Jul 132024
 

It’s been a while since anyone has come close to killing a US President or former President. Has there been anyone since Hinkley/Reagan that came this close?

 

The rest of the campaign season is liable to be jam-packed with political violence. There has not been a serious Presidential contender as thoroughly vilified by the opposition as Trump in many years; and given that the far left was *already* bugnuts, the nonstop “Trump = Hitler” drumbeat surely is driving many right around the bend.

 

As they say, though… when you go after the King, don’t miss.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1812258574049157405

 

 

 Posted by at 6:40 pm
Jun 172024
 

Videos have come out showing President Biden doing bad things (specifically, acting like what he is: an elderly man who is well into cognitive and physical decline), and his PR machine is spooling up the defense that the videos are “cheap fakes” and “deep fakes.” The videos are clearly *not* fakes, neither “cheap” nor “deep,” but have in most cases been shot by reputable media sources and broadcast on national news. However, we’re now at the point where people are coming to know and understand deep fakes, and as I’ve been saying for a long time, bad actors will start claiming that valid videos of them behaving poorly are actually deep fakes.

 

The era of video as useful evidence is coming to an end. They’ll be good for a while longer, but not much longer. In maybe five years, the courts will be in complete chaos as every defendant on trial who was seen by cell phones or security cameras will be able to rightly claim that deep faking is now so easy that it would be simplicity itself for the prosecution to slap it together over lunch.

 Posted by at 7:12 pm
Jun 052024
 

There is a constant war between sane people and those who want to neuter the English language in order to make it safer and more politically correct. One aspect of that the desire to remove from common parlance phrases that originate with firearms. For example:

 

https://grandparentsforgunsafety.org/gun-violence-facts/words-matter/

 

We speak casually about dodging a bullet… shooting the breeze… taking aim and smoking guns. The language of gun violence is pervasive in our culture.But it doesn’t need to be that way. We can be conscious of the phrases and metaphors from our vocabulary and begin to change the conversation about gun violence one word at a time.

 

Or, and here’s a thought, use these and similar phrases *more.* Normalize firearms in everyday speech.

This is not a complete list; I’m sure there are more. Feel free to comment.

 

ammunition
armed with the facts
aim for

at the end of a gun

bang to rights

best shot

big guns

big shot
bite the bullet

blaze away

broadside

brought a knife to a gunfight
bullet-points
bullet-proof

bullet train
bull’s eye

cannon fodder
caught in the crossfire
cheap shot

circular firing squad

dead eye
dodged a bullet
don’t shoot the messenger
even shot
faster than a speeding bullet

finger on the trigger
fire away

fire back

fire for effect
firing blanks

firing line

firing squad
flash in the pan

full bore

go ballistic
great guns

gun down
gun it
gun shy
gunning for someone
half-cocked

hang fire

have a shot at

heavy artillery
high caliber
hired gun
held a gun to my head
hot shot

hotter than a $3 pistol

in my sights
in the crosshairs

in the line of fire

itchy trigger finger
jumped the gun
Just shoot me!
keep your ammo dry
like shooting fish in a barrel
lock, stock and barrel
lock and load

long shot

loose cannon
magic bullet
misfired
missed the mark

more bang for your buck
moving target

number one with a bullet
outgunned
on target

open fire

parting shot
point blank
point & shoot
pot shot

powderkeg
pull the trigger

quick on the draw
quick on the trigger
rapid fire
ready, aim, fire

riding shotgun
rifle through

scattershot

set your sights on
she/he is a pistol

shoot blanks

shoot down in flames
shoot first, ask questions later
shoot for
shoot for the moon
shoot from the hip
shoot me an email
shoot off your mouth

shoot on sight
shoot out
shoot the breeze

shot across the bow
shot down
shot in the dark
shot myself in the foot

shot to hell

shotgun apartment

shotgun seat

shotgun wedding

shots fired
silver bullet

slow on the draw

small bore
smoking gun
son of a gun
stick to my guns

straight down the barrel
straight shooter

sun’s out, guns out

surefire
sweating bullets
take aim
take a shot
target market
top gun
trigger a response
trigger alert
trigger happy

trigger law

trigger warning

triggered
trip your trigger

turkey shoot
under fire
under the gun

welcome to the gunshow

whole nine yards
whole shooting match

with both barrels
with guns blazing

worth a shot

you could fire a cannon down the street and not hit anyone

young guns

 Posted by at 4:08 pm
Mar 242024
 

A few days ago someone on twitter repeated some nonsense that getting irritated about canon violations in, say, Star Trek was a sign that you’re kinda dumb, because canon is an impediment to writers who want to tell stories. Well, guess what: established canon is an impediment to only one kind of writer: the lazy kind.

