Song of the Day

When He's Right...

David Frum hits the nail on the head:

The Obama administration has launched American troops into a much more intense fight in Afghanistan – one-quarter of all Afghan casualties have been suffered in the past three months – while hesitating to add the reinforcements for which the troops’ commanders clamor. Ten months into his administration he has developed doubts about the war he once declared a war of necessity. Seems it’s not so necessary as all that. Tell me: if it’s wrong to make war for oil – what is it to talk war for votes?

Many Republicans and right wingers are hitting the President's indecision as playing politics with war. Well, they're about a year too late. The President's indecision is very real and appropriate to the serious choice that he must make. The President's certainty about Afghanistan on the campaign trail was not real, it was bullshit. Like his vote of FISA, the President used the Afghan war to defend against "soft on terrorism" attacks. Now, he can't back out of a situation that a man of his intellect must see as least dire if not impossible.

Song of the Day

When Liberalism Can Be Very, Very Bad

I love feminism like I love conservatism (true conservatism). I have profound respect for it, but often disagree with it. With feminism, however, I find I disagree around the edges. I'm for total abortion rights, but I don't think the government should provide direct funding for the procedure. Human trafficking and the abuse of sex workers is a problem that requires immediate address, but I think the answer is to be found in either decriminalization or legalization and regulation. Etc, etc, etc. This is because feminism falls under the umbrella of liberalism, a political philosophy to which I often hold. Liberalism seeks equality of access as a central tenet and relies on principles, not pragmatism. As such, it functions very well in regard to domestic policy. Foreign policy, on the other hand, not so much.

Michelle Goldberg details the debate over Afghanistan on feminist grounds:

To a large degree, the answer depends on whether one believes that the American military can be a force for humanitarianism. After the last eight years, that's a hard faith to sustain. Staying in Afghanistan seems indefensible. The trouble is, so does leaving.

This is when liberalism can be very, very bad. Foreign policy is not the place for principles. Well, it's not the place for humanitarianism. I've been debating this with my friend a lot recently. It's almost a certainty that the Taliban will return if the US and NATO forces leave. This will mean oppression and horrific violence for the Afghan peoples in what areas the Taliban can control. The liberal principle in effect here is "the United States has a responsibility to protect the people." Some feminists argue that the US has to protect the women. Well, no we don't.

The US has the responsibility to defend its interests. We went into Afghanistan to hit the people that hit us. Now, we're there to...what, be a bulwark against Taliban rule? If that's actually our mission, to prevent the Taliban from ever returning, we should just do away with the pretensions and declare Afghanistan a colony of the United States because we're gonna be there forever. Goldberg quotes a feminist as saying that we need to stay until the Afgan army can do the job. This is stupid. The Afghan army is a joke and always will be with warlords effectively controlling much of the Afghan "government." Furthermore, the Pakistani army is an effective fighting force and even it cannot control nor defend against the Taliban forces within Pakistan. If we are to defend Afghan women from the Taliban, we will be defending them forever. That's a task we do not have the money, personnel, or stomach for. We don't benchmarks or objectives or whatever term that's in use now. In such a situation, you get out, you get out as fast as you can. This is not "indefensible" as Goldberg puts it. It's necessary. We cannot be the defenders of women across the globe, nor can we allow ourselves to think we can be. That only leads to colonialism.

Baseball Picks and the Series

Here are my picks from the beginning of the season:

AL:
East - Red Sox
Central - White Sox
West - Angels
Wild Card - Yankees

ALCS - Red Sox v. Yankees

NL:
East - Phillies
Central - Cubs
West - Dodgers
Wild Card - Mets

NLCS - Phillies v. Dodgers

World Series - Red Sox v. Phillies
World Series Champion - Red Sox

AL MVP - Evan Longoria
NL MVP - Albert Pujols
Al Cy Young - CC Sabathia
NL Cy Young - Tim Lincecum

Obviously, I got most of this wrong. I called Phillies and the Yanks to an extent, but the rest of it is just awful. I mean the Cubs and the White Sox? Dunno what I was thinking.

