Advice from a Cartoon Princess

I found this enlightening PSA over at Boing Boing.

Meta-Criticisms of Barack Obama

The mainstream message (from the Right) about those on the Left who are dissatisfied with the presidency of Barack Obama is that they bought into - to quote Sarah Palin - "the hopey-changey" stuff too wholeheartedly, that they are mere idealists who did not see this communist/fascist/socialist/atheist/muslim era coming and have been blindsided. It's obviously a simple way of sniping at the Left, and it is effective. It makes them seem childish and unversed in actual political issues, which I haven't found to be the case with many critics of Obama.

The dissatisfaction has been with the President's policies, for the most part. The Ann Coulters and Sean Hannitys of the world convey the message as if Democrats din't understand what a Barack Obama presidency would entail, that the full knowledge of a "liberal" presidency might have scared them in the first place.

This is where the message has been thoroughly distorted. The problem that surfaces has to do with unfulfilled promises and ineffectual leadership, as Digby best articulates in an article released today:

Therefore, his [Obama's] political advisers should know that when the country is still reeling from unemployment and foreclosures after nearly two years, the passage of an inadequate stimulus bill, which unrealistic benchmarks and a giddy victory party ensured would be the only chance they got, the only people who will consider that a "success" would be beltway insiders. They should have realized that a health care bill that nobody in their right minds would have designed from scratch, the worst aspects of which liberals will be asked to defend for years to come, would be met with dampened enthusiasm by those who watched the process devolve from a sense of progressive purpose to an exhausting farce. They are expected to be able to predict that financial reform without accountability for what's gone before, combined with the administration's unwillingness to confront the civil liberties abuse of the last administration -- indeed expanding on them in some cases -- would show a lack of fundamental concern for justice among those who care about such things.

An extensive quote - sorry - but one necessary to articulate the fundamental flaw in how the country has been run for the last year-and-a-half. Obama has ostensibly carried on many of the policies of his predecessor and has been at least as secretive about, well, everything, so that some backlash should be expected. What the President (and many of his advisors) do not seem to grasp is that the same rules of governance do not apply. Plenty of people argue that George W. Bush enacted several dozen anti-conservative policies while occupying the White House, but he encountered very little resistance from those on his side, because the Right tends to contain cheerleaders and people concerned with a unified vision. Even if he didn't really follow Reagan's modern conservatism, he still had an (R) next to his name, so that was enough.

The same sort of people do not occupy the Democratic Party, and that is perhaps where Obama's most embarrassing shortcoming lies. He expected the entirety of the Obama-voting-populace to support the presidency no matter what. In a country as divided as ours, he expected some measure of loyalty, despite some potentially disappointing decisions. Let me take this opportunity to state that John McCain would have been no better. At this point, he's just a pair of fucking political clown shoes, but I digress. But this is not a time for blind faith in the government. Barack Obama is not a mirror image of President Bush, and maybe that's why he's having so many problems. What the Right refuses to accept and the Left refuses to forgive is that Barack Obama is not a liberal version of Ronald Reagan. He may be viewed as such in twenty or thirty years, but he has given the public no credible evidence that he has transformed politics in any measurable way.

Killing Mockingbirds: Harper Lee's Vision, 50 Yrs. Later

It has been over a decade since I myself read To Kill a Mockingbird. My thoughts at the time were like those of many uninspired high school students who read it for some Lit class or another. I was inspired, emotionally affected, and pleased to see Southern racism skewed (I grew up in a town that was probably not unlike Maycomb).

I cannot honestly say that I would read it in the same way now. Atticus Finch (portrayed by Gregory Peck in the movie) is ostensibly the white savior character in the novel, and he seems to go to great lengths to defend the homicidal racist whites in the town. Honestly, it's a novel that doesn't stand up as well as a novel promoting racial equality as it did fifty years ago.

That being said, I don't know that all the criticism is deserved. What can be said of many "message" works like Mockingbird are guilty of turning the subject - in this case, African-Americans - into topics rather than flesh-and-blood characters. The book has a purpose, a political undertone, and in that respect the book may be considered bad...but not necessarily racist.

The unintended consequence of trying to "do" something about racism is that it suffers from not being quite as progressive as it could have been. I won't fall into the pit of saying that we shouldn't judge older works by today's morality (because the book certainly could have gone farther in making its case but didn't), but I will defend To Kill a Mockingbird strictly through its own merits.

