Way back in high school I discovered the fun of D&D and the joy of They Might Be Giants around the same time. I think more of TMBG more than all of the gaming I have ever done but not as much as the friends I gamed with: gaming < TMBG < friends.
I am more familiar with the general album progression of TMBG than I am with pretty much any band except The Beatles. I can imagine that their first album could have been a pretty hip but obscure hit with some music intellectuals but everyone would agree that they as a band could never make any song as good as "She's an Angel." I know some people who might say the same thing even today. Then the next album, Lincoln, comes out and the same music intellectuals hold it as an artistic curiosity of sorts but clearly "Ana NG" is the best that they will ever produce. And so it goes with Apollo 18... and then Flood.
In some ways it must be admitted that Flood is the quintessential TMBG achievement. As far as commercial success and radio play it doesn't get any better than that was. But it remained a niche kind of thing. The next round of albums are enjoyed by fans and maybe still by musical intellectuals though they are no doubt no longer impressed by the novelty. TMBG has always been novel and intellectuals view this as a virtue in itself but eventually even novelty stops being novel.
In my gaming group TMBG was always held in high regards but only Adam was obsessed. But what I really appreciated about them seemed like a private pleasure: the poetry of TMBG. They have excellent lyric rhythm and it is actually fun to recite some of their songs. My head must bounce with the rhythm of their songs. I must admit that they are one of the more influential artists on certian kinds of my writing.
They are greatly appreciated for their continual sense of playfulness. They don't make you laugh but always smil and if you dance to TMBG it is never cool but always like a child. I do not try to be a silly person but the way I am silly is like They Might Be Giants.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Response to Laura part 1
To my friend Laura,
I hope your would recognize the respect I have for your response at least from the fact how much time I have put into my response. This response has three goals; the first is to defend my own position. I believe that this will be the least agreeable to you but also the least open to criticism because it is not and does not try to be a rational position. Secondly, I will be presenting the most rational defense for the defense of marriage. This will be the least agreeable to me but is a response to your passionate belief that this position is indefensible and incompatible with any moral person. Lastly, I will respond to specific questions and points in your letter to me. I will do this first because I hope it will facilitate the second goal.
Part one
You pointed out the large amount of time spent on evaluating the word “prejudice” specifically. You later said " I think you are getting hung up on the words I am using, language can be a tricky thing and I find myself being hindered by it more than being helped by it.” This preoccupation with specific words is not an accident but particular to the method of philosophy and also becomes very important when engaging in legal matters. We often hear about “the spirit of a law” but in most legal proceedings it is “the letter of the law” which rules absolute. Really, the spirit of the law only becomes legally relevant at the upper court level (State Supreme Court). Therefore it matters a great deal which specific words we choose. If you feel inclined take a look at what is the most accessible part of the State Constitution (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1). In this we quickly sense how specific even the most general portion of the law strives to be.
In terms of a philosophical nature it is also important to spend time defining and choosing terms so that we can be certain that the other receives the intended meaning. For example when someone says “this is a right” because of my own world view will often unconsciously interject “this is a God given right” and then sometimes their statement comes across as nonsense. As a thoughtful thinker I do have a responsibility to filter my own interpretation of a statement with my understanding with the paradigm of the speaker but a philosophical method is used to help both sides in this task. Another benefit of such formal methods is that it forces us to cool our passions which may be appropriate but are not helpful in building understanding.
As to regarding the use of the term “homosexual,” I was very intentional in selecting that word. I had never hears that it had a negative connotation but wanted a word that was as accurate as possible. You used the term “gay” but specifically only speaks of men who are homosexual. Certainly in casual conversation it might be acceptable to use that term more generally but for the reasons stated above. I am familiar with the designation of “gay/lesbian/bisexual/queer/transgender” but this is unwieldy even as an acronym “glbqt.” This is also does not work when specifically dealing with homosexual marriage which does not relate to bisexual or queer or transgender in the same degree. I don’t imagine there will be any superior designation but I am open to suggestion.
When I said that “the state or the voting population decides…” you objected saying ”the state had decided…” I think both of us wrote incorrectly. The way it worked is that the court specifically decided and as such it became the official position of the state (the law) but then the voting population changed the constitution and the official position of the state changed. It is an issue of balances and checks. The court’s power is limited by the people’s ability to change the constitution and the people’s power is limited by the courts rulings and both powers are limited by executive branches ability to not enforce certain laws. My only objection to this situation is that it is too easy to change the state constitution. All that is needed is a minimal majority of the voting population on a given election year. The requirement to change the US Constitution is much more difficult and I feel this is better. But this won’t be changing any time soon since it would essentially be taking power away from the people to the courts and executive office. But in our democracy there is no absolute unchangeable statement with the possible exception of the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights).
When I said "To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression." you asked for a clarification. I believe that it is disappointing in the same way that a tax increase is disappointing but not oppression because as I stated earlier that the benefits of marriage are not a right recognized by the state but a gift for perceived merit. Certainly you disagree but recognize that not receiving a gift though disappointing is not oppression.
You said “Once again, whatever you or anyone else believes or feels, when it comes to the law, the law can't discriminate. It’s in our constitution.” I agree and even will provide the actual text of the state constitution which supports the statement: “Sec. 7 (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.” In an earlier letter I had missed this text and criticized the Court’s ruling as a poor reading of the state constitution. The central question to the later rational argument for the definition of marriage as specifically is concerning the nature of homosexuality is whether or not that it constitutes a “class of citizens.” But as for your statement I am in agreement as clearly said in the state constitution, though the passing of Proposition 8 changes the legal nature of marriage.
This leads to the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Defenders of marriage believe that the lobby for homosexual marriage is corrupting the spirit of marriage whereas the lobby for homosexual marriage believes that the defenders of marriage are corrupting the spirit of the constitution. But at this moment the letter of the law is clear, but not unchangeable.
The last specific point of yours I have not yet addressed is your repeated mention of the idea of gender not being so clear cut. Though there are examples of xyy (or is it xxy?) from a biologist’s perspective there is no question of two clear cut sexes. The biology of mammals is not political or socially constructed. The sexual organs serve a particular purpose: reproduction. But we do not live in a purely biological world, thank God. However if a person is born with a weakened immune system, or eyes that do not work we do not say that it is a new kind of person. Instead we say that something happened which made it so that their body is incomplete or faulty. As a Christian I can and do believe this does not make them any less valuable but just afflicted by the messed up nature of this universe.
There is a tendency, for social reasons, to highly emphasize our identity with our gender. This makes the examples of intersexed persons troubling to some, but from a Christian perspective male and female is exactly equal in our identity as a person loved fully by God. If a person is born with uncertain genitals or if they destroy their genitals through accident or surgery it does not and can not change this essential identity.