 

Establishing canon can sometimes take a while. Take Star Trek: if you look at the early years, canon was quite mutable. Who did the crew of the Enterprise work for? It seemed to change from time to time. Starfleet, of course… but then also the United Earth Space Probe Agency and later the United Federation of Planets. Klingons went from shiny dark humans with a vaguely Soviet-style totalitarian dictatorship, to bumpy-headed high-tech barbarians with a focus on fun, honor and bloodshed. But these things are *now* well established, and have been literally for generations. Changing them is changing the established rules.

 

And the thing is, established rules are a *good* thing for storytellers. Yes, they constrain storytelling possibilities, but they force the storyteller to be cleverer than if the rules didn’t exist. And the *vast* majority of the time storytellers accept that rules are there and are good. Imagine what nonsense you’d get in a medical show where medicine had no relation to reality. Aspirin cures cancer. Broken bones are set with a smoldering look from Doctor Hearthrob. AIDS is cured by popping the infected into a microwave oven for three minutes on high. Two seasons back, Doctor Heartthrob won a Nobel Prize for curing Type 1 diabetes with a combination of oatmeal and Tea, Earl Gray, Hot. But now, Type 1 diabetes is wholly incurable and causes the sufferers to spontaneously combust with no reference to the prior treatments. This would be bafflingly stupid unless set as some sort of “Naked Gun” style absurdist comedy.

Imagine a legal/lawyer show where the law had no relation to real-world law. A cop show where cops could simply walk through walls, or where once confronted criminals instantly changed their ways. A western set in 1872 New Mexico with Nazis and an invasion of blimp-borne Samurai played straight, or where the cowboys dealt not only with cattle but an infestation of kangaroos and velociraptors. Come on, cowboys vs dinosaurs sounds fun, right? But if the show isn’t sci-fi or fantasy, having the cowboys, who pack Glocks and drink Bud Light from aluminum cans and ride carbon fiber racing bicycles, just wouldn’t make sense. A sitcom set in a penthouse apartment established as 60+ stories high overlooking Central Park, but the apartment door sometimes opens into the hallway, sometimes the elevator, sometimes the roof, sometimes right onto the street…and sometimes that street is in San Francisco or London. It’s either absurdist… or it’s lazy and stupid.

 

If you want to change the rules you’d best have a good reason. It can be done. Hell, “Young Sheldon” recently changed years of established “Big Bang Theory” canon in a smart way that made things not only make more sense, but made people happy. It was long ago established that as a child Sheldon Cooper had walked in on his dad cheating on his mom with another woman. The sight disturbed, upset and changed Sheldon, and ruined his view of his dad. In the “Young Sheldon” show, the dad has been portrayed as a great guy who was not the cheating type, though tempted from time to time. And they finally got to the moment: Sheldon walked in on Dad and Other Woman. But it turns out Other Woman was actually Mom, who was dressed up in a sort of cosplay. Sheldon simply didn’t recognize her. He misinterpreted. Canon has been changed without actually changing canon.

But the current crop of writers for Star trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, Rings of Power, etc. do not seem to be either willing or able to navigate their way through established canon. And rather than write compelling, clever stories within the rules… they simply steamroll the rules, often for ideological reasons.

In Star Trek, it’s long established that 23rd century medicine is damn near magical in it’s ability to fix both physical and mental damage. So wouldn’t *have* characters who were delusional to the point of insanity, or trundling around the decks in a wheelchair. But in the name of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, the fact of 23rd Century medicine is simply ignored in favor of The Message.