Books, like people, can achieve great things without being great moral arbiters themselves. In my experience, Harper Lee's novel has inspired hundreds, maybe thousands, of young people to pursue careers in law, specifically civil rights law. That's great (depending on how you feel about lawyers).

Furthermore, the book chronicles how even the most progressive small-town Southern people felt about racism in the south at the time. I'm fully aware of the fact that Atticus Finch was, by no means, the most progressive embodiment of racial equality, but he was also probably a fair representation of how people similar to Atticus Finch actually thought. The problem that many critics have with Atticus Finch as a character is not that he defends racists - he does - but that his idealism had some unintended consequences. He spends much of his time humanizing white people but very little doing the same thing for blacks of the era.

This is problematic. Certainly I will not come out and say that Mr. Cunningham is a good man, but perhaps what Lee was doing in writing the book was mollifying the white establishment while still trying to push the "progressive buttons" in the Civil Rights Movement. It's what causes Atticus to seem too in-the-middle for a modern audience. He would simultaneously defend Cunningham and protect Tom Robinson from being lynched, and in that he goes way overboard in making the whites out to be misunderstood. They really weren't; they were racists. Plain and simple.

It's a difficult issue to tackle, definitely. I would like to say that the book shouldn't be judged simply by the political message (or lack thereof) contained within, but the problem is that the political message is central to the story. It becomes difficult to buy into the novel if you revile Atticus Finch as a character. If his plight is too much, too overbearing, too loyal to the White South, then you probably won't enjoy the book. However, I also don't think we should paint To Kill A Mockingbird with the same brush as, say, The Jazz Singer, because the novel only fails in unintentionally producing a distracting message, rather than genuinely exploiting African-Americans for the benefit of white people. It is probably the reason why "message" books rarely work in the long run.

My First Thoughts on: Borderlands

I'm a postapocalyptic sort of guy, though not necessarily the kind who enjoys Mad Max-style cinema/books/games. However, I was intrigued by BorderLands. It's a sort of RPG/FPS hybrid, sporting literally hundreds of guns and requiring players to level up along the way. I must mention I'm not an RPG guy either, so this game caught me doubly off-guard.

I've only put about four hours into the game, so I'm not that far along, but...it's growing on me. I didn't really like it at first. There are things in the game called Skags (which look like Zuul and Vinz from 'Ghostbusters') that I don't particularly care for, mostly because you have to kill about a thousand of them between the beginning of the game and getting to Level 10. I like to shoot people, man!

Once I got to about level 7 or 8, though, the game began to pick up steam for me. I enjoy the environment now, and the cell-shaded visual style is quite appealing. Parts of the desert are beautifully disgusting (if that makes any sense) and I find myself just sort of wandering around and shooting skags for no particular reason (thank you, sniper rifle[s]). I've got to say that, though I'm not a fan of these sorts of situations normally, Borderlands has got me a little bit hooked. It's a nice change after the environment in Infamous. Rather than urban decay, though, I get desert decay. I'm not a fan of the map or the compass system that guides you around. It's inexact and can get you damn lost if you're not careful.

Though I probably won't end up playing the gall all the way through, I'm looking forward to getting farther into it. What are your thoughts on the game? Anything I need to be aware of?

The [Original] Predator Told as a Rap

EMBED-PREDATOR -DJ MaYhem & Mouthmaster Murf - Watch more free videos

The SCREAM 4 Footage...

...in which nothing happens. Still, we now know Scream 4 is actually being shot, and depending on how you feel about it, you will either be elated or repulsed (or somewhere in between, like me). Be forewarned: nothing happens in the thirty-second clip, save for some meandering around this small town.

MouseTrap Never Works (OK Go Parody)

What Will Be Our Generation's Gay Marriage?

I know the topic title is a bit awkwardly phrased, but my hope is that it's a forgivable offense. I've been thinking about the passage of time and its consequences a lot lately. Marriage has done that for me (I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but that's all right, I suppose).

In contemplating the future, eternity, and everything else, I began to wonder about the great generational fights of the past. Worker rights, womens' rights, the Civil Rights Movement, gay marriage...and then I stopped. Logically, where do we go from here? What is going to be the great battle of my adulthood?

Part of the problem is that I wonder if there is going to be some agenda that I will oppose as vehemently as some oppose gay marriage. I can't think of anything that will cause me to ratchet up my defenses and get out sheets of posterboard and Sharpie markers.