As for the question of who they may marry. If I were in charge of that policy I would probably legally classify them with the gender they were originally classified with at birth. If gender is socially constructed then it is arbitrary what gender they are designated and there is not danger of making the wrong choice. If we have a true gender I can think of no current method to discover this and as a policy maker would make the decision which is most efficient.
I hope your would recognize the respect I have for your response at least from the fact how much time I have put into my response. This response has three goals; the first is to defend my own position. I believe that this will be the least agreeable to you but also the least open to criticism because it is not and does not try to be a rational position. Secondly, I will be presenting the most rational defense for the defense of marriage. This will be the least agreeable to me but is a response to your passionate belief that this position is indefensible and incompatible with any moral person. Lastly, I will respond to specific questions and points in your letter to me. I will do this first because I hope it will facilitate the second goal.
Part one
You pointed out the large amount of time spent on evaluating the word “prejudice” specifically. You later said " I think you are getting hung up on the words I am using, language can be a tricky thing and I find myself being hindered by it more than being helped by it.” This preoccupation with specific words is not an accident but particular to the method of philosophy and also becomes very important when engaging in legal matters. We often hear about “the spirit of a law” but in most legal proceedings it is “the letter of the law” which rules absolute. Really, the spirit of the law only becomes legally relevant at the upper court level (State Supreme Court). Therefore it matters a great deal which specific words we choose. If you feel inclined take a look at what is the most accessible part of the State Constitution (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1). In this we quickly sense how specific even the most general portion of the law strives to be.
In terms of a philosophical nature it is also important to spend time defining and choosing terms so that we can be certain that the other receives the intended meaning. For example when someone says “this is a right” because of my own world view will often unconsciously interject “this is a God given right” and then sometimes their statement comes across as nonsense. As a thoughtful thinker I do have a responsibility to filter my own interpretation of a statement with my understanding with the paradigm of the speaker but a philosophical method is used to help both sides in this task. Another benefit of such formal methods is that it forces us to cool our passions which may be appropriate but are not helpful in building understanding.
As to regarding the use of the term “homosexual,” I was very intentional in selecting that word. I had never hears that it had a negative connotation but wanted a word that was as accurate as possible. You used the term “gay” but specifically only speaks of men who are homosexual. Certainly in casual conversation it might be acceptable to use that term more generally but for the reasons stated above. I am familiar with the designation of “gay/lesbian/bisexual/queer/transgender” but this is unwieldy even as an acronym “glbqt.” This is also does not work when specifically dealing with homosexual marriage which does not relate to bisexual or queer or transgender in the same degree. I don’t imagine there will be any superior designation but I am open to suggestion.
When I said that “the state or the voting population decides…” you objected saying ”the state had decided…” I think both of us wrote incorrectly. The way it worked is that the court specifically decided and as such it became the official position of the state (the law) but then the voting population changed the constitution and the official position of the state changed. It is an issue of balances and checks. The court’s power is limited by the people’s ability to change the constitution and the people’s power is limited by the courts rulings and both powers are limited by executive branches ability to not enforce certain laws. My only objection to this situation is that it is too easy to change the state constitution. All that is needed is a minimal majority of the voting population on a given election year. The requirement to change the US Constitution is much more difficult and I feel this is better. But this won’t be changing any time soon since it would essentially be taking power away from the people to the courts and executive office. But in our democracy there is no absolute unchangeable statement with the possible exception of the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights).
When I said "To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression." you asked for a clarification. I believe that it is disappointing in the same way that a tax increase is disappointing but not oppression because as I stated earlier that the benefits of marriage are not a right recognized by the state but a gift for perceived merit. Certainly you disagree but recognize that not receiving a gift though disappointing is not oppression.
You said “Once again, whatever you or anyone else believes or feels, when it comes to the law, the law can't discriminate. It’s in our constitution.” I agree and even will provide the actual text of the state constitution which supports the statement: “Sec. 7 (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.” In an earlier letter I had missed this text and criticized the Court’s ruling as a poor reading of the state constitution. The central question to the later rational argument for the definition of marriage as specifically is concerning the nature of homosexuality is whether or not that it constitutes a “class of citizens.” But as for your statement I am in agreement as clearly said in the state constitution, though the passing of Proposition 8 changes the legal nature of marriage.
This leads to the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Defenders of marriage believe that the lobby for homosexual marriage is corrupting the spirit of marriage whereas the lobby for homosexual marriage believes that the defenders of marriage are corrupting the spirit of the constitution. But at this moment the letter of the law is clear, but not unchangeable.
The last specific point of yours I have not yet addressed is your repeated mention of the idea of gender not being so clear cut. Though there are examples of xyy (or is it xxy?) from a biologist’s perspective there is no question of two clear cut sexes. The biology of mammals is not political or socially constructed. The sexual organs serve a particular purpose: reproduction. But we do not live in a purely biological world, thank God. However if a person is born with a weakened immune system, or eyes that do not work we do not say that it is a new kind of person. Instead we say that something happened which made it so that their body is incomplete or faulty. As a Christian I can and do believe this does not make them any less valuable but just afflicted by the messed up nature of this universe.
There is a tendency, for social reasons, to highly emphasize our identity with our gender. This makes the examples of intersexed persons troubling to some, but from a Christian perspective male and female is exactly equal in our identity as a person loved fully by God. If a person is born with uncertain genitals or if they destroy their genitals through accident or surgery it does not and can not change this essential identity.
As for the question of who they may marry. If I were in charge of that policy I would probably legally classify them with the gender they were originally classified with at birth. If gender is socially constructed then it is arbitrary what gender they are designated and there is not danger of making the wrong choice. If we have a true gender I can think of no current method to discover this and as a policy maker would make the decision which is most efficient.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Problem with Poems
First Date
I sat waiting for you when we said we would meet.
There was a single pink rose laying next to me.
I had bought a whole bouquet but that was "too much."
Eleven more rested in the back seat of my car.
You did arrive, a little late, but smiling and pretty,
"Thank you." Why did my rose once look so beautiful
But is brown and bruised when I offer it to you?
We talked not knowing each other, you said "I'm rambling."
I'm rambled too; we took turns, gave chances, we talked,
Got to know each other and saw myself from your view.
I didn't make you laugh; I didn't make you smile;
Insecure, I say I'd like to see you again.
Insecure, we make arrangements, a second date.
I go home unsure, but my car smells like roses.
09/27/06
This is probably my best poem.
But the bummer is that particular attempt at a relationship didn't last very long (mostly because of her deal) but still did inspire a very good poem. Now if I dated a lot that wouldn't be such an issue but now when I find someone who I am willing to swallow my pride enough to ask out and when we go out (of course she will say yes... duh) but I do not produce some very good piece of art it will be no good.
