Comedy Don't Get No Respect

Woody Allen, on why he wishes he "had been a tragic poet instead of a minter of one-liners":

"Emotionally, comedy will never have the same impact," former stand-up comic Allen told Reuters.

"You can take the greatest comedies, and it's never the same as the impact when a curtain comes down on 'A Streetcar Named Desire' or 'Death of a Salesman.' You're pulverized by what you've seen. Comedy is just fun and entertaining."

I see his point, but I disagree. There are great comedies that are just as emotionally pulverizing, it's just that comedy generally involves different emotions.

For example, something like "Death of a Salesman", or Kurosawa's Ran, is so "pulverizing" because it hits you with deep sadness, even existential despair. Fair enough. Sometimes you're in the mood for some existential despair.

But personally, I was just as pulverized when the curtain came down on South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. As we exited the theater, one of the other patrons in the audience said to us, "I had no idea a movie could be so funny." That is just as valid an emotional response as existential despair.

Furthermore, comedy is just as capable of inducing deep sadness and existential despair as tragedy, it just does it in different ways. Examples off the top of my head would be Dr. Strangelove and Brazil, two more comedies that left me at least equally pulverized as "Death of a Salesman".

I could probably sit here all day and list off comedies that have just as much emotional impact as any tragedy: Happiness, City Lights, The Graduate, The Hudsucker Proxy, or, to use an example closer to Woody's heart, Crimes and Misdemeanors. Outside of films, my own favorite Shakespeare play, "The Tempest", is a comedy. Terry Pratchett's books, once he evolved from purely parodying fantasy literature to more social satire, are full of poignant, emotional moments, such as Gaspode confronting Death in Moving Pictures, or the last eight words written by Dorfl in Feet of Clay. Ain't nothin' wrong with comedy.

For the Love of Cats

I had to have my cat put to sleep last night. It had been coming for a couple of weeks - she was 14-15 years old, and had cancer, and she started having trouble walking. When she stopped eating two days ago, it seemed like it was time.

But this isn't a sad-pet-mourning blog, I have a point: We live in a world where virtually no one would dispute that it is an act of kindness to end my cat's life quickly and painlessly with an anesthetic injection, but the only thing we can do for a human being, who would not have wanted to be prolonged (according to the 20 or so judges who've ruled on it) in the condition she's in, is stop feeding her until she dehydrates/starves. And people with no connection to her whatsoever do everything in their power (and, occasionally, beyond their power, IMO) to prevent even that.

If only there were some way to convict Terri Schiavo of murder...

Where Do I Pick Up My Death-Soldier Uniform?

GOP memo says issue offers political rewards

The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year.

"This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

What, you mean that emergency Federal "law" to take over jurisdiction over Terri Schiavo may have been motivated by politics more than concern for her life? Boy, I never would have guessed...

David Limbaugh really ought to be more careful before saying things like "Could it be that something besides Terri's wishes motivates many of the death-soldiers, such as an allegiance to the culture of death, or some abject, inhumane resentment that we spend so much money keeping severely disabled people alive?" Especially when it makes it so easy for people to point out that in (among other places) Texas, hospitals can unilaterally refuse to continue futile treatment even against the family's wishes, under a law "partially written by pro-life organizations and signed into law by Governor George W. Bush."

Actually, that whole David Limbaugh piece is pretty sleazy, if you ask me. He keeps talking about "If, in fact, Terri Schiavo wants to live", and "If Terri truly wants to live", and "consider that this woman truly wants to live", and "may truly want to live", and "won't even momentarily consider that Terri wants to live".

Momentarily consider? As noted at this legal info page, "Terri's situation has arguably received more judicial attention, more medical attention, more executive attention, and more "due process," than any other guardianship case in history." What's going on is the result of decisions by a trial court, the 2nd District Court of Appeals, the Florida Supreme Court, another different trial court, the 2nd District again, the Florida Supreme Court again, and on, and on, and on: On that info page's timeline, I count 34 published court decisions, legislative actions, and orders pertaining to the case. Every single time a court has been asked to make the decision, they have decided that Terri doesn't want to live. So all that "if Terri truly wants to live" rhetoric is just so much irrelevant crap. She doesn't, and no amount of repeating it will make it so.

Cogitation/Vegetation

Rude Pundit on Terry Schiavo

One of the more publicly-repeatable sentences:

The distorted face of Terry Schiavo is now merely a canvas upon which ideology has been writ large, where the notion of "life" has been perverted to mean "a heartbeat," and where the cruel vicissitudes of politics now rear their ugly, hydra-heads.

Pretty good overall, though the author does allow his obvious leftism to blind him to what the rightists in Congress are actually up to. For example, he thinks that Republicans want to use this case as a defense against Democrats accusing them of "eliminating Social Security". I'll believe that when I see it, partly because an awful lot of the Republicans seem altogether unenthusiastic about doing anything with Social Security.

No, this latest move feels more like a Federal legislature trying to establish a precedent that they can pass a law to override a state court ruling they don’t like, which would be a massive and scary expansion of Federal legislative power. If they can do this, why not another law to overrule last Monday's California court ruling that prohibiting gay marriage violates the state constitution? Discussed at Majikthise.

Congress can't really lose, here. Either they get to be the saviors of Terry Schiavo's life, and weaken state courts in the process, or they get to complain about how those "activist Federal judges" let Terry die, either by declaring their law unconstitutional, or by just ruling on the merits the same way the state court did, that she would have wanted the feeding tube removed.

Fun with Microwave Ovens

I'm sure everyone knows what happens when you put a CD or a marshmallow in a microwave, but what about grapes, various types of light bulbs, toothpicks, some other grapes, or Ivory soap?

And yes, all of these ideas are potentially dangerous.

More on Social Security Reform

Galveston County, Texas provides a working example of a privatized Socal Security system, which they enacted just before a "reform" passed, preventing localities from opting out of the federal system. In the quoted examples of workers whose incomes ranged from $17,000/year to $75,000/year, their benefits were anywhere from 1.5x to 3x the equivalent federal Social Security check.

Gosh, it can't be taken away by government fiat, it won't result in higher taxes or inflation, and you get a bigger check. How dare anyone propose such a thing?

Another thought just occurred to me: Since, if nothing is done, the problem gets worse and worse over time, and future generations will face anything from hardship to complete disaster, why aren't any of the supporters of privatization using the obvious line, the basic, Politics 101 manipulative ploy, here in the one instance that it might actually be a legitimate argument:

We have to do this for the children!

Old Designers of Soldier Games Never Die...

New York Times obituary of Redmond A. Simonsen, who passed away last week. Although Greg Costikyan's is rather more personal.

Oh, Fisk, Fisk, were you brought by a disk?

No, the title of this post doesn't make any sense.

Robert Locke, in "The American Conservative", calls libertarianism "the Marxism of the Right."

Much of his argument, naturally, stems from assuming to be true things which libertarians would dispute. Such as, that a life spent playing tiddlywinks is less "worthy" than the life of Churchill. I think libertarians would be generally uncomfortable rating the relative "worth" of human lives.

And I can't help but laugh at statements like this:

Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.

Wow, what a convoluted attempt to characterize tolerating porn as anti-choice. It's also not true: Those who wish to live in a "culture that has not been vulgarized" are free to band together into their own community, and refuse to associate with "vulgar" people (i.e., those who consume pornography). They're just not free to impose their will on others.

one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife.

But what is it that makes a Victorian tycoon's wife "unfree"? Well, she either can't or doesn't own any of her own property (if she did, she would always have the freedom to leave). But in what sense is she "rich", then? This argument fails to recognize that the very things which make a Victorian tycoon's wife "unfree" also make her "unrich".

Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them.

Wow, so you mean that if I choose not to eat nourishing foods, I still derive benefit from them anyway? Awesome, nothing but Twinkies for me from now on!

Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective.

National security is a legitimate function of government, even to libertarians. A "healthy culture" is an absurd abstraction that deserves no protection whatsoever. The argument regarding clean air presumes that it is difficult to track down polluters, which is not necessarily true (it may be true, but it is not necessarily true, and hence cannot be used as the basis of a theoretical argument such as this author is attempting, only a utilitarian one).