But I also think that's the point. It will be a topic I didn't see coming. I bet the millions who are so against the concept of the freedom to marry any adult one chooses did not see this coming. Not thirty years ago. Not twenty years ago. Not ten years ago. They went about their business with the knowledge that, given everything else, at least God's prohibition against homosexuality would be endorsed by the government.

What we're seeing is a battle for the idea of inalienable human rights. I have not seen any real convincing arguments against gay marriage. Ninety-nine out of a hundred are based, obviously or obliquely, on religious doctrine alone. Droves have been convinced from the guy in the pulpit - very rarely is it a woman - to go out and vote down any bill endorsing even the remotest rights for gay marriage. Many of these people, ironically enough, detest the government taking a stance in any aspect of a person's life, and yet when it comes to the legal (or spiritual or sexual) bond between two adults, they could not be more persuaded by the concept of governmental authority in the matter.

I can see this situation very clearly, and I am thoroughly in favor of giving gays any marital rights straight people have. Furthermore, I don't know how any person opposed to the measure can be blind to its inevitability. Someday - and it may not be in the near future, but it will someday come to pass - this fight will be considered a hideous mark on the face of individual liberty in America, just as it now seems ludicrous that there was even a fight over the movements mentioned at the outset of this post. They now seem indicative of American experience as a whole, and many of us - I refuse to say all - could not imagine it any other way.

But that brings me to the logical question of: what next? Polygamy? Maybe, though I'm not opposed to polygamy, on social, religious, or personal grounds. That's another post entirely, but suffice it to say that it troubles me not one bit whether a man (or woman) marries one woman or ten and makes it legal. Plus, I don't believe the fight will be as scornfully fought as the ones which have preceded it.

What may occur is an embittered struggle over representation in government. This, of course, is nowhere near as important as the right to be recognized as a first-class citizen, but it can't be very far off. Atheists, gays, women, and minorities are woefully underrepresented - discouraged, even - from holding office and being able to be open about religious or sexual orientation. Perhaps that can change.

My Thoughts on Plants Vs. Zombies

Zombies have not yet reached their full saturation point for me. My obsession with the undead has been all-consuming since I was a little kid. I watched the movies (Dawn of the Dead, Return of the Dead, Evil Dead), played the video games (Zombies Ate My Neighbors - What Up!), collected comic books, and began, at some point to write short stories about them. I can't to this day describe exactly what it is about the walking dead that intrigues me, but something keeps bringing me back.

Plants vs. Zombies, a tower defense game developed by PopCap, takes my fondness to a whole new level. Who knew rotting corpses could be so adorable?



I resisted PopCap games for the longest time, Bejeweled being the first and most prominent example. Everyone who has ever had a cell phone has had a trial version of the Tetris-like puzzle game (though not really) on it. Bejeweled didn't impress me. I didn't find it addictive. I didn't find it entertaining. I found it tedious and cheap, but I may have wrongfully overlooked it.

Then came Peggle. Though I initially didn't make the connection between Bejeweled and Peggle, I ignored it nonetheless. Both ostensibly possessed the same "casual game" label, and I was much too busy head-shotting aliens and (of course) zombies to be concerened with shooting a ball into a screenful of blue and orange dots.



But I played it, and, like usual, found out how idiotic I had been. Not only is Peggle fun, it's seriously addictive, and not just in a "casual", this-is-easy-to-pick-up-and-play sort of way. The developers at PopCap Games have found a magical formula for both grade of difficulty and transition between levels to keep the player glued to the screen for hours. A whole week went by where I don't think I watched an hour's worth of television due to this beast. It consumed my life, and I almost felt guilty after the obsession had passed. Almost.

Having been baptized into the revealed religion of PopCap, I recently dove headlong into Plants vs. Zombies, even though I had no idea what in the hell a tower defense game is. Ostensibly, what the player does is set up obstacles for an attacking army (zombies, in this case). If the zombies make it all the way across the screen and into your house, you lose. In PVZ, the obstacles take the form of plants. As the zombies track across the screen, the plants attack them. Planting sunflowers, for example, yields bits of sunlight - 25 pts a pop - which can be used to purchase other plants, like Jalapenos, which explode and kill an entire row of zombies, or pea shooters, which fire repeatedly at advancing enemies, until their heads fall off and they fall double-lifeless to the ground.