"Why didn't you write a poem about our first date?"
But really the poem wasn't so much inspired by Michelle because I wrote it before I knew her at all. It is about humility that is a part of reaching out to another person. Ha ha of course I think it also communicates why I am still single: I am horrible at dating! But I like that about myself and if I were to make a resume for my qualifications as a man in the bullet points would be that I do not think so low of women as to be completley comfortable good ones.
I sat waiting for you when we said we would meet.
There was a single pink rose laying next to me.
I had bought a whole bouquet but that was "too much."
Eleven more rested in the back seat of my car.
You did arrive, a little late, but smiling and pretty,
"Thank you." Why did my rose once look so beautiful
But is brown and bruised when I offer it to you?
We talked not knowing each other, you said "I'm rambling."
I'm rambled too; we took turns, gave chances, we talked,
Got to know each other and saw myself from your view.
I didn't make you laugh; I didn't make you smile;
Insecure, I say I'd like to see you again.
Insecure, we make arrangements, a second date.
I go home unsure, but my car smells like roses.
09/27/06
This is probably my best poem.
But the bummer is that particular attempt at a relationship didn't last very long (mostly because of her deal) but still did inspire a very good poem. Now if I dated a lot that wouldn't be such an issue but now when I find someone who I am willing to swallow my pride enough to ask out and when we go out (of course she will say yes... duh) but I do not produce some very good piece of art it will be no good.
"Why didn't you write a poem about our first date?"
But really the poem wasn't so much inspired by Michelle because I wrote it before I knew her at all. It is about humility that is a part of reaching out to another person. Ha ha of course I think it also communicates why I am still single: I am horrible at dating! But I like that about myself and if I were to make a resume for my qualifications as a man in the bullet points would be that I do not think so low of women as to be completley comfortable good ones.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Laura's Letter
Letter to Michael...
I think that you spent too much time on my incorrect use of the word prejudice. I see what you are saying and I think the words oppression (as you used) and discrimination (treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit) would be better words to use, so I will from now on.
You said "There are crimes against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation but it nothing on the scope or scale as the institutional disenfranchisement and terrorism against blacks." Yes, it appears that the LGBQT community has not had to face the same tragedies of blacks (or jews for that matter), but that doesn't mean they haven't suffered - I know gay people who have been kicked in the head while being called queer, threatened and even raped. And it certainly doesn't mean that any injustice they experience is right just because it may or may not have been as intense as the injustices faced by the black community--and I'm not saying you were suggesting such.
"You could argue that this Proposition is be the first step in that direction but this is a heavy burden of proof (but a noble undertaking to attempt)." Yes I do, but that is not my main argument, nor can I prove that in any way, nor do I try to use that as my argument.
When I say ALL people should be treated equally, of course I am not talking about "active murderers, children and acknowledged enemies of the state." I think you are getting hung up on the words I am using, language can be a tricky thing and I find myself being hindered by it more than being helped by it. "The ideal is equal rights for all responsible persons." - Yes, lets talk about that!
You said "When it comes to the social and legal benefits given to married couples (social acceptance, tax status and the like) I do not believe that these are rights that the married population deserves outright. Those blessings are not a right acknowledged but a reward given by society for perceived merit. The state for holds the position that marriage (what is being called "traditional marriage) is beneficial to society and therefore is granted certain benefits." Perhaps the state does, but that does not mean it views gay marriage as NOT being beneficial to the state. In fact a common stereotype is that "gays" have lots of money and therefore the state and economy would probably benefit from same sex marriages for obvious reasons. But the reward for what? Being straight? Perceived merit-what does that mean? That straights have a perceived merit that gays don't? Perceptions are not reality.
"When the state or voting population..." Actually it was only the voting population that decided this issue. The state had decided that same-sex marriage was legal since banning it would be unconstitutional..."decides that homosexual unions do not deserve the exact same legal status (which marriage provides and civil union only partly provides) they are not pre-judging homosexuals but post-judging them." Yes they are post-judging them! That was my point, thank you for making it for me :)
"The statement is that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality." Wow, first off, the term "homosexual" is considered offensive (http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay039s-anatomy/200810/the-terms-homosexual-and-the-n-word) just fyi. But this is the heart of the matter that we're getting into. This is where I think it is wrong to believe that being gay means you are not equal to others (ie. straights), but that's my OWN belief. I understand that. People can think blondes are better than brunettes, ice cream is better than cake (I do), even think whites are better than blacks, but LAWS cannot be made on these discriminations, prejudices, bigotries, whatever word works best. Making a law as such, would be oppression.
"To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression." Why is it disappointing? How is it not oppression?
"The logical next step in this letter is to go over the rational (rather than emotional) reasons that homosexuality is considered to be lesser than heterosexuality." OK, lets hear them. Some I already have heard and I don't know if this is what you have in mind to bring up: -The bible says...- I don't mean to be rude or inconsiderate towards your faith or anyone else's, but it doesn't matter what the bible says in the eyes of the law. Or at least it shouldn't, church and state are separate. -Gays can't procreate- No, but they can provide loving households to children in need. Also, that argument implies that marriage is a contract entered into to procreate, when in reality many straight couples do not procreate because they can't, don't want to, or for other personal reasons. To say "but they CAN" isn't always true, because some people cannot.
Once again, whatever you or anyone else believes or feels, when it comes to the law, the law can't discriminate. Its in our constitution, I'm not making this stuff up.
Another big part of my argument is that some people are not born "man" or "woman" they are intersexed. Its our society that FORCES these people to pick a side. But I would argue to a man of faith, that these people were made "as God made them" and are who they are. What I've learned is that gender is not as clear cut as most of think it to be. What about those who get sex changes? Who do they marry? Do they get a "Marry Anyone You Want Free" card?
Basically I see 2 solutions- marriage goes back to the churches and the state only deals with legal contracts OR all responsible, consenting adults can get married.
Sincerely,Laura
I think that you spent too much time on my incorrect use of the word prejudice. I see what you are saying and I think the words oppression (as you used) and discrimination (treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit) would be better words to use, so I will from now on.
You said "There are crimes against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation but it nothing on the scope or scale as the institutional disenfranchisement and terrorism against blacks." Yes, it appears that the LGBQT community has not had to face the same tragedies of blacks (or jews for that matter), but that doesn't mean they haven't suffered - I know gay people who have been kicked in the head while being called queer, threatened and even raped. And it certainly doesn't mean that any injustice they experience is right just because it may or may not have been as intense as the injustices faced by the black community--and I'm not saying you were suggesting such.
"You could argue that this Proposition is be the first step in that direction but this is a heavy burden of proof (but a noble undertaking to attempt)." Yes I do, but that is not my main argument, nor can I prove that in any way, nor do I try to use that as my argument.
