Another deeply unappealing decision

Just a few thoughts on the highly probable nomination and rather likely ultimate victory of Hillary Clinton as the next POTUS:

1) Criticism of Clinton is not inherently sexist.

2) A lot of criticism of Clinton WILL be and IS sexist. And not just from Trump.

3) Anyone about to criticize Clinton would do well to pause long enough to ask 'would I criticize a rich white male candidate the same way?'

4) Names are going to be tricky. First man? Mrs./Madam President? When she visits Saudi Arabia, will she wear a head scarf? Lots of etiquette to grapple with.

5) Clinton is somewhat to the left of the American median on certain social issues, particularly those pertaining to women. In every other respect, she is center right or (in foreign policy) an out-and-out hawk. She is not a liberal ...

5a) ... I think. It's hard to say given how quiet she is on actually positions. This isn't as bad as it was to start the campaign, but she still shies away from actually opining on anything controversial, or as in Keystone, she waits until public opinion is clear and then sneaks out a presser where it's sure to be buried by the Pope's visit or other major news stories.

6) She is to Obama on transparent government and civil liberties as Obama is to John Yoo. That's not a compliment, and it's not just her email, either. She just doesn't seem to care about these issues.

7) She is thoroughly artificial and, as shown by the ongoing charlie-foxtrot of her emails, more than a little dishonest.

8) Not all of which is entirely her fault. The dishonesty, yes, but if I spent 25 years, sometimes bruising and often intensely personal, in the political spotlight, I'd probably be a little control-freakish myself. That doesn't make it a good quality to have in a president - it isn't - but it's probably unavoidable if we're going to have candidates with the depth and breadth of experience Clinton brings.

9) I could see myself voting for a moderate Republican over Clinton.

10) No such Republican has a chance of facing her. Trump isn't going to win, but neither is anyone who is willing to stand up and tell his voters that everything he's promising is bullshit.

And 11) Unless something truly bizarre should occur, I'll be voting for her in 13 months. Woo.

(inspired by this column from a few months back: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/charles-krauthammer/2015/04/21/krauthammer-queen-hillary-coronation/26090519/)

Yesterday, evil won

EDIT: I appear to have placed too much faith in the Great State of South Carolina: contrary to statements below, it appears the Confederate flag outside the capitol building was NOT lowered to half mast when the US and SC flags were lowered. Instead, they left it at full height. So that's, you know, horrifying. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150618/PC16/150619374

Ok. Let's talk about Charleston.

First off, in case anyone was still puzzled about whatever could have inspired Dylann Roof to kill 9 people in Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church (Looking at you, Rudy Gulianihttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/…/rudy-giuliani-charleston-chu…), let me lay your confusion to rest: He hated black people. He wore clothing with apartheid-era flags from African nations, he told his roommate (who should be remembered for the rest of his life as a feckless imbecile who could have spoken up and didn't) repeatedly that he wanted to spark a new civil war between whites and blacks, and he told one of the survivors in the church that "You rape our women and you’re taking over our country and you have to go." This was not a jilted lover going overboard, this was not a bout of delusion or mental illness, this was racism.

What makes America exceptional

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/03/obama-and-american-exceptionalism/?tid=sm_tw

This is an interesting article, and one that helps me understand a distinction I had not previously recognized. I do not believe America is the greatest country on Earth. Even if such a subjective statement could be quantified, there is no possible metric by which America can be said to stand above all others (and yes, the opening monologue from The Newsroom is on point here) ... except, perhaps, for aspiration.

More people want to be in America, to become American, than any other nation. The reason for that is not (or shouldn't be) quality of life; otherwise, the most popular nation on Earth would be Sweden, probably. And yet people aspire to be like us, or like our best vision of ourselves, because moreso than any other country, we aspire to be better too. And as the article says, it's not been the wealthy and privileged who've striven for continuous improvement in America: it's been "the ability of the unsung and the outsiders to challenge the country’s elite and force change."