It sounds strange, and yet it works. The key to PopCap games is that they definitely do not take themselves too seriously. And yet, the developers seem to take them very seriously. The games themselves are very well put-together, and the player gets way more than the purchase price out of them, which many triple-A titles can't even boast. I paid ten bucks for PVZ, and I've put well over thirty hours into it. I'm starting a second go-round, using the different plants I accumulated over the course of the game, and so far I don't see myself slowing down whatsoever.

The Game Developer's Approach to Editing a Novel

In between bouts of compulsively checking Reddit and trying to get the achievements in Plants Vs. Zombies, I have been editing my most recent novel, Boogie House. The writing and editing of the book has been a long process - I started the first draft in January of 2009 - and I am finally, Finally, FINALLY, coming to the end of working on it. I had several compositional setbacks - like grad school and planning a wedding - which made the last year and a half go by with some quickness, so I hope all the time spent on this beast has been worth it.

I like the book, but then again, I wrote it. I should like it. Whether or not it is any "good" (in any sense of the word), I have no idea, but it will be done in the next few weeks, and I can start sending queries to publishers and agents.

Writing a novel is quite easy. Don't let anyone tell you that it's very hard. Putting down 90,000 words is only a matter of consistency of purpose. Editing, polishing, deleting, revamping, over-thinking, comparing to other better works, making the ending a fitting one, changing characters to make them more lifelike, refraining from plotting and allowing the character to make their own decisions, these are all very, very difficult, and I have suffered from every one of them in the last eighteen months (jeez, I had no idea it had been that long).

Right now, the action is ramping up for the final confrontation, and my only hope is that the ending fits with the general arc of the story. I've already re-edited the novel twice, so any changes made after this point will consist of little tweaks and fixes. The first edit consisted of changing major plot elements, cutting down long scenes, taking out corny bits of narration or dialogue (of which there was plenty), and just generally trying to get a feel for how the novel flowed. I got bogged down three quarters of the way through and didn't really "read" the novel so much as re-write it.

I tried again a second time, going almost instantly into the editing process. I found the novel to be much better this time, and yet I saw so many plot holes that I instantly went about stitching the edges together to make everything more clear and believable. This second edit hasn't been quite as difficult as the first one, but it's still been a slog of sorts. I'm almost done, and I can't wait to be rid of this novel for a stretch.

What I can say is that I've almost taken a game developer's approach to editing Boogie House. Game developers spend a great deal of time working on their games, polishing the graphics and gameplay until everything is as immersive as possible. I have spent time fleshing out characters and injecting backstory and trying to set the novel apart from all of the hard(ish)boiled detective novels out there. As much as I despise editing, this last go-round has taught me that the editing process is where the book simultaneously takes on a life of its own and becomes "my book." I look forward to finding this newest draft utterly readable. Fingers crossed.

Hey, I'm Back - A Honeymoon Blog

So, yeah, I got married without telling the internet. My bad. Anyway, I'm back from the honeymoon and ready to take up blogging again. I can't say that sitting here is more exciting than skimming around Europe with my new wife, but getting back to business is really worth being back in America.

Let me take a moment to get all mushy on you. I have a renewed sense of life, and my approach to living will change, hopefully. Even though I'd been with my wife - even now it hasn't sunk in - for almost six years before we were married, there is something distinctly different about it.

From now on, it won't just be "me," and that has changed the way I view the world. I've got to be honest about that. Even while engaged, the shared experience of life isn't quite the same. I feel like I've joined an exclusive club - albeit one for which extrication from its bounds can be achieved for five hundred bucks, if the billboards along I-20 are correct - and I actually look forward to the nuances of married life. My wife is the best person I know, and we survived traveling together in Spain and France for a week and a half without threatening annulment, so I guess it's so far so good.

Now, on to Europe, figuratively speaking.

I took somewhat extensive notes throughout the honeymoon, scribbling on a little leather-bound notebook in diners, cafes, and bars along the way. I tried to account for each day, though the wealth of experience cannot be simply put into words. And yet, I'll try my best.

I'll do a few posts on the blog about the trip, but I'm thinking of writing a (short) account of the honeymoon as a single slim volume to be downloaded online. It will include our adventures on the honeymoon, thoughts on life and writing, and a little background about the places we visited. Look for that in the near future, both on the blog and in print form.

Glad to be back.