So you end up with this nonsense:

on

It adds nothing to the story to have Wheelchair Guy. It doesn’t make sense. It yeets the viewer right out of it if they consciously recognize that it’s wrong; if they don’t consciously recognize it, there is still the subtle, unconscious Uncanny Valley-esque sense of something being not right.

Canon isn’t a problem. Canon is *good.* If you don’t like the canon, if the canon gets in the way of the story you want to tell, there are good ways to deal with it:

1) Write a different story.

2) Change your canon-busting story to fit a different property. That apartment with the wacky door? Change it from straight sitcom to a Doctor Who offshoot.

3) Come up with a *clever* way to change the canon. You have a propulsion system vastly better than warp drive for your Star Trek ships? Great. Set it in the *future* of established Trek, not the past.

 Posted by at 2:24 pm
Feb 262024
 

Slightly over 4 years ago I yammered a bit about a game company called “Evil Hat” that was putting out a Lovecraftian game while not only hating Lovecraft but also *intentionally* not understanding the idea:

 

“I want your business”

Making a *huge* point about bashing the creator of the IP you’re squatting on, while misinterpreting the importance of some of the most basic elements, points out that you’re just wearing the fandom as a skinsuit, a way to squeeze some of that filthy lucre from the nerds. Something we’ve seen far too often from the likes of those running Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who into the ground.

Anyway, the producers of that Cthulhu game are back with another IP-cash-grab, this time in the “Tomb raider” franchise. I’ve never played any of the games; this franchise is not my thing. But for those of you who care about it… let me know if they got it right.

Someone did some digging around and found out some stuff about some of the people behind the game…

Tumblr art, self-insert deviant weirdos. Sounds about right.

 Posted by at 6:29 pm
Jan 162024
 

Oh, joy:

Iran Attacks Israel’s ‘Headquarters of Spies’ in Iraq, as Some Missiles Land Near U.S. Consulate

Iran launched ballistic missiles at Erbil, Iraq, supposedly targeting a Mossad facility (which probably didn’t actually exist), with missiles landing near the US Consulate. Pretty sure Iraq would consider this an act of war. At least four civilians are reported dead, though no Americans, and no damage to the consulate.

Had the missiles actually struck the consulate, that would doubtless have been sufficient cause for the US Navy and/or Air Force to pay the Iranians a visit.

2024 is off to a rollicking start. With an election in November, we can expect domestic terrorism to spike, with the usual assortments of riots and arson and insurrections that are given a pass. And with everyone recognizing how addlepated Biden is, and with worldwide chaos running rampant already, international incidents are doubtless also going to increase.

 Posted by at 12:19 am
Jan 052024
 

United Nations moves to stop Alabama from carrying out America’s first nitrogen gas execution

“U.N. experts argue there has been no evidence to suggest that nitrogen gas would not “result in a painful and humiliating death.””

 

Oh FFS.  Nitrogen asphyxiation has been dangerous in industry specifically *because* it’s painless. If you find yourself in a volume filled with carbon dioxide – a small room, a tank of some kind, whatever – you are *instantly* going to know it. Your lungs will object, you’ll cough, you’ll hold your breath… and you’ll try to get the hell out of there. If you find yourself in a volume filled with *poison* gas, you’ll try to evacuate even faster. But nitrogen? You feel nothing. Your lungs are used to nitrogen… about 80% of every breath you take is nitrogen. You’ll continue to breathe it in, and continue to expel oxygen with each breath, rapidly getting rid of the oxygen in your blood as you continue to respire normally, until you rather quickly slip into a peaceful unconsciousness, and soon *die.*

 

All evidence points to nitrogen being a peaceful and painless way to go. And consequently one of the less humiliating, unless you find not thrashing about and screaming in pain and terror humiliating. I imagine the actual goal is to simply stop executions, rather than having any legitimate objection to nitrogen. Because if this is carried out and shown to be what history has shown it should be – effective and painless – other governments might adopt it. Given that unlike lethal injection it quires little skill – just strapping on a mask, rather than finding veins and jamming needles into them – and uses cheap and easily available nitrogen gas rather than difficult to obtain chemicals, nitrogen executions should be relatively inexpensive. One argument might be that this will incentivize bad governments to execute more; but bad governments have little trouble with just shooting people they don’t like. The counterpoint is that taxpayers shouldn’t be overly burdened if clearly easier alternatives are available.

