REVIEW: Star Trek Discovery – Season 1

In light of the second season of Star Trek: Discovery being promoted on CBS All Access, I decided to review the series thus far. I have remained adamant in refusing to buy All Access myself, however I was able to temporarily access a friend’s account to binge the episodes. Of course the pilot episode was shown on broadcast and set up a dramatic and unusual premise where the heroine, Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) put herself on the outside of Starfleet looking in, and the body of Season 1 details how she is nevertheless brought back into the fold. There were elements I liked about the series and some that I disliked. These were the things that I liked about Discovery:

Overall Quality. The production values and acting ability of the principals that I had noticed in the pilot episode remained high throughout Season 1, including such details as the prosthetics design on Saru (Doug Jones), an elongated alien with digitigrade legs. Of course it all hinges on the character of Burnham and the performance of Martin-Green, who has the potential to go in multiple directions and whose choices are critical and must be conveyed as such by the story.

I am not sure what to make of Cadet Tilly, (Mary Wiseman) Burnham’s Chatty Cathy bunkmate on the Discovery. On one hand, she is a welcome ray of sunshine in the setting, but by the same token, she threatens to pull the mood away from grim Military SF towards a comedy-drama series where Burnham is a young ambitious female professional and Tilly is her Funny Best Friend, only in space. It’s sort of like how Killing Eve is a series about a fun, fearless female protagonist who just happens to be a mercenary assassin, and Sandra Oh, instead of being the funny best friend of Meredith Grey, is the funny best friend who also happens to be the detective trying to bring the assassin to justice.

Science. One of the things that distinguishes Discovery from other Star Trek titles is that the USS Discovery is an experimental ship. That experimental technology creates a certain conflict between Discovery’s militaristic captain, Gabriel Lorca (Jason Isaacs) and the more pacifist crew, including the transferred Officer Saru and Paul Stamets, the engineer/science officer. When Stamets explains the concept behind the “spore drive” and a mycological communications network to Burnham, it’s a genuinely fascinating bit of speculative fiction in a direction that Star Trek doesn’t usually go (towards theoretical organic tech rather than electronics). The spore drive element also brought in the question of how theoretical technology is used for military purposes, and what the ethical consequences of such are. As dark as the story arc gets (see below), what keeps Burnham on the side of heroism is her commitment to reason things out and learn new things. Of course, a lot of this comes back to Martin-Green’s acting and her ability to sell the perspective of the audience’s point-of-view character. This show conveys a humanist sense of wonder and, well, discovery in a way that Star Trek media hasn’t in some time.

This was the cool stuff. What follows is my opinion of the elements I didn’t like.

(spoilers to follow)

It’s Too Dark. The appearance of Star Trek: Discovery on a pay channel, as opposed to CBS or another broadcast network, gives the producers freedom to make the presentation more “adult” in that they can use the F-word a couple times, or indirectly reveal that male Klingons urinate with two penises. But such elements aren’t the same thing as tone, and decisions made by characters in Discovery Season 1 make it darker than even Deep Space Nine, which was largely centered on espionage and moral intrigue.

In the first half of the season, Harry Mudd (played by Rainn Wilson, which is genius casting right there) ends up in the same Klingon prison as Captain Lorca, and turns out to be a cowardly. self-serving backstabber. Which is no surprise if you saw the original series. But a couple episodes later, Mudd shows up using an experimental time-travel device in repeated attempts to seize control of the Discovery. In the course of the episode, Mudd proves to be completely ruthless, killing Lorca multiple times over the course of his time jumps. Now, given the premise of the episode, the result was not permanent, but you still had a case where a lovable rogue type was recast as something more sinister.

In the same episode with Harry Mudd’s first appearance, the series introduces Lieutenant Tyler, a security officer and eventual love interest for Burnham. Tyler is a sympathetic character who has clearly suffered trauma (including sexual trauma) at the hands of the Klingons. But when he starts to suspect that there may have been more to it than that, he asks the ship’s doctor (Stamets’ love interest) to do advanced tests on his body and brain. Dr. Culber is disturbed by his initial findings, but by this point, Burnham is on an important mission and Tyler wants to be at her side. So even though Tyler requested the exams, when Culber demands that Tyler stay for deeper medical examination, Tyler snaps – and then snaps Culber’s neck.

Ironically, this effort to explore the moral quandaries of a grey universe falls apart when, late in the season, a spore drive accident sends the Discovery to the Mirror Universe, where doing evil actually is the prevalent social ethic, and everybody dresses like they’re on War Rocket Ajax. This only serves to undermine both settings: the Pulp melodrama of the alternate universe becomes simply cartoonish, while the situational ethics of the “Prime” universe pale in comparison to the naked fascism of the Terran Empire, and at the same time, fail to provide it the same moral contrast as the previous iterations of the Federation. Although at one point, Burnham observes that the stars in the Mirror Universe are actually dimmer, and a native observes that her people are more sensitive to bright light than “Prime” humans, which causes Burnham to make an important deduction about another character. But that physical element leads to my second point:

No, Seriously, It’s Too Dark. At this point, Trek fans expect the interior of Klingon ships to be dark, claustrophobic submarine holds, but it’s rather telling that the Klingon Ship of the Dead is a more spacious and well-lit set than the bridge of the Shenzhou or most of the interiors on Discovery.

The tone of the scenes is set by darkened bridges and window shots with a great deal of “lens flare” from the sunlight of a given solar system, which causes Discovery ship scenes to greatly resemble those of the last few Star Trek movies. Which leads to the question –

What Universe IS This, Anyway? Supposedly, this is again the “Prime” universe of the Original Series and original Star Trek cast, so called to distinguish it from the “Kelvin timeline” reboot of the J.J. Abrams films, which was specifically explained as a parallel universe. But the aforementioned aspects of tone and visual elements cause Discovery to resemble Abrams’ Trek much more than (say) Enterprise, which was likewise set before the Original Series.

The issue is complicated slightly by the fact that the spore drive has been shown to allow travel of parallel dimensions as well as space, so there’s no reason that the Discovery universe would actually turn out to be the “Prime” one. Especially since it still hasn’t been explained why the spore drive hasn’t become the standard propulsion system for Starfleet by the time of the Original Series, or why we hadn’t heard about it before now.

Anticlimax. The first season of Star Trek: Discovery set up multiple climaxes in the story arc, each less successful than the last. The fight with the Ship of the Dead led directly to the Mirror Universe jaunt, and when the crew returned home, the consequence of their absence led to yet another confrontation with the Klingons, which was not quite as satisfactory from a dramatic standpoint as the earlier defeat of the Klingon artifact battleship. Not only that, the last third of the season made the film version of The Return of the King look snappy (especially since the film version WAS the streamlined account compared to Tolkien’s novel).

So overall, I think that the acting and dialogue in Star Trek: Discovery are top-notch, but plotting leaves something to be desired, and while the overall story arc – basically, should the “good guys” adopt the tactics of the “bad guys” to survive? – has even more relevance now than it did a year ago, it gets to the point in a pretty roundabout way that almost undermines it.

(I didn’t even bring up the whole thing with making Klingons totally hairless. I’m still not on board with that.)

But, overall, I can now say that Discovery is better than The Orville. The Orville of course is the imitation Trek/Seth McFarlane vehicle that is on free TV and did debut at about the same time as Discovery, but has since proven to be just pleasantly mediocre. McFarlane’s series has a lot of potential, but often just falls flat. Discovery at least takes chances, and when it goes wrong, it isn’t because they failed in execution, it’s because they went forthrightly in a certain direction that just turned out to be the wrong one.

Mexico Will Pay For The Wall

This is an idea that I call a political meditation in poetry. It is titled “Mexico Will Pay For The Wall.”

Trade wars save jobs

I can screw whores cause I’m saving America for Jesus

Mexico will pay for the wall

Who cares who pays for the wall?
It doesn’t have to mean anything

There is no communication

This is just the sound of a man who loves his own voice

This is a voice with an audience because everyone thinks it’s their own voice

They tell themselves the things they want to hear

Like, Mexico will pay for the wall

I have words. I have the best words.

Words don’t mean things. Words are just feelings.

I could say nonsense shit and the folks would still get it.

Mexico will pay for the covfefe.

There is no lie when I am the only reality

You must get rid of these nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.