Libertarians in real life rarely live up to their own theory but tend to indulge in the pleasant parts while declining to live up to the difficult portions. They flout the drug laws but continue to collect government benefits they consider illegitimate.

First of all, I'd like to see some evidence that this is actually true, not just something this author asserts. Second, even if it is actually true, such libertarians my feel they are entitled to collect government benefits they consider illegitimate, since they pay taxes which they also consider illegitimate. Third, how can you fault someone for opposing what they believe to be an illegitimate system even when they, personally, benefit from it?

Are such people (assuming they exist) hypocrites? Perhaps. Does that invalidate what they say? No, that's textbook ad hominem.

Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?

If the only way to remain free was by drafting its citizens, then it would need to draft its citizens. However, that's a rather extreme case being proposed (i.e., imminent and likely successful invasion by foreign powers, combined with an unlikely lack of volunteers to repel such an invasion).

What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners?

There is nothing that "unfriendly foreigners" can do that would endanger the economic freedom of our citizens (short of invasion - certainly nothing that could be remedied by limiting oil imports). This question is meaningless.

What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society?

I can see no way in which a lack of education would endanger anyone's freedom, or in which a lack of a general level of education would render a free society unsustainable. Unable to answer without more specific information.

What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways?

People do not have a right to "freedom of movement on highways" that trumps landowners' rights to use their property. Especially not a right to freedom of movement on highways that haven't yet been built.

What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?

Socialistic wealth redistribution would be unconstitutional, so they wouldn't be able to vote for it.

Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into it.

No, it wouldn't. Not actual slavery, since that treats people as commodities. At worst, you could say libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into indentured servitude. Among the differences: The children of indentured servants are not automatically indentured themselves, indentured servants can own their own stuff, and they always have the option of buying out the contract. Plus, the holders of the indenture contracts have contractual obligations to the servant in return, which is not true of slaveowners.

And libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the insane and the senile.

Well, now this is just libelously stupid. The only reason to do away with "child-specific" laws would be that you could accomplish the same thing more efficiently with laws that dealt more generally with the class of "people presumed incapable of exercising rational choice", which would include children, the insane, and the senile. But kudos for managing to imply that libertarians believe raping children is OK. Nice job.

But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.

It's simply wrong to say that "libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen", so it is not self-refuting in this way. And I can think of a list as long as my arm of reasons people "exercise their freedom not to be libertarians" that have nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of libertarian political-economic philosophy.

since no electorate will support libertarianism

It's a big leap from "no electorate has ever supported libertarianism" to "no electorate will (ever) support libertarianism."

But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey to other more powerful individuals.

Well, of course. That's a major tenet of libertarianism. Though, of course, the more extreme anarcho-capitalist types might prefer it be worded as "without a sufficiently strong protector", since they would dispute that the protector of rights must necessarily be the state.

Libertarians are also naïve about the range and perversity of human desires they propose to unleash.

This whole paragraph is bizarre. The author starts by invoking the specter of unspeakable sexual perversion, then promptly drops it and assumes that parents would no longer be able to raise responsible children, because children would be "free to refuse". Then there's this weird bit: "They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock." Sorry, but paternalism does not an argument make. Show me evidence that any of these things are the result of "preaching maximum freedom." All these things occur now, in the absence of "maximum freedom", so why should I believe they are related to freedom in any way? If they're not, then increasing freedom wouldn't increase the incidence of any of these things - the people who would do these things when free, also do them now when they're not free.

Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint.

Wrong, libertarians attack external restraint, not self-restraint. If you are incapable of seeing the difference, then you are not qualified to discuss libertarianism intelligently.

But then, what do we libertarians know, since we're apparently "Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics"?

Actually, I can think of worse company to be in...

Not iMpressed

Andrew Sullivan expresses the concern that iPods are making people iSolated.

Yes, we have always had homes, retreats or places where we went to relax, unwind or shut out the world. But we didn’t walk around the world like hermit crabs with our isolation surgically attached.

You know, I seem to remember an ancient Dave Berg "Lighter Side of..." strip in Mad Magazine making fun of the way people were isolated by their brand-new Sony Walkmans... twenty-five years ago.

That was (maybe) revolutionary. It introduced an entirely new experience to life: Listening to your own personal music collection outside your home. The iPod merely makes that existing experience somewhat more convenient. It's a quantitative, not a qualitative, improvement. No need to act as though there has been a fundamental shift in anyone's social interaction (or lack thereof).

Computer Processor

Mechanical vs. Digital.

More shredding videos here.

(Hat tip: Radley Balko).

Others on Social Security

More choice quotes regarding Social Security, from a post on the Mises Economics Blog.

The surplus collected into social security, which was supposed to be set aside and invested for the time when there'd be greater demands on it, was instead spent, replaced with an empty IOU.
[...]
Another point that's worth bearing is that these IOUs aren't just empty: they're meaningless. To understand this, we have to understand that people are not entitled to social security payments; it is not like a contract where you pay into the system, and then have a legal right to get something back out later on.
[...]
Nor is social security some form of insurance.
[...]
If we were to talk of real privatization, it would mean eliminating the program entirely, and allowing a combination of voluntary savings, voluntary insurance, and voluntary charity to work in the free market. However, what is actually being talked about is nothing other than the creation of a forced-savings program.

Also worth a look is the No More Euphemisms article mentioned in that post.

Social Security as it is currently structured has nothing to do with legally enforceable promises or guarantees. There is no "trust fund" as that term is commonly understood, no funded segregated accounts, no IOUs or bonds stored in some lockbox, or anywhere else for that matter. Social Security is neither solvent nor bankrupt.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Things May Get Really Interesting Around Here

Professor Bainbridge discusses the recent C-Net interview with FEC Chairman Brad Smith, in which he reveals that some in the FEC want to extend the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions to also prohibit some unpaid, but "coordinated", political writing on the internet. In other words, blogs.

Bainbridge observes:

Yet, the oddity of campaign finance regulation is that we have ended up in a place in which pornographers apparently have greater constitutional protection than political bloggers. It's like we live in the First Amendment's Bizzaro World.

Fortunately, I see an obvious loophole. If the FEC starts restricting political speech in blogs, I'll simply start writing my political rants in the form of pornography.

Many Smart People Don't Get This, Part Deux

As a companion piece to the one that appeared on 2-Minute Sidebar today, here is something I wrote about Social Security to a friend of mine who asked about it the other day:

Socal Security is in trouble. In my opinion, there is no way to fix it, and it should be done away with entirely. And the longer we wait, the more painful it will be.

The basic problem is that there is no "return" on "investment" with SS, because it isn't an investment. It's a tax. Everyone talks about it as if it were a "trust fund" that your money goes into, and then your money comes back out of it when you retire. This is a lie. SS is just another tax and just another expenditure. Your money flows into the government, then immediately flows out to the people currently receiving SS benefits.

Currently, there is a net surplus here: The government receives more from SS taxes than it pays out in benefits. This surplus is simply spent on other things. It seems more complicated than this, because the way the government spends it is by "investing" SS funds in government bonds, then takes the income from those bonds and spends it. But this is just an accounting fiction, because those bonds are nothing more than a promise by the government to pay money back from future revenues. If they took the accounting ledger entry labeled "Social Security Trust Fund" and folded it into the general budget, the books would balance by simply canceling out all those bonds currently held by the "Trust Fund" - it's just a way of moving money from one column in the ledger to a different column in the ledger.

But starting in about 2018 or so, there won't be a net surplus anymore. The government will begin to pay out more in benefits than it collects in SS taxes. At that point, the supporters of SS say, they'll begin making up the shortfall from the "trust fund" that has built up. Except, remember, that the "trust fund" is an accounting fiction consisting entirely of government bonds, and in order to pay off those bonds, the money has to come out of the overall budget. In other words, from general tax revenues. So, as the shortfall increases, the government will be forced to either cut spending (possibly including SS benefits), increase tax revenue (i.e., raise taxes, unless by sheer good luck there's a sudden massive increase in productivity and wealth), borrow more money (i.e., increase the deficit, which just delays the issue), or inflate the money supply (which amounts to the same thing as raising taxes).