After the scripture reading, part 3

I love my job, but there's a drawback to being a courts reporter. Several really ugly crimes are up for me to write about in the next week or two, which means lots of reading really ugly criminal complaints. Everything is not ok.

Anyway, a lighter diversion is my recurring series on the scriptures chosen each week for our church services, and the frequently funny, horrible or otherwise discordant passages that come immediately afterward. This week comes to us a passage from Revelation, chapter 5 verses 11-14:

11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice,

“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”

13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,

“To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”

14 And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.

Which is a very nice passage, although best taken with a grain of salt: the fact that a snippet of meaningful imagery should slip its way into the torrent of hallucinogenic froth that is Revelation is no more surprising - and no more meaningful - than that the face of the Virgin Mary should on rare occasion manifest itself on pieces of toast.

So, what comes next? Why, Revelation 6, of course! Which, if you're too lazy to click the link, is the classic bit where the four horsemen are introduced: Conquest, War, Famine and Death.

Not one stone will be left on top of another

Fuck Baltimore.

I can't find the post now, but at one point during the resurgent riots after a Missouri prosecutor massaged a grand jury to ensure he had a fig leaf not to charge Darren Wilson, I wrote on one social media or another something to the effect that I was torn, that rioting would only be more ammunition for those who support police in their brutality, but that if I were a young black man in Ferguson, I'd probably be out there overturning cars as well.

I am no longer conflicted.

After the scripture reading, part 2

Maybe I'll make a series of this. I'm thinking this might be a fun ongoing project.

This week's scripture was Acts 16:23-34, which is the bit about Paul and Silas in jail and there's an earthquake but they don't run away and then they tell the jailer not to kill himself and then he becomes Christian and gets his whole family saved with him whether they become Christian themselves or not because woo.

Ok, that last bit was uncalled for. It's fairly standard for biblical texts to present decisions by patriarchal males as group decisions. And it does say the rest of the household rejoiced with him, so I guess it wasn't too onerous to change religions overnight.

But anyway, that's what was chosen to read in church. What comes immediately after? Is it horrible, like the two I cited last week? Well, not really, but there's a reason this passage isn't cited as much: it's Paul playing politics.

Reading between the (approved) lines

My favorite part of scripture readings at church is reading the verses immediately AFTER the chosen reading, which are invariably horrid. The reading ending with Isaiah 25:9 misses the wonderous bit in verses 10 and 11 about how the Moabites will be crushed into a dungheap, and EVEN THOUGH they spread out their arms like swimmers to stay afloat in the poop, STILL the Lord will smoosh them in deeper. A truly lovely picture of a loving God.

Or this week, the scripture was the bit at the end of Acts 4 about how the early Christians were actually as determinedly anti-Capitalist as a society can be, which is cool. And then it ended, and I kept reading the bit about Ananias and Sapphira, where God murders two people for being generous, but not generous enough. Because the Lord Almighty was Stalinist before Stalinism was a thing, yo. Still had a little Old Testament to get out of his system, maybe?

The first is less unsettling than the second - God may be disgusting and prone to stomping people who already are down, but at least isn't murdering them out of spite - but both are still definitely not high points for the biblical God. And yet more reason why anyone who claims their morality stems for a literal reading of the Bible is either full of (but not drowning in!) shit, or utterly insane.

The point of no return

I never played Spec Ops: The Line, but I did binge a few months ago on its TVtropes page, and I also read several articles and interviews about and with the developers. This is a game that took considerable inspiration from Apocalypse Now and its own predecessor, Heart of Darkness; unsurprisingly, such a pedigree resulted in a much darker and more self-aware take on the standard military shooter than is common.

What stuck with me was a comment made by one of the executives or produces from the company - one of the people whose job depends on making a popular and financially successful product - who said in an interview that the game was intentionally designed so that there would come a point where the only morally defensible option available to the player would be to turn off the game and stop playing.

I thought that a fascinating concept at the time, but having just read ALL the spoilers on TVtropes, I didn't feel the need to buy it and see for myself. But now I can attest to that phenomenon, because for the first time, I have shelved a video game because of my discomfort with what it is calling on me to do.