War is peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is strength

And Mexico will pay for the wall

My soul is a pool of acid, bubbling over, overflowing

Eating the wood of the furnishings, running gutters into the marble

Scarring the foundations upon which I stand

Cutting the air with a dominating stink that everyone else in the room

Pretends not to notice

Because Mexico will pay for the wall.

My government can’t investigate me

I AM THE LAW

Respect the badge

He earned it with his blood

Why didn’t mom ever love me

Hiding behind the curtain in the oval office staring out the window looking for fbi trucks and holding a gun barrel under my chin

And Mexico will pay for the wall.

(Inspired in part by ‘Whitey on the Moon‘ by Gil Scott-Heron. The Revolution will be brought to you by Nike.)

 

The Tip Jar Is Open

Oh, and apropos of nothing folks, I’ve tested my PayPal account, and apparently the Donate button on my posts finally works.  So I encourage the 4 1/2 people currently reading this to donate as they see fit.  Because like many people these days, I have to live on a fixed income.  Which is to say, I have a job.

Anthony Bourdain, RIP

The worst thing about boycotting CNN is not watching Anthony Bourdain.

After some punk at the network decided to blame third-party voters for The Election, I decided I was going to boycott the network from that point on, because it only confirmed to me that CNN is the Ideal of mainstream liberal media: Smarmy, determined to define a “standard” of acceptability, both snotty at the people who voted for the “wrong” candidate yet all too willing to accommodate this country’s long slide into authoritarianism for the sake of their own business.

Smarmy, mainstream and accommodating: These were all things that Anthony Bourdain certainly was not.

He was hardly a conservative, or even a libertarian, but he wasn’t exactly a liberal, and he sure as hell wasn’t politically correct. More than anything, Bourdain was HIMSELF. And being yourself seems to be very difficult to do these days.

I don’t know if anyone else is deliberately not watching CNN (if they are, it was probably long before 2016). But I’ve been told that you can watch Parts Unknown on Netflix, and there are other places to search out the episodes. All the episodes are good, but the first one that always comes to my mind is “Tokyo Nights”.  The show has some focus on food, as Bourdain has an evening with his favorite sushi chef. But this episode more than most focuses on a lot of other cultural angles, and Bourdain’s particular love of Tokyo. However wacky and exotic modern Japan might seem to be, Bourdain focused on it because he responded to something within himself. At the end of the piece, he said: “Our own obsessions, arguably, are at least as crazy, violent, and lurid as Japan’s, and we tend to actually carry out our violent fantasies more frequently.”

The only other time I’d mentioned Bourdain, I disagreed with his apparent need to fat-shame James Corden after his flippant comments regarding Harvey Weinstein.  But that’s because he was exactly the sort of person who should know better. He certainly wasn’t afraid of having an opinion that would piss people off. He was an asshole. But Bourdain’s saving grace was that he was perfectly aware that he was an asshole, and as others have pointed out, he used his position and his personal drive to agitate for his favorite causes, even the seemingly passive choice to go to a foreign country and learn the cuisine and culture. It’s just another way of seeing the world.

In his signature book, Kitchen Confidential, Bourdain said a lot of things, among them this:

Assume the worst. About everybody. But don’t let this poisoned outlook affect your job performance. Let it all roll off your back. Ignore it. Be amused by what you see and suspect. Just because someone you work with is a miserable, treacherous, self-serving, capricious and corrupt asshole shouldn’t prevent you from enjoying their company, working with them or finding them entertaining.”

Words to live by.

Ask Donald Trump

What qualifies Donald Trump to write a personal advice column? Because, let’s face it, he’s the president and you’re not.

Mr. President, is there a particular maxim or code that you live by that helps guide your actions?
-Mr. Richard Feder, Fort Lee, New Jersey

Glad you asked, Emily. Ever since, I became President, every day, I ask myself, Self, “What would Richard Nixon do?” Now some folks say, maybe that’s not such a good role model, but he got elected and they didn’t, so who cares about them? Plus which, Nixon opened relations with a Commie Oriental country, which I’m trying to do, and he was really setting the right precedent with the Justice Department. He woulda gotten away with it too, if not for those damn Democrats in the Senate who made him resign.

You could do worse than ask “What would Nixon do?” Before I got elected, I used to ask myself, “What would Roy Cohn do?” But then he got Aids.

Mr. President, why do you keep repeating “NO COLLUSION” in person and in tweets? It’s getting a bit tiresome to the rest of the country.
-L. Stahl, Manhattan, New York

That’s a great point. As a matter of fact, I DO say No Collusion. Over and over again. You know why? Cause in my life, I’ve found that if you repeat the same thing, over and over again, no matter how ridiculous it is, people just accept it as like, the mental furniture. And it doesn’t matter if it’s “real” – if you get enough people to say it’s real, then it IS real, or good enough for me. That’s also why I say a whole bunch of things over and over, like “Witch Hunt,” “Mexico will pay for The Wall” and “Don’t worry, honey, I brought the condoms this time.”

Mr. Trump, I’d like to know: What is your secret for getting women?
-Michael Avenatti, Beverly Hills, California

I’m glad you asked, Bob. I wish I could give you advice, but in my experience, the secret to getting as much tail as I have is to have ten billion dollars. Now, that experience isn’t going to help you, cause I’m guessing you don’t have ten billion dollars. As a matter of fact, even I really don’t have ten billion dollars, which is why I needed David Broidy to cover the non-disclosure agreements I made with my mistresses. But I’m not supposed to talk about that right now.

Mr. Trump, was becoming president as great as it seemed to be?
-S. Hannity, New York City, New York

I can tell you Sean, it’s just a tremendous feeling. Becoming president is the cum culmanaton peak of my lifelong dream: having the power to do anything I want without anyone being able to stop me. It’s kinda like being God, only better, cause I think God is supposed to be celibate.

What is it you seem to have against Mexicans or other brown people?
-K. Kardashian, Beverly Hills, California

Look, I don’t have anything against Mexicans, I just said they were ripping us off. When I announced my campaign, I said that Mexico was not sending us their best people. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists – and some, I assume, are good people.” So, SOME are good people. I guess. Just cause the rest are drug smugglers and rapists. But I don’t think our country should be so reliant on Mexican labor, because you can’t rely on Mexican work culture.

See, back when I was in college on my fourth draft deferment, some of us guys managed to get a trip to Veracruz, and we all thought they were supposed to have great whorehouses, but they kinda sucked. I mean, not in the good way. I hear the girls are a lot better in Tijuana, but like I was saying, dodging the clap was my version of Vietnam, and if Veracruz was Saigon, Tijuana woulda been like Hamburger Hill, you know what I’m saying? Plus, you probably know, I don’t drink, so my choice was either drink the water, and get the runs, or drink the tequila, and still get the runs. And get fucked up. I mean, you’ve tried tequila, right? You go to any random airport, and walk up to any Japanese guy in a suit, and just say, “Tequila?” And he’ll say, “Oh, that shit fuck you UP!”

I mean, everybody jokes that illegals will do the jobs that Americans don’t wanna do, but from what I’ve seen, not hardly. That’s why I go for East European girls. Not only do they have those nice features and pale skin, they REALLY know what it’s like to be desperate to get to this country. It’s not like Vladimir Putin or Victor Orban is running Mexico. If you’re a woman living in an authoritarian state, you’ already know how to be submissive in order to get out of a jam, and then you’ve got a girl who’s gonna take you through a whole magazine’s worth of Penthouse Forum Letters if she thinks you’ll get her a visa. That I can tell you.

Wait, what was the question again?

Mr. Trump, clearly you’ve done a lot of things that most considered impossible, and that some thought should be impossible. What is the secret to your success?
-James Gillen, Las Vegas, Nevada

It’s no real secret, Jeff. In 2015, I was on CNN and I told the reporter, “I do whine because I want to win. And I’m not happy if I’m not winning. And I am a whiner. And I’m a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win.”

See, I make a big show of strength, but really what I do is, I make myself such an annoying little pest that eventually the mark – uh, other party just gives me what I want so that I’ll shut up and go away.

But the thing is, because I’m a sociopathic attention sponge, I will NOT shut up, I will NOT go away, and I will NEVVER, EVER, leave you alone. And if you don’t figure this out toot sweet and toss me like a live grenade, I will dominate your every waking moment and make you my slave. I mean, if you’ve ever lived with a drug addict or professional con man – and Jeff, I get the impression you have – you know how it works.