Watson Is Creepy: Game Demo

Thoughts On: Infamous (PS3)

I know I'm late to this show, but getting back into video games has been a recent mission of mine, so forgive me for discussing out of date titles like Infamous. Overall, I'd say it's a flawed but *fun* game, if you're into superhero sandbox situations. The climbing, jumping, sliding, and shooting mechanics are all easy to master and satisfying to perform. Nothing beats being able to climb a stories-tall building, only to jump off and then slam into the concrete like a character straight out of Marvel. Even though the three islands are a bit samey in their visual styles, when compared to the tedium of stealing a car in GTA, being able to jump from building to building and slide on rails in Infamous is a dream. There are very few restrictions on what can be grappled, so the environment feels truly free and open for the player. I've wasted hours in the city under the auspices of looking for hidden items, and it's an honestly satisfying experience. The game designers placed needed emphasis on making the dynamic of climbing quite enthralling, and it pays off.

What's not very enjoyable are the side missions. Once you've played through the ones on the first island, there's little reason to continue the practice on islands two and three. They're the same exact missions but with different henchmen as the targets. Needless to say, the game becomes quite repetitive, unless you play straight through the story missions. I would imagine those remain more fresh if not hampered by the repetition of certain small goals.

In addition, some of the tasks are inane or quite frustrating (a few of the "satellite uplink" missions almost drove me to replace the game in the sleeve and send it back immediately, lest I break the disc into a million pieces and set those pieces on fire). In retrospect, the game isn't that hard, but some of the missions seemed absolutely ridiculous. Despite being invulnerable to bullets to a certain extent, your character is somewhat easily killed in specific situations, especially missions involving large numbers of enemies, who become deadly accurate when in large groups, for some reason.

I did like the game enough to play all the way through to the end (as a good guy. I am incapable of being evil in any video game, for some reason). My fiancee (countdown: six days) can attest to the fact, though, that from two-thirds of the way through the game on, I threatened to pack it up and move on no less than a dozen times, which is astounding, given how patient I can be with even the most frustrating gaming experiences.

Overall, though, Infamous is worth a rental, at the very least. Don't think it's going to throw anything extremely new at you after about five hours, though, and you'll probably be satisfied.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 Gameplay

What I've Been Listening to - Brad Sucks

Free music for professional licensing

O, I Think I Smell a Rat

O, I Think I Smell a Rat

Posted using ShareThis

I Am Skeptical of S.E. Cupp

I had never heard of S.E. Cupp until this past Friday, when she appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. Cupp - who looks like Sophia Bush with an Ivy League education - has written a book entitled Losing Our Religion: How Blah Blah Blah Liberal Media Blah Blah. She is ostensibly a FOX News hack, but here's the thing: She's an avowed atheist.

There's a part of me that wants to cheer. Even though she is a conservative, she has all the characteristics of the kind of conservative I kind of dig. Cupp is smart, witty, and an extremely talented writer. She has a Republican Diablo Cody sort of style, and that is not to demean her. Her prose is entirely readable, especially if you don't pay attention to what she's actually saying.

Something doesn't seem quite right, though. I'm about to criticize her for how she talks about religion, not because I disagree with what she's saying - I certainly do - but because she seems to be disingenuous about her convictions. Let me be clear, however: my position isn't that S.E. Cupp isn't an atheist. I am not doubting her atheism, on the whole. My interests don't lie in defining atheism, since it is a mere rejection of religiosity. There is no dogma surrounding it, and I don't find any sort of real brotherhood (or sisterhood) in those who are like-minded. Cupp is free and welcome to defend religion with every waking breath.

That being said, how she represents herself, and, similarly, how she is perhaps being used by the "FOX Right" is of vital interest to me, because I see something at work here, and I want to point it out as quickly and as succinctly as I can.

While someone like Ann Coulter wields her conservatism right out front (and I am not the first person to compare her to Coulter, and I need not go into her antics), Cupp seems to be a straw man atheist. It's not that she defends the religious. That is admirable, in a way. Not every atheist needs to fit the same mold; that's the role of the religious (hoo-wah!).

No, it's the extent to which she defends the religious that seems to elicit a quizzical brow-raising. The way that she grimaces every time she utters the words "militant atheist" conveys a disgust that is palatable to the larger conservative / Christian worldview (up to and including those who watch FOX News), and I have to say that this is what arouses my skepticism. While Cupp herself may be sincere about her distaste for the way that atheists behave as a whole, what she has created in the realm of FOX News is an archetype that can be used by the right in order to discredit atheism itself.

For example, Cupp's views on the evolution/creationism debate border on being apologist. An article published in The Washington Post takes Cupp to task for blurring the lines in the argument.