The Atlantic, The Intercept, and what the story is actually about

A few days ago, I read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/. I thought it was outstanding, both as a piece of writing and as an example of journalism that can actually clarify horrifically complicated questions and help people make decisions with significant real-world impact.

Today, I read https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/20/atlantic-defines-real-islam-says-isis/ via the twitter account of Glenn Greenwald (which, despite my enormous respect for the work he does, I find very irritating; everything he tweets or retweets seems to start from the base assumption that American foreign policy can do no right, end of story.)

I think the author of the second piece is misreading Wood's article as badly as he or she accuses Wood of misreading Islam.

The point of the Atlantic piece is not to establish which variant of Islam is correct or 'most Islamic', and neither does it claim to do so. Wood's stated goal was to determine what ISIS wants, and he persuasively argues that what they want is based on a very strict reading of the founding texts of Islam. That hundreds of millions of Muslims, including many highly knowledgeable and deeply devout Muslims, disagree with this interpretation has little bearing on whether or not ISIS will base its actions on these beliefs, which is entirely what the article was about in the first place. And while I wish he hadn't used the phrase 'cotton-candy view of their own religion', it is true that many both in and out of the Muslim community have denied that ISIS has any connection with Islam out of disgust and embarrassment rather than scholarly and doctrinal grounds.

If you read the Atlantic article as trying to determine whether ISIS represents "true Islam" (a phrase which, despite the headline of the rebuttal, never appears in the original article), of course it is hilariously unbalanced. But *it isn't trying to do that.* What he is trying - and I think he succeeds - to do is to shed a light on the way a very particular group thinks and the reasons it thinks that way. One can have “a coherent and even learned expression of Islam" and still disagree with other members of the faith, or even be a minority. And while he does not stress of the many non-ISIS Muslims that "their version of the religion is more genuine," neither does he claim that ISIS's version is more genuine. All he's doing is describing what their version is, where it comes from, and what it means in terms of predicting the future actions of the group.

And as an American voter who needs to have an opinion about ISIS and what the U.S. should do about it, I'm very grateful that he did so.

I sympathize with the author of the second piece, Murtaza Hussain, who I assume is Muslim. It must be horrifying to see and hear about such acts perpetrated in the name of your own faith when your own understanding of that faith is so radically opposed to such acts. It's ridiculous that, like far to many Muslims, I'm sure Hussain has been called on repeatedly to defend his faith or to publicly denounce the actions of ISIS and its ilk, like a sort of loyalty test for 'the good Muslims.' I'm equally certain that many of the people already inclined to blame Islam as a whole for the actions of some adherents have misread Wood's piece just as Hussain has, and that he's already had to deal with repeated doses of idiocy from such folk.

But make no mistake: although very narrow in its scope (and http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/in-defense-of-islam/?_r=0 and http://www.unz.com/gnxp/islam-is-not-a-religion-of-the-book/ both discuss important factors to consider that fell outside the scope of Wood's article), this is journalism that we need. The fact that Wood's article will inevitably be misinterpreted by readers with a prior agenda against Islam is no reason to misinterpret it in the same way. Because ISIS is a problem, and anyone trying to grapple with that problem, whether from a doctrinal or foreign policy perspective, must be willing to confront why ISIS does and believes what it does ... no matter how uncomfortable such a study is likely to be.

EDIT: Another good article on the distinction between labeling a group Islamic on a theological level rather than a sociological level. I think it's fairly clear that the original article dealt with Islam as a sociological phenomenon, but I can see how some readers who regard Islam as a theological system could misinterpret Wood's statement that the group is 'very Islamic' as an endorsement of their interpretation of the faith.

The definition of insanity

The definition of insanity, of course, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So we are told by Albert Einstein, who was a marvelously smart man, although I'm not aware of any particular credentials he held in the field of mental health. Still, let's accept that as at least a valid definition of insanity.

And has there been any better example of such repetitive insanity in the last 50 years than American policy toward Cuba?