This is unavoidable: One of these things will happen, sooner or later, whether anyone wants it or not. All we can do is choose which one, and to some extent when. The best we can hope for is that we can find a way to eliminate SS without too badly screwing over those who are too old to begin building up their own retirement savings, and who have not done so (or have not saved as much as they otherwise would have) because they were relying on expected SS benefits (and/or couldn't afford to do so in addition to paying SS taxes).

The plan Bush proposes has some issues. There's a good discussion of it at mises.org. I think the main effect of it will be to move the crisis point earlier. However, since I also think the longer we wait, the more it will hurt, and since there are currently people denying that there is a crisis at all because "it'll be 50 years before the trust fund is empty", in my opinion, moving the crisis point earlier is a Good Thing. So Bush's semi-privatization scheme is probably better than doing nothing.

I'll also add one more point. Since Noam Scheiber doesn't understand why, if you don't believe in the "trust fund", it makes any difference when you start dealing with the problem, here's one reason: The earlier you deal with it, the more time those who expect to eventually reach retirement age will have to make their own private investments, to cover the expected benefit cuts (or setting up investments before the expected tax increases) in their future.

Maoist Videogame Reviews

This has been floating around the blogosphere for a while now, but given my tendency to write about both libertarian political/economic philosophy and videogames, I'd feel like I wasn't living up to expectations if I didn't mention it.

Needless to say, it's a good laugh.

You wanna start somethin'?

A Realistic Plan for World Peace

Wheee!

Some funny games:
World's Smallest Game of Pac-Man
Chessboxing
Little Fluffy Industries

"You know ... from up here ... you can't see the boundaries between nations," said Carrot, almost wistfully.
"Is that a problem?" said Leonard. "Possibly something could be done."
"Maybe huge, really huge buildings in lines, along the frontiers," said Rincewind. "Or... or very wide roads. You could paint them different colors to save confusion."
"Should aerial travel become widespread," said Leonard, "it would be a useful idea to grow forests in the shape of the name of the country, or of other areas of note."
(Terry Pratchett, The Last Hero)

I'm Confused

OK, one of the common themes in reviews of The Village was that it was some sort of political allegory, right? That this village, closing itself off from the rest of the world with vague stories of threats beyond its borders, presumably stood for post-9/11 America.

Now, in the Onion’s review of a Swedish movie called Daybreak, they say this:

In one [of the interweaving stories in the film], an overworked bricklayer with little time for his family agrees to work for an eccentric, wealthy older couple so terrified of the outside world that they ask him to brick up their windows and doors, essentially turning their apartment into a crypt. It doesn't seem at all coincidental that the eccentric husband—who is so terrified of the outside world that he'd rather commit himself and his wife to a slow, drawn-out suicide than engage it on any level—not only expresses admiration for the U.S., but even offers to pay the bricklayer in American currency. He even parrots the ultimate canard of the archetypal Ugly American (which he is in spirit, if not nationality), the belief that were it not for the U.S., they'd all be speaking German.

So, apparently, this is also being read as a political allegory about the U.S. closing itself off in fear from the rest of the world, right?

But how does this relate to actual U.S. foreign policy? I would expect a critical political allegory to portray its America-analogue as lashing out blindly and violently against those it fears, not as defensively drawing inward into itself to avoid confronting those it fears. Of all the things you could accuse GWB's America of, shrinking away from confrontation seems the least plausible. I get the feeling that most of the world would be a lot happier if America had retreated turtle-like into its shell.

Unless, of course, the political allegory in The Village and Daybreak is meant to be praising the U.S. for not shying away from confrontation. But that doesn't seem to be the way it's being interpreted, and I would find it difficult to believe that's what was intended.

Now That's Voice Talent

EA is making a video game adaptation of The Godfather. They've hired James Caan and Robert Duvall to do voice acting reprising their roles in the film. Not only that, but: "Shortly before his death last year, Marlon Brando recorded voice-over as crime elder Don Vito Corleone for the game."

Holy crap.

Of course, this also reminds me that once upon a time, Interplay was working on a Star Trek original-series game, Secret of Vulcan Fury, written by D. C. Fontana, which would have featured voice acting by the entire TOS cast, all of whom were still alive at the time. The game was cancelled, but I believe it was cancelled after the voice recording was completed, which means those recordings probably still exist somewhere in the vaults, should someone ever decide to resurrect the project...

Bush-Bashing Thought of the Day

Mayor of Baghdad: "We will build a statue for Bush."

Well, of course. They'll need something to topple when they overthrow the hated Bush regime.

My new email account is all grown up

My new email account, activated around 1/1 this year, just (yesterday) received its first phishing scam email.

Weekend Movie Review

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - A pointless remake of a classic. As pointless remakes go, Dawn of the Dead was better overall. A couple of pieces of advice for horror movie-makers:
1) When the only thing your pointless remake has going for it is a higher budget for gory makeup effects than the original, it is not to your benefit to hide the gory makeup effects by setting everything in such dim lighting that you can't actually make out what you're looking at in the darkness. This tactic also fails to enhance action scenes of people running from homicidal maniacs. Particularly when one of the things that the film you're remaking is specifically renowned for is demonstrating that dark != scary, by setting much of the horrific action in full daylight.
2) At some point, the following conversation should have taken place (spoilers below, if you care for some reason):

SCREENWRITER: You know what would be really cool? Ok, Leatherface takes the Lead Generic Young Person and throws her in the furnace room where he does his nasty stuff, and she finds her friend, Generic Young Person #2, hanging from a meathook, but he's still alive, and they can't get him down, so he begs her to "end it", so she grabs a knife and stabs him to end his suffering. Wouldn't that be awesome?
VOICE OF REASON: But why would Leatherface, who is apparently competent enough that he's been killing people for some time now without getting caught, leave a victim wandering loose in a room where he's got knives lying around? Big knives which could be used against him as weapons?
SCREENWRITER: Well, he is insane, maybe he just forgot. Although, now that you mention it, we don't really want her to be able to fight back... But that's OK, we'll just have her leave the knife buried in the guy's stomach.
V. O. R.: So she's scared out of her wits, but she just abandons the one weapon she might be able to defend herself with, even slightly? Great, so this will be yet another horror movie that depends on its characters behaving like morons. Oh, and by the way, stomach? She ends his suffering by stabbing him in the stomach? All that would actually do is make him hurt worse, and maybe allow him to eventually bleed to death in slightly less time than it would have taken anyway.
SCREENWRITER: You're right, there are too many problems with this idea. Forget it.
V. O. R.: While I'm at it, there are six or eight other scenes I wanted to talk to you about...

Sound Business Practices (cont'd.)

Guess how much fun I’m having canceling my Earthlink account. Go on, guess.

At 1:30 PM: "Unfortunately, we can't access any of your account information right now to cancel it. We're doing some system upgrades. Try calling back in two to four hours."

At 3:30 PM: "We're doing system upgrades right now, so we can't access your account information. Try calling back in four or five hours. I'd give it five, to be safe."

Old Stuff

I like museums. All kinds of museums. There's just something about looking at actual artifacts of the past that can't be duplicated.

Sounds Fun

I wish this game really existed:

JFKlue
A "Clue"-derived board game based on the Kennedy Assasination. While the premise was fine ("It was Oswald with a repeat-action bolt rifle in the Book Depository." "No! It was the CIA with Multiple-repeat weapons behind the Green Fence!"), making light of a presidential assasination was not well-received in the marketplace, and the product was quickly dropped by major distributors. (1993)

I can even see what the board looks like in my mind. I want it.

Based on a suggestion from this response to a linux-is-not-ready-for-the-desktop rant, this window should be added as either an installation or user configuration option in all operating systems. 

It occurs to me, also, that once the user selects the second option, the words "by clicking on the button" should immediately vanish from the dialog box itself, just to be consistent.

Weekend DVD Reviews

Watched a bunch of movies this weekend...

Leon the Professional - I had previously seen the US theatrical cut of this film, but not this version, which includes some scenes that American test audiences apparently found icky. Unfortunately, that meant losing some interesting character development, such as Leon's story of how he came to America. As for the movie itself: Great. Natalie Portman's performance in this film is breathtaking. The only other child-actor I can think of that's even remotely comparable was Jodie Foster. Portman does a phenomenal job portraying this character as simultaneously innocent and world-weary. And it's fundamentally interesting to see a small, intimate, character-driven film that includes big action setpieces and explosions...

