Elsewhere Interweb

Me at Facebook:

(Name omitted), don't say "Jewed." For starters, name me one Jewish oil tycoon. Or one Jewish convenience store.

You got Cheneyed, friend, Cheneyed.

Elsewhere Interweb

Me at Facebook:

I think the obesity epidemic is one of the most pressing issues in the US bodypolitic. More than half of all of us are overweight. More than a third of us are obese. As a result, ours is the first generation that has a lower life expectancy than the previous. However, I find taxes on any junk food problematic because junk food is--unlike cigarettes or alcohol--still food, and, if you're poor enough, still necessary to survive.

If we levy a tax on junk, people who can afford to buy healthier food might. I say "might" because I have found that eating healthier food isn't just prevented by cost, but also time. Healthier eating requires more cooking and more planning. Our poorest citizens--the ones who work the most--not only have less money to spend, but less time for anything else. Also, if you're a person who eats fast food twice a day and dines on Hungry Man at night, there's a strong chance you'll save money in subbing healthy sandwiches, stir frys, salads, and fresh fruit. But, again, this requires time, something that our poorest and fattest demographics can't necessarily offer. So a tax may only succeed in making them more poor and unhealthy and may help improve those who could afford to eat better anyway.

I think a better solution would be to call on the surgeon general to produce incentive programs for healthy eating. Junk food needs a warning. People understand that junk food is bad, certainly, but they need cold, hard specifics on the label. THIS TWINKIE CONTAINS TRANS-FATS WHICH, IN A 1992 STUDY, WERE DISCOVERED TO INCREASE CHANCES OF HEART DISEASE BY 35%. How many literate people might put that damn thing down?

Secondly, income-assistance programs need to extol the virtues of healthy eating. When I see people using food coupons or buying WIC, their approved items are hot dogs and Kool-Aid, not Lean Cuisines and ground turkey. No wonder they're fat; they can only afford food that will kill them and send their medical bills through the roof.

Third, we need legal reform on what food is allowed in schools. Like tobacco companies, junk food producers love to hook users young. This is why Coke and Pepsi battle for contracts with middle- and high-schools. If a kid develops a chip and soda habit before graduation, then the junk food producers have them for life. Meanwhile, lets stop serving these kids prison food.

Lastly, we need a healthy eating ad campaign, similar to the feel-good "Pass it on" campaign of yore. We need citizens to be proud of eating healthy because, in doing so, they take better care of themselves and their families. They can also be better contributors to society by driving down health costs, missing less work and, uh, not dying so soon.

Elsewhere Interweb

Do not f*ck with Bionic Commando: Rearmed. This is the spiritual mantra of Capcom's re-imagining of their 1988 NES classic. While it isn't quite at Ninja Gaiden levels, death is constant, often, and happens a whole helluvalot in BC:RA.

But every true gamer knows that sheer challenge doesn't make a game. By that standard, Rise of the Robots is an unplayable masterpiece. No, what makes the player return for death after control-flinging death in BC:RA is the fact that it's almost never the game's fault. Moving around the world map may be annoying, but BC:RA's precision, in-level controls are the stuff of gaming legend, on par with Mega Man, Tecmo's already-mentioned signature game franchise and any title by hard-core developer Treasure.

Meanwhile, BC:RA's difficulty also begs for a cultural revival in video games; not the one associated with achievement whoring, the one associated with getting good for good's sake (only slightly different). Around 1/5 of the secrets in BC:RA don't even empower the player; they simply unlock more challenge rooms. Alternately put, this game rewards completion of blisteringly hard game play with more blisteringly hard game play. And bragging rights on Capcom's leaderboards.

When you take these play mechanics--that turn novices into pros over 12 levels--and marry them with retina-seering graphics, Simon Viklund's flawless 8-bit-tronica soundtrack, and a $10 MSRP, you have the gold standard by which all other downloadable content and classic game retreads should be measured.

For these reasons, I believe Bionic Commando:Rearmed to (also) be game of the year.