S.E. Cupp's handling of science and religion misrepresents the nature of evolution, obscures the science of biology and dismisses the deeply held religious views of most Christians outside of the fundamentalist subculture.

Cupp presents creationism as "a counterargument" to evolution, yet never provides a clear account of what evolution is or what she thinks creationism means.
~Joshua Rosenau, public information project director at the National Center for Science Education

This is a curious position for an atheist to hold, but that is not what is important. What is important is that this position panders to the very people who already think lowly of atheists in general. Many critics have called her the "atheist Alan Colmes," which I personally think is unfair and, more importantly, untrue. She will not be a whipping post for the network. I recently (a few minutes ago) watched an interview she had with Mike Huckabee and some other FOX News contributor, and the three of them agreed on all the same points about what the media is doing to the country by attacking Christianity (which is, of course, the only religion in the U.S.).

And yet, the seed of a great idea lies in all of this. For far too long, people have been ranting about how no one in this country gets along anymore. FOX News, above all, has been guilty of creating a schism between people of the left and right by vilifying them openly on the air, so perhaps we can look at this through rose colored glasses. Maybe we should say that it's not such a bad thing that (a) FOX News has an atheist who is a regular contributor and (b) that an atheist is treated well on FOX. I personally don't buy it, but, then again, Christopher Hitchens has been on Bill O'Reilly's and Sean Hannity's programs...to be reviled. We shall see if this experiment works, but I have my doubts that S.E. Cupp is going anywhere in the near future.

What's Wrong with Network Science Fiction

Entertainment Weekly posted an article about the dip in ratings for shows like 'V', 'FlashForward', and 'Lost', which are all ostensibly science fiction shows. Why are these shows struggling? Here are some possibilities:

1) The shows kind of suck: What happens too often is that the whole of a genre is judged based on a few examples. The failure of Harper's Island more or less killed the horror tv subgenre for major networks. It says nothing about horror shows in general, just Harper's Island. TV Execs are reticent to flood the market with a single type of show if the flagship show doesn't work.

However, maybe it should be acknowledged that Lost isn't at the top of its game right now and V and FlashForward weren't really that good to begin with. It doesn't say that people don't like science fiction; it just says that maybe people don't like these science fictions shows. The ratings for both V and FlashForward plummeted after the first episodes, so maybe it's just not their bowl of grits. I personally like both shows (somewhat), but I can see why the general public may not be interested in them.



2) They don't account for the average tv watcher: This point has the potential of condescending to 'the masses', but the shows are kind of complicated and geeky in their lore. Lost may have alienated casual fans because of how different and complicated it is from the first season. They tune in and go, "What the hell's happening?" and then turn it on. It's not a show you can pick up in the sixth season, and, perhaps, it's not a show that people can keep up with after a hiatus. It's challenging to remember all of the details of the show, so I'm sure plenty of people have turned it off.

Additionally, and this may be a subset of 2), there are a lot of characters. It's difficult to pick up on shows that have so many different mutual story lines and situations.

3) The scheduling is messed up: After watching four episodes of the new shows, I wanted more! Four test shows with a hiatus wasn't enough to keep me interested, and now I'm feeling sluggish about getting back into them. That's probably my single biggest complaint. Had they produced more episodes and played them in a row, I would have felt more satisfied. But because they snapped the shows off - at critical moments, no less - people more or less lost interest.



4) Too much separates the shows: This may be a vastly idiosyncratic point, but I'm gonna make it anyway. V and Lost are completely, utterly different shows, and to lump them together is a mistake. Plenty of people who watch Lost are just fans of Lost, not science fiction as a whole. Assuming that viewers will carry over from one show to the other is problematic, to say the least. TV viewers are accustomed to (and sometimes request) samey shows, like all of the cop and crime dramas that permeate all networks at the moment. There are much smaller gaps between them than Lost, V, FlashForward, and Fringe. The spectrum of science fiction falls under a wide umbrella, so there will be disparities in the shows.

5) Maybe Lost was a fluke: Or, maybe Lost is the token science fiction show. Perhaps people can stomach one or two really popular science fiction shows at a time. The X-Files were really popular a decade ago, but (a) the show was really very good and (b) it was one of the only popular science fiction shows of the time period. It's only a hypothesis, but it can't be that far off the mark. And, the longer the show runs, the more Lost has upped the ante on the suspension of disbelief. The first season had a few mysterious things, but it was more character- than plot-driven. For the past two seasons, the show has been barreling along at such a pace as to undermine the personal element somewhat. So maybe people are less interested in the story of the survivors of Oceanic 815 than the people.