 Posted by at 3:32 am
Dec 232023
 

Tech Billionaires Need to Stop Trying to Make the Science Fiction They Grew Up on Real

Today’s Silicon Valley billionaires grew up reading classic American science fiction. Now they’re trying to make it come true, embodying a dangerous political outlook

This was written by Charles Stross, a sci-fi author whose work I tend to like. I kinda understand why he has reached the conclusion that he has… a *lot* of his work is heavily Lovecraftian, with the universe laden with horrible, horrible things. If you believe that the universe truly is filled with cosmic horrors just waiting at the edges for some fool to go poking at them, then of course you’re want to prevent people from pushing forward. You will, instead, live by this quote from Lovecraft himself (from “The Call of Cthulhu”):

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”

But the thing is… those horrible things are out there anyway. You can’t hide from them. They’ll come and getcha. If we are to avoid colonizing space because “imperialism” is wrong, then we’ll be simply stepped on by the next imperialist species over. If you are afraid of the consequences of AI – and there are valid concerns – taking that tech away from Our Guys and leaving it in the hands of the likes of the Chinese Communists *guarantees* that some form of AI is going to come along and take a giant dump on us. If you want to stop “eugenics” because there’s been some bad history and because it could maybe lead to bad things, you’re stranding us in the reality we’re now facing of ongoing dysgenics which is *already* screwing society.

 

In particular the argument against space colonization is just vacuous and insane. The benefits are damn near infinite. The risk are comparatively minimal. If over the next millennium we lose a million habitats to a hard learning curve, taking with them a trillion lives… it will be a small price to pay to bring life to a trillion worldlets just within this single solar system.

 

Yeah, sci-fi provides warnings of potential bad futures. But it also provides innumerable examples of futures we *want* to bring about. Focusing solely on the dystopias of sci-fi is black-pilled doomerism at its worst. For every “1984” or “Brave New World” or “Star Trek Discovery” that show horrible worlds filled with horrible people living in horrible societies, there are “2001” and “Star Trek” and “Star Trek the Next Generation” and “Stargate SG-1” and “The Orville”  and even “The Expanse.” The thing is… “bad” always sells better than “good,” because “bad” tends to have more interesting drama. Imagine any sort of plotline. What’ll be more interesting, or at least easier to write interesting: the story without some sort of villain or disaster, or the one where there aren’t such antagonists? A movie about, say, an architect designing and building his dream building, whatever it might happen to be, will almost certainly have competitors trying to sabotage it, or bureaucrats grinding it down, or local activists trying to stop it, or earthquakes, storms, floods, fires, asteroid impacts or alien invasions trying to trash it. So the fact that sci-fi – like *every* literary genre – includes Very Bad Things from time to time is no reason to avoid trying to see the best of sci-fi brought to life, anymore than heartbreak and rivals in romance stories are reasons to avoid trying to find love.

 Posted by at 6:06 pm
Dec 112023
 

Long story short: I’ve been a *casual* watcher of “Dr. Who” for 40+ years. From watching it from time to time on PBS back in the 80s – the Tom Baker era, mostly – to catching the revived version in more recent years, I would generally find it amusing if somewhat baffling. The fact that not only was it stories set over multiple episodes, meaning you’re in the dark if you’ve missed any, but that it was terribly *British* meant that it just didn’t quite hit for me. But still, I liked it well enough, and I respect the IP and the fandom.

But not everyone respects the IP or the fandom. This includes the makers of the show these days.

One thing I could always expect from any iteration of The Doctor would be that he was some flavor of “British Man.” Generally some variant of the Brit known as the “boffin,” a weird eccentric science type. But then came the “insufferably smug British woman” variant of the Doctor. And next up… gay sub-Saharan African Doctor, which seems to be meant specifically to annoy the long-time fans. So, yeah, I haven’t felt the urge to watch Dr. Who in a good long while. Recent events have not changed that. In fact, recent efforts by the makers of the show to gaslight fans of the show make me actively uninterested.