When I say ALL people should be treated equally, of course I am not talking about "active murderers, children and acknowledged enemies of the state." I think you are getting hung up on the words I am using, language can be a tricky thing and I find myself being hindered by it more than being helped by it. "The ideal is equal rights for all responsible persons." - Yes, lets talk about that!
You said "When it comes to the social and legal benefits given to married couples (social acceptance, tax status and the like) I do not believe that these are rights that the married population deserves outright. Those blessings are not a right acknowledged but a reward given by society for perceived merit. The state for holds the position that marriage (what is being called "traditional marriage) is beneficial to society and therefore is granted certain benefits." Perhaps the state does, but that does not mean it views gay marriage as NOT being beneficial to the state. In fact a common stereotype is that "gays" have lots of money and therefore the state and economy would probably benefit from same sex marriages for obvious reasons. But the reward for what? Being straight? Perceived merit-what does that mean? That straights have a perceived merit that gays don't? Perceptions are not reality.
"When the state or voting population..." Actually it was only the voting population that decided this issue. The state had decided that same-sex marriage was legal since banning it would be unconstitutional..."decides that homosexual unions do not deserve the exact same legal status (which marriage provides and civil union only partly provides) they are not pre-judging homosexuals but post-judging them." Yes they are post-judging them! That was my point, thank you for making it for me :)
"The statement is that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality." Wow, first off, the term "homosexual" is considered offensive (http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay039s-anatomy/200810/the-terms-homosexual-and-the-n-word) just fyi. But this is the heart of the matter that we're getting into. This is where I think it is wrong to believe that being gay means you are not equal to others (ie. straights), but that's my OWN belief. I understand that. People can think blondes are better than brunettes, ice cream is better than cake (I do), even think whites are better than blacks, but LAWS cannot be made on these discriminations, prejudices, bigotries, whatever word works best. Making a law as such, would be oppression.
"To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression." Why is it disappointing? How is it not oppression?
"The logical next step in this letter is to go over the rational (rather than emotional) reasons that homosexuality is considered to be lesser than heterosexuality." OK, lets hear them. Some I already have heard and I don't know if this is what you have in mind to bring up: -The bible says...- I don't mean to be rude or inconsiderate towards your faith or anyone else's, but it doesn't matter what the bible says in the eyes of the law. Or at least it shouldn't, church and state are separate. -Gays can't procreate- No, but they can provide loving households to children in need. Also, that argument implies that marriage is a contract entered into to procreate, when in reality many straight couples do not procreate because they can't, don't want to, or for other personal reasons. To say "but they CAN" isn't always true, because some people cannot.
Once again, whatever you or anyone else believes or feels, when it comes to the law, the law can't discriminate. Its in our constitution, I'm not making this stuff up.
Another big part of my argument is that some people are not born "man" or "woman" they are intersexed. Its our society that FORCES these people to pick a side. But I would argue to a man of faith, that these people were made "as God made them" and are who they are. What I've learned is that gender is not as clear cut as most of think it to be. What about those who get sex changes? Who do they marry? Do they get a "Marry Anyone You Want Free" card?
Basically I see 2 solutions- marriage goes back to the churches and the state only deals with legal contracts OR all responsible, consenting adults can get married.
Sincerely,Laura
Military and Honor
Not too long ago I was having a conversation with Martin Murray about Senator Obama (he had not yet won the election) and he said the things he expected the senator to do if elected. Martin is politically very principled and would not give any politician a free pass. Martin does not "hope" President Obama does these things, he expects them to be done. But he finished with "... and end the war in Iraq." Mostly to be sly, I added "With honor. You got to win those Red states." But I thought about it and think that there is more to ensuring that "our brave boys" blah blah for the camera. In general this tendency is worthy only a laugh but there is something essential to guarding, respecting and most important expecting honor from our military.
At one level the military is just a bunch of people with a lot of very very dangerous weapons. Really just one of those small Coats Guard destroyers I've seen in the bay could shut down all naval traffic in and out of the bay, an aircraft carrier could destroy the entire infrastructure of the Bay Area in a matter of days. We don't have many army bases around here that I know about but I imagine a regularly stocked US army base could out-gun all of Oakland without breaking a sweat (think artillery on the other side of the Bay followed by tanks supported by infantry with real machine guns... and all of this is pretty close to WWII technology. I can only imagine that their killing power is much greater now.
Because we have had a stable democracy for so long it is difficult to imagine and easy to dismiss the idea that a part of the military could do this. This is a wonderful circumstance to be in, but just keeping one eye on the state of the world and a decent understanding of history we easily recognize that this is an unusual situation. It is important to acknowledge the reasons that the military, which is so much more powerful that the civilian population consistently submits to the will of the civilian government.
To be sure part of this is self-interest. With the military industrial complex and a strong economy there is little reason to overthrow the government. But I can't help that thinking that many people, if they think of the military at all, believe it is somehow subdued by our Constitution or the mighty will of the people. They watched "V for Vendetta" and imagine the military as impotent without central leadership... which the civilian government controls. This supposed impotence is largely self-imposed. The military trains (brain washes) the ideal of chain of command thoroughly in its members but really a bunch of guys with guns can do what they want.
Which takes us to the idea of civilians (such as Martin and myself) insisting that our soldiers be keep their honor. It would seem strange to what we call common sense that this honor is more valuable than even one human life. That does seem to be the conflict, a bunch of Blue State people wanting the end the war to spare human tragedy, save lives and promote peace and a bunch of Red State people harping about "ending the war with honor." It is easy to imagine how the peace lobby supporters would have trouble understanding this conflict.
How I understand it is that the United States military is a semi-religious institution, it is almost a cult. The regular "soft" civilians are not simply toughened up and taught to shoot strait but there is a great emphasis on the ideals of the military which we will call simply "honor." This is the ideal though perhaps not the fullness of practice. The desired result is a new kind of person.
What kind of person does the military strive to produce? Obedient, selfless, efficient and dangerous. But these traits are not permanent reprogramming but a somewhat willing mask based upon the mythology of honor. This honor can be stripped away by disrespect and shame. That is part of the real argument against burning the flag. So-and-so mentioned that in his boot camp an extraordinary effort was to impose this idea that the flag must always be respected. It is a kind of religious symbol. The disrespect of that symbol does more than hurts the feelings of patriotic citizens; it destroys the power of the symbol. If soldiers have been living obedient, selfless, efficient and dangerous lives "for the flag" find that perhaps the flag isn't such a big deal then it is all the easier to drop the obedient, selfless and efficient lifestyle they impose on themselves but they remain dangerous people.