Dawn of the Dead (2004) - Well, remaking a classic rarely bodes well. As many reviewers have noted, the first 10 minutes are not bad, right up to where the opening credits start (even though they make them fast, running zombies, for no good reason). The cleverest thing this remake adds is Andy, the guy on the roof of the gun store out past the parking lot and across the street from the mall. The mall group communicates with him by holding up signs, and at one point Ving Rhames plays chess with him this way, but of course there's no way to get to him through the teeming horde of thousands of zombies.

But, he also provides a perfect example of how this film drops the ball, in a sequence that feels like it was written piecemeal, with each piece building on the previous bit, but without thinking through the implications that each bit would have had for the previous bit. What happens: The mall group is reinforcing some shuttle busses to make a break for the marina so they can take a boat out to an island, and they plan to rescue Andy on the way. Ving holds up a sign for Andy that says "5 more days". Andy's response sign is "Hungry". OK, makes sense - he's holed up in a gun store instead of a mall, so he doesn't have any food. So they need to get some food over to him so that he will have his strength up for the escape. They strap some packs of food onto a dog they found and have been taking care of, lower him down among the zombies (who are only interested in human flesh, so they ignore the dog), and Andy whistles and gets the dog to come over to him. This works, but alas, in the process of getting the dog inside, Andy is bitten by a zombie, which he tells our heroes over the radio they included with the food. They decide not to tell him that means he's doomed.

At this point, the woman who had been caring for the dog unexpectedly takes off in a truck that some of the characters had arrived in earlier, plows her way through the zombie horde, ending up just outside Andy's Gun Shop, and goes in to rescue the dog. Which leads to my first question: Why didn't they do this in the first place? She is, naturally, attacked by Zombie Andy. To rescue her, some of the others go down to the garage or somewhere, where there is an entrance to the sewers. They follow the sewer line over to a manhole just outside Andy's Gun Shop, and come out to rescue the girl. Which leads to my second question: Why didn't they do this in the first place? Rescue accomplished, they run back through the sewer to the mall, where they have to bust through the door to get back in, meaning the zombies can get in now. They rush around, load up the busses, and take off for the marina. Which leads to my third question: If they were ready to go at a moment's notice, why were they even going to wait another five days in the first place?

Actually, even before all of those, my zeroth question was: Why didn't they drive the truck over to rescue Andy when the truck first arrived? At that point, early in the apocalypse, there weren't more than a few dozen zombies between the mall and the gun store. It would have been a piece of cake to drive over and pick him up. So, like so many horror movies, the plot requires the characters to behave stupidly.

The Village - Before starting this movie, I turned to Brenda and said: "OK, without having viewed an inch of this film, here is my prediction of what the 'big twist' will be," just so I couldn't cheat later. And yes, I was correct. This has been my experience with every one of M. Night Shyamalan's movies so far, so I wonder if those who consider him a master of the twist ending just haven't watched enough Twilight Zones or something. Not a bad movie, overall. I liked it better than Signs. I'm not really convinced by those who insist on seeing it as a political allegory. It might have been inspired by politics in some way, but it doesn't really work as an allegory, in that it doesn't map well to the real world. I will also say: For "Those We Do Not Speak Of", they sure do talk about them an awful lot.

Shaun of the Dead - Now this is a good zombie movie. The basic joke for the first half hour or so is, what if the end of the world came and no one noticed? Chock full o' references to other zombie movies, right from the start: The music that plays over the company logos and the beginning of the film is music from the original Dawn of the Dead. Once the zombie action starts going, it hits all the basics: People being gruesomely torn to bits, the loved-one-becomes-a-zombie scene, the interpersonal conflict, etc. The other basic joke is seeing Shaun sort of putting his life in order and resolving some relationships, set against the backdrop of a zombie uprising. Plus, in one of the DVD extras, Shaun explains, "Contrary to certain recent theories, zombies are, in fact, quite slow."

Inaugration Musing

I would like to propose an amendment to the Constitution, to change the wording of Article II, Section 1, clause 8, which currently reads:

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I would like to add the following wording to this clause:

When taking this Oath or Affirmation for the second, or any subsequent, time, he shall add at the end the following phrase:--"And this time, I mean it."

(Note that I left it open-ended, just in case the 22nd Amendment is ever repealed.)

Do ya feel lucky, punk?

Clint Eastwood Threatens Michael Moore

At the National Board of Review awards dinner:

"Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's free expression... But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you."

The audience erupted in laughter, and Eastwood grinned dangerously.

"I mean it," he added, provoking more guffaws.

Oh, please, Michael, find out if he's bluffing...

Another Golden Age?

Giant zeppelin flies maiden voyage in Japan

"Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik starting building the new airships in 1996, and the sale to Nippon Airship Corporation was its first commercial deal."

I love the Japanese people. Bless them and their love of airships. Sometimes, their complete insanity lines up neatly with my own.

"It's not a balloon, it's an airship!"

That's so crazy, it just might work!

Ohio considering 1 percent bed tax

"Gov. Bob Taft's administration may propose a 1 percent statewide bed tax to promote travel and tourism in Ohio..."

A tax. To promote travel and tourism.

Capitalism in Action

"Using a proprietary technology, the FOXBlocker works to filter out FOX News from your cable lineup."

Well, at $8.95, I guess this would be cheaper than buying enough sand to bury your head in.

Free Games, Part Two

On to my disagreements, which are less to do with the thesis than with the way the argument for it is presented...

The history of software into the mid-80s is a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of proprietary software development.

As described in this article, proprietary software development seems pretty effective to me, provided you understand that its goal is to be profitable. Granted, if you define the goal to be "creating innovative software", it's been ineffective, but the people doing it don't particularly have that goal, except as it contributes to their actual goal (profits).

I challenge anyone else who defends the status quo to show me some innovative new titles from the major developers.

Not that I'm interested in defending the status quo, but (and I haven't even played all of these myself):
Katamari Damacy (totally unique). World of Warcraft (innovative gameplay within existing genre). Missing (integrated internet research within adventure game). If I'm allowed to go back more than 12 months, I'd name pretty much any game designed by Sid Meier, Will Wright, or Peter Molyneux.

The vast majority of titles will be the near-identical members of narrowly defined "genres."

But the same statement can be made about movies, music, books, television, Broadway musicals, or any other entertainment medium. I don't see any reason to believe this is related in any way to the use of a closed-source development model. Furthermore, if you're defining "innovation" as creating a game that can't be classified into an existing "genre", you're defining innovation far too narrowly. Is it not possible to innovate within an existing genre? Weren't 2001 and Star Wars both "innovative" films, even though both are squarely in the SF genre?

And furthermore, just as a side note: "Innovative" != "Good". "Innovative" != "Fun". For example, Trespasser: Jurassic Park was highly innovative in its use of physics modeling (down to supposedly using physics modeling to generate sound effects) and behavior modeling (of the dinosaurs). It was also pretty much universally reviled as a horrible, horrible game. From pre-release interviews with the designers, it seems they were more focused on making it innovative than on making it fun, and it suffered. As did the people who played it.

If there were truly paradigms broken in Half-Life 2, Halo 2, and Doom 3, I'd love to hear about them.

If there were truly paradigms broken in Casablanca, The Godfather, and Gone With the Wind, I'd love to hear about them.

I picked those films just because they're numbers 2, 3, and 4 on the AFI "100 Years...100 Movies" list (skipping Citizen Kane for rhetorical purpose, since it arguably did break some paradigms).

Heck, if part of the point of the article is that these are all sequels, then what paradigms were broken in The Godfather, Part II, The Empire Strikes Back, or Dawn of the Dead, all sequels which are regarded as equal to or better than the originals? Sequels are not inherently inferior. They're often inferior in practice, but it isn't a reliable predictor of quality in games any more than it is in movies. The Grand Theft Auto series, for example, wasn't particularly interesting until GTA III, and each of the sequels since that one (GTA: Vice City and GTA: San Andreas) have gone even further with the innovative open-ended gameplay they introduced in III.