Elsewhere Interweb

Late in Grand Theft Auto IV, the player is tasked with kidnapping a daughter of a local don, Gracie Ancelotti, for ransom. Like many missions in GTA, getting Gracie to her destination becomes a lesson in creativity and random experimentation, chiefly because she tries to wreck the car the entire trip. What most players figure out is that the drive-by fire button allows protagonist Niko Bellic to knock Gracie unconscious, making for a smooth trip to the safe house. And that's just the beginning of the required domestic abuse. Subsequent missions have the player taunting and photographing her in a battered state.

Missions like this one are the embodiment of what makes GTA:IV so compelling. Comparably to the darkly comic mockumentary Man Bites Dog, GTA:IV lures the player into its satiric world of dick jokes and leftist politics, eliciting the feeling that nothing that bad is going to happen. But then the player reaches the latter third of the game and becomes party to hedonist violence and difficult moral choices, all underscored by the fact that Niko Bellic is an illegal immigrant whose every action spells political commentary of various sorts.

In other words, GTA:IV is every bit the controversial video game the moral watchdogs say it is, just for an entirely different set of reasons. Players don't just watch Niko, they play him, which means that even if they disagree with how he feels, they still take up his ideals in order to advance the game. This overtly politicized gameplay is a first for the industry, but it's also a breakthrough for all arts. No other medium can claim to be so uncompromising and it's a wonder more games haven't been this way since narrative was introduced in the mid-80's.

For these reasons, I believe Grand Theft Auto IV to be game of the year.

Elsewhere Interweb

I see how you would be skeptical about whether the efforts of this woman (Mariane Pearl) would help or harm the state of global terrorism and I would attribute it to the unavoidable pathos you emphasize. Terrorism results in innocent deaths and has religious and socio-economic issues all mixed in. Plus, there's the personal aspect--the assault on ideals--that provokes the darkest parts of our consciousness when attacked.

I would argue that Pearl would have a tremendous responsibility when writing about her husband's death: to not provoke counter-productive hatred. I strongly believe that terrorists should be brought to justice, but it's easy to decide that all Muslims are terrorists (naturally not true), all terrorists are Muslim (not Timothy McVeigh) and that killing them all will make the problem go away (almost all terrorist groups are born out of the socio-economic issues mentioned earlier, so killing them all is a band-aid at best, never-ending genocide at worst).

Unfortunately, Pearl could report with all the nuance in the world regarding terrorism and it might still be counter-intuitive. The problem: audience. Prejudices such as what I mentioned are irrational ideas that aren't easily won over. Sometimes, I wonder if efforts like that of Pearl actually bring about any change.

Elsewhere Interweb

I dislike that hard-core pro-lifers often vote on only two other issues: gay marriage and immigration. In other words, they go into the voting booth thinking, "There are only three issues I care about, two of which I don't have to participate in, but I want made illegal anyway, and a third one I depend upon despite outwardly opposing it and being completely powerless to boycott it." And then they vote. Every time some one like that pulls the lever, Socrates must drown a sophist.

Elsewhere Interweb

From a discussion on bumper stickers that read "Obama is the Antichrist".
--
A citizen who calls a politican "The Antichrist" with a straight face is not your average person who follows the news. This person is a fringe radical, one who builds a pillbox in the backyard (for zee Germans) or who insists on sewing their own clothes and living in a box to "stick it to the man". When their ideological opposite is elected into office, they decide the country is circling the drain. As admirable as their rugged invidualism is, these people are motivated by fear, hatred and ignorance. Hence the extreme labeling. Sometimes racism is involved, as in the above example.

Elsewhere Interweb

(Name omitted), it's impossible to separate one way in which this cartoon offends from another. The reason: this nation's historic linking of the African-American identity with apes/monkeys. This is inseparable from American politics because the nation has not yet atoned for it. Even afterward, it probably won't be acceptable. You're right, the president is open to criticism, but not anything that can be construed as racist. That's why Bush can be called a monkey and Obama can't. Well, that and the fact that Bush really did look like a monkey.

Neither the editors of the New York Post nor the illustrator are stupid. They knew the connotations that came with the cartoon and ran it anyway. That should be enough for any American who cares about civil rights to never buy the New York Post again.

In other words, there is no "if you're a member, then I understand". If you believe in Civil Rights (which I'm sure you do) you should be offended.