At one level the military is just a bunch of people with a lot of very very dangerous weapons. Really just one of those small Coats Guard destroyers I've seen in the bay could shut down all naval traffic in and out of the bay, an aircraft carrier could destroy the entire infrastructure of the Bay Area in a matter of days. We don't have many army bases around here that I know about but I imagine a regularly stocked US army base could out-gun all of Oakland without breaking a sweat (think artillery on the other side of the Bay followed by tanks supported by infantry with real machine guns... and all of this is pretty close to WWII technology. I can only imagine that their killing power is much greater now.
Because we have had a stable democracy for so long it is difficult to imagine and easy to dismiss the idea that a part of the military could do this. This is a wonderful circumstance to be in, but just keeping one eye on the state of the world and a decent understanding of history we easily recognize that this is an unusual situation. It is important to acknowledge the reasons that the military, which is so much more powerful that the civilian population consistently submits to the will of the civilian government.
To be sure part of this is self-interest. With the military industrial complex and a strong economy there is little reason to overthrow the government. But I can't help that thinking that many people, if they think of the military at all, believe it is somehow subdued by our Constitution or the mighty will of the people. They watched "V for Vendetta" and imagine the military as impotent without central leadership... which the civilian government controls. This supposed impotence is largely self-imposed. The military trains (brain washes) the ideal of chain of command thoroughly in its members but really a bunch of guys with guns can do what they want.
Which takes us to the idea of civilians (such as Martin and myself) insisting that our soldiers be keep their honor. It would seem strange to what we call common sense that this honor is more valuable than even one human life. That does seem to be the conflict, a bunch of Blue State people wanting the end the war to spare human tragedy, save lives and promote peace and a bunch of Red State people harping about "ending the war with honor." It is easy to imagine how the peace lobby supporters would have trouble understanding this conflict.
How I understand it is that the United States military is a semi-religious institution, it is almost a cult. The regular "soft" civilians are not simply toughened up and taught to shoot strait but there is a great emphasis on the ideals of the military which we will call simply "honor." This is the ideal though perhaps not the fullness of practice. The desired result is a new kind of person.
What kind of person does the military strive to produce? Obedient, selfless, efficient and dangerous. But these traits are not permanent reprogramming but a somewhat willing mask based upon the mythology of honor. This honor can be stripped away by disrespect and shame. That is part of the real argument against burning the flag. So-and-so mentioned that in his boot camp an extraordinary effort was to impose this idea that the flag must always be respected. It is a kind of religious symbol. The disrespect of that symbol does more than hurts the feelings of patriotic citizens; it destroys the power of the symbol. If soldiers have been living obedient, selfless, efficient and dangerous lives "for the flag" find that perhaps the flag isn't such a big deal then it is all the easier to drop the obedient, selfless and efficient lifestyle they impose on themselves but they remain dangerous people.
Monday, November 10, 2008
This post will demonstrate why I will never be the spokesman for any political issue. I swim in an ocean of words and am not suitable for mass consumption. It is ironic considering "my side" made a big deal about not wanting to redefine the word marriage because my main response to your letter is that you are using some words rather loosely.
In particular you use the word "prejudice" carelessly. I know what you mean when you are saying it, just like in "The Princess Bride" we know what Vincitti (sp?) means when he says "inconceivable!" but it is still not the correct use of words. Prejudice is when we prejudge a person based upon some sort superficial standard. For example when server X decides that this table will be a bad table because they are black, they are being prejudiced. This phenomena is a kind of mildly offensive form of foolishness that is in many ways unavoidable. They way formulate the world is to make or recognize patterns and use them as an expectation for future experience. So Jacob (my five year old nephew) just yesterday had a still yet undeveloped expectation that a lemon would be tasty like an orange based upon they way it looked. He now knows a little better. This pattern recognition/pattern projection is natural and develops all kind accurate and inaccurate prejudices. When used in social situations prejudice usually is forming expectations based upon the way someone looks, dresses or by associations. This is what the word prejudice means, but is not how I sense you are using it.
What I imagine when you get so passionate about people and friends who "have views that are prejudice." Is a collage of past associations with that word so strong that it would be more fitting if you wrote that "people have views that are PREJUDICE PREJUDICE PREJUDICE!!!!!!!!" When we were children and school teachers taught us about the Civil Rights movement they were somewhat limited by our own child understanding of the world and what is permissible to say in front of a child and also their own un-reflective and ignorant beliefs of the actual historical and moral questions. So they could not go into depth about what was really going on in the South so instead would say what was a little more digestible to children "White people in the South did not like black people. They were prejudiced against them. But Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. came to speak against prejudice so that everyone could be friends together (insert a clip from the "I Have a Dream" speech)." This is perhaps the best that we could hope for in the circumstances but one of the consequences is that the word "prejudice" has been loaded with many things that has nothing to do with the word. As a child we (perhaps only unconsciously) understood that what was going on in the South was much more bloody and reprehensible that white people not wanting to be friends or share drinking faucets with black people. Lynching, voting suppression, terror attacks are not issues of prejudice but has (usually only unconsciously) been associated with the word prejudice.
I think a better word in these circumstances is "oppression." I do not get the impression that you are passionate about people not being friends or accepting homosexuals or homosexuals getting less service at Outback because of server X's preconceived notions. Those are personal and social issues that can not be solved through a ballet measure. Oppression is something that is institutional and can be dealt with via political means and is worthy of our moral outrage.
For me the issue of Proposition 8 is whether or not it is oppression. To be sure there is oppression that the homosexual community has been made to endure throughout our nation's history and that is inexcusable. Much of this has come from within the doors of churches to the shame of the practitioners of my faith. But understanding the movement behind Proposition 8 and the movement against it I have to say it has no right to associate itself with the struggle for equal legal standing and the oppression of the black population in much of our nation. There are crimes against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation but it nothing on the scope or scale as the institutional disenfranchisement and terrorism against blacks. You could argue that this Proposition is be the first step in that direction but this is a heavy burden of proof (but a noble undertaking to attempt). But as of yet I (and a reasonable majority of voting Californians) are not convinced of this.
To be sure there are embarrassing examples of foolishness and wickedness supporters of most causes. There are those who supported Prop 8 because "God hates fags" and other inexcusable, intolerable and abominable reasons. Equally true there are opponents of Prop 8 who hope to relax social social sexual mores for their own perversity (NAMBLA is the easy to accept example). But we can not casually use these examples as real arguments against our sincere opponents. Teaching chess we have had students who make a bad move with the hope that their opponent will make a much more foolish move. As instructors we correctly instruct our students to plan as if your opponent will make the best possible move. In the same way let's examine and argue against the best cases of our opponents. Let me explain what I believe to be the best argument in favor of Proposition 8.