So, what does the author give as the lone example of an open-source game, to demonstrate how open-source fosters innovation? Vega Strike: "Daniel says he got his inspiration for Vega Strike from the DOS game Privateer, a game which those of with a bit more historical background will recognize as a descendent of Elite, the classic Firebird space trading and combat simulation." An "innovative" remake of a remake. The computer-gaming equivalent of Last Man Standing. The primary innovation cited by the author: The very fact that the game is open source ("But what's really innovative is that, unlike the previous games in the genre, Vega Strike allows fans to not only play the game, but get to help out with its ongoing development!") Sorry, but if your goal is to show how open source development fosters more innovation that closed development, you can't claim the open source model itself as an innovation. That's cheating.

And then, of course, there's this: "Doom is clearly one of those games we might describe as "innovative," or, at the very least, "influential."" And developed under a closed source model. It was only opened to the public later. And the long-term success of games like Doom, and Quake, and Half-Life, and Civilization II, and others, is at least partly due to the thriving "mod" communities that sprung up around them. Modding is only possible where the game is open to at least some degree, at least allowing new art/text assets (what Stallman called the "art/fiction", separable from the engine). The publishers have seen the value (to both themselves and their customers) in allowing this, and lately, there are many, many games with this level of modifiability build in, even when the code isn't open in a FSF sense.

Free Games, Part One

I have some things to say about this article, Hackers, Slackers, and Shackles. But it's a long bunch of things to say, so I'm splitting it in two. I'll post the rest in a day or so.

Before I say anything else, let me say that I mostly agree with the central argument of this article, that computer gaming as a whole would benefit from more open code. I've believed for some time in what Stallman is quoted as saying, that "A game scenario can be considered art/fiction rather than software. So it is okay to split the game into engine and scenario, then treat the engine as software and the scenario as art/fiction." In other words, open the engine, but protect the "content".

In fact, I've thought for a long time that the easiest way to "fix" the entire software-intellectual-property morass is as follows:

1) Repeal all copyright legislation passed since at least 1976, if not earlier.
2) Transfer functional computer software to patent law, rather than copyright.
3) Eliminate patents altogether.

Reasoning: In its original form, copyright law was pretty inoffensive, and in fact served largely as a set of limitations on what the copyright holder could do (e.g., you can't sue to prevent "fair use"). Returning to that would eliminate most of the current problems with IP.

From a libertarian perspective, I justify having copyright law of any sort as merely a sort of standardized license. What I mean is that from a free-trade perspective, I can justify "shrink-wrap licenses" - I, as a seller, have the right to refuse to sell to you unless you agree to the terms of my license. There is some benefit to having the terms of such a license be standardized from one product to another (avoiding confusion in the marketplace, for example), and as I said, early copyright law limited how restrictive that license was allowed to be.

Next, I know many people panic at the very thought of "software patents", but since step 3 in my plan is to do away with patents entirely, hopefully they will listen to my reasons for doing it this way.

Originally (simplifying a bit), copyrights were intended to apply to expressions of ideas (i.e., art), and patents to functional applications (i.e., machinery/processes). To me, a piece of software has more in common with functional machinery than with artistic expression. In fact, one of the basic tenets of computer science is that any software is theoretically reproducible in hardware - you could build a mechanical Microsoft Word device, if you really wanted to. It'd be big and ugly, but it could be done (and not to imply that the real MS Word isn't big and ugly).

The reason software is covered by copyright rather than patent law is that when the first cases reached court, the software companies wanted copyright protection, because it offered greater protections than patents. So they argued that since software code is, more or less, readable by humans, it is analogous to literary expression, which would be copyrightable, not patentable. The first judge to rule on this, not knowing any better, bought the argument. Well, software was an entirely new endeavor at that time, and there was really no guidance whatsoever in existing law. But we do know better now, and this should be fixed.

(There was, and is, also a body of case law saying that algorithms cannot be patented, and since all software is algorithmic, none can be patented. But then this would also imply that any mechanical device that can be reproduced algorithmically could not be patented, which means any machine that can be simulated in software, which probably means nearly any machine at all.)

Aside: As this Slashdot post suggests, the open source model probably doesn't work as well for "art" as for functional software. With code, there are objective criteria for deciding the merit of a given code change: Does it work? Does it avoid breaking anything else that used to work? Artistic expression is so subjective that every artist working on a project may have a different vision, and what usually happens (movies are a good example) is that either one person takes charge and wrests their own vision into being, or the result is a designed-by-committee monster, tending toward either blandness or overcomplexity, sometimes both. Of course, people are still free to use a Creative Commons license if they so choose.

And as for eliminating patents, this is simply because I find myself unable to come up with a libertarian justification for them. At most, if I'm a seller of something like a car, I might be allowed to have something like a "shrinkwrap license" prohibiting the buyer from reverse-engineering the car. But if you simply take some idea from the car and engineer your own implementation, I can't find any way to justify government intervention to prevent that.

Report from CES

Dolby demos Dolby Digital Plus

"Dolby Digital Plus ... supports 13.1 channels."

Yes! Triskaidekaphonic sound! Finally!

Let me see, now... in addition to the subwoofer, the current max, 7.1, has 3 front, 4 rear. Perhaps this adds 3 right-side and 3 left-side speakers? Or maybe 3 front, 3 rear, 3 right, 3 left, and one more "top" speaker right in the middle of the ceiling? How about splitting the front/rear sets of speakers into "upper" and "lower", plus an extra one, say, under your chair?

Or perhaps just 12 evenly spaced around the listening area in a dodecahedron, plus one more you wear on your head like a hat, for, y'know, internal monologues and narrators and things like that.

Game Nostalgia

Somebody get this freakin’ duck away from me!

Plus: Not really nostalgic, but this card game seems like it would have real potential for a party game.

Wobbler had written an actual computer game like this once. It was called "Journey to Alpha Centauri". It was a screen with some dots on it. Because, he said, it happened in real time, which no-one had ever heard of until computers. He'd seen on TV that it took three thousand years to get to Alpha Centauri. He had written it so that if anyone kept their computer on for three thousand years, they'd be rewarded by a little dot appearing in the middle of the screen, and then a message saying, "Welcome to Alpha Centauri. Now go home."
(Terry Pratchett, Only You Can Save Mankind)

Fox News: A Double-Edged Sword

One can find both good and bad things there.

First, here's a Fox News article, called "Some See Real Danger in Computer Games" (because, I suppose, it was a catchier title than "Most See No Danger in Computer Games", or similar). We learn:

But critics say sometimes players can't turn off the virtual life and return to the real one.

"You don't eat meals, or you actually have people bring food to you," said Dr. David Greenfield of the Center for Internet Studies. "Or, you keep food stashed next to the computer because you literally do not want to get up from the computer."

Sounds terrible. It's a good thing this sort of behavior is confined to computer games, and not occurring in connection with other activities like watching football on TV, or anything...

The pastime can be so addictive for some that they have given EverQuest a sinister nickname — "EverCrack."

Um, no, they have given EverQuest a humorous nickname - "EverCrack." You see, the humor derives from the exaggeration of the compelling qualities of the game, by inflating them to the level of chemical dependency. It is patently absurd to compare the "addictiveness" of a computer game to that of crack cocaine, hence the humor.

In 2001, 21-year-old Shawn Woolley (search), a Wisconsin man who suffered from epilepsy, depression and schizoid personality disorder, moved back in with his mother and quit his job.

Not long afterward, he killed himself over a personal betrayal — in the EverQuest world.

Wait just a doggone minute: He was epileptic, depressed, schizoid, unemployed, and living with his mother, and you conclude that his suicide was caused by a damn computer game? Jesus christ on skis.

On the other hand, to restore one's faith in humanity, this other story gives me a warm fuzzy feeling: Hooker Tip Leads to Child Porn Bust.

Life, Monty Python Inch Closer

Judge creates disorder in the court

This Ohio judge, Dallas Powers, has several sexual harassment complaints filed against him. He hasn't presided in court since the complaints started coming out (though it's unclear from the story whether this is because of the complaints, or just because he’s only a part-time judge). Another judge had issued an order saying that county employees could leave the office if they felt threatened when Powers was there.

So Powers shows up at the court offices Monday, unexpectedly, with letters firing a bunch of people. And with his own order rescinding the order allowing people to leave the building when he was there. His order told them to stay in their offices and communicate with him through another employee.