First Thoughts on 'Heavy Rain' - No Spoilers

I liked it. I'll have more to say in a mini-podcast about the game, but overall I thought it was an engaging experience. It's less of a game, in my opinion, than an interactive movie - a grown up choose-your-own-adventure - but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. Here are some first thoughts.

What is good:
* The story - I won't go into the particulars of the story here (wait for the spoilers section of the podcast), but there are several plot threads that keep the game fresh throughout. The game starts off slow, but once the story gets rolling along, it's hard to put the controller down.
* Multiple endings - there are well over twenty epilogues for the game, though I believe the basic story itself stays the same. This gives the game definite replay value. I'm probably going to buy the game so I can play through the game a few more times.
* The characters - The great thing about 'Heavy Rain' is that you can control the actions of the characters and mold the game to your personality, or you can make each character as aloof or downright evil as you like. Based on how you react to certain situations, the story changes along the way. It's really intriguing.

What sucks:
* The controls - Learning the control mechanics is quite frustrating early on, and there are points in the game when you will spin around and pivot several times before getting to where you're going. The system is not intuitive whatsoever, and it can be irritating. You use R2 to walk and the left analog stick to change direction. When you enter a room, the control shifts, and you might turn around and back out of a room before gathering your bearings.
* The voice acting - It becomes obvious very on that the developers are European. You'll catch an accent here or there that is out of place, and sometimes the voice acting distracts from the story itself. That being said, the writing is actually pretty good, so it's a shame that the voice acting is so bad.
* The first act - you have to persist through brushing your teeth, taking a shower, playing with the kids, all before getting to the meat of the story. Seriously, the game did not need such an extensive tutorial. It's quite boring until about half an hour to forty-five minutes into the game. However, the prologue sets up the story very well.

Overall, I think the game is at least worth a rental and is perhaps worth buying (I'm definitely going to buy it). And, now that I've decided to buy it, I saw over at Amazon that the game is on sale for $46.99 WITH A $10 off coupon for the next video game purchase. If you're craving a game with a very different, almost revolutionary user interface, then 'Heavy Rain' is a no-brainer.

Check out the podcast later for more in-depth discussion about the game.

Here is a non-spoiler-ific review of 'Heavy Rain'.

Powered by Podbean.com

Bioshock Evolve T Shirt from Zazzle.com

Bioshock Evolve T Shirt from Zazzle.com

I'm a t-shirt guy. I just love them, and not just regular white Hanes tees. I like the weird ones, ones that you have to get off the internet, from sites that would make the store owner from Gremlins cringe. They must have a slogan or picture for me to be happy. It doesn't have to be particularly well thought-out, but it should be present nonetheless. The irony of my outlook on life is that I despise people who cover their bumpers with slogans and other nonsense, and yet I'll be the first person to throw on a 'Day of the Dead' tee or (if I go all out and purchase this shirt) something to do with BioShock. Thing about life is, you can't be entirely free of contradictions. Contradictions are what make full, round, wonderful characters, and very few people in this world have such airtight logic, so I'm not that worried.

What Ralph Nader *May* Teach Us About Ron Paul

I'm not going into any specifics here, because the canyon between Paul and Nader couldn't be wider. However, what I want to caution you people out there against is judging the man too closely by his followers. I don't want to start a ruckus with Libertarians, but some of them are quite devoted to Paul. I have allowed the irony of their position - How can you follow Obama so blindly! Ron Paul's always right! - to keep me from thinking more deeply about whether or not his positions really, truly, honestly deserve the headspace I've been unwilling to give them.

How this relates to Ralph Nader is in the near-religious fervor with which both men's followers regard them. We live in an age of the cult of personality, and both me are subject to it, even in their respective lack of personality. What happened ten years ago is that the majority of Americans eschewed the message of Ralph Nader because his denizens were a bit wacky, and he was a turd in the punch bowl, but the anti-corporatism message he espoused is becoming eerily prescient in these financially bankrupt days of our republic.

Similarly, Paul's supporters are so fervent that they tend to turn the average person off, myself included, because you can kind of see that David Koresh look in their eyes when they talk about RP. That should not detract, however, from what the man is trying to say. We should keep the man separate from the message, indeed, as far as the supporters go. When I posed a question on the internet recently, asking Libertarians what their biggest grief with the man was, the most compelling answer I received was, "I wish he were twenty or thirty years younger. Oh, and he could be more forceful in his message." Honestly.