You wrote "for the LAW all people should be treated equal and have the same rights" but this is not, has never been and never should be the case. In the most egalitarian society (which we ought to strive to be) equal rights for all is not the ideal. The ideal is equal rights for all responsible persons. Defenders of Equal Rights would not say (even in principle) that active murderers, children and acknowledged enemies of the state ought to have equal rights with responsible citizens because in case the party in not willing or capable of serving the betterment of this society responsibly. As such it would be right and responsible to take away some of their rights. Proven murderers, through due process, have some of their rights taken away. Children are not granted the rights reserved for adults. Enemies of the state are sometimes rightly even refused the right to live. But up to this point we have only been talking about the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" (or happiness).
A person can lose their rights by their actions. "Rights"does not refer to something that no government has any right to ever take away. If it did, no government would accept any rights for any of it citizens. "Rights" refers to powers, blessings and rewards that a government has limited ability to infringe upon. My "right" to be alive does not mean that my government may never lawfully take my life but instead means that there are limited and (ideally) well defined circumstances in which a government can lawfully kill me. The same thing applies for my right to move about in liberty and try to acquire property (aka secular happiness).
When it comes to the social and legal benefits given to married couples (social acceptance, tax status and the like) I do not believe that these are rights that the married population deserves outright. Those blessings are not a right acknowledged but a reward given by society for perceived merit. The state for holds the position that marriage (what is being called "traditional marriage) is beneficial to society and therefore is granted certain benefits. When the state or voting population decides that homosexual unions do not deserve the exact same legal status (which marriage provides and civil union only partly provides) they are not pre-judging homosexuals but post-judging them. The statement is that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression. The logical next step in this letter is to go over the rational (rather than emotional) reasons that homosexuality is considered to be lesser than heterosexuality. I am very willing to go into this. However this has been a long letter so far and before we could go further I think we would need to refine the positions so far. No doubt you would find weaknesses that could be stated more clearly or even thrown out all together. Let's see where we are at this point and then decided if it is profitable to continue.
Most sincerely and with warm regards,Michael
In particular you use the word "prejudice" carelessly. I know what you mean when you are saying it, just like in "The Princess Bride" we know what Vincitti (sp?) means when he says "inconceivable!" but it is still not the correct use of words. Prejudice is when we prejudge a person based upon some sort superficial standard. For example when server X decides that this table will be a bad table because they are black, they are being prejudiced. This phenomena is a kind of mildly offensive form of foolishness that is in many ways unavoidable. They way formulate the world is to make or recognize patterns and use them as an expectation for future experience. So Jacob (my five year old nephew) just yesterday had a still yet undeveloped expectation that a lemon would be tasty like an orange based upon they way it looked. He now knows a little better. This pattern recognition/pattern projection is natural and develops all kind accurate and inaccurate prejudices. When used in social situations prejudice usually is forming expectations based upon the way someone looks, dresses or by associations. This is what the word prejudice means, but is not how I sense you are using it.
What I imagine when you get so passionate about people and friends who "have views that are prejudice." Is a collage of past associations with that word so strong that it would be more fitting if you wrote that "people have views that are PREJUDICE PREJUDICE PREJUDICE!!!!!!!!" When we were children and school teachers taught us about the Civil Rights movement they were somewhat limited by our own child understanding of the world and what is permissible to say in front of a child and also their own un-reflective and ignorant beliefs of the actual historical and moral questions. So they could not go into depth about what was really going on in the South so instead would say what was a little more digestible to children "White people in the South did not like black people. They were prejudiced against them. But Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. came to speak against prejudice so that everyone could be friends together (insert a clip from the "I Have a Dream" speech)." This is perhaps the best that we could hope for in the circumstances but one of the consequences is that the word "prejudice" has been loaded with many things that has nothing to do with the word. As a child we (perhaps only unconsciously) understood that what was going on in the South was much more bloody and reprehensible that white people not wanting to be friends or share drinking faucets with black people. Lynching, voting suppression, terror attacks are not issues of prejudice but has (usually only unconsciously) been associated with the word prejudice.
I think a better word in these circumstances is "oppression." I do not get the impression that you are passionate about people not being friends or accepting homosexuals or homosexuals getting less service at Outback because of server X's preconceived notions. Those are personal and social issues that can not be solved through a ballet measure. Oppression is something that is institutional and can be dealt with via political means and is worthy of our moral outrage.
For me the issue of Proposition 8 is whether or not it is oppression. To be sure there is oppression that the homosexual community has been made to endure throughout our nation's history and that is inexcusable. Much of this has come from within the doors of churches to the shame of the practitioners of my faith. But understanding the movement behind Proposition 8 and the movement against it I have to say it has no right to associate itself with the struggle for equal legal standing and the oppression of the black population in much of our nation. There are crimes against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation but it nothing on the scope or scale as the institutional disenfranchisement and terrorism against blacks. You could argue that this Proposition is be the first step in that direction but this is a heavy burden of proof (but a noble undertaking to attempt). But as of yet I (and a reasonable majority of voting Californians) are not convinced of this.
To be sure there are embarrassing examples of foolishness and wickedness supporters of most causes. There are those who supported Prop 8 because "God hates fags" and other inexcusable, intolerable and abominable reasons. Equally true there are opponents of Prop 8 who hope to relax social social sexual mores for their own perversity (NAMBLA is the easy to accept example). But we can not casually use these examples as real arguments against our sincere opponents. Teaching chess we have had students who make a bad move with the hope that their opponent will make a much more foolish move. As instructors we correctly instruct our students to plan as if your opponent will make the best possible move. In the same way let's examine and argue against the best cases of our opponents. Let me explain what I believe to be the best argument in favor of Proposition 8.
You wrote "for the LAW all people should be treated equal and have the same rights" but this is not, has never been and never should be the case. In the most egalitarian society (which we ought to strive to be) equal rights for all is not the ideal. The ideal is equal rights for all responsible persons. Defenders of Equal Rights would not say (even in principle) that active murderers, children and acknowledged enemies of the state ought to have equal rights with responsible citizens because in case the party in not willing or capable of serving the betterment of this society responsibly. As such it would be right and responsible to take away some of their rights. Proven murderers, through due process, have some of their rights taken away. Children are not granted the rights reserved for adults. Enemies of the state are sometimes rightly even refused the right to live. But up to this point we have only been talking about the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" (or happiness).
A person can lose their rights by their actions. "Rights"does not refer to something that no government has any right to ever take away. If it did, no government would accept any rights for any of it citizens. "Rights" refers to powers, blessings and rewards that a government has limited ability to infringe upon. My "right" to be alive does not mean that my government may never lawfully take my life but instead means that there are limited and (ideally) well defined circumstances in which a government can lawfully kill me. The same thing applies for my right to move about in liberty and try to acquire property (aka secular happiness).