As for the World Series: I couldn't imagine two better teams. Two pretty good rotations going up against two amazing lineups. I'm a sentimentalist when it comes to baseball and seeing Alex Rodriguez challenge Cliff Lee pulls at that string pretty hard. This series has potential for amazing moments. I call Yankees in 5, because of late game failures of the Phillies bullpen. Then again, judging by my pre-season picks, I know nothing.

Creed Will Never Be Okay

This is the perfect response to one of the worst music reviews ever.

Song of the Day

BSG's Best

I just wanted to pay tribute to one of my favorite scenes from television this year. Battlestar Galactica was a great show. Its great weakness was the long arc. Ron Moore doesn't like arcing out a story over a few seasons and it showed. What BSG excelled at were the short arcs and characters. And, the latter is what this scene demonstrates.

This scene is perfect in every way. Baltar's complexity and care are in every shot of James Callis's face. And Gaeta, oh Gaeta. Such a nothing character to begin with. They started developing him late and he appeared weak, maybe even weaselly. He passed notes to the insurgency on New Caprica, he lied about Baltar's guilt, and then he became the leader of the insurrection on Galactica. This scene boils that all down to about two minutes. Gaeta never really believed in any of these things, or if he did, they didn't define him. Gaeta spent his whole life searching for what was his, what he was good at, until he found his own demise. Gaeta's money line:

I just hope--I hope people realize eventually who I am.

That line is directed at much at the viewing audience as much as it is at Baltar or the Galactica crew.

This was BSG at its best and, after cataloging all the shows I watch now, I miss it.

Song of the Day

Glenn Beck's Model

Glenn Beck just keeps bringin' with the crazy.

Yes, you heard that right. This is just like Mao's China. Pretty soon we'll be getting mass killings (who doesn't believe Barack Obama wants to kill you for your land) and forced labor camps ('cause soon the President is going to institute a new jobs program, at gun point) all because a bunch of people in the entertainment industry want to promote volunteering. Thank you, Glenn, for exposing this. If there are three things Glenn Beck hates it's corruption, government waste, and bureaucracy.

Beck hates corruption, government waste, and bureaucracy so much that he's leading a people's revolution to purge government of political figures he knows are responsible. You know, there was a political figure, coincidentally in China, who hated corruption, government waste, and bureaucracy as much as Glenn Beck. And, he led a people's revolution to purge the Chinese government of the disease, too. His name was Mao Zedong. Hmmmm. So, Glenn Beck is accusing the Obama administration of corruption and he's using the Maoist model of revolution. Is...is Glenn Beck a Maoist?

Remember: I'm not saying he is a Maoist, I'm just asking questions.

In the Hall of Bad Ideas

And, here I thought no one could be this stupid. Alas. David Gregory sucks, but then so does pretty much every other Sunday morning show nowadays. Making Rachel Maddow the host of MtP is not the solution. Turning NBC news into MSNBC "news" is not a fix. Gregory is a great reporter, but he's not a great interviewer. Maddow is entertaining (to some people) but she is not respectable. The answer to MtP's problem has always been Gwen Ifill.

Song of the Day

Bringin' Back the B-Movie

Peter Suderman has nice thought about the disappearance of the B-movie:

...recently, it’s struck me that another part of the equation is probably the emergence of scripted, action-movie style video games — everything from the Halo games to Assassin’s Creed and Half-Life.

I’ve been playing a lot of Killzone 2 this week — which, by the way, I highly recommend — and, in many ways, it’s really just an interactive B-movie. The scripted bits that carry along the in-game action consist almost exclusively of tough-guy cliches pieced together from the last forty years of action movies, comic books, and war films. It’s silly, outrageous, over-the-top, and incredibly entertaining — just like a good B-movie should be.

After reading Suderman's post, my gut reaction was disagreement. I love video games. And, the B-movie comparison felt insulting. I think it may be the assumed stance of any gamer to defend his/her love from any comment from an outsider, which is unfair to Suderman as he appears to be a gamer. Now, that I've thought about it, I don't grudgingly agree with Suderman, I wholeheartedly agree that video games (a certain class of games) are the modern B-movie. This realization occurred after I tried think of my favorite B-movies. The list includes Aliens, Terminator 2, Die Hard, Dawn of the Dead (not that shitty recent one), Starship Troopers, Blade 2. These movies are not special in terms of cinematic achievement, but they'll always hold a special spot in my heart. To have my beloved video games compared to them is quite nice.