No doubt, Ron Paul has a track record to back up what he's saying, but that's not really the argument being made here. I demur from going into any real discussion of his positions - that is a post for another time - but the crux of this argument (and I hope RP fans can see through the veiled criticism to what is ostensibly a compliment) is that Ron Paul shouldn't be discounted simply because he's willing to throw a wrench in the modern political machine. I'll leave you with a quote from Ralph Nader in order to drive this point home: “When people say, ‘Why’d you do this in 2000?’ and so on,” Nader explains in AN UNREASONABLE MAN, “I’d say, ‘I’m a 20-year veteran of pursuing the folly of the least worst between the two parties.’ Because when you do that, you end up allowing them to both get worse every four years.”

Source: PBS.Org

Orangutans That Love DIY

This BBC video features orangutans that paddle along in boats, wash clothes, and make things, not because they were trained to do so, but because they watched others doing it and worked out how to do it for themselves. In other words, these are not parlor tricks, but real evidence of the cognitive ability of orangutans.

The Ooks of Hazzard - 'Kids' (MGMT Cover)

I believe it should be pronounced like Dukes without the D, but otherwise there's nothing confusing about this inspired cover of MGMT's 'Kids'. It's a straightforward, resonant track, and I hope to see more from this Americana group in the future. Enjoy.

A Jihad on South Park

For those of you who thought last week's episode of South Park was tame, think again. The fact that South Park even chose not to show Mohammed has sparked a controversy within radical Islamic sects. The web site Revolutionmuslim.com, which has been under investigation before for supporting violence (according to CNN), posted warnings about potential violence against creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone for even threatening to show the prophet Mohammed in the 200th episode.

As is quoted on the site (through CNN):

We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.

The awful irony of arguing over whether or not Mohammed should be shown in an episode of South Park is that it has already happened. If you take a look at season five of the series, you will see an episode called 'Super Best Friends', which features Buddha, Krishna, and Mohammed as well. Fully visible. No Censorship bar. Nothing. In fact, if one were so inclined, he or she could got to the South Park web site and watch the entire episode right now (here is the page). In essence, this is already a moot point, but the humorless extremists on Revolutionmuslim are not very attuned to humor and irony, as it should be blatantly obvious.

Everyone is waiting for mainstream Muslims to condemn the actions taken against Theo Van Goh, who was murdered for a critical film regarding abuses suffered by Muslim women, and for this most recent threat of violence against Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Parker and Stone themselves are largely unafraid of repercussions, if their interview with BoingBoingVideo is any indication:

(Trey Parker) It would be so hypocritical against our own thoughts if we say, "Okay, well let's not make fun of them because they may hurt us...That's messed up to have that kind of thought process. Okay, well, we'll rip on the Catholics because they won't hurt us, but we won't rip on them because they might hurt us. That is not the way it works. (from from YouTube)

To be upset and appalled by the way your religion is portrayed on South Park is acceptable. That is one of the beautiful aspects of American culture, to realize that someone out there disagrees and has the right to disagree. The rights of free speech do not protect one's feelings, however. You may be astounded at the audacity of an artist willing to show Mohammed's face, but faith does not create an asylum for violence. To advocate violence for a satirical cartoon show - for any show, for that matter - only works to stretch the limitations of what is to be considered one freely practicing one's faith.

BoingBoing Interview w/ Trey Parker and Matt Stone
CNN - Radical Islam Web Site Takes on 'South Park'

Who Leads The (R)?

Even though I'm not a Republican, I am thoroughly interested in train wrecks, so naturally I would be interested in the elephantine party of 2010. Today's article of note comes from David Brooks of the New York Times, who takes a few moments to answer questions about the crumbling Republican Party in a brief opinion piece.

One of the more illuminating portions of the interview was when Brooks said the following:

First, let’s all stop paying attention to Sarah Palin for a little while. I understand why liberals want to talk about her. She allows them to feel intellectually superior to their opponents. And members of the conservative counterculture want to talk about her simply because she drives liberals insane. But she is a half-term former governor with a TV show. She is not going to be the leader of any party and doesn’t seem to be inclined in that direction.

The Sarah Palin phenomenon is a media psychodrama and nothing more. It gives people on each side an excuse to vent about personality traits they despise, but it has nothing to do with government.