But as much as I would like to think otherwise, it’s not all because of me. I mean, everybody keeps comparing me to Hitler, and that’s flattering, I guess, but Hitler was a nobody. It’s not like his Daddy ever gave him a few millions dollars to build his reputation. Nobody heard of him. He never got on TV. I mean, he actually volunteered to serve in another country’s military when he didn’t have to. What kind of sucker does that?

I mean it, Hitler was a nobody. You don’t hand over control of the country to somebody like that unless you are truly desperate. And I know this, cause I’m a New York real estate developer. Taking advantage of desperate people is what I DO.

You remember during the campaign when I kept saying, “all my life, I’ve been greedy, greedy, greedy! But now, I’m going to be greedy for YOU!” Christ, did you actually believe that shit? I know I didn’t.

I mean, I did say, “I could walk down Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any votes,” but I was joking! That was me going, ‘even I can’t take this shit that seriously, so why’s everybody else?’ And everntually I realized, it doesn’t matter what I do or what I say, cause everybody who votes for me are a bunch of dumbfucks who would eat wet camel shit if you tell them Hillary Clinton says it would be a bad idea. I mean, they must be dumbfucks, they voted for me, right?

I said the quiet part loud again didn’t I?

Fuck.

Well, we’ll just get the staff to edit this, like with my tweets.

 

REVIEW: Deadpool 2

Deadpool 2 brings back most of the cast from the surprise hit movie: Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool), Morena Baccarin (his girlfriend, Vanessa), Leslie Uggams (Blind Al), Karan Soni (Dopinder the cab driver) and T.J. Miller, whose mutant power is the superhuman ability to sabotage his own career.

As the movie starts, Deadpool and Vanessa decide to start a family. Unfortunately, this goal hits a minor setback. Despondent, Deadpool ends up becoming an X-Men Trainee (TM) under Colossus and tries to rehabilitate an angry preteen named “Firefist” with the mutant power of flame generation (and possibly insulin resistance). However, once they’re stuck together in Mutant Penitentiary, Deadpool has to save the kid from a gun-toting cyborg named Cable, played by Josh Brolin. (Yes, Deadpool calls him Thanos at one point.) And once it’s revealed that Cable came from the future to change his own past, it raises the matter of how a decision to treat others can have effects on the whole universe. This is important, because it comes up at the end of the movie.

One thing I like about the Deadpool series is that it goes against the tendency in how most superheroes are adapted to the screen. Comicbook characters are literally cartoons. Their appearance, including a mask, is central to their identity, which is why Bruce Wayne doesn’t just fight crime in his civvies. But when studios are making a comicbook movie with a big star like Robert Downey Jr., they want to show Iron Man with his mask off as much as possible, because otherwise they think its a waste of star power to show a costume when pretty much anybody could be in it. But the producers of Deadpool movies (including Ryan Reynolds) get Deadpool. They put little facial expressions on his mask and show him in costume as much as possible because that’s how the comicbook looks. Besides which, Deadpool with his mask off looks kind of like a statue that someone sculpted out of dried cow shit and painted with a coat of vomit. Or like an abortion that crawled out of the biowaste bin, then escaped the facility, then grew up. Look, you get the idea.

In any case, Deadpool 2 not only has the violence and profanity we’ve come to expect, but it also holds together as a dramatic story (eventually) and it happens to have the most badass action-hero soundtrack EVER.

REVIEW: Avengers: Infinity War

The titles of Marvel movies are often misleading. For example, Civil War was promoted as Captain America: Civil War, when it could just as easily been promoted as an Iron Man sequel or an Avengers movie, since Iron Man was just as central to the story as Captain America, and it was his actions that ultimately led to the destruction of the Avengers team. And now that Thanos is making his long-awaited move, bringing in the Guardians of the Galaxy, Asgardians, Wakandans, Dr. Strange, Spider-Man and all of the (former) Avengers, what we are calling Avengers: Infinity War would be just as well called “Thanos Vs. The Marvel Cinematic Universe.”

Guess who wins.

As fans know, the unifying arc of the Marvel movies since at least The Avengers is that Thanos is a demi-god level threat who has been collecting various “Infinity Stones”, some of which are possesssed by Marvel heroes. When all the stones are together, their owner has absolute control of space and time. Thanos seeks this power in order to restore balance by killing half the population of the universe. Apparently nobody told him about condoms.

Other good titles for this movie would be:
“The Search For A Thanos CGI That Doesn’t Suck”

“The Scriptwriters Don’t Seem To Like Star-Lord For Some Reason”

and “They Can’t Kill That Guy, He’s Still Under Contract”.

I waited until my friends were available to see the movie with me, so by now, most people are either aware of the ending or have been spoiled somewhat. The ultimate doom of the piece is greatly undermined because, A, we already know there is going to be a sequel, and B, anyone who knows about the original source material knows that a device that can control the universe and time can also reverse any changes made with it, which is how the comicbook story was resolved. But the major difference between a comicbook universe and its movie adaptation is that comic companies can use fictional characters and resurrect them without regard to age or death, whereas movie producers have to deal with real-world factors. For instance, Marvel Comics has had Steve Rogers quit being Captain America on several occasions (sometimes replaced by Bucky or Sam) but he usually comes back to the role. But even if Chris Evans wanted to play Captain America forever, Captain America is supposed to be at the peak of human athletic ability, and no one can be that buff past their early 30s. Whereas Robert Downey Jr. could conceivably play Iron Man (a normal human whose powers come from technology) well past the age of 50, but his star power has already made renewing his contract too expensive.  This is going to reset the universe, but not in the way that would happen in the comics.

So as both a comic reader and MCU fan, my approach to all this is a bit “meta.” Avengers: Infinity War was directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo, who did my two favorite Marvel movies, Civil War and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. (The best MCU movie verges between those two, Black Panther and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, depending on my mood.) There’s a lot of great dialogue and good acting (especially from Chris Hemsworth, remarkably enough). But I can’t say it’s the greatest Marvel movie. Others have pointed out that (despite a strong performance by Josh Brolin) Thanos has a severe problem as a villain, which I will address when I have more time to think about it. The major problem with this movie is that it’s the least stand-alone of all Marvel movies, and necessarily incomplete. It’s basically 95 percent awesomeness, and 5 percent …….

About That White House Correspondents’ Dinner

“You guys are obsessed with Trump. Did you use to date him?”
-Michelle Wolf, April 28, 2018

“It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”
-Les Moonves, February 29, 2016, regarding the Donald Trump presidential campaign

By now, a lot of people have offered their opinions on comedian Michelle Wolf’s speech at the 2018 White House Correspondents’ Dinner.  At the risk of coming off like Dennis Miller, I wanted to research some points before giving my opinion.

Wolf was not the first person to give a speech at the WHCD to be taken to task for being vulgar or tasteless, even before the Trump Administration. In fact if you look at the 2016 event and compare President Barack Obama’s speech to the speech given immediately afterward by comedian Larry Wilmore, it’s amazing that the president not only did not punch low, but had a better sense of the room and better comic timing than the professional comic. Since then, you’ve had Hasan Minhaj and Wolf (like Wilmore, both veterans of The Daily Show), and both were attacked for being too offensive. In Wolf’s case, she came off with a hesitant, giggly affect, which conveyed either too much confidence in the material, or conversely no confidence at all.

As Wolf herself said, “you should have done your research.” But nevertheless people felt the need to complain, including those who were not directly targeted by Wolf. So where the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, Margaret Talev, had promoted Wolf before the dinner, saying “Our dinner honors the First Amendment and strong, independent journalism. [Wolf’s] embrace of these values and her truth-to-power style make her a great friend to the WHCA”, after the dinner, Talev said: “Last night’s program was meant to offer a unifying message about our common commitment to a vigorous and free press while honoring civility, great reporting and scholarship winners, not to divide people. Unfortunately, the entertainer’s monologue was not in the spirit of that mission.”

Which is a bit precious given that, again, this is the third year in a row that the Correspondents’ Dinner hired a Comedy Central comic as a featured speaker and they ended up giving an R-rated address. So it is a fair question as to who is more betrayed: the rubber-chicken crowd that expects the event to titillate rather than provoke, or the people who actually expect journalism to speak truth to power.

The real joke of the night is that that never has been the point of the event.