When it comes to the social and legal benefits given to married couples (social acceptance, tax status and the like) I do not believe that these are rights that the married population deserves outright. Those blessings are not a right acknowledged but a reward given by society for perceived merit. The state for holds the position that marriage (what is being called "traditional marriage) is beneficial to society and therefore is granted certain benefits. When the state or voting population decides that homosexual unions do not deserve the exact same legal status (which marriage provides and civil union only partly provides) they are not pre-judging homosexuals but post-judging them. The statement is that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression. The logical next step in this letter is to go over the rational (rather than emotional) reasons that homosexuality is considered to be lesser than heterosexuality. I am very willing to go into this. However this has been a long letter so far and before we could go further I think we would need to refine the positions so far. No doubt you would find weaknesses that could be stated more clearly or even thrown out all together. Let's see where we are at this point and then decided if it is profitable to continue.
Most sincerely and with warm regards,Michael
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Fatherlessness
This is not a blog about not having a father or having ambivalent feelings about a father... that is a normal enough in this day and age but is not what this is about. Rather it is about one of the parts of aging which is when you stop having people above you to go to for advice, comfort and/or aid.
I have struggles occasionally with this and that and sometimes I think to myself "I wish there is someone I could go to with this problem." There are plenty of people I can (and do) go to with my problems but it occurred to me recently that all of these people are peers and not superiors. Sure, I am pretty stuck up guy who is not very likely to ask anyone for help... and I see myself as naturally superior to everyone else (I say this to my shame not my credit) so it is not completely surprising that I should have few people I look up towards in this archetypal "father" way. But when I say "I wish there is someone I could go to with my problem" I am actually not thinking of going to a peer (Jem or Jax) to share my struggling and confess my failing. Rather what I am usually thinking is "I wish I knew someone strong enough to carry me in this situation."
The modern independent tendency is to look down on any sort of thought like that. But I reject that as unnatural and dishonest. Most "brave independent" men and women reek of weakness and insecurity to me. I respect the Stuart Smally's of the world who are strong enough to admit their weakness and move forward.
It is not as if the existential father figures in my life ever actually thought it wise to take all of my problems away and provide me a life of ease. It would not be an manly act of love to treat even a child this way. Like C.S. Lewis said, a father would be happy with any faltering steps and failures of a child but no father would be content with a child who refused to learn to walk. The best I ever got (possibly the best a person could get) is a strong hand gently holding my own.
As a child this is mostly just father and mother, but there might have been a teacher here and there. As time went on, in my life parents faltered and my problems became more complex. I was lucky to have some terrific teachers and some reasonably wise friends. Sure, teenage wisdom is a very temporary help but I was grateful for what I received. In college after entering into Christian fellowship I have been extraordinarily fortunate (blessed even) with mentors. It is possible that I leaned a little too hard and expected a little too much but God (the eternal existential Father) prevented too much damage.
But now as a man I find that my mentors have become peers and when I find myself struggling beyond my wish for strength I am compelled to move forward as best I can. I have heard that some have found this feeling liberating, others have described it as terrifying. I am struck by the fact that it is surprising. a year ago I would have thought myself too arrogant to have had any thoughts for a superior to carry me through the hardest paths.
I have struggles occasionally with this and that and sometimes I think to myself "I wish there is someone I could go to with this problem." There are plenty of people I can (and do) go to with my problems but it occurred to me recently that all of these people are peers and not superiors. Sure, I am pretty stuck up guy who is not very likely to ask anyone for help... and I see myself as naturally superior to everyone else (I say this to my shame not my credit) so it is not completely surprising that I should have few people I look up towards in this archetypal "father" way. But when I say "I wish there is someone I could go to with my problem" I am actually not thinking of going to a peer (Jem or Jax) to share my struggling and confess my failing. Rather what I am usually thinking is "I wish I knew someone strong enough to carry me in this situation."
The modern independent tendency is to look down on any sort of thought like that. But I reject that as unnatural and dishonest. Most "brave independent" men and women reek of weakness and insecurity to me. I respect the Stuart Smally's of the world who are strong enough to admit their weakness and move forward.
It is not as if the existential father figures in my life ever actually thought it wise to take all of my problems away and provide me a life of ease. It would not be an manly act of love to treat even a child this way. Like C.S. Lewis said, a father would be happy with any faltering steps and failures of a child but no father would be content with a child who refused to learn to walk. The best I ever got (possibly the best a person could get) is a strong hand gently holding my own.
As a child this is mostly just father and mother, but there might have been a teacher here and there. As time went on, in my life parents faltered and my problems became more complex. I was lucky to have some terrific teachers and some reasonably wise friends. Sure, teenage wisdom is a very temporary help but I was grateful for what I received. In college after entering into Christian fellowship I have been extraordinarily fortunate (blessed even) with mentors. It is possible that I leaned a little too hard and expected a little too much but God (the eternal existential Father) prevented too much damage.
But now as a man I find that my mentors have become peers and when I find myself struggling beyond my wish for strength I am compelled to move forward as best I can. I have heard that some have found this feeling liberating, others have described it as terrifying. I am struck by the fact that it is surprising. a year ago I would have thought myself too arrogant to have had any thoughts for a superior to carry me through the hardest paths.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Fallout 3 post-review
A preview of a review of Fallout 3:
Last summer I was still bummed out about a woman who decided I wasn’t worth going out with. One particular weekend I let my sister borrow my car for the weekend and the sermon at church was about “the gift of being single.” I am thinking about this message, pissed off, riding my bike and the wind is blowing against me. I think to myself “If Jackson wants to buy an Xbox 360 he needs to go through Janelle and she would probably not think very highly of it. I’m single. I can buy an Xbox 360 if I want. I’m going to do it! That’ll show her!”
But the game that made me want a 360 instead of a PS3 or computer or whatever was Fallout 3. I had gotten the first Fallout back in ‘99 because it was one of the few games available on Mac. I really liked the non-linear plot and interacting in a world with choices with consequences. I re-played the game again about four year ago and it was still cool. The sequel was a very good addition and the general criticism of sequels being simply the original but bigger didn’t apply since the nature of the game was so open-ended it didn’t hurt to have a new bigger game.
So then I see a commercial for Fallout 3 somewhere online. It was pretty short but it ended saying “Fallout 03… Fall 08” and I am excited. It would not be until after I bought the 360 that I realized that it was the summer of 07. So I spend a year playing this and that game especially Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. It was put out by the same company which was producing Fallout 3. Also open-ended and awesome and beautifully done and a huge suck of my time.
Then finally Fallout 3 came out.