The latest nonsense has been the race swapping of historical figure Isaac Newton. For a British show to *intentionally* replace an important English historical figure with an Indian actor seems at best odd, at worst part of a wider ongoing and undeniable effort to replace the English within their own history. But the people behind this have themselves a new strategy to defend their decisions from those who don’t like it:

‘Doctor Who’ Casting Director Responds To Criticism Of Race-Swapped Isaac Newton: “It’s Sad That We’re In A Time Where People Villainise Minorities”

Behold: pointing out that Newton was English, or Cleopatra was Greek, or Hannibal was Phoenician, has gone from merely being a racist position to now “villainizing minorities.” If you say that so-and-so wasn’t black or Indian or whatever, you are now equating blacks or Indians or whatever with criminals. It is dishonest, it is unhinged, it doesn’t make sense, but it’s what they’ve got.

That’s their argument against those who point out the folly and malignity of race swapping historical figures. What’s their argument *for* doing this? The Dr. Who casting director says:

“It then becomes even more important to give people a voice and for people to be represented, especially for young people growing up who might be trans or from any minority. If they can see themselves on screen, then that can be a huge lifeline for some people. That can make them feel part of the world, which indeed they are.” … “Growing up as a gay man, I’m as aware as anybody else of how this stuff makes you feel when you see it. “

Uh-huh. So he likes to see his little subset “represented.” But he somehow doesn’t understand – or pretends not to – how a large *majority* of people do not like to watch their “representation” getting not just erased, but culturally appropriated and colonized by outsiders who didn’t earn it, don’t deserve it and don’t fit in it.

 Posted by at 6:27 pm
Nov 212023
 

Bruce Springsteen’s 1984 song “Born in the USA” is famous not only for having been incredibly popular, bit for being “misunderstood.” Springsteen’s intent, as is pretty clear by a straight reading of the lyrics, is to tell the tale not just of a Viet Nam vet (the US was barely a decade out from that expensive but successful war and incredibly unsuccessful peace), but of a nation in disrepair. But it was grabbed onto by the political right – such as President Ronald Reagan – as a a rah-rah USA USA USA song to rally around. Then as now, leftists explain this as Republicans & conservatives being “media illiterate” or simply dumb. But is that really the case? Consider my own experience.

When it came out I was a dumbass early teenager with no particular political leanings. Yet I also saw the song as pro-USA, and I loved the hell out of it. And, yes, I listened to and understood the lyrics, and saw the darkness therein. But I – and I suspect a whole lot of other people – simply interpreted them differently from the intention of Springsteen. Yes, the lyrics reference the dire economic situation faced by *many* people at the time, coming out of the OPEC oil embargoes and Carters economic flailings and the collapse of the Apollo program and all the rest. But here’s the thing: two people can look at the same thing and see very different results… same screen, different movies.

Everybody in the US in the early 80’s knew that things sucked. You could hardly experience Carter and inflation and stagflation and Iran and the Soviets and the collapse of the iron, auto, farming and a bunch of other industries and not notice it. But there are two ways to deal with “things suck:” despair and determination. And thus we had two different approaches to understanding the song:

Leftists: “Things suck in the USA, therefore the USA sucks.”

Rightists: “Things suck in the USA right now. But we’ll fix it.”

In 1984, things sucked. But they didn’t suck quite as bad as they had a few years before, and things were clearly improving. Those in the middle and on the right saw this, and interpreted “Born in the USA” in that light.

And we got this for the 1984 Presidential campaign:

Essentially, “Born in the USA” was a negative ad against the US that got turned into a positive ad for the US. And that irritated the hell out of a lot of lefties who wanted to wallow in despair… and wanted everyone else to do the same.  Turning it into a nationalistic anthem was a giant middle finger to the nattering nabobs of negativity.

Positivity and optimism can do wonders in an election, and in society. “I Like Ike,” JFK’s “Camelot,” “Morning in America,” “Make America Great Again,” etc. Turning a negative into a positive is a sign you’re on the right road.

 Posted by at 11:44 pm