There is a certain code of professional respect in American politics, not just between the two major parties but between the press and the political class, and it is simultaneously the greatest virtue and greatest vice of the system. It has already been permanently undermined within the two-party system by Newt Gingrich, then the Tea Party, and most recently by the maneuvers of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan in the Congress to shut Democrats out of serious legislative action. But the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, like the Al Smith Dinner in New York, is one of the remnants of a tradition where all parties in the political-media complex are supposed to relax and reassure themselves that short-term disagreements aside, they’re all Americans on the same team.

The ultimate downside to this sense of courtesy is that if you have enough friendships or juice with the gatekeepers of information, you can be the most depraved character imaginable and still retain respect in the system. As some of Donald Trump’s mentors showed him by example.

I’ve often felt that this is one of the reasons that Trump ran for president in the first place. He was already the ultimate spoiled brat who was used to having the press and the legal system give him all the breaks he wanted, but the least little pushback was still too much for his fragile ego. So he decided to shoot for the ultimate position of power and prestige so that his disgusting conduct would finally be unimpeachable. So to speak.

What we have ended up with is worse than hypocrisy, it’s a double standard. Which is not entirely the same thing.

Hypocrisy is the Republican stock in trade. You expect these people to attack others on standards that they don’t feel the need to uphold themselves.

The problem is when the “respectable” mainstream media actually do believe they uphold standards of fairness and objectivity, but in doing so, enforce them unevenly. What happens when Donald Trump attacks judges and journalists for being Hispanic, or mocks another journalist for a disability? Do you call him out as a bigot? Well, you can’t do that, that would be bias! But if you don’t call a spade a spade, is that fairness to Trump, or bias against truth?

What happens where you have a standard where one party can bully, pick fights and do as they please while everyone else has to play by the rules? When one party gets sucker punched and can only fight with one hand tied behind their back, who wins and who loses on that standard of “fairness”?

This code of professional respect is one of the numerous traditions of American government that Donald Trump wishes to destroy, to the extent that he cares about those traditions at all.

So of course he isn’t going to attend the Correspondents’ Dinner and take (further) mockery. That’s Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ job.

Sanders, also known as Aunt Lydia, also known as Sister Mary Elephant, is one of the most disingenuous and unpleasant people in an Administration where being disingenuous and unpleasant are the two main resume items. But Wolf didn’t call her out for being overweight, though she could have. She didn’t say Sanders is ugly, though she could have. She did say that Sanders was the white woman’s equivalent of an Uncle Tom, and that she traded in lies to the extent that she had turned them into a facial accessory. Now, one doesn’t normally accuse the press secretary of outright lying, but when this Administration started by having Sean “Spicy” Spicer come up to the press corps and insist that Donald Trump had the best attended inauguration in history when all visual evidence confirmed the opposite, it undermined the “official” Administration’s credibility when attacking anyone else as false or biased. As a more recent example of White House lies, Dr. Harold Bornstein, Trump’s former doctor, just said that Trump’s bodyguard and a “large” assistant raided his office in February 2017 for Trump’s medical records. At her first press conference since the WHCD, Sanders admitted to the seizure on Tuesday but insisted that “as standard operating procedure, the White House Medical Unit took possession of the president’s medical records.” It is NOT standard medical procedure to have the president’s bodyguard take his medical records without authorization from the White House Medical Unit and in violation of HIPAA guidelines. (To the extent that we can trust Dr. Bornstein’s word, so long after the fact.) As it turned out, the raid occurred just two days after Bornstein told the press that he had given Trump a prescription of Propecia for hair loss. So that part wasn’t lying on the part of Sanders so much as omission. The pattern with the White House is to insist that “if Donald Trump says the sky is plaid and the moon is made of green cheese, then it is, because President Trump said so, because he’s the president, because he was elected, and who cares if Hillary got more votes, because he got the Electoral College, so that means the people have spoken, and anybody who disagrees is a Commie Muslim traitor or something.” Sanders is just that much more surly and brazen in that assertion than Spicer. Indeed, towards the end of his tenure, the press corps was starting to feel a bit of sympathy for Spicer because they could detect a core of shame within him, a trait that Sanders has obviously deduced is not conducive to survival in Trumpworld.

Getting roasted by Wolf is of a piece with Sanders’ day to day job. The White House press conference is increasingly recognized as a ritual where the White House spews public-relations propaganda in the guise of truth and the press corps pretends to take it seriously. But everybody puts up with being lied to, and did so long before Trump’s inauguration, because that’s how things are done. Journalism, especially in Washington, is a matter of contacts, and however much contempt the audience has for professional liars like Kellyanne Conway, and however much rage the president has for “leakers,” the government and the press are in a mutually parasitic relationship where most of the best leaks are from people like Conway and even Donald Trump himself. This was confirmed by no less a conservative than Ann Coulter. In her New York Times interview with Frank Bruni, Coulter confirmed that she was the source of a quote in Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury expose and that she was not the one who leaked it. In her account to Bruni, she had tried to get Trump’s aides to dissuade him from letting Ivanka and Jared Kushner act in his White House without portfolio, since that sort of thing was bad optics in the Kennedy Administration, and Bobby Kennedy “knew a little more about politics.” She got blown off by people who said “that’s above my pay grade.” So she got an audience with Trump himself and said: “Apparently no one else will tell you this, but you can’t hire your kids.” She said he did listen at the time, but when she heard about Wolff’s book, she went to Wolff at the book party and said, “I didn’t tell you anything, how did you know I had told him this? It had to be the president or someone the president told.’ And he said: ‘Oh, yeah, it was the president. He was storming around the Oval Office, saying, ‘And then Ann Coulter told me ….’”

So both sides here are acting just a little bit in bad faith. And when it is clear that Trump and his team have no regard for How The Game Is Played, it doesn’t necessarily help the press to spread information through deception and unattributed rumor. Only one side needs to care about upholding its reputation.

In any case, it is hardly news for a private citizen to shout that Trump and his stooges are liars and crooks. The real punch of Michelle Wolf’s speech came very late, at the 18-minute mark. “You guys are obsessed with Trump. Did you used to date him? Because you pretend like you hate him, but I think you love him. I think what no one in this room wants to admit is that Trump has helped all of you. He couldn’t sell steaks, or vodka, or water, or college, or ties, or Eric… but he has helped YOU. He has helped you sell your papers, and your books, and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you’re profiting off of him. And if you’re going to profit off of Trump, you should at least give him some money, because he doesn’t have any.”

It’s funny because it’s true.

The American press could have treated Trump on the same mutant-retard level that they usually reserve for third-party candidates. They could have shut him out of debates simply for going beyond the pale, which he did more and more often. But no. They wanted the 2016 election to be a contest. Everybody expected Hillary Clinton to roll to victory (certainly including Clinton), and the press corps that had prior experience of Clinton was already bored to death by the prospect. They could have promoted Rubio, Jeb or Ted Cruz, but they were all sad sacks, and the Annoying Orange was “great for ratings.” And of course, the New York press was at least as chummy with Trump as they were with the Clintons.

You don’t see journalists making a big issue of that bit, but that’s because Washington journalists are professional enough to not call attention to their weaknesses, whereas both Donald Trump and his cult are gaping wounds of emotional neediness that would cause a Jewish Holocaust survivor to go, “stop with the complaining, already.”

But make no mistake, Wolf knew what she was saying with those words, and her targets knew exactly what she was talking about.

And the fact that female professional journalists – some of whom are the prime beneficiaries of White House leaks –  are responding to Wolf on a tone-policing, gossip-girl level with regard to Sarah Sanders, rather than addressing the substance of her point, actually calls attention to it by omission.

One demands respect within an institution if that institution is worthy of respect. Thus when one party flagrantly violates the rules of respect they should not complain if they get attacked in kind, not should the respectable gatekeepers pretend that that party is innocent. Otherwise the institution becomes unworthy of the respect everyone is demanding.

And if the press will not challenge the White House, either because it fears a hostile administration, or wants to keep access to a friendly one, that’s part of the problem.

Also – Flint, Michigan still doesn’t have clean drinking water.

 

 

So Much For First Principles

Nothing in democratic politics is given — or rather, the things we consider given at any moment enjoy this status for no more exalted reason than that public opinion (expressed primarily through elections) favors treating it as such. But the settlement or consensus in its favor is always temporary and contingent. The contestation of politics, the struggle over power and ideas, over the Constitution and the law and who we are as a political community, never ends. It’s always possible for a settlement or consensus at one moment of history to be rethought, overturned, or reversed. Rights granted can later be rescinded — and there’s no way to prevent that from happening beyond continuing the fight, day after day.