Beyond that, there's no denying Suderman's argument. What is Left 4 Dead but the video game equivalent of a zombie movie? The various campaigns of the game literally begin with movie posters starring you as a character with hilarious movie tag lines. What is WET but a grindhouse thriller? These are essentially spoofs on entertaining movies. But, then there's the more original games out there, your Halos, your Mass Effects, your Uncharteds. They work off the cliche base-plot: something, somewhere is happening that threatens the world/humanity/universe/civilization/freedom and you--only you--can stop it. Throw in some explosions, some action sequences, and death defying stunts and you've got a B-movie. Of course, each one of these games has their own unique qualities (I like Mass Effect a lot, with its morality system, its variable conversations, and its cool characters, but at its core it's a space opera) but they all rely on a familiar formula. A formula that we love so much that we spend ours of lives playing these games.

It's important to mention that I and Suderman is only comparing action-adventure games to B-movies. Games like The Sims, Tekken, Punch-Out!!, and role playing games like the Final Fantasy series don't really fit into that style of game. And, that Suderman is right does not effect the video games are art debate. If they aren't yet, video games are fast approaching aesthetic achievement. Still, I think this explains why I and so many other people enjoy these games. We've watched them through our childhood and now we get to be part of them.

Because They're Prisoners

Hey, remember when nobody cared about prisoners 'cause, well, they're prisoners? That's right now. The Kafka-like (not Kafkaesque) view we have of punishment and justice is disgusting. From the cavalier (or, worse yet, enthusiastic) attitude towards the death penalty to the apathy surrounding prison rape, this country insults justice and despises the rule of law.

Yesterday, the Boston Herald, the journalistic home of op-ed jackasses, reported the prisoners will be getting the swine flu vaccine before everyone else. One problem, it's not true. Everybody will be getting the vaccine at essentially the same time. Despite the non-truth of this Herald article, Boston's local talk radio was outraged--outraged!-- by the notion that prisoners could possibly get the vaccine before everyone else. Some even went sop far as to say that prisoners should never get the vaccine because, well, they're prisoners. At no point did anyone stop to ask, "might there be a reason be a reason behind such a policy?" Turns out there's a very good reason inoculate prisoners. Prisons are an ideal breeding ground for viruses. They're already home to infectious diseases such as HIV, Hepatitis C, and tuberculosis. One of the great things about our prison system is we provide health care to prisoners. Not great health care, but I'm lookin' for sunshine during a thunderstorm. What can happen is prisoners are treated for their infectious disease, the prisoners are then set free before their drug regimen, and then they're diseases survive and develop resistance to drugs. This is what has and is happening in Russian jails. American prisons have and continue to incubate and strengthen devastating diseases. So you'd think it'd be reasonable to head off swine flu at prisons as well as other places, like colleges and hospitals. Nope. Apparently, a prisoner is so low a life that we have to put ourselves in danger. Sometimes I'm taken aback by the pettiness of this country. I don't know how I keep getting surprised, but I do.

Song of the Day

And, He's Alive

Okay, so I haven't posted in forever. I'm in the middle of papers and midterms so my attention is somewhat elsewhere. Posting will be sporadic for a week or two more.

Daniel Larison, who you need to listen to in matters of foreign policy, reacts to the this from Jennifer Rubin:

First there was Clinton, who received some fairly fawning admiration from Republican hawks whenever she would try to belittle Obama as an inexperienced weakling, and then there was Sarah “He Pals Around With Terrorists” Palin who attempted to make Obama’s appropriate concern about Afghan civilian casualties from U.S. and NATO actions into some kind of anti-military insult. (That concern for protecting Afghan civilians also happens to be at the heart of McChrystal’s current thinking.) Palin certainly did her best to engage in all of the hawkish posturing she could. Combined with her shaky grasp of policy detail, this was not reassuring, but reminded voters of why she and McCain made them nervous. McCain attempted in vain to persuade voters that his reflexive bellicosity would be a steady, reliable guide for U.S. foreign policy. It might just be that no one buys the idea that Obama has a “weakling foreign policy,” so it won’t matter who the messenger is. It could also be that when this is the best Liz Cheney can offer by way of criticism, she does not fit Rubin’s description in any case.