And (name omitted), this isn't a case of political correctness gone too far; see this nation's ongoing history of oppressing minorities. Political cartoonists don't have to be extra careful. They just have to be not-racist.

Elsewhere InterWeb

Plato asserts: Rhetoric is not neutral.

I agree. Objectivity in the art of persuasion is a complete
contradiction. Even so, when we make objectivity a virtue in searching for truth, habit always gives way to preconceptions that develop along the way. This isn't such a bad thing; it's just the way things are.

Consider the current political climate. President Obama recently put a spending freeze on big Federal salaries and helped author an ambitious bi-partisan stimulus package. One might presume that bi-partisanship indicates an ignoring of party rhetoric, but I say no.

It's just a shift to the needs of the citizenry, which may happen to coincide with the wants either political party. I know some of you might disagree and my advice to you is to read up on previous presidencies.

For example, W. Bush thought only tax cuts would revive an ailing economy in the wake of September 2001 [as opposed to the massive over haul we're undergoing now] and, eventually, the bottom dropped out. First the housing crisis, then the credit crunch, the banks failing, energy costs increasing and massive lay offs. Was Bush to blame for these problems exclusively? Absolutely not. But Bush was in office when the focus shifted to the economy in 2001 and his answer was tax-cuts only, most of which gave the biggest breaks to the wealthiest citizens (i.e. those who
suffered the least).

"But Brute, stop bashing Bush! He's not even in office anymore!" Point taken, but this is about something greater. Besides Clinton (the former president, not the senator), also looked the other way when faced with signs of the same economic problems. As a conservative lapdog, he did away with the Federal Welfare Program and deregulated the telecommunications industry, which is why cable and cell phone services are either oligopolies or monopolies.

Anyway, the actions of both presidents indicate an allegiance to one thing: ideology. Bush was reluctant to anger his constituents (and wanted to get re-elected), so he put the tax-cut band-aid on the economy. Clinton acted similarly in that he conceded to a Republican congress when he should have been thinking about the average citizen.

The decisions by both men were primarily forced by the political establishment (the rhetoric of the party). If they wanted careers in politics, they had to lose some scruples and maybe not think about the people.

Today, it would seem that President Obama is in tune to rhetoric of the people. He remains objective to the ideas of both parties, but, as one of his most ardent supporters, I predict that he too will make concessions to the establishment. Regardless, rhetoric, the art of persuasion, can not be seen as nuetral.

My Genius. From Elsewhere, InterWeb.

Your comment about the Bible being written by ordinary men reminds me of my theory about the story of Jesus Christ.

Two guys are walking down the street. One is named Jesus. The other guy, let's call him George Walker, bumps into Jesus not unintentionally because it's a bad day for him (George).

"Watch where you're goin', hippie!" says George, rudely.

It creates a scene because Jesus falls down and scrapes his knee. Uncool. Jesus stands and sizes George up real quick. George, looking for a fight, says, "Yeah, maybe it wasn't an accident. Maybe you got what was coming to you, huh pal?"

And he beats his chest and throws up his dukes. Jesus, calmly, asks George what's wrong? Is his harvest bad? Does his goat not give milk? Is his wife seeing the stable-keeper on the side? What gives?

George bursts into tears. "Aw, man, it's all those things!" And he throws his arms around Jesus in apology and consolation. Jesus, who happens to be George's neighbor, overhears the scandal of the Walker household frequently but he says nothing more to George about it. Instead he says, "It's alright, friend."

The passersby erupt into applause and everyone is happy. Jesus, while he has everyone's attention, reminds his audience that it's good to be nice to people, even mean people. Especially mean people.

The story of Jesus and George spreads across the city, then neighboring cities and then neighboring nations. Each time the story is passed, maybe some details get forgotten or a more interesting detail gets added. Maybe Jesus didn't just give George a hug; he made his wheat grow and sent a wave of locusts onto the house of the stable-keeper. Maybe George becomes three different guys, each named Judas, Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate. A century passes and four guys in remote locations all decide, "Man the stuff that Jesus did ought to be written down."

Six centuries later, you have the proto-orthodox church.