look at the site, I see a game pandering to the great unwashed masses that hold up Halo, Gears of War, Killzone and Mortal Kombat as the great masterpieces of gaming*. It's bloody, violent, and features a loading bar consisting of an orc head slowly sliding down the sword upon which it is impaled. Classy.
Even the trailers and teaser videos that have been released lately are of dubious quality. From the beginning of the development, Bioware has said that they are purposefully aiming for a mature-themed game and would not hold back on the blood, sex, and language. Of course, I have no problem with this as long as the game delivers on its other promise: a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. Prior to the recent batch of content, all the trailers focused on the qualities I would look for in an RPG. Then, around the time of E3, the new wave of Dragon Age marketing began. Blood and sex were the featured attractions and cool things like believable/lovable/hateable characters, intriguing stories and epic setting turned into a bloody action slasher (a "blasher", if you will). Furthermore, the appropriate and exciting fantasy RPG soundtrack has been replaced with heavy metal rock music.
I realize that I can't put the game devs and game marketers into the same mental equation, but it's hard not to. When I'm excited about an RPG game and the studio releases new information, I want relevant RPG material that will get me excited (supposedly, that's what a marketing team should want too). Instead, I get "blasher" promos serenaded by Marilyn Manson. It feels like a betrayal of the community that will ultimately support and play the game for the months and years after the release date (while the ham-headed marketing target audience throws the game out because they don't know what an ability or dialogue tree is).
In reality, all this garbage marketing will do little to effect my purchasing decision. Several months ago, Bioware released a number of impressive developer walkthrough videos that demoed the gameplay and game editor. I was sold.
At the end of the day, Electronic Arts is to blame for the atrocious change in Bioware's game advertising. When EA bought Bioware over a year ago, I expected that something like this would happen. I continue to fear that development decisions will also be affected. The recent change in the Dragon Age marketing direction stinks of EA's baleful influence. Fortunately, Star Wars The Old Republic has the protection of the Star Wars franchise to block the EA marketing monster. Therefore, the SWTOR website and marketing is excellent.
On a Star Wars sidenote: Lucasarts will be announcing a "new, old game" on Monday. Granted, it won't necessarily be a Star Wars game, but I can hope for a new X-wing/TIE Fighter game.
My final hope is that the guys who design the box art work a long way from the guys who design the website and trailers. I really don't want to get a stark white box with a blood splatter dragon adorning the cover. I want a subdued and attractive box like the Neverwinter Nights 2 or Witcher Enhanced Edition (in my opinion, the best looking game box on store shelves) boxes.
*I can't deny that I enjoy games like Halo, Gears of War and Killzone. They are the summer movies of the video game industry. They are fun and occasionally thoughtful, but they cannot hold a candle to games like Half-Life, Starcraft, or Knights of the Old Republic.
UPDATE:
Well, looks like all hope is lost...
By the way, the file name for this image is "BloodDragonBox.jpg"...
The website itself is downright garish in appearance. I wish the internet archive website had some records of the site from earlier this year, because it wasn't always this way. It used to have a black background and was a more traditional RPG website. Visiting the website 6 months ago, it was unmistakeably a classic RPG game. Today, I would be interested to see a poll of people visiting the website for the first time with no knowledge of the game asking what genre Dragon Age: Origins belongs to. When I look at the site, I see a game pandering to the great unwashed masses that hold up Halo, Gears of War, Killzone and Mortal Kombat as the great masterpieces of gaming*. It's bloody, violent, and features a loading bar consisting of an orc head slowly sliding down the sword upon which it is impaled. Classy.
Even the trailers and teaser videos that have been released lately are of dubious quality. From the beginning of the development, Bioware has said that they are purposefully aiming for a mature-themed game and would not hold back on the blood, sex, and language. Of course, I have no problem with this as long as the game delivers on its other promise: a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. Prior to the recent batch of content, all the trailers focused on the qualities I would look for in an RPG. Then, around the time of E3, the new wave of Dragon Age marketing began. Blood and sex were the featured attractions and cool things like believable/lovable/hateable characters, intriguing stories and epic setting turned into a bloody action slasher (a "blasher", if you will). Furthermore, the appropriate and exciting fantasy RPG soundtrack has been replaced with heavy metal rock music.
I realize that I can't put the game devs and game marketers into the same mental equation, but it's hard not to. When I'm excited about an RPG game and the studio releases new information, I want relevant RPG material that will get me excited (supposedly, that's what a marketing team should want too). Instead, I get "blasher" promos serenaded by Marilyn Manson. It feels like a betrayal of the community that will ultimately support and play the game for the months and years after the release date (while the ham-headed marketing target audience throws the game out because they don't know what an ability or dialogue tree is).
In reality, all this garbage marketing will do little to effect my purchasing decision. Several months ago, Bioware released a number of impressive developer walkthrough videos that demoed the gameplay and game editor. I was sold.
At the end of the day, Electronic Arts is to blame for the atrocious change in Bioware's game advertising. When EA bought Bioware over a year ago, I expected that something like this would happen. I continue to fear that development decisions will also be affected. The recent change in the Dragon Age marketing direction stinks of EA's baleful influence. Fortunately, Star Wars The Old Republic has the protection of the Star Wars franchise to block the EA marketing monster. Therefore, the SWTOR website and marketing is excellent.
On a Star Wars sidenote: Lucasarts will be announcing a "new, old game" on Monday. Granted, it won't necessarily be a Star Wars game, but I can hope for a new X-wing/TIE Fighter game.
My final hope is that the guys who design the box art work a long way from the guys who design the website and trailers. I really don't want to get a stark white box with a blood splatter dragon adorning the cover. I want a subdued and attractive box like the Neverwinter Nights 2 or Witcher Enhanced Edition (in my opinion, the best looking game box on store shelves) boxes.
*I can't deny that I enjoy games like Halo, Gears of War and Killzone. They are the summer movies of the video game industry. They are fun and occasionally thoughtful, but they cannot hold a candle to games like Half-Life, Starcraft, or Knights of the Old Republic.
UPDATE:
Well, looks like all hope is lost...
By the way, the file name for this image is "BloodDragonBox.jpg"...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)