-Damon Linker, The Week

It’s time for me to introduce another of my personal axioms. The first was: “It is possible for two different things to be true at the same time.” The second was: “Every new president somehow lowers the bar.” The third is: There are no a priori concepts.

A priori (Latin for ‘from the prior’) is a phrase that is frequently invoked in philosophy but was popularized by Immanuel Kant in the 1781 Critique of Pure Reason. Without getting way too technical and over-involved (like Kant), the author was writing in reaction to contemporary philosophy, the one extreme being radical empiricism (example: David Hume) and the other being rationalism divorced from experience (ex: Bishop George Berkeley). While Kant asserted the reality of the material world and “experience”, philosophers ultimately count him as an idealist who distinguished knowledge gained after experience (knowledge a posteriori) from knowledge a priori, universal truths existing prior to experience of phenomena. “But although all our cognition commences with experience, yet it does not on that account all arise from experience.” Philosophers ever since have been gnawing over the merits of Kant’s work, so I don’t think people will assume that it’s easy for me to blast his thesis to bits. It seems, however, that problems can easily be deduced. For instance, in asserting “that certain cognitions even abandon the field of all possible experiences”, Kant cited as primary examples the concepts of God, Free Will and Immortality. But for these three to be truly independent and transcendent of culture and experience, they would have to be common elements in all philosophy, not just the heritage of Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian culture. In Eastern philosophy by contrast, a Supreme Being exists in Hinduism but is not necessarily inherent in Buddhism, Free Will implies a concept of self that both Hinduism and Buddhism are opposed to, and Immortality exists only in a concept of samsara, or cyclical existence and reincarnation, in which the individual comes to see the phenomenal world as futility and ultimately seeks to end the cycle rather than preserve it.

What does this have to do with anything at all?

Because in the realm of politics, Americans, specifically liberals, are acting as though certain elements of the political debate are a priori assumptions and not to be questioned. But in the above example, Kant declared that Western philosophy pointed to theism because theism was at the basis of philosophy. But if one goes outside that philosophical perspective, it becomes clear that not everyone holds those beliefs as the given.

I bring this up due to a couple of subjects.

The Atlantic magazine recently hired National Review columnist Kevin Williamson, which is in line with other controversial decisions from center-left media (like The New York Times) hiring right-wing columnists like Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens for the sake of “perspective.” The very fact of these selections is a tacit admission that the readers of such media are only getting one side of the debate. But the ink wasn’t dry on Williamson’s first Atlantic piece before liberals brought up remarks he made on a conservative podcast where he said: “And someone challenged me on my views on abortion, saying, ‘If you really thought it was a crime, you would support things like life in prison, no parole, for treating it as a homicide.’ And I do support that. In fact, as I wrote, what I had in mind was hanging.” This was known at the time, yet Williamson got hired by The Atlantic, and Thursday April 5, Williamson got fired, editor Jeffrey Goldberg declaring: “The language he used in this podcast—and in my conversations with him in recent days—made it clear that the original tweet did, in fact, represent his carefully considered views. The tweet was not merely an impulsive, decontextualized, heat-of-the-moment post, as Kevin had explained it.” (As of the 5th, Williamson’s one column is still up on the Atlantic website, where he was still listed as a staff writer.)

It was in fact another Atlantic piece that pointed to a National Review article of March 2016 where Williamson said in regard to White Working Class Trump Voters:  “There wasn’t some awful disaster. There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence—and the incomprehensible malice—of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain’t what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. … The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.” So I’m a bit surprised that anybody there is surprised at what they were getting.

As Reason Magazine’s Katherine Mangu-Ward says, “the underlying logic of Williamson’s position is a view shared by roughly half or at least 40 percent of Americans.” It is a position one can argue with, but the opposite (pro-abortion rights) position is not necessarily the accepted wisdom, unless you are a liberal. Mangu-Ward continues: “I have personally been the beneficiary of this doublethink on ideological diversity for years. When institutions recognize the need to have a nonliberal somewhere in their midst, they look across the landscape and discover that the closest thing to conservatism that they can tolerate is a relatively mild-mannered, young(ish), female, pro-choice libertarian. Which is to say, not a conservative at all.”

More broadly, this is part of why the abortion debate can’t be simply resolved by an appeal to logic or first principles, because the first principles of each side are radically different, as are their implications, depending on how far you want to go. As I grow older and the fragility of life becomes more obvious to me, I am more inclined towards the Catholic position, which is pro-life on both abortion AND the death penalty. Nevertheless, I have to define myself as pro-choice, because if we actually defined abortion as murder, Williamson’s posture would be less of a posture and more of a possibility.

See, Kant’s other famous idea was the thought experiment called the categorical imperative. Having eliminated the possibility of deriving truth from empirical data (or rather, asserting that it only applied to the ‘phenomenal realm’), Kant sought a device by which one could determine the morality of an action in a given situation. He defined this categorical imperative in action thus: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Translated, Kant is expecting the individual to take responsibility for every choice as an example of a universal principle.

When challenged on this by the Frenchman Benjamin Constant, who said that if lying goes against the categorical imperative, this would mean that there is a duty not to lie to a murderer seeking a target, Kant replied that (while one might simply withhold any statement and keep silent) it is nevertheless a greater duty to be truthful to the murderer than to protect a potential target: “Although in telling a certain lie, I do not actually do anyone a wrong, I formally but not materially violate the principle of right with respect to all unavoidably necessary utterances. And this is much worse than to do injustice to any particular person, because such a deed against an individual does not always presuppose the existence of a principle in the subject which produces such an act.”

This gets to the real issue with Kantian idealism. With the categorical imperative, and in a much broader respect with the Critique of Pure Reason and subsequent work, Kant was trying to act against the philosophy of “consequentialism”, and define a universal moral law that was not undermined by “self-love” or ulterior motives. Yet, to apply the categorical imperative, one has to apply consequences on the most abstract level, and limit one’s action on the principle that a particular action sets a universal example. To Kant, to lie in any circumstance is to justify lying in all circumstances, and thus the abstract consequence of violating philosophy is used to dismiss the practical consequence of making that maxim a universal.

Most people, of course, don’t think like this. Unless you’re in politics.

This in a roundabout way gets to the other topic I am thinking about.

One of the reasons that gun crime remains an issue is that every time a firearms massacre occurs, liberals can’t get the “common-sense gun safety” legislation they want, because even when it is common-sense and supported by the public (national background checks, for instance), it gets shot down in the Congress and state legislatures. This is mostly because of the NRA and its commercial priorities, but the NRA itself is representing a larger gun culture, and I would say that a huge reason for their success in resisting political pressure is that they are as inflexible in compromising gun rights as Planned Parenthood and liberal organizations are in resisting compromise on abortion rights. Just as pro-choice people resist conservative attempts to restrict abortion access as a transparent ploy towards ending abortion rights altogether, the gun lobby presents any gun control legislation as a slippery slope towards total gun prohibition.

At this point, liberals might object. We’ve established that there really are some conservatives who not only want to ban abortion but want to prosecute it as murder. But surely being anti-gun isn’t the same thing. The argument being proffered by liberals is that they aren’t trying to end gun rights, just establish proper security procedures. “Nobody’s saying we need to get rid of the Second Amendment.”

Except, some people are.

On March 27, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens attracted headlines with a New York Times column in which he stated that the only solution to gun violence was the repeal of the Second Amendment. Stevens points out that the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights because of a fear that a national standing army would threaten the security of the separate states, thus the default assumption that defense was a matter for state militia. But to Stevens, “that concern is a relic of the 18th century.” Stevens states that his concern stems from the 2008 Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller, in which he was one of four dissenters, and which he asserts “has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power.” Removing the Second Amendment, Stevens says, “would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States – unlike every other market in the world.” Blanking out of course, that by Stevens’ own argument, we’d had the Second since the signing of the Constitution, and the prior standard of its interpretation before Heller was more to his liking, and it would be much easier and more practical to appoint more justices who agreed with him than it would be to go through the whole process of amending the Constitution.

Keep in mind, when Antonin Scalia wrote his opinion in Heller, he specifically stated: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Not to mention, liberals have never fussed about applying the First Amendment towards a general category of individual freedom of expression that applies far beyond 18th-century artefacts like “the press.”