So, another judge responded to all this by appointing himself presiding judge of the court, and issuing his own order barring Powers from the building through 2/24. On his way out the door, Powers recanted his firings from earlier in the day (I’m guessing he was allowed to do this to save face, rather than having those orders rescinded by the other judge).

And it struck me that this entire story was already done, thirty-odd years ago, as a Monty Python sketch (the whole thing is available here):

Clerk
Call the next defendant. The Honourable Mr Justice Kilbraken. (a very elderly judge in full robes comes into the dock) If I may charge you m'lud, you are charged m'lud that on the fourteenth day of June 1970, at the Central Criminal Court, you did commit acts likely to cause a breach of the peace. How plead you m'lud, guilty or not guilty?

Judge Kilbraken
Not guilty. Case not proven. Court adjourned.

He hits the dock. Everyone gets up and starts walking out talking to each other.

Judge
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. (they all stop, go back and sit down again) No, you're in the dock, m'lud.

Judge Kilbraken
I'm a judge, m'lud.

Judge
So am I, m'lud, so watch it.

[...]

Clerk
Call exhibit A.

Two court ushers carry in a thing with a sheet over it. They pull off the sheet to reveal a very sexy girl in a provocative pose.

Counsel
Exhibit A m'lud, Miss Rita Thang, an artist's model, Swedish accordion teacher and cane-chair sales lady, was found guilty under the Rude Behaviour Act in the accused's court. The accused, m'lud, sentenced her to be taken from this place and brought round to his place.

Second Counsel
Objection, m'lud.

Judge Kilbraken
Objection sustained.

Judge
You shut up! Objection overruled.

Counsel
The accused then commented on Miss Thang's bodily structure, made several not-at-all legal remarks on the subject of fun and then placed his robes over his head and began to emit low moans.

Judge
Have you anything to say in your defense?

Judge Kilbraken
I haven't had any for weeks.

Happy New Year

Cable modem is up and running. Looks about twice as fast as the DSL was, so that's nice.

We barely escaped the record snowfall in Dayton to get to my parents' house for Christmas. We had planned on leaving on Thursday, but when they kept revising the predicted snowfall higher and higher all day Wednesday, we took off work early and quickly packed, and were on the road by 5:00 Wednesday. I wanted to get north of the path of the storm before it all came down. There were already about 5 inches of snow on the ground when we left, and I suspect if we'd waited another hour, we wouldn't have made it. We made it to the other side of Indianapolis after about 4 hours of driving, spent the night, and drove the rest of the way the next day.

When we got up there, we found out that a cousin of mine, Amanda, who's currently living in Chicago, wasn't going to be able to make it home (about 25 minutes away from Dayton) because of the storm, so she came up to my folks' house also. After the last-minute shopping so she'd have something to open, I think she may have ended up with more presents than anyone else. :-)

Highlights of the haul this year: A copy of Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State. The Marx Brothers Silver Screen Collection. A whole mess of Homestar Runner stuff - the Strong Bad Emails DVD set, a Trogdor polo shirt, the series 2 figurines, and a plush The Cheat, which makes The Cheat noises when you kick it. I bought myself a couple of Tom Waits CDs, and a Michael Hedges CD.

Sound business practices

Wednesday night, my DSL line quit working. Not just an inability to log on - the blinkenlights on the DSL modem were indicating problems even establishing a connection.

Called Earthlink support line on Friday, and we established there was no dial tone on the DSL line, and that I should contact my local phone company to have them fix the line.

Now, here's the problem: My "local phone company" doesn't provide my DSL line. See, the deal originally offered by Mindspring (before Earthlink bought them out) was $50/month to cover both the physical DSL line and the ISP service. Granted, I assume they contract the physical line out to local companies, but I've never dealt with that local company, whoever they might be. My payment goes direct to Earthlink. Someone from Covad originally installed the line, but now (4 years later), there's no listing for Covad in the local phone book.

I explained this to Earthlink service reps. Repeatedly. In no uncertain terms. I probably talked to 8-10 different people. Most of them didn't understand what I was telling them (that, from my point of view, Earthlink is both my ISP and the telco that provides the DSL line itself), and the ones that did understand it refused to believe it. I did finally get someone who somehow figured out that they needed to get their local installation techs to deal with the problem. They said they would call me back Saturday morning (it's Monday - still haven't heard from them), but also transferred me to talk to someone right away. Of course, the nice electronic hold lady voice told me that "right away", in this case, meant after a wait of "greater than 30 minutes".

Unfortunately for them, in the time it took to get to this point (actually half the time, since she started about midway through the call), Brenda had gotten Time-Warner on her cell phone and arranged for them to set us up with cable modem service, at a better price. Which made it sort of pointless to sit there on hold for half an hour, beyond the hour or so I had already been on the phone, getting increasingly frustrated and irate.

It's a shame: Earthlink has been a perfectly good ISP for four years, up until we actually had a problem. Their tech support line pissed away that good will in an hour and a half. Basically through a stubborn inability to deviate from their pre-written scripts, which weren't written to cover my specific situation.

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to whether that support was in-house or outsourced?

Unfortunately, this does mean I'm without internet access at home until the 31st or so, although since we'll be out of town for most of that time, it's not as bad as it could have been. It did make for a somewhat tense weekend.

Great Moments in Unbiased Journalism

Nope, no liberal bias here.

In this article, "Preserving Family Peace at Holiday Dinner", about what to do when a family member makes an offensive remark at dinner, Atlanta Journal-Constitution writer Gayle White inexplicably takes the opportunity to remind everyone about that time Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond:

Some of the country's top political and religious leaders have had to decide what to do since Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss) made a statement that seemed to support segregation to a room full of partygoers.

So in the middle of an article about how to handle awkward comments during holiday visits with the family, the author takes a 3-paragraph detour to bash a former Republican Senator.

Wow. Just...wow.

Holiday Fun Pack

Every year-end wrap-up list you're likely to need, all in one place.
Particularly fun are the Top 10 Web Diversions (as well as her 2003 Top 10 Web Diversions).
It's a Wonderful Life, In 30 Seconds, And Re-Enacted By Bunnies

"Did you check the list?"
YES. TWICE. ARE YOU SURE THAT'S ENOUGH?
(Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)

"Jesus didn't turn people away"

CBS and NBC have refused to broadcast a 30-second commercial produced by the United Church of Christ, because it's "too controversial": It basically points out that the UCC, unlike many other denominations, welcomes gay couples. So the UCC has filed petitions with the FCC to deny license renewal to a couple of CBS/NBC affiliates in Miami.

Now, I like the UCC commercial, and I agree with their message. I don't particularly like the idea of forcing networks to sell commercial time and air ads they don't want to air.

I do find CBS's policy a little baffling: They say they won't accept "advertising that touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance" (funny, I could swear I remember seeing ads fitting that description on CBS in the weeks leading up to the election). I also find it hard to believe they never run "advertising that proseletyzes on behalf of any single religion".

So it seems to me that they're being rather arbitrary in refusing to accept this particular ad. In a perfect libertarian utopia, though, they would have the right to be arbitrary. And the fact that you're reading this is an example of how that would be OK - the UCC is still getting their message out through other means, and the CBS/NBC refusal to air even generates publicity itself.

In our non-utopian world, the legal argument might have some merit. Basically, in earlier rulings, the USSC relied on the existence of the fairness doctrine to say that although there is some requirement that FCC licensees (TV stations) serve the public interest, including discussion of issues of public importance, networks couldn't be forced to sell air time. But the UCC argues that the FCC has stopped enforcing the fairness doctrine, so the court needs to re-examine the issue, which I would agree with, based on the case law cited in the petition.

I don't think TV stations should be under any obligation to "serve the public interest", but if we're going to insist that they are, then I agree that rejecting an ad specifically because it takes a position on an issue of public importance fails to uphold that obligation.

Bad Santa!

Sex offender playing Santa accused of indecent act with girl portraying elf

"You live and learn, even with Santa," Withrow told The Daily Courier of Forest City. "We'll have to do criminal background checks on whoever plays Santa."

"Live and learn," indeed. There was certainly no reason to do criminal background checks before now. After all, who could have predicted that a child molester might try to get a job as a department-store Santa?