Let me state upfront that I'm not a fan of the Castros. They appear to have been brutal thugs when they took over 50 years ago, and they continue to be brutal thugs today. Their removal from power in Cuba is a worthy goal, both on behalf of the Cuban people and in terms of American regional interests. I believe that this motivation was a significant portion of the reasoning behind the American embargo that was put in place after our catastrophe at Bay of Pigs and remains in place to this day. (If I'm feeling generous, I'll say that it was the primary motivation, although other motivations definitely played a large role, i.e. 'showing the Soviets that our penis is bigger than theirs' and 'protecting the economic interests of American companies and businessmen who have been using Cuba as their private fiefdom with our political support for a generation.')

There's only one problem. It hasn't worked.

From the trenches of #GamerGate

EDIT: I thought the argument was over, but it's flared up again, so I've added some more of the arguments below.

Republished from an argument with a friend-of-a-friend on said friend's facebook wall. The person with whom I was arguing professed not to be a member or supporter of GamerGate, but held some very GamerGate-ish views of Anita Sarkeesian, including, in the preceding posts, arguing that the reason she 'attacked' video games was to intentionally draw hate with which to increase her own popularity and victimhood.

My response after the jump:

Thoughts on the election

Well, that's over and done with. I'm mildly disgruntled about the results, on both a state and national level. It's not like the Democrats particularly deserved to win either, but the number of positions shifted to the GOP, as well as the overall strength of their victory, means the crap that won't get done over the next few years will be slightly more unpalatable than the crap that wouldn't have gotten done otherwise.

As a copy editor, I get to follow election news whether I like it or not. As such, here are a few of my takeaways from Democalypse 2014:

There's a definite downside to being a gamer these days

I realized something the other day. All my life, I have self-identified first and foremost as a reader. I took an obscure pride in being the kid from whom the teachers always had to confiscate books in class, and even after I stopped doing that, I still majored in English in large part because that's what someone who loves to read ought to do. So it was disconcerting to realize that I spend considerably more time and energy playing video games, reading about video games and thinking about video games than I do reading (even counting reading news stories online, which I do), thinking about reading or following the publishing industry.

On its own, that's a little sad. While there definitely are video games of such richness and artistry to elevate the player's perception of the world in the same way that a good book will do, they are few and far between in the game industry, and the vast majority of my gaming time is spent on games with much lower culture capital to offer: MMOs, match-based multiplayer games and single player games with stories that exist to get you to the next gameplay objective. These games have their own sort of value - in particular, the social aspect of these online games is a big part of my life these days - but it's not the same value I'd be getting from intentionally seeking out and exposing myself to the best stories told by the best thinkers.

So that's a cause for regret, but a relatively small one. A bigger issue is that if there was ever a time not to want to think of oneself as a gamer, this is it.

(Unhappy words about GamerGate after the jump.)

A deeply unappealing decision

Busy couple of weeks, including moving to a new apartment. Good to be back.

So, Wisconsin politics are less fraught than they were when I first started this blog, but only because I started the blog during a time of quite unprecedented fraughtitude; things remain less than collegial in the halls of Madison, the moreso now that the governor's race is heating up for round 3: this time not with Tom Barrett!

There are a number of things going on that could affect that race (in particular, the long-simmering John Doe investigation which has been tied up in highly technical procedural knots for weeks, resulting in some supremely uninteresting wire stories. My take: I think Walker and co. truly believe that their reciprocal backscratching with 3rd parties like club for growth met the letter of the law, and that they wouldn't recognize the spirit of the law if it attempted to gnaw off their sexual organs of preference). While there are ongoing sideshows regarding reproductive rights and gay marriage, the main thrust of this election seems to be economic. The Walker camp argues that they have balanced the budget and made life easier for local governments to do the same and that the state has added 100K+ jobs under his tenure. The camp of his opponent, Mary Burke, counters that he balanced the budget on the backs of public workers and recklessly cut tax revenues, that Wisconsin lags all the surrounding states in job creation, and that in any case, he had promised 250K+ jobs in his first term. The Walker camp counters that she was commerce secretary under previous Democratic governor Jim Doyle and therefore must be responsible for the crushing deficits and highly unpopular chicanery undertaken to resolve them seen during his tenure. The Burke camp counters that he's a doo-doo head, etc., etc.