I have probably already put in forty hours of game time in the week since it has come out. I keep expecting my friends to start an intervention or something but one of the actual gifts of singleness is a lot of free time. I am still working and even hanging out. If anything I have given up coffee shop time and sleep for the game. BUT I will not be continuing this pace for very much longer.
Actual review of Fallout 3:
The first criticism I heard online about Fallout 3 was that it would end up being “Oblivion with guns.” This did not sound too bad to me because Oblivion was one of the best games I have ever played… but at the same time I understand part of what they were saying. Fallout had a flavor and a spirit in its style of RPG that was sometimes dark and gritty or morally ambiguous. Oblivion was more black and white and had a heroic flavor rather than grittiness. Also I always felt that the greatest strength to Fallout was the social system where you could have all kinds of conversations with different people and what you said had an affect on the story of the game. Oblivion’s social system was pretty lame. It was more of a mini-game to advance plot lines. Fallout 3’s creators heard a lot of rumbling about this and managed to create a system very similar system to the original Fallout series with the neat addition to give new dialogue options based upon skills and perks. My character is a science based pulp hero and in conversations I can short cut plot quests and add interesting tidbits based upon my high Intelligence or Medicine skill. Once I even had the option to reprogram a medical droid because I had a computer based perk.
Combat in Fallout 3 is almost nothing like it was in the originals but this makes sense sine they were a turn based system. That was okay ten years ago, it was just fine. But in a console centered world that wouldn’t fly for a half a second. They have an aiming like function (as far as I can tell this is the only reason to have high agility) that took me a while to figure out but once I did feel that I a terror to evil-doers in the waste land.
When it comes to combat in an RPG there are two ways to mess up. The Final Fantasy system is just simply too easy. I never had the slightest challenge unless it was requiring the patience to monster crunch to level up so I could walk through the big boss. The other is when there are too many deaths. Re-loading sucks a lot of fun out of the game especially if I have to go over the same plot of land ten times. In general what I want from an RGP is a system of combat that requires medium skill and wise character advancement. If I spent all of my points to advance my social skills I deserve to get my butt kicked in a hard fight. Buy if I spend my points well to balance the various needs of the game and I don’t rush the super-mutants with my bbgun I don’t want to die very often.
One of the Oblivion based fears was the enemies advancing at the same rate as the character. In Oblivion you could easily walk through the whole main plot as a level two character fighting level two monsters. This is lame. Fallout 3 has some of this but certain areas are simply lethal to beginning characters. But as I went up levels and felt that Raiders were chumps suddenly some kind of post-apocalypse bear practically pulled my arms off. It was pretty cool and I had to start walking around a little more carefully.
I beat the game with the ultra-good guy character. I enjoyed the game but considering how many hours I put in such a short time I think it is best that I not start another game any time soon.
Last summer I was still bummed out about a woman who decided I wasn’t worth going out with. One particular weekend I let my sister borrow my car for the weekend and the sermon at church was about “the gift of being single.” I am thinking about this message, pissed off, riding my bike and the wind is blowing against me. I think to myself “If Jackson wants to buy an Xbox 360 he needs to go through Janelle and she would probably not think very highly of it. I’m single. I can buy an Xbox 360 if I want. I’m going to do it! That’ll show her!”
But the game that made me want a 360 instead of a PS3 or computer or whatever was Fallout 3. I had gotten the first Fallout back in ‘99 because it was one of the few games available on Mac. I really liked the non-linear plot and interacting in a world with choices with consequences. I re-played the game again about four year ago and it was still cool. The sequel was a very good addition and the general criticism of sequels being simply the original but bigger didn’t apply since the nature of the game was so open-ended it didn’t hurt to have a new bigger game.
So then I see a commercial for Fallout 3 somewhere online. It was pretty short but it ended saying “Fallout 03… Fall 08” and I am excited. It would not be until after I bought the 360 that I realized that it was the summer of 07. So I spend a year playing this and that game especially Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. It was put out by the same company which was producing Fallout 3. Also open-ended and awesome and beautifully done and a huge suck of my time.
Then finally Fallout 3 came out.
I have probably already put in forty hours of game time in the week since it has come out. I keep expecting my friends to start an intervention or something but one of the actual gifts of singleness is a lot of free time. I am still working and even hanging out. If anything I have given up coffee shop time and sleep for the game. BUT I will not be continuing this pace for very much longer.
Actual review of Fallout 3:
The first criticism I heard online about Fallout 3 was that it would end up being “Oblivion with guns.” This did not sound too bad to me because Oblivion was one of the best games I have ever played… but at the same time I understand part of what they were saying. Fallout had a flavor and a spirit in its style of RPG that was sometimes dark and gritty or morally ambiguous. Oblivion was more black and white and had a heroic flavor rather than grittiness. Also I always felt that the greatest strength to Fallout was the social system where you could have all kinds of conversations with different people and what you said had an affect on the story of the game. Oblivion’s social system was pretty lame. It was more of a mini-game to advance plot lines. Fallout 3’s creators heard a lot of rumbling about this and managed to create a system very similar system to the original Fallout series with the neat addition to give new dialogue options based upon skills and perks. My character is a science based pulp hero and in conversations I can short cut plot quests and add interesting tidbits based upon my high Intelligence or Medicine skill. Once I even had the option to reprogram a medical droid because I had a computer based perk.
Combat in Fallout 3 is almost nothing like it was in the originals but this makes sense sine they were a turn based system. That was okay ten years ago, it was just fine. But in a console centered world that wouldn’t fly for a half a second. They have an aiming like function (as far as I can tell this is the only reason to have high agility) that took me a while to figure out but once I did feel that I a terror to evil-doers in the waste land.
When it comes to combat in an RPG there are two ways to mess up. The Final Fantasy system is just simply too easy. I never had the slightest challenge unless it was requiring the patience to monster crunch to level up so I could walk through the big boss. The other is when there are too many deaths. Re-loading sucks a lot of fun out of the game especially if I have to go over the same plot of land ten times. In general what I want from an RGP is a system of combat that requires medium skill and wise character advancement. If I spent all of my points to advance my social skills I deserve to get my butt kicked in a hard fight. Buy if I spend my points well to balance the various needs of the game and I don’t rush the super-mutants with my bbgun I don’t want to die very often.
One of the Oblivion based fears was the enemies advancing at the same rate as the character. In Oblivion you could easily walk through the whole main plot as a level two character fighting level two monsters. This is lame. Fallout 3 has some of this but certain areas are simply lethal to beginning characters. But as I went up levels and felt that Raiders were chumps suddenly some kind of post-apocalypse bear practically pulled my arms off. It was pretty cool and I had to start walking around a little more carefully.
I beat the game with the ultra-good guy character. I enjoyed the game but considering how many hours I put in such a short time I think it is best that I not start another game any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)