Tangible Disproof of Marxism

In a comment on my last post, Kwik2Jujj provided a link to a site that sells Origami Boulders. I find this particularly interesting, because I have, for years, used a thought experiment employing essentially this very thing as a disproof of the labor theory of value upon which so much of Marx's economic theory is constructed. Simplifying greatly, the labor theory of value says that the value of any commodity is ultimately determined by the labor that went into producing it.

So: Imagine a famous artist. This artist locks himself in his ivory tower for a year, and, at the end of that time, emerges with an Origami Boulder (i.e., a crumpled-up sheet of paper), which he then offers for sale to art collectors. The artist claims that he spent the year in his ivory tower meticulously folding this Origami Boulder into this precise configuration, one painstaking crease at a time.

How do the art collectors place a value on this item? According to the labor theory of value, if the artist is telling the truth about how he produced it, its value would be one person-year of labor. That is, one person expended a year of labor to create it.

But what if the artist is lying? Suppose that upon locking himself in his ivory tower, he took a sheet of paper, crumpled it up randomly, and then spent the next year in his tower playing videogames? By the labor theory of value, this Origami Boulder has virtually no value whatsoever (say, ten person-seconds of labor).

And even worse: Suppose the artist emerges after his year of isolation with two identical, indistinguishable Origami Boulders. One of them, he created on the first day in the ivory tower by randomly crumpling up a sheet of paper. The other one, he created by carefully examining the randomly crumpled sheet, and painstakingly reproducing it fold-by-fold. When it was complete, he put the two Origami Boulders into some sort of opaque rotating-drum apparatus and then pulled them out, so that not even the artist knows which Origami Boulder was randomly crumpled, and which was meticulously folded. Can they now have equal values, even though one required vastly more labor to produce than the other?

Personally, I tend to agree with the more Austrian-school theories about value being subjective, and that in any exchange, each party exchanges something of lesser (subjective) value for something of greater (subjective) value, so that (subjectively) each party to the exchange benefits, or else they would not have carried out the exchange at all. And I recall someone somewhere, discussing the value of "collector's" items, saying that any such item is worth exactly what someone will actually offer to pay you for it, no more, no less, regardless of what an appraiser might say.

Applying that to the Origami Boulder, it should be easy to see that they are worth precisely what people are willing to pay for them, which would depend on variables such as how popular/respected the artist is, how well it is marketed, etc. In the final hypothetical of two identical boulders, they would likely be valued identically by the market, except that both of them together would probably be worth more than twice as much as either by itself, because they are more interesting as a set.

It all sort of makes me want to add an Origami Boulder to my list of things I want for Christmas. Which, of course, by increasing the demand for them, increases the "value" of the things themselves...

Book Report

(plus some filler that's bound to offend someone)

I don't actually remember To Kill a Mockingbird as having quite this many ninjas and laser swords in it, although I always did like the climactic space battle between the pirates and the Mockingbird Armada.

And, with the holidays all up on us, you may want to order a S'Mores Nativity Set. Then the whole family can gather together, sing Tom Waits songs, and ask each other, "Hey, who ate Baby Jesus?"

The New New School Prayer

Rush Limbaugh the other day read to his listeners the "New School Prayer" that the high school principal got in trouble for reciting to his school in Athens, Georgia recently.

For the benefit of Mr. Limbaugh, and others who may have trouble grasping why some people might object to that poem being read by an official to students in a public school, I present a slight rewrite. Would you mind a high school principal reciting the following to his students?

Now I sit me down in school
Where [goat-slaying] is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds [devil worship] very odd.

If [the Litanies of Satan] now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And [any creature I disembowel]
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
[Demonic conjurations] spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For [blasphemy] in a public hall
Might offend someone with [any] faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
[Lord Satan’s] name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to [be polite] and dress like [Jesus] freaks,
And [leave un-pierced] our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but [kids can still carry the] Bible.
To quote the [Necronomicon] makes me liable.

We can elect a [chaste] Senior Queen,
And the [Platonic friend], our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach [soul-selling contract law],
We're taught that such [moral education should be left to Ma and Pa].

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But [*real* occultism is] not allowed,
No word of [Crowley] must reach this crowd.

It's [not scary enough] here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's [blessed].
So, [Beelzebub], this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please [drag below to crew an infernal trireme in the sulfurous lake]!

Amen

Note that I left uncorrected most of the idiotic misunderstanding of Constitutional law and history from the original. I think it's sufficient to point out here that students can do all the praying in school they want to, silently or aloud, to the entity of their choice. They just can't make it part of an official or mandatory school function.

Whoops-a-daisy

Australian Idol Mixup

According to statements issued by BigPond, a "human error" caused the URL for the Web site of the winner of talent quest Australian Idol, Casey Donovan (www.caseydonovan.com.au) to be substituted with the URL of the dead gay porn icon Mr Casey Donovan (www.caseydonovan.com).

Headlines of Unread News Reports

Without reading it, I assume this article is about an Ozzy Osbourne concert:

Explosion at bat factory rocks Springboro

Oh, the Humanity!

Dangerous toys ID'd
Consumer safety group picks its 10 worst of 2004, toy industry shrugs off list.

Some of them make sense: The usual choking hazards from buttons and things. I can see how toddlers on trampolines might cause concern.

But this one is just comical:

3 Gun Squad Set - UZ-1 Commando Machine Gun

Age Recommendation: "Not for children under 3 years"
Warnings: "CHOKING HAZARD-Small parts. Not for children under 3 years"
Manufacturer: 411 Toys
SRP: $14.95 (set of 3)

WATCH says: "In today's world, there is no excuse for outfitting children with realistic toy weapons designed to produce dangerous and unnecessary thrills."

Children experiencing thrills while playing? Dear God, no! AAAAAUUGGGHHH!

EDIT: Ok, that's just too good to let go. I'm going to change the title of my blog now...

Let the healing begin

There should be a government program of some kind to pay for this sort of thing:

A post-therapy John Kerry supporter spoke out about her trauma treatment for the first time this weekend, saying Florida psychologist Douglas Schooler took her from the depths of despair over President Bush’s victory to a new lease on life.

Movie Roundup

This weekend's movie roundup: We didn't make it out to see The Incredibles, but we did watch a couple of DVDs.

Around the World in 80 Days - This was the recent version, with Jackie Chan as Passepartout. Enjoyable fluff. Jackie Chan still stages some of the best martial arts scenes around. Here, he uncharacteristically includes some "wire work", but it is relatively unobtrusive: Rather than the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon sort of flying trapeze routines, Chan uses wires to allow his stunt people (and himself) to do impractical, and even unlikely things, but not quite physically impossible things.

The Day After Tomorrow - A real howler; an uproarious comedy, although I don't think they meant it as one. Still, it's hard to believe they weren't giggling when they not only introduced Cancer Boy as a serious character, but just to kick the pathos up a notch, made him blind. And reading Peter Pan, no less (well, not reading exactly, since he's going blind, but "remember[ing] the story from the pictures" he can just barely see). And that's without even getting into the ludicrous "science" behind the story. I'll just point out the not-very-prominant credit at the end, saying the story was inspired by a book co-written by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber, two utter nutjobs who ought to stick to their more credible stories, like being abducted by little grey aliens.

Better Living Through Chemistry

Sodium Party
LOX Barbecue (from a mirror site, since the powers-that-be made him take down the original page)
Purple Smoke
Assorted Demos

Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.
(Solomon Short)

I wonder what they'd do with The Passion of the Christ

People in a few cities, at least, won't be corrupted by that filthy movie, Saving Private Ryan.

I think the following paragraph may be the most perfect illustration of the absurdity of the recent FCC enforcement that I've seen:

Cole cited recent FCC actions and last week's re-election of President Bush as reasons for replacing "Saving Private Ryan" on Thursday with a music program and the TV movie "Return to Mayberry."

Stage 3: Bargaining

Ah, here comes the bargaining...

I thought [...] I would invite libertarians to join...the dark side of the force. I mean, the Democratic party. It is...your destiny (spooky wiggling fingers). Look at me, reliable Democratic voter! I support 2nd amendment rights, think drugs should be legalized, support means testing of social security, and think running permanent trillion-dollar deficits is a bad idea.
[...]
So what do you say, Libertarians? Feel the love. Feeeel the love. I'm not the only Democrat who's like this. No, there's, like, 100 of us! OK, 5. Still, don't you want to feel the love? OK, this is my last concession: I kinda like Rush. I mean, in an ironic way, but still.