All Heller did was to knock away the specious rationale that the Constitution says anything about a “collective right” that is inherent in the government and not the people. Liberals wail that Scalia’s opinion arbitrarily blew away the previous consensus on what the American legal standard of gun ownership is supposed to be, eliding the point that said standard was a precedent that did not date back to the founding documents, and is most strongly based in US vs. Miller.

Nevertheless, Stevens’ piece is worthwhile in that someone is at least approaching the matter honestly. The main fact in Stevens’ opinion was that we haven’t actually needed state militia units since the Civil War, and their domestic security purpose is effectively taken over by the National Guard. But that gets to the general point that much of the government’s “rules as written” (the Constitution) have little to do with how the US government works in practice. Challenging the Second Amendment simply forces us to admit that the government hasn’t operated according to its original principles for quite some time, but it doesn’t answer the question as to whether that is really a good thing.

For example, the Third Amendment says that the government is not allowed to quarter troops in private homes. “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” We haven’t even needed to consider this, because since the constitutional government was founded, the government has always provided for troops and had the money to do so, thus the option has never been necessary. That being the case, why do we still need the Third Amendment?

Because, we all know that if we didn’t have the Third Amendment, Republicans would force wealthy Democrats to quarter troops on their property so they could raid the defense budget for their personal vacations.

This is why it doesn’t help liberals to say that “the Constitution is a living document.” Because if “conservatives” press their current advantage, and get multiple justices on the Supreme Court, they could repeal Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education. And at that point, asserting that the Constitution is a “living document” won’t sound quite so cute.

So this is what I’m getting at: First, Immanuel Kant sucks. But that’s not directly relevant. Secondly, we do not all share the same first principles, which is made clear by American political history in general and the current trend of politics in particular. Third, even beyond first principles, the real reason that liberals and conservatives can’t trust each other these days is that they both assume the worst of each other when they get into power. Which is eminently justified.

GAME REVIEW: Starfinder

 

I’m going to take a different tack with this blog for a bit.

I play role-playing games – as in, tabletop, dice rolling, role-playing games – and in my hobby I’d done a few reviews for a couple of RPG forums, enough to where a few game publishers actually forwarded me free material to review. Ironically, I got turned off to those sites because of the non-gaming, political discussions, after one of those forums got taken over by the kind of SJWs who think anybody to the right of Che Guevara is a Nazi, and the other site went in the opposite direction, being so disgusted with “social justice” movements that they think Donald Trump is a hero. And much of the reason I got into those political discussions is that the gaming discussions bored me. I already knew what I liked, and the commentary seemed to be mostly fixed opinions on various games, which became too predictable to be worthwhile. I still did reviews, but I noticed that not too many people read them, and in the case of one of those sites, not too many people were even contributing reviews anymore. It was a point of diminishing returns.

Which didn’t stop me from actually playing games with my friends. I have two separate groups playing on two different nights. One of them frequently runs Pathfinder, a Dungeons & Dragons offshoot that became popular after the owners of the actual D&D brand temporarily decided to turn their product into the gaming version of New Coke. Recently, the host of our game wanted to try being Game Master of the new spinoff game, Starfinder, which is Pathfinder in space. Sorta.

In light of both our game experience and my study of the core rulebook, I wanted to do a review of Starfinder, because it actually differs in some respects from the original Pathfinder, and in light of the recent news that after almost 10 years of Paizo Publishing making the Pathfinder RPG, they’ve decided to playtest a second edition of the rules – for which Starfinder helped serve as a model.

Starfinder, like Pathfinder, is set in its own fictional universe, like the D&D settings of Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. In this case, Pathfinder is set on the Earth-like world of Golarion, which is established to be in a solar system with other planets, most of which have their own humanoid races, akin to early 20th Century science fiction. The premise of Starfinder is that it occurs some point in the far future in the Pathfinder universe, but for some reason, Golarion no longer exists. Or is in another dimension. Or something. No one knows why. In fact, whatever it is that removed planet Golarion also removed everyone’s memory of exactly what happened, an event now known to the interplanetary civilization as “the Gap.” (Supposedly this was done to prevent Pathfinder players from changing the established history of the setting, though given the severe difference in tech levels, no Pathfinder player characters should have lived long enough to see the Gap.)

Likewise, the Starfinder setting still technically has the Tolkien-like races such as Elves and Halflings, but stats for them are in the back of the book. The core rules focus on Humans and the inhabitants of those other worlds in the solar system, such as Androids, the four-armed Kasathas and the telepathic Lashuntas. It also features the Vesk, a warlike reptilian race who tried to conquer the solar system before both sides had to ally against a greater threat. Most of these races (including Androids but not Vesk) had game stats in Pathfinder material that was previously published for sci-fi crossover scenarios. What’s different, and where you have the first change from the prior Pathfinder game, is that each race (including Humans) has their own stat for Hit Points. Hit Points of course are the D&D stat that determines how much damage a character takes before getting taken out. Traditionally, though, players rolled their hit points on “Hit Dice” randomly depending on their character class, with warrior classes getting more hit points (rolled on a 10-sided die, or d10) and scholarly wizards getting less (rolling a d6 or even a d4). In Starfinder, Hit Points are a set number coming from both a character’s class and race, the two values being added together at 1st level and every new experience level. Starfinder also gives characters the “Stamina Points” stat, which is related but not quite the same thing, and the Resolve Points stat, which is pretty important in play (see below).

Character classes are different from the set given in Pathfinder and most D&D games. Pathfinder is infamous for taking the base assumptions of D&D classes – the “martial” fighters and rogues, with clerics and wizards – and exploding them with various options in new sourcebooks such that there are now at least twenty. Starfinder, at least in its corebook, only has seven classes. Some cases are obvious analogs to D&D/Pathfinder style classes. The Soldier, for instance, is the equivalent of the Fighter, only a good deal more versatile. In this regard, there’s another clear difference between Starfinder and the edition of D&D that Pathfinder was based on: Soldiers get twice the skill points of D&D/PF Fighters. (Spellcasters also got screwed on skill points in Pathfinder, whereas in this game most people are assumed to be technically skilled, so each class gets at least 4 skill points per level.) You also have the Envoy, who uses Charisma to outmaneuver enemies and help friends (basically a Bard, or what some games would call a Noble), the Operative (read: a Rogue, or Thief), the Mystic (Cleric) and Technomancer (Wizard or Sorcerer). However there is also a Mechanic class that deals specifically with the technical issues that you would get in a space science fiction game, with options like cyberware and drones. There’s also the Solarian, a melee warrior class which for reasons unexplained is able to “manipulate the forces of the stars themselves.” This gives access to some pretty cool comic-book type powers, but most of them require the solarian to already be in combat over a period of rounds in order to be “attuned” to stellar energy.

Furthermore, there’s a step in character creation that’s actually introduced before the rules for races and classes. It’s called the theme. There are actually more character themes (ten) than there are classes, ranging from Ace Pilot to Themeless (as in, if you don’t want to pick one of the other themes). Each adds +1 to a favored attribute, creates a “theme knowledge” (reducing the difficulty number of checks to recall a favored subject, and adds to a favored skill, like Piloting for the Ace Pilot theme), and adds three other abilities at 6th, 12th and 18th levels. The themes usually link up to a certain class – for instance, the Priest theme adds +1 to Wisdom and aligns perfectly with the Mystic class – but the thing is that each theme could combine with any class. So if you combined Mystic with the Mercenary theme, you could define your character as a military chaplain.

Again, while skills work much as they do in other D&D/D20 System games, the Starfinder skill list includes the things that would be necessary in this setting, namely Computers, Engineering and Piloting, which don’t have analogs in fantasy games. All three of these skills are needed for different crew positions in starship combat, which is another common element in this game that doesn’t exist in Pathfinder. This also means that some skill functions got absorbed into other skills. Survival is still a skill, for instance, but most people use vehicles, so Riding isn’t its own skill in Starfinder. Instead, one uses Survival skill to ride a creature.