The gender politics that Rubin is playing with are just a rehash of the usual Republican trope: liberal = effeminate, Republican = manly. Her spin on it is that these politics may come from a woman, namely Liz Cheney. The question: what if she were the representative of Republicanism? While Larison dismisses this notion, bring up both Sarah Palin and, interestingly, Hillary Clinton, I think he avoids peripheral issues that hampered both those candidates.

For Palin the problems were questions of ignorance in all areas of policy, not just foreign policy. And, when she was asked about merely her thoughts, not experience nor bonafides, on matters of foreign policy, her credibility died.

And, when she was asked about her foreign policy credentials, her credibility was buried.

Nobody could honestly listen Palin after these interviews about the President "pallin' around with terrorists." Both because the statement was ridiculous and because no one cared what she said about national security or foreign policy when she had no serious thoughts or credentials that gave her standing. This makes her markedly different from Liz Cheney, who has both.

For Clinton the problem was not a lack of experience but an excess of bullshit, which I guess counts as a problem of credibility. There was her sniper fire gaffe:

Whether this aura of bullshit may have been perceived rather than real, it damaged her ability to criticize the President on almost any matter. Liz Cheney does not have this problem.

I'm not saying Liz Cheney will be effective against the President. But, I do think comparing her to Palin and Clinton is not really worthwhile, just like noticing she's a woman isn't interesting. The better comparison to be made is the one Larison finishes with, that is John McCain. McCain failed to sell his Wilsonian/Rooseveltian foreign policy to a majority of the voters in the last election. However, Liz Cheney represents a slightly different kind of aggression. McCain pushed the notion of a League of Democracies to prove he wasn't the unilateral gunslinger that George Bush was during the first 4 (arguably 6) of his presidency. Interestingly, the relationship between Bush and Dick Cheney grew cold during the last 4 years of his presidency as Bush took on a more Wilsonian stance towards the world. We must expect Liz Cheney to espouse the same pugnacity that refuses accountability, spurns diplomacy, and embraces militarism.

Gifts

The People of Walmart.

Item Not As Described.

Song of the Day

Lindsey Graham: Not Crazy

See for yourself.

Games I'll Be Looking For

There are so many games coming up that I can't wait to play. Here's the list from least interest to greatest:

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves:

This game would rate far higher in my interest if it wasn't a PS3 exclusive. I don't own a PS3, so I will likely never play Uncharted 2. But, Jesus, this game looks fantastic. It's like an Indiana Jones movie game, but good.

Army of Two: The 40th Day:

I had interest in the first Army of Two, but reports of bad/awkward controls and bad AI dissuaded me. All of these things have apparently been fixed and then some in this sequel. The prospect of a game designed around coop is just too tempting to pass up now.

Crackdown 2:

The basic formula of Crackdown was this: Grand Theft Auto + super powers. Crackdown 2 adds a crucial third element: zombies. This new formula equals awesome.

Just Cause 2:

Do you know how hard it is to find good grapple mechanics in a game? I can't even think of a game with a good grappling hook setup--wait, Spider-Man 2--especially since the new Bionic Commando sucked so hard. Just Cause 2 looks like it has an awesome combination of parachute and grappling hook mechanics. I don't care how bad the story may be, I want to try that gameplay.

Final Fantasy XIII:

If you can't speak Japanese, too bad; I'm not translating right now. It looks like they've taken away the terrible fight mechanics from FFXII and put something more turn based in place. Anything else wouldn't be in keeping with the FF tradition.