Anyone who was around when I first started blogging knows my feelings about Walker. They've not changed. But despite my pronounced antipathy toward him and his, I'm finding it hard to get a lot of enthusiasm built up for this election, because Burke is an abysmal candidate, with no more integrity, decorum or competence than Walker.

Keep on keepin' on

Not much to say; I was out of town most of the holiday weekend and didn't get the itch to write anything extensive. I'm also looking forward to some upcoming changes: after a year living in the hallway/closet I grew up in, I'm soon to start looking into apartments with a wee bit more space, along with making certain other changes in my schedule and goings on. If it proves interesting or thought provoking, I might blog about it; otherwise, it'll just happen. Have a good week, and look forward to me revisiting and finishing off one of my several unfinished drafts the next time I have a day off. o7

Do I work for Facebook, or does Facebook work for me?

Here's a thought I've been having.

One of the things that Twitter does right is it allows you to customize and subdivide your news feed. If you want to make a list of only people you actually know, you can do that. If you want to have a list of just feminist film critics, you can do that. If you want to have a list of just ginsing growers in Laos, you probably can do that (assuming that there are actually ginsing growers in Laos with twitter accounts, which would not surprise me in the slightest). Google plus has something similar, allowing you to add accounts to one or more custom-made circles that you can check independently. Facebook, though, is all or nothing. There used to be an option to set a given contact to more or less frequent appearances on your wall, but those controls seem to be removed, and instead we see what the FB sorting algorithm thinks we want to see. There are no options that I can find to create specialty lists, and the only option to affect the frequency of a particular poster appearing on your wall is to block their posts entirely, in which case, you might as well not be following them. (You also can set your FB to show most recent posts rather than top posts, but I find that it seems to reset itself frequently, and that the result is flooded by even more garbage posts from pages you liked once four years ago and forgot about)

Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, Facebook's algorithm is designed to serve the dual masters of telling us what our friends are doing and making money for Facebook, to the detriment of the former. In particular, the feed prioritizes high-engagement content with lots of likes and shares. Among a group of friends, this might lead to more people seeing important posts like engagement announcements and the like. When a user follows both friends and other pages, however, the balance seems to become badly skewed toward pages. It's hard for anyone I know in real life to compete with Cracked and The Lion King and Al Jazeera English for post engagement, meaning that the people I actually know and care about are buried beneath posts from national and international pages. Furthermore, even posts from popular pages are filtered by their engagement. Felicia Day has blogged about the problems this causes for her - that it incentivizes her to post things tailored for higher traffic (read: pictures of her being attractive) and makes it harder for views - artistic, social, intellectual - to compete with 'mainstream' views; in effect, Facebook becomes an enforcer of the societal status quo. And that's a problem.

Fault and responsibility

I've been pondering for a while that there is a shortcoming in the English language. If someone does something bad, it's their fault. If someone is in charge when a bad thing happens, it's their responsibility. But we don't really have a word or phrase to describe someone whose actions knowingly make it more likely that someone else will do a bad thing. It's not their fault; the person who actually does the bad thing needs to get the blame. They're not responsible for the bad thing, because they didn't do a bad thing and weren't in charge of making sure other people don't do bad things. And yet, if they hadn't done what they did, the bad thing would not have happened (or at least been less likely to happen).

This has been on my mind for personal reasons - during a disagreement, I used fault/blame language, implying that the person I was speaking to would be to blame if a third party did a bad thing, when what I wanted to say was that his/her actions were making it enormously more likely that a third party would do a bad thing; this did not do a lot to resolve the disagreement. I'm hoping that in the future I'll be wiser about using language that addresses causes without apportioning blame.

But in addition to my own experience, this distinction between fault and contributing cause also, I think, is very relevant to the latest outbreak of bloodshed between Israel and Gaza. If you're fed up with that whole situation and don't want to read about it any more, this is your cue to wander off; otherwise, read on.