In practice the main difference between Starfinder and Pathfinder is the array of equipment available through technology, although most of it will not be available to 1st-level characters due to sheer cost. One feature of this game is that equipment items (including armor and weapons but also computers) have a level, like spells or characters. This is on a scale where a survival knife does 1 to 4 hit points damage, costs 95 credits and is level 1. By contrast, an elite gyrojet rifle does 6 to 72 (6 12-sided dice) in damage, is level 17 and costs 242,500 credits. The range of non-magical weapons available due to technology is greatly increased, including lasers, cryo (cold) weapons and electric stunners, among others, although again the damage at low levels isn’t much. You can also mix magic and technology, which in this setting frequently involves “weapon fusions”, commercially available, advanced enchantments that can be applied to an existing weapon or can, with difficulty, be transferred from one weapon to another. (So if you wanted a Holy or Dragon Bane Shotgun, this is your game.) Also, similar to cyberpunk games, cybernetics and bio-systems can be installed in a character’s body, although this is also expensive in relation to the item level. (A standard datajack that can be attached to one’s skull for computer interface is 625 credits. One with bonuses to the Computer roll is up to 8525 credits.)

While the equipment list is necessarily expanded for a science fiction game, the magic spells list (for what is still a fantasy game) is actually compressed. This might be because the technology that is available to everybody (with enough credits) makes magic less unique. For instance, a medical lab can install an item called a regeneration table, which uses nanites to effectively duplicate any heal spell up to Raise Dead, although the need to attune to a given creature’s biology means it can only be used once. In any case, both Mystics and Technomancers only get 6 levels of spells as opposed to D&D’s traditional 9. Various spells with similar but progressive effects are grouped into one spell with various levels, thus the Cure Wounds spells become one “Mystic Cure” spell at levels 1 to 6, and the 1st level “Feather Fall” in D&D simply becomes the 1st level spell version of Flight. The book says that spellcasters don’t care too much about the distinction between “arcane” vs. “divine” magic, but in practice, mystics seem to focus on psychic and healing powers, while technomancers “hack” physical processes. Notably, while Wish (or Miracle) is still on the spell list, it isn’t given a spell level, rather a spellcaster needs to be 20th level to cast it (once a week for a mystic to use Miracle, whereas a technomancer needs to spend 2 Resolve Points and ‘fuse’ two 6th level spells to use Wish).

In Play

The Starfinder game my Gamemaster is running has gotten our characters up to 3rd level after about 5 or so adventures. We have a Technomancer (me), a Mechanic, a Mystic, an Operative, a Soldier and an Envoy. I believe the GM is using a published series of adventures (what the company calls an ‘adventure path’) and it does a fairly good job of introducing the players to successive elements of the game setting. For example, when our team was hired to explore a certain asteroid, we had to use a rented shuttle, which for reasons still unknown got attacked by a fighter craft, thus leading to low-level starship combat. The corebook’s section on Starships explains that various crew positions each require certain skills, which in turn make certain classes better suited to certain bridge stations. For instance while the Envoy is not great in direct combat, most of the actions assigned to the captain in starship combat are best performed by the Envoy or other high-Charisma character (this game seems to go with the Captain Kirk concept of ship command). Attacks are based on the gunner’s base attack bonus, which means that the gunnery role always goes to the soldier (or solarian). Otherwise I have noticed that most classes are flexible in regard to holding ship positions. The Technomancer, for instance, is likewise not good in direct combat and doesn’t have all the engineering tricks of the Mechanic, but has several of the Mechanic’s core skills (including Engineering and Piloting) and thus while best suited to be science officer can serve well as a pilot or engineer. By contrast the Mystic class doesn’t have either of those skills, and while it does have several Charisma skills the character would only be a good captain if it were built around such skills. In practice the mystic is very much a “healbot” in the D&D mode, and as it turns out, healing is at least as important in this game as it is in Pathfinder.

In regular (non-starship) combat, characters not only use Hit Points but the aforementioned Stamina Points, which are similar to concepts from some other d20 games (like Wizards of the Coast’s licensed Star Wars game). The difference is that while Hit Points only recover with Cure spells or an 8-hour period of rest, Stamina Points can be recovered with a 10 minute rest, but that requires the expenditure of a Resolve Point. In character creation, each race gets its own base hit points (from 2 to 6) at first level, plus a similar number of hit points at 1st level and every level thereafter due to character class. Each class provides a certain number of stamina points (plus a Constitution modifier) per level. Resolve Points are “an intrinsic reservoir of grit and luck tied to your talents and often enchanced by your class.” Each character has a number of Resolve Points equal to half character level (round down, minimum 1) plus the character’s key ability score modifier (e.g. Wisdom for Mystic). Stamina Points and Resolve Points normally refresh entirely after 8 hours of uninterrupted rest. Without magic, hit points only recover at the rate of 1 per character level each 8 hours, or twice that with 24 hours of complete bed rest. The kicker is that while stamina points give each character an extra layer of durability compared to D&D characters, once they’re burned off, you take damage to hit points. Once hit points are gone, you don’t go into negative hit points. Rather, each round you lose 1 Resolve Point until your character is medically stabilized. If that doesn’t happen and you would be brought below 0 Resolve Points, you die. So this is the Resolve Point economy in combat: You can use Resolve Points to stretch your character’s stamina points (with a 10-minute rest), but you don’t want to use them all, because if you should go down to hit points (which is likely if grevious damage causes the character to lose both stamina and hit points in the same battle) and are in danger of going to 0 HP, your remaining Resolve Points are the only thing standing between your character and death. This is complicated still further because Resolve Points are the “hero point” mechanic of the game. At mid to higher levels, certain class features either require spending a Resolve Point or require the character to have at least 1 Resolve Point still unspent. So while the Starfinder character is twice as tough as the D&D/PF character on paper, in practice you have to budget the use of Resolve Points very carefully in order for that critical situation to not sneak up on you.

In Conclusion

There were some things about the Starfinder game I didn’t like, such as being rather vague in how certain abilities translate from SF to Pathfinder and vice versa. For instance, Small characters in Pathfinder (like Gnomes and Halflings) are treated as having a slower movement rate than Humans, but this isn’t mentioned here, even though it is mentioned that Starfinder Dwarves have a movement rate of 20 feet that is not affected by encumbrance (just as in Pathfinder). The layout and font resembles a tech manual (whereas the Pathfinder Core Rulebook has pages resembling yellowing parchment), but unfortunately it also reads like a tech manual, and not only does the smaller font make the work physically harder to read, the layout also makes it harder to get information on healing lost damage points, how solarian class powers work, and other non-trivial bits.

Nevertheless, the game at least provides the sort of skills and equipment that would be necessary to run a science fiction (or even contemporary) setting using D20 rules. (It’s certainly better for that than D20 Modern.) And as I mentioned, it might give us a peek at the Paizo Publishing design philosophy as they playtest Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Like, if the Pathfinder Fighter more resembled the Starfighter Soldier, it would probably work better. From what I’ve seen from Paizo’s site, the Pathfinder notes seem to be fairly similar to my experience with Starfinder: A lot of good ideas that aren’t clearly expressed. I like Starfinder from what I’ve played so far, but your mileage may vary.

And on that note…

HAPPY EASTER!

The Facebook Backlash

This post, I’m going to touch on something that is separate from yet related to all the political bullshit.

We know by now that part of the Russian intelligence campaign to assist in Donald Trump’s election was to foist propaganda through various means, including social media. Some of these contacts were through fake accounts or “bots.” But in some cases the agents were private sector businesses that styled themselves as social engineers. One that was frequently mentioned during the 2016 campaign was Cambridge Analytica, a company with a more than peripheral association with former Trump advisor Steve Bannon. Well, on March 20, Britain’s Channel 4 played an undercover tape of Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix in lunch discussions with a potential client, selling various services including the use of front companies and private data obtained via Facebook to turn elections or achieve other political results. Prior to this expose, former Cambridge Analytica employee Christopher Wylie went to the press to state that the entire company was based on “ill-gotten” Facebook data. The Daily Beast said “Facebook was reportedly informed of this alleged breach two years ago but did not go public to announce that a political consultancy linked to Bannon and the Mercers had access to details from 50 million Facebook accounts.”

This has rather rapidly led to a crisis of reputation for Facebook and founder Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg did a media tour that failed to quiet his critics.

Bannon himself complained, “When Zuckerberg goes on TV yesterday, and Zuckerberg gives the New York Times an interview, and the opposition-party media plays patty-cake with him, and doesn’t ask him one tough question, his entire business model is made upon taking that data for free and monetizing it”. Facebook’s actions in coordinating with Cambridge Analytica are now being investigated in Great Britain, while in America there are calls for Zuckerberg to testify to Congress. But hey, there’s a silver lining.

According to the New York Times and a bunch of other media, there is now apparently a big wave of people who have publicly announced they are quitting Facebook, including of course, Cher.