The Saboteur:

The ambition of The Saboteur is rivaled by no other upcoming game. Yeah, we've seen games set during WW2 before, but those are almost exclusively first-person shooters about soldiers. An action/stealth game set in Nazi-occupied Paris, to my knowledge, has never been done before. This could fail easily and be offensive in the process. Or, if it's even slightly successful, it could just be great because of its boldness.

Assassin's Creed 2:

Assassin's Creed had a really good idea and tried to stretch it out over half a dozen missions. So it eventually became monotonous and boring. Assassin's Creed 2 has changed all that. Many different types of missions, character development, sidequests, allies, and much more. It looks awesome.

Splinter Cell Conviction:

I could've shown the trailer for this game, but I chose this video for a reason. I've been following the development of Conviction for a while. Originally, the game looked like a terrible version of Assassin's Creed that essentially threw out all the stealth mechanics that made Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory so, so good. However, the developers apparently realized they were making a bad Assassin's Creed rip-off and went back to the drawing board. The result is what you see in the video. They changed the gameplay enough to do something new, but they kept the necessary elements of a Splinter Cell game.

Mass Effect 2:

I liked Mass Effect a lot. But, the game had serious flaws, like mind-numbingly boring exploration mission where you drive around in a vehicle forever and ever and ever. However, the core, what was good about Mass Effect was great RPG work. If expanded upon, it could easily become my favorite RPG. And, that's what I'm hoping Mass Effect 2 is.

The commonality between all but one of these games is that they're sequels. Dunno what that says about the state of game development, so draw your own conclusions. The upcoming game that specifically does not make my interest list: Left 4 Dead 2. Why? 'Cause I refuse to buy the sequel to a game I bought last year. No thanks.

Public Enemies

Underwire reviews Superman/Batman: Public Enemies:

Expertly directed by Sam Liu and based on the first story arc of Jeph Loeb’s 2003-2004 comic Superman/Batman, the PG-13 movie is a parable of power pushed to its limit.

When America falls into political and economic turmoil rife with repression and riots in the streets, Superman’s mortal enemy Lex Luthor (voice by the mighty Clancy Brown) steps into the power vacuum to become president. And while his soft totalitarian rule initially brings order out of the chaos, his base human egotism cannot abide a benevolent immortal alien like Superman (voiced by Man of Steel lifer Tim Daly) openly ignoring his state-sanctioned power.

This review is entirely too glowing. Public Enemies is a step down for Bruce Timm and team, a truly disappointing one. The Timm-verse is full of developed characters and that's precisely what Public Enemies lacks. But, let's not go with the negatives first.

The animation was impressive. The DCAU has been getting more and more visually appealing and Public Enemies represents the next step in that evolution. While the character designs were annoying (I'll come back to this in a sec) the fluidity of movement, the quickness, the continuity were all top notch. Above all else, Public Enemies shoots for epicness and so all the colors are bold. Every character has their color set which clearly separates them from all other characters. You'll find no combination of Superman's red, blue, and yellow anywhere but his costume. Even Batman's gray and black suit is distinct from his surroundings. These two are heroes equal to none and the movie lets you know it visually. The character designs, however, were not so great. Batman, Superman, and Lex Luthor did not look right. They looked too young, really, and it distracted from the plot. They looked like they were in their late twenties rather than seasoned superhumans. The most galling of all the designs was Power Girl. 'Kay, I know exaggeration of bodily features is a mainstay of comics and Power Girl's uniform has always been laughably silly but this was just ridiculous and unneeded in Public Enemies. Oh, and the fights were very cool. Lots of bad guys, lots of heroes, all duking it out.