They need spikier hair, though

One of the games I'm currently playing is Lord of the Rings: The Third Age (for the PS2), which bills itself as "the first console RPG set in Middle-Earth", which is certainly true (there were earlier RPGs based on FotR and TTT, but they weren't on consoles). Quick summary: It's Final Fantasy X in Middle-Earth. In more detail, on the plus side:

1. It may be a blatant rip-off of Final Fantasy X in terms of gameplay, but that means it's a pretty good game they’re ripping off.


2. Taking an essentially fun system of play, and moving it from a generic sci-fantasy world into Middle-Earth is a good thing. It’s inherently more fun to run through Moria than to run through Generic Dungeon #219.


3. One cute, creative feature: "Evil Mode" – after you’ve completed a chapter, you can go back and play through several of the battles from that chapter as the bad guys. Mostly, it's a way of obtaining some bonus stuff, but it's sort of neat to be able to go back and kill those goody-two-shoes heroes you’ve been playing as.


4. Good graphics. Everything matches the look of the films pretty well, and it has a very good sense of scale. There are some great scenes up in the mountains around Caradhras where you can look out and see the massive range of the Misty Mountains stretching off to the horizon, and places in Moria where you can look across a vast pit and see precarious stairs which you can then work your way over to and climb around on.


5. It has footage from the movies, so those cutscenes are of rather higher quality than you usually see in videogames.

However, there are also some problems:

1. It has footage from the movies, so those cutscenes are all things you've seen already. The footage from the movies also doesn't particularly advance the story of the characters you're actually playing. It fills in some small amount of history, and lets you know what the Fellowship is up to, but has little to do with the story you're playing through, which is meant to be a parallel story to the quest to destroy the ring.


2. That story, so far, is pretty thin. You start out as a Gondorian who's trying to meet up with Boromir for some (so far) never-adequately-explained reason. Some other characters join up quickly for, as far as I can tell, no reason at all except to become an adventuring party. They might just as well have had everyone meet in a tavern and overhear a strange man talking about treasure in the mountains... There is a tradition in console RPGs of some mind-blowing plot twist about halfway into the game, so maybe there's something interesting ahead, but I'm not counting on it.


3. That adventuring party isn't The Fellowship, but boy, the characters all sure look familiar. They managed to resist the temptation to include any hobbits, amazingly enough, but otherwise the characters you play are the aforementioned Gondorian (i.e., Boromir), a Dunedain ranger (i.e., Strider/Aragorn), an elf healer/swordwoman (i.e., Arwen), and a dwarf axe fighter (i.e., Gimli). I gather that later in the game, Legolas-with-the-serial-number-filed-off joins the party, and I think one more human character I don't really remember. Probably PseudoFaramir or Not-Eomer or something.


4. The characters' personalities are probably similar to the "real" characters, but I wouldn't really know: There's virtually no character interaction. The longest conversation I've seen so far was Don't-Call-Me-Gimli telling Aragornish to be more respectful of the ancient Dwarven relic axe he picked up off of an altar in Moria and tossed from one hand to the other. Shortly after that, they opened an ancient crypt deep in the ancestral homeland of the Dwarves, and Gimli-like's entire emotional response was approximately, "Hey, neat, a new axe I can use!" The longest interaction with people outside the adventuring party was some elves thanking us for driving the orcs away from their caravan. Maybe that will change once I get past Moria and into Rohan or Gondor.


5. Peeking ahead in the strategy guide, it appears that they were not able to resist the urge to make the Obligatory Big Final Boss Battle a fight with, yep, Sauron. Given that the game is specifically based on the films rather than the books, I expect this means the climax of the game will be all of my characters gathering around the base of a huge dark tower with a burning eye at the top and swinging their swords at it (and I am suddenly reminded of Lancelot taking one swing at the wall of the French castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail). Sauron will probably attack by shooting flames out of his eye or something. Yeesh.


6. The skill advancement system is broken. The basic idea isn't bad: Each character has a couple of skill trees, which you advance along by earning skill points. You earn skill points by actually using your skills. The problem is that every use of a skill costs "Action Points", whether it is a physical combat move or a magic spell. Because of the advancement system, although every character has a basic, free attack move, it's never a good idea to use it, since doing so doesn't earn any skill points. Which means every action in combat costs AP. Which means every character, fighter and spell-caster alike, needs to beef up the stat that controls how many AP you have, especially considering the skills often have absurd AP costs (one character's first skill in one area costs 75 points to use, and it must be used about 20 times to earn enough skill points to acquire the next skill in that tree), and AP restoration items are relatively rare (healing items are easier to find). To make up for this, characters' HP and AP are fully restored every time they go up a level (which is separate from skill advancement), and this tends to happen about every 2 or 3 battles.


7. Instead of a magic system tailored to the world, they have what appears to be a pretty uninspired air/earth/fire/water/light/shadow system, just like every other console RPG. Among the problems with that is the fact that in Middle-Earth, even assuming there are more than a handful of entities in the world capable of using magic, the only ones who would use "shadow" (i.e., evil) magic would be servants of Sauron (well, Morgoth if you wanna go way back, which we won't if you don't mind and I ain't askin').

Having said all that, on the whole, I'm still enjoying the game, largely because it's inherently cool to do things like climb the delicate spiral staircase to an elven shrine in the forest, and walk through the halls of Moria, following the still-burning footsteps of the Balrog chasing after Gandalf and the rest. Although that leads me to wonder, since they got Ian McKellan to do voice-over narration as Gandalf for the movie footage, whether those cutscenes will suddenly be without a narrator voice after Gandalf falls, and then bring the voice back when he returns in white?

No, probably not. That'd be too creative, wouldn't it?

(One more bonus point if you can identify the "hidden" film quote in this post. Collect them all! Trade them with your friends!)
(However, no bonus points for identifying missing diacritic marks on the Tolkien names. I'm just too lazy to look up the proper HTML codes for them.)

Bunnyblogging

Well, I've run all the tests I can run on the software I'm testing right now, until they fix the broken stuff, so here are some cute bunny pictures.

This is Suzi, who we've had for a while (there's another cute picture of her up in my Renderosity gallery, see the link in the sidebar):


And here is the new baby, Buster, who Suzi helped us pick out last Saturday:

Brain In A Jar

No kidding. An actual brain-in-a-jar. And it can fly a plane.

I'm Looking Forward to the Bargaining

"Coping with the 5 stages of grief and bereavement"

1) DENIAL

Kerry has conceded
"It's over.
For now."

2) ANGER

George Bush's America
"Yes, the modern Republican party consists of nasty bigots and liars and the media rarely bothers to point out just how nasty they are."

Presumably still to come:
3) BARGAINING
4) DEPRESSION
5) ACCEPTANCE

"Because all of you of Earth are idiots!"

"You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!"

Someone posted this on Slashdot:

Before the election I was disgusted by Bush, but now I'm disgusted by our entire country. I can only hope that he'll break things so badly that people out in the midwest/south will be forced to start thinking.

Nothing like rational discussion between reasonable people with honest disagreements on the issues, eh?

(OK, granted, Slashdot isn't the place to look for anything like that, but this sort of thing is hardly rare these days. And two bonus points if you can identify the source of the other quotes I used. Not that it's an obscure source...)

Beer: Too Important for Politics

Voting for Beer.

Depressing election day

Well, let's see, Bush is a dick, Kerry is a pussy. Badnarik, the Libertarian Party nominee, is a major loon. Can I discard all my cards and draw a new hand?

Meanwhile, as of a few minutes ago, Ohio is 60%-40% in favor of the stupid goddamned amendment to the Ohio constitution to make sure people who love each other can't get any of the benefits associated with being married. I guess I can hope the precincts that haven't reported yet are really gay, but I doubt that's likely.

And yes, I do mean "can't get any of the benefits", not merely "can't get married". The wording of the amendment includes the following brilliance:

This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

There has been some question raised whether this could actually prohibit the state from even offering medical or other benefits to unmarried domestic partners of state employees.