Of course it’s a sign of the hypocrisy and virtue signaling implied here that in order to blast one’s opinion as expediently as possible to all corners, these people are making their announcements on Twitter.

Going on Twitter to announce that you’re quitting Facebook is like telling all your friends at the crackhouse that you’re going to stop drinking. “Hey! Good for you, Tom!”

I’ve gone over the problem with Twitter at length. And one of the things I said in regard to social media generally was “I believe that if you are going to have a social media presence, you should know the right tool for the right job. I don’t need a blog to share cute animal videos to friends. For that I have Facebook. I don’t post to this blog every day or even every week because I don’t always have time to elaborate on my ideas, whereas I can usually find the time to post something on Facebook. But I decided to create my own blog not only to post essay-length pieces but because I could control the content to a greater degree than something I posted or liked on Facebook.” In this regard, I consider Facebook to be a medium between the prior modes of text communication and Twitter, which is specialized for impulse posting and unconsidered opinion. You can use Facebook to make extended statements in one post. It doesn’t work that well with the format, but it is more feasible than on a Twitter format which is against extended thought by design.

But just as it seemed to be news to Jack Dorsey that Twitter had become a cesspool of antisocial behavior, Mark Zuckerberg acts like he wasn’t even able to entertain the concept that his platform was valued largely as a means of researching people’s desires in order to manipulate them – as in, beyond commercial advertising purposes.

The irony being that one of the issues with Facebook – the mechanic of “self” selecting material according to your already established preferences – means that one’s reality bubble is reinforced and there’s not much contact with political posts that clash with one’s biases. But if you’re one of those self-enclosed partisans, or if you somehow manage to never get into politics at all, it’s still fairly easy to see that as a free platform, Facebook relies on ads, “data mining” and various methods for content providers to separate you from your money. The most innocuous of these are technically free games that require you to pay money for the game equipment to complete various levels of play. And then of course there are the real clickbait scams like “Enter Your Credit Card Number to See What Star Wars Character You Are” and “Remember Rameses II? You’ll Never Guess What He Looks Like Now!”

Vox has apparently decided to write a bunch of articles against Facebook (similar to how they periodically write a bunch of articles against guns). The most trenchant of these is Matthew Yglesias’ piece, “The Case Against Facebook.” Yglesias mentions not only the confirmation-bias engine, but he also asserts that  the use of Facebook as a news platform is “(d)estroying journalism’s business model”. (Even though much of my awareness of Vox stems from their Facebook links.) Although he does concede, “Facebook critics in the press are often accused of special pleading, of hatred of a company whose growing share of the digital advertising pie is a threat to our business model. This is, on some level, correct.”

Whereas Ross Douthat (centrist conservative at the New York Times) said this week:  “But the liberal establishment’s fixation on Facebook’s 2016 sins — first the transmission of fake news and now the exploitation of its data by the Trump campaign or its appendages — still feels like a classic example of blaming something new because it’s new when it’s the old thing that mattered more. Or of blaming something new because you thought that “new” meant “good,” that the use of social-media data by campaigns would always help tech-savvy liberals and not their troglodytic rivals — and the shock of discovering otherwise obscures the more important role that older forms of media played in making the Trump era a reality. ”

Douthat goes on to the general point that for all the attention paid to the impact of social media and Donald Trump’s Twitter account, his real advantage was in old-school media giving him the equivalent of 2 billion dollars in free advertising through interviews, pro-Trump pundits and coverage of his rallies on basic cable “news” channels. But I already knew that.

In other words, while Yglesias and other critics are correct in asserting that Facebook’s mode of business undermines proper journalism in favor of consumerist imperatives like sensationalism and confrontation, this is hardly a problem unique to Facebook, or even to social media. Or as Douthat says in his column: “And as cynical as I believe the lords of Silicon Valley to be, the more important cynicism in 2016 belonged to those television execs who were fine with enabling the wild Trumpian takeover of the G.O.P., because after all Republicans deserved it and Hillary was sure to beat him in the end. Except that she didn’t beat him, in part because he also exploited the polarization that cable news, in particular, is designed to feed … The depth and breadth of Trump skepticism among right-wing pundits was a pretty solid indicator of his unfitness for high office. But especially once he won the nomination this skepticism was often filtered out of cable coverage, because the important thing was to maintain the partisan shouting-match model. This in turn encouraged a sense that this was just a typical right-versus-left election, in which you should vote for Trump if you usually voted for Republicans … and in the end that’s what most G.O.P. voters did. ”

Not that there isn’t reason to be concerned about the influence of tech companies (and the deceptive nature of Facebook businesses) as issues in themselves, but much of this hysteria over social media is mainstream liberals casting about for yet another excuse for why Queen Hillary lost. For example, the idea that a Russian propaganda effort was needed to brand Hillary Clinton as untrustworthy. Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity had been doing that for maybe 20 years, and do we blame the Russians for that? Which doesn’t even touch on an analysis of whether Clinton actually IS untrustworthy, and why the longer she was in a position of real influence on policy, the more distrusted she was by the Left as the quintessential neoliberal.

Twitter is that much more a habitat for snarky, savvy social justice types, and it got taken even harder by the alt-right, but then Twitter is that much more disposed to emotional venting. So the Left can’t be too surprised by now that the Right keeps using their own culture against them. But then, if they weren’t always surprised by that, they wouldn’t be the Left.

From what I’ve seen of the pundit consensus in the last day or so, the opinion seems to be that Facebook being what it is, you shouldn’t be surprised that it’s exposing your data to unscrupulous people. And in fact, this was already the known business model. So if people are going to tie Facebook’s real issues to the current political catastrophe, it’s yet another case of the established gatekeepers blaming that pesky free will for screwing their world up.

I can’t blame anybody if they do quit Facebook, but I think the hype is overblown. If people are encouraged to look at it more critically, that’s one thing. Again, each medium is for different things.

I think Facebook is good for what it is, and the social problem with it (and to a greater extent Twitter) is that people expect it to be other than what it is. To spread cute, quick messages to a mass number of people, I’ll use Facebook. For more in-depth thinking, I have this blog.

I did link my Facebook account to some job-finder services like LinkedIn, so I’m thinking of cutting those connections. Especially since those sites aren’t helping me find a job. But then, that might be because, if those guys have access to my Facebook, they might see all the times I’ve said “fuck.”

Which is the real dilemma for me here. If I can’t say “fuck” on Facebook, what is it good for?

 

 

REVIEW: Black Panther

It is testimony to the Pulp roots of the superhero genre that in Marvel Comics, the most technologically advanced nation on Earth is a traditional African kingdom that has never been colonized by whites, and no one considers this unusual.

The Black Panther character was introduced to the Marvel Cinematic Universe in Captain America: Civil War, and while he wasn’t the center of the action, Chadwick Boseman set the stage with a formidable portrayal of Prince T’Challa, seeking justice after the death of his father. This leads to the Black Panther solo movie, in which T’Challa formally claims the throne of Wakanda.

I had mentioned in my review of Wonder Woman that while Wonder Woman may be a feminist icon, the movie wasn’t precisely a feminist film, because the character had not grown up under patriarchy.  The nation of Wakanda poses a similar issue with regard to race.  The main drama in Black Panther comes from T’Challa’s would-be usurper, the mercenary code-named Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan), who in his character depicts the contrast between being African and African-American.  Killmonger’s personal history also brings up a state secret of Wakanda: in the MCU, in order to keep “colonizers” from exploiting the country’s wealth, the kings of Wakanda hide their country’s technology and use holograms and other tricks to convince the West that Wakanda is an (ahem) shithole country.  But this means that Wakanda is not using its resources to address the civil wars and refugee crises of its neighbors.  Right now, politicians in the United States and the European Union demonize immigrants and refugees from “developing” countries as being not only a threat to national security but the traditional way of life.  The fact that this issue is posed by a movie with an almost entirely black cast is the most subversive thing about the film, from both a left-wing and right-wing standpoint.

In this regard, Black Panther has the now-standard MCU post-credits scene, but this scene, in which T’Challa addresses the United Nations office in Vienna, isn’t simply an add-on Easter egg but the entire point of the movie.

I didn’t think that Black Panther was the most awesome movie ever – at this point in the MCU, all the super-tech didn’t impress me as much as the uber-rhinos and Hanuman warriors – but it did what it needed to do.

Show respect and bow down.