High five, low five: Guardians of the Galaxy

First, a note from the management: Google tells me that people are reading this! Granted, Google tells me that sometimes 20 people at a time are reading this in Turkey, which seems implausible, but many strange and magical things are possible on the internet. While I enjoy declaring my opinions to the self-affirming nods of the masses as much as the next guy, loyal readers and Turkish spambots also are reminded that comments are welcome and encouraged from whoever has something to add on any topic (which probably rules out the Turkish spambots, but oh well).

My expectations for Marvel's latest movie were fairly high. Guardians of the Galaxy is rocking a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes (for the first twenty or so reviews, it was 100%) and I had several positive endorsements from friends and coworkers. I have to say, what I saw did not live up to those expectations.  It's not a bad movie - there are things it did quite well, and things it didn't - but overall, I came away unsatisfied. And I'm disappointed, not to mention a little bit surprised; I've usually been in agreement with the general degree of approbation or opprobrium applied to MCU movies, or even erred on the side of liking movies that other reviewers found blah, and it's puzzling that so many reviewers and writers are responding to this one so much more positively than I. Are we sure we're all watching the same movie?

I'm not a huge fan of the traditional 'movie review' - I enjoy reading them after I watch a movie because they sometimes catch things I missed, but they're generally far to short and subjective to guide one in actually forming an opinion - but I kinda liked what I did for the second HTTYD movie, a list of five successful and unsuccessful elements, so I'm doing that again. Read on for five things I liked a lot and five that I liked not so much at all in Guardians of the Galaxy, complete with exhaustive explanations and diatribes thereupon.

Poster a gift from my boss, who saw it in IMAX instead of working on a night the state
supreme court issued three major rulings. I might forgive him eventually.

And yes, there are **SPOILERS.** Duh. Consider yourself warned.

(I've also tried to avoid too much discussion of the overall Marvel Cinematic Universe and the greater interaction of comic books and movies, not because that's not an interesting topic, but because it's too interesting, and to complex, to try to tackle alongside my specific thoughts on GotG. Look for another post on that sometime soon.)

Spend your principles wisely

Missed my update earlier this week, but I have another day off today, so here's a somewhat belated post.

I mentioned in my last post the "Lost Fleet" books by Jack Campbell, which I've been rereading lately (the main reason I didn't have a post together on Monday). While I'm still not convinced that the books are 'good' by any conventional standard, they do have the occasional flash of very keen insight so contrary to the general level of the books that I wonder if they slip in by accident (example: earlier today I read a passage where a character witnesses an orbital bombardment and muses that this is what hell must be: not a place of torment, but a place where death has come and gone and human hands have wiped away any trace that life - human or otherwise - was ever here. I had to stop and think about that one for a bit.)

Another bit that has stuck with me comes from an earlier book. A central theme, inasmuch as these books can be said to have themes, in the series is the conflict and mistrust between military and political institutions and mindsets. One character, attempting to explain the latter to the former, uses an interesting comparison. While military leaders must carefully husband their forces and, if necessary, risk and sacrifice them reluctantly and only in pursuit of essential goals, a political leader must do the same with his principles, defending and stewarding them until the day comes that they must be dearly spent for a more urgent purpose. I thought that was very insightful at the time, and the more I've thought about it sense, the more it has affected my understanding of both military and political conflict and leadership.

Which brings me to the present.

Three stages of mastery

It's a little dismaying to look back at the coursework I did in education classes and realize how little I actually know today about how people learn things. Some I've forgotten in the 5-ish years since Ed Psych, but most I don't think I ever learned in the first place, nor realized I hadn't until I got to actual teaching. But while I don't have much to show for my academic training in learning, I have found a model that I quite like to explain the stages - if not the process - of learning, and on a related tangent, when, whether and how rules ought to be broken.

This almost - almost - pushed me to figure out how to resubmit memebase posters so that I could
say something along the lines of  'Oddly enough, Marvel seems to agree with you ...'