Now, let's get back to the story/characters. The whole thing was kinda boring. Superman and Batman start out already as friends, so there's nowhere for their relationship to go, so why the hell should I care? Even Lex Luthor is boring. I never thought I'd write that about a Bruce Timm Lex Luthor. Public Enemies was promoted as having Lex Luthor as its main character. After watching the movie I have no idea what role Luthor played in the plot. Luthor is supposed to be evil as a result of his ambition, his wish to be more. But, in the movie his ambition was replaced with crazy, which is just boring. The only really interesting character is Amanada Waller, but she was interesting in Justice League Unlimited too. Underwire sees political commentary in Public Enemies, but I can't for the life of me. The plot, or at least this rendition of it, was a pedestrian comic book plot. Sure, Luthor becomes obsessed with his power, but Luthor's always been obsessed with his power. He's always disliked that Superman has more power than him. So, again, why do I care? Green Lantern: First Flight saw Hal Jordan and Sinestro develop a relationship and develop as characters. Wonder Woman finally put a female superhero centerstage and she was a complex character because of her confidence in herself fostered by naivete in regard to man's world. What did Public Enemies do? It regurgitated the Superman, Batman, and Lex Luthor we already know and did nothing new with them and then tried to cover that up with flashy animation.

[Insert House Pun Here]

I guess I wasn't the only one who was stunned by the ridiculousness of the last House episode entitled "Epic Fail." The malady of the episode concerned a game designer. This game designer had developed a virtual reality game that involved technology and expertise that literally does not exist. Why? I have no clue. I mean, yes, the designer starts hallucinating and thinking he's living in his game, but that's no reason to invent a currently impossible game whole cloth. He could've hallucinated that he was in a game that actually could exist. House is already a pretty absurd show as is, there's no need to go further.

I would like to say, however, that where they are taking the character of House is amazing and everything I have wanted. The season premier involved no medical mystery and no ancillary characters, which allowed the main character to breathe, to legitimately solve some of his problems and to develop as a character. Of course, the core of the House we love is still there, but the self-destructive behavior is either gone or mollified. How could House keep taking vicodin? How could he live the life that he was living without it logically leading to suicide? It's really good to see sticking with this show, especially during the awful Tritter arc, is paying off.

Song of the Day

How Much Lower?

Not much.

Focusing on Iran

I haven't posted in forever; let's fix this.

The big news to the US internationally is Iran. Pres. Obama, along with Sarkozy and Brown and, by proxy, Merkel, revealed that Iran has been building a secret facility for enriching uranium. Per the announcement, the facility is of the wrong size and wrong configuration to be just a peaceful enriching site. Also, it's apparently been built into the site of an old Iranian Revolutionary Guard base, which makes the peaceful pretensions of the Iranian regime. The Iranians did try to pretend as if they admitted the facility existed before the President did, but no, this facility was hidden. Furthermore, Iran launched several test missiles just to show it has so teeth and make people sweat. Several questions are at hand: can we impose multilateral sanctions that include Russia and China? Should we impose any kind of sanctions? What will Israel do? Could the US even stop Israel from striking Iran if it wanted to? What the hell is our objective in this anyway?

First, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Yes, the facility looks bad (I say these things with no access to any intelligence info other than what's been announced), but we do not know the exact nature of what is going on in there. It may be that this facility is to large to be peaceful. However, it may also be that the enrichment going on in there is entirely peaceful. We just don't know and we won't know until inspectors are allowed in, allowed to interview scientists, allowed unfettered access to all documentation. And, it appears as if the IAEA will be allowed in. Until we hear an official report from that organization, we cannot make a certain decision as to how to act.

Second,  assuming the facility is aggressive in nature, sanctions are not the answer, nor do I think they're possible. The US needs Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, and China. Whether Russia is on board or not is up the air. Medvedev released a statement that many have been pushing as Russian agreement to sanctions, but really meant very little. Talk is the cheapest thing on the international stage. A leader can generally say anything without being held to account for it. And, this statement from Medvedev is nothing new. Russia doesn't really want Iran to develop a nuke, so that Medvedev says, "Hey Iran, don't do that," isn't news. It's what you'd expect him to say under almost any circumstance. Alert me when Medvedev says he wants sanctions right now--scratch that--when Russia actually signs onto sanctions. China is even more of a problem than Russia. China gets half a million barrels of oil a day from Iran. China, which cares about one thing: growth, will not risk a disrupion of the oil flow for, well, anything. I think that this fear is taken too seriously by the Chinese. The Iranian regime is vile but not stupid. The heads of state know that Iran needs China as a customer just as much as China needs oil. A cutoff of the oil would be disastrous for Iran. But, if China thinks it can't piss off Iran, the US can't really change the calculus.

Sanctions are not the answer because the objective of them is to stop the development of an Iranian nuke. This was also the intent of the sanctions imposed on Iraq. I guess in that light the Iraq sanctions were a success, but they also managed to cripple the country's once thriving economy, destroy women's education and the country's education suystem in general, and horrifically raise the infant mortality rate. But, thank the gods Saddam didn't get a WMD, like we thought he did and invaded Iraq...to...stop...whoops. And, the common argument you'll hear about sanctions, when its proven that they end up hurting the people and not the regime, is that the regime could end the people's pain if they just submitted to the requirements of the sanctions. This is a funny argument coming from people who argue that the regime in question is actually insane and unrepresentative of its people. Sanctions are not effective and usually just piss off the people we want to win over.

Third, If Israel wants to attack Iran there's nothing we can do about it. Not while we blindly give them weapons and aid without any requirements attached. Israel lives off of our dime. They kill Palestinians with helicopters and rockets that we make. It's time that we started insisting on some repayment of our generosity. One of the ways Israel can repay us is by doing as we say when it comes to Iran. They want to attack Iran, well then maybe we can find a more deserving recipient of our largess.

Fourth, Our objective, as stated by Pres. Obama, is to stop Iran from getting a nuke. This obective is stupid. Thomas P.M. Barnett has it right:

People want to make this a thing about autocracies and democracies, but that's--quite frankly--completely irrelevant. For Iran, it's about keeping a democratic America from invading it.

Exactly. The calculus is the calculus. We have been threatening Iran in word and in deed for about a decade. A nuke is the best defensive weapon the world as ever known. The US would not be able to invade Iran if a nuclear threat was present. It's bad for the US, but perfectly reasonable for Iran to do this. But, no. We let Israel have nukes, but never Iran because...we don't like them is really the only reason. We should be concerned about an Iranian nuke, but that's it. It shouldn't cause us nightmares and it shouldn't be one of the primary concerns of US foreign policy. Listen to what John Mueller says will happen if Iran gets the bomb:

A bunch of other countries will run around in hysterics for a while, but in the end, probably nothing. What China has done with the bomb has been nothing. It's just been a huge waste of money. Basically, if Iran gets the bomb, they may find that it's completely useless, except to stoke their egos for a while.

Again, exactly. Iran, if it really wants to, will develop a nuke and it will do nothing for them. Hopefully, people will realize that before it's too late.

There Isn't

In case you thought there was justice in this world.

Frog

This might just be the funniest thing I've seen in long, long time.

Song of the Day

Wither Are the Women and Minorities?

I know this is shocking news (the gaming community is such an open and accepting group), but women and minorities are unrepresented in video games. What can we blame this on? Well, and this is just me guessing, video games started out, as all things in Western culture do, dominated by white, straight, men. However, while other media have been forced to change, to present a more diverse array of characters, video games have not. Sure, people complained about Lara Croft's unrealistically large breasts and wide hips, but video games have never really faced the righteous assault that movies or television have when it comes to representing women or minorities. The only assaults that video games have faced were in regard to violence, a largely overblown charge. Women's groups did air complaints about the violence towards women in the Grand Theft Auto series, but they missed the point. Any game should be able to be made and to be bought, whether there's violence towards women in it, or obscene language, or racism. The problem is that all these offensive things are depicted from a white, straight, male perspective to a white, straight, male audience. Where are the black characters that commit violent acts or non-violent acts? Where are the women who are foul-mouthed anti-heroes? They don't exist, or rather they exist in such a small number you barely notice them. And, those that do exist are usually avatars of the stereotypes or male fantasies that surround their race and gender. If we really want the main characters of video games to represent all perspectives, then the objective of our calls for change cannot be about removing content that has been present for nearly the entire history of the industry. Games will always push the boundaries of what's acceptable, and they should. We should instead call for the locus and genesis of that boundary pushing to change. We should want female characters that are horrifically violent and we should want black, hispanic, asian characters that speak obscenely. And, we should be prepared for a significant number of gamers to call this gay.